i5 2500K - When Will It Die?

[pingu666]

normally they might degrade slightly and u have to slow it down abit.

but the motherboard is more likely to go flakey first

 

[HeX]

I've been making up excuses to replace my 2600K which still seems to blast through everything .

Still powering along with my 2600K too, though if Ryzen turns out well i'll probably do a full system upgrade for all the latest tech.

I just hope my next CPU lasts me as long, it was a solid investment this 2600K

 

[233]

2600k @4.8ghz here,

so want Ryzen to be something special so I can justify some new hardware

 

[Mr Plow]

Anandtech posted an interesting article comparing an i7-2600K (OCed) to a new Kabylake i3-7350K here -

The Intel Core i3-7350K (60W) Review: Almost a Core i7-2600K

 

[djbully]

If Ryzen is good then that might be replacing my 2600k. If not then i'll be waiting for the coffee lake? 6/12 core things.

Intel really do suck though...... Much as I love my 2600k

 

[Dervious]

My 2500k is still great 5 years on. They must have been some of the best chips ever made.

Great if you don't want to upgrade every couple of years, but also great because of the decent overclock they are capable of. I paid £149 for mine, just a day or two before Ivybridge was launched. By far the best value for money CPU that I`ve owned.

Had CPU technology continued to move on at the pace it had been over the previous decade or two, we probably would have replaced our 2500Ks a couple of years ago.

 

[P4Clock]

i5 2500k @ 4.2Ghz kick the ass of my boys 15 4460 @3.3Ghz and it games fine.

The need to upgrade is 90% in the head. i dropped my 4770K for x99 and now wish i had stayed put.

 

[~>Dg<~]

as with anything if it does what you need and you okay with it thats fine. there is big differences already just many are happy with performance from what they have.

there are already videos of 2500k vs modern i5 with upto 40 fps difference.thats not a small jump. thing is if you on a older monitor then its fine but if you need the extra power it isnt and there is newer cpus that can give that extra jump.

for eg the newest game i been playing recently which comes out soon the i5 2500k is the minimum cpu for it.the minimum.

so yes they are still fine for many games but many games are not pushing the cpu side of things.we are advancing now and more cores is finally here to be used.

thats why amd is pushing it and intel will.

 

[DragonQ]

Anandtech posted an interesting article comparing an i7-2600K (OCed) to a new Kabylake i3-7350K here -

The Intel Core i3-7350K (60W) Review: Almost a Core i7-2600K

So it's nearly as good whilst being nearly as expensive...5 years later.

 

[Minstadave]

So it's nearly as good whilst being nearly as expensive...5 years later.

Plus the 2600K overclocks to a similar frequency. Most of the performance of the Kabylake chip seen in the benches is from the higher stock clock. Once both are running 4.8-5GHz the Sandybridge chip will be well ahead.

I glanced over the article but don't see a comparison of performance when both overclocked, that's what really matters with K chips.

 

[HeX]

Once again a performance article doesn't show minimum FPS.

 

[Rifte]

I7 2700k here, overclocked to 4.8ghz

With a couple of GTX 980tis I havent struggled with a recent game* yet where I havent been able to hit 60 FPS or more.

(*I have had an issue with an older game, Neverwinter Nights 2, but I am sure that is engine based and nothing to do with my cpu)

The only issue I have had with it so far was that I had to replace my cooler about 6 months ago because the temps were getting a little toasty.

I am sure I would benefit with the newer generation CPUS, but the cost of a new CPU, MB and DDR4 Ram isnt worth it at the moment if I am able to have a 60FPS+ gaming experience on max settings.

Saying all of this though, I havent gamed on a newer CPU so I have nothing to compare it to. All I have is the feel of the games I play on my system , and the data afterburner gives on my OSD.

 

[titaniumx3]

I think there has been a fairly significant bump in performance from Sandybridge to Skylake/Kabylake (clock for clock), but you simply don't see it in most applications, especially in games where the GPU is the limiting factor.

Whilst I do think Intel have been milking it somewhat (due to the lack of competition), it's also true that most gamers don't need all that CPU horsepower, so it's no wonder CPUs have not gotten that much faster for games. Even with my 1080 my CPU is barely being taxed. I can probably run it at stock clocks and won't notice a bit of difference.

 

[joeyjojo]

Once again a performance article doesn't show minimum FPS.

Strictly speaking minimum FPS isn't that useful either as the minimum is usually an outlier.

The very best reviews give frame time distributions, e.g. 95% or 99% greatest frame times, which gives you an idea of the frame rate spread.

(Frame times are better than rates if the rate is an average over a window of frames, IMO. If it's just the reciprocal of frame time then they're equivalent.)

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I have a 2500K @ stock (overclocking has never been my thing) what CPU uses the same socket and would be worth buying now second hand? is there any?

 

[Minstadave]

I have a 2500K @ stock (overclocking has never been my thing) what CPU uses the same socket and would be worth buying now second hand? is there any?

Your best gains would be overclock what you've got. Otherwise it's a 2700k or 3770k.

 

[reflux]

Yep, both of which are quite expensive now Overclocking is your best bet I think, it should do 4.5ghz fairly easily.

 

[IvanDobskey]

I have a 2500K @ stock (overclocking has never been my thing) what CPU uses the same socket and would be worth buying now second hand? is there any?

I thought about replacing my 2500k with a 3770k but the second hand prices are just silly. Bought a 6700k in the end.

Definitely overclock. Its so easy to do and free performance.

 

[flinco]

I could say the same about the soon to be 8 year old i5 750 I'm running.

At this point the i5 @ 4ghz is closely matched to the GTX970 when running 1440p. If I upgrade either GPU or CPU, one will be bottlenecking the other. Need to wait and replace both together.

It's performance is enough to keep going until the next gen of GPUs IMO.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I asked a similar question to your title on the LTT forums but didn't get much of a response. While the body of your OP is referring more to how long will the 2500k be useful (which is discussed endlessly) I'm actually curious how long my little chip will last before it fries itself.

My 2500k has been running at 4.8/5.0 Ghz (with speedstep) pretty much continuously since 2011. That's just been using a H60 - not a bad cooler by any means but it's no custom loop. Think temps of 60-80 degrees while gaming and 30-40 at idle along with 1.448v at load.

I'm constantly reading how higher temps and volts will reduce the lifespan of a CPU and so many people put a lot of effort into lowering temps by a few degrees and volts by a few mv. But nobody seems to have a clue how much higher temps and voltage typically reduce CPU lifespan. As far as I can tell nobody has conducted a long-term study. My anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it makes far less of a difference than people think it does.

You'll probably find that the average life of a CPU is 15-20 years at stock and 10-15 years when overclocked.

This is a pure guess, but I also think people over estimate how much overclocking degrades the life of a CPU. Especially when most people who overclock keep the temps reasonable... running a chip at 80-90C continuously on the other hand... that'll do it