2500K still the best all rounder?

[sad_guy]

Even with new CPUs being released, i don't think anyone can beat the price performance ratio of the 2500K. 4 cores are quite adequate for most people, and the IPC ain't bad either. Add to it the high overclocking potential and you have a nice processor that just shines in every department.

Yes, yes i know, it isn't the latest nor the greatest. But who needs one when what you have right now is more than adequate for your needs.

I plan to keep my 2500K until Skylake comes out, atleast. Maybe even after that.

Share your 2500K stories people. :thumbsup:

 

[DominionSeraph]

I don't have one.

 

[sad_guy]

then why post in this thread?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

It's not the "best" in the sense that the IPC improvements on 3xxx and 4xxx outweigh the weaker OCs. But if you're referring to the rig in your signature, that's a fairly modest OC anyway.

It is the "best" in the sense that if it's on your desk, working, the virtually unnoticeable performance gains of newer hardware aren't worth the effort and cost to upgrade. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, after all.

Are you trying to feel better about not being able to upgrade by convincing yourself that what you have is still top of the line? Because I haven't been posting here for very long, but it does seem like that's not something we do here.

 

[nitromullet]

I would say that the 4670k and the 3570k before it are better all around cpu's for the same money, but I if you have a 2500K there is no need to upgrade.

 

[sad_guy]

I would say that the 4670k and the 3570k before it are better all around cpu's for the same money

>implying 3570K doesn't heat up like crazy after 4.4 GHz
>implying 3570K doesn't have crappy TIM.

Also 4670K has the same overheating issues IIRC.

 

[sad_guy]

It's not the "best" in the sense that the IPC improvements on 3xxx and 4xxx outweigh the weaker OCs. But if you're referring to the rig in your signature, that's a fairly modest OC anyway.

It is the "best" in the sense that if it's on your desk, working, the virtually unnoticeable performance gains of newer hardware aren't worth the effort and cost to upgrade. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, after all.

Are you trying to feel better about not being able to upgrade by convincing yourself that what you have is still top of the line? Because I haven't been posting here for very long, but it does seem like that's not something we do here.

I never said its the best. Thats a pretty subjective statement to say the least. I said its the best all rounder. It may lag in some departments, but makes up in others to give a pretty balanced performance.

I'm not trying to feel better about anything. I just wanted to share my views. Is that a sin?

 

[Roland00Address]

While your i5 2500k is nice, the i5 4670k that tigerdirect has for $200+FS for 1 day has it beat

 

[Plimogz]

Best all rounder? of course not. The later i5 Ks would both be upgrades (well, the Haswell one, mostly -- 3570K enticed me next-to not-at-all), not to mention the i7s.

Although, it certainly has been a satisfying chip, considering that I've now had it for 2.5 years and that I don't really lust after the newer chips any more than I did for the i7 2600K back when I bought my 2500.

Speaking of which, I still haven't quite decided whether I should've spent the extra $100 for the i7 to max out the socket right from the start and have a shot at top bin silicon. Seing as how Intel, being Intel, immediately moved on from the P67 chipset and my only upgrade path two years later is basically the same as I had from day 1.

 

[Smartazz]

I have a 2500K and I love it, but it isn't the best anymore. It simply isn't worth upgrading is all.

 

[Arkaign]

Meh, 3570k/4760k are upgrades mainly for non-overclockers, sidegrades for serious overclockers. 5Ghz 2500k is as fast or faster than a 4.5Ghz 3570k in most things. Intel's focus on efficiency/etc has left overclockers kind of out in the cold. Modest increase in IPC + modest decrease in overclocking potential = sidegrade.

Now delidders with Ivy, 3570k @ 4.8Ghz or so is a moderate improvement, but that's a lot of work.

Honestly the motherboard upgrades were more exciting than the CPU upgrades. Native USB 3.0, More Sata 6gbps, PCIe 3.0, yadda yadda.

But yeah, I'd take a 2600k/2700k over a 3570/4670 every day of the week and twice on sunday. 2500k/3570k/4670k are all the same imho, I guarantee if I overlclocked them to common limits and put them in three systems with three GTX Titan cards and three 840 Pro SSDs with 16GB of DDR3-2133, nobody would be able to tell the difference without running a ton of benches and being like 'ooo, this one is 1.1% faster at benchmark X, and 0.3% slower in benchmark Y!'.

Hardly exciting times for desktop OC crowd. It's forced a lot of people with upgrade itch to go for SB-E, which at ~4.4Ghz simply outguns the best quads in most serious work.

 

[Concillian]

I never said its the best... I said it's the best all arounder

So it's the best at???

It offers "balanced performance"? What is that? That sounds like something you'd read in an audiophile magazine. CPU performance is relatively easy to compare objectively, there's no need to get all touchy-feely.

I'm just trying to figure out why the title of this thread is phrased as a question when "you just wanted to share your views" There's actually no question here, and if anyone thinks gets fooled by the title, you're pretty quick to beat them down for thinking so... because, after all, "you just wanted to share your views..."

 

[notty22]

Sharing your 'view' is not wrong.

I've seen countless posts where current owners are happy with what they 'got'. And don't plan on upgrading. Since anyone will be able to buy IB for quite a while it does get a little redundant Sandy (32nm) not so much, does it matter?

I'm happy with my cpu (sig 45nm), I never announced it though. Probably would have been schooled by a SB owner, happy with his purchase. I get that, there was a IPC gain along with higher clocks from the node shrink. People tend to justify their buying decisions, it's only natural.
Someone upgrading alone, but buying new after 2010, have the Intel option of Ivy or Haswell, both 22nm. Sandy (32nm) is harder to come by now, and shouldn't be recommended over current offerings IMO.
Best all-rounder? Not really anymore, but it's subjective.
ENJOY.

 

[sad_guy]

well, it doesn't overheat while overclocking, it doesn't need delidding, it can hit 4.8 Ghz on a good aircooler, and it doesn't bottleneck the latest graphics cards or games even at 1080p, i guess that makes it a pretty good all-rounder.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I had a 5GHz i5-2500k, a 5.27GHz i5-2500k and a 5.5GHz i5-2500k... I wouldn't trade my i5-4670k for any of them.

 

[2is]

Surely there must be better topics to discuss than seeking the help of strangers to inflate ones ego about a 2.5 year old processor?

 

[bbhaag]

Like has already been said it's subjective. I surf the web, browse facebook, and occasionally encode a video or two that I post to usenet. For me the 2500k is not the best all around cpu.

You boys and your toys. Good lord.

 

[trevor0323]

I still feel this way about my skt 775 system with the Q6600. A friend has been using it for gaming the past three years with 0 issues and it is still is competitive with its single 5870.

I only got rid of it because I got a deal on a Q9650.

Skt 775 gets my vote for a modern era favorite.

My Q9650 system can still easily handle anything I throw at it.

DFI Infinity 965
Q9650
2x4gb
120gb SSD
2x3gb HDD
2xHD5870

I am going to be driving by microcenter tomorrow and am very tempted however to have a look at the latest and greatest.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

avg higher end OC on SB was 4.6-4.8GHz, and 4.4-4.6GHz Ivy will basically match that performance, so Haswell realistically topping out at 4.4GHz isn't that bad either. While its certainly a bummer the newer chips aren't punch-you-in-the-face better due to temp issues, they definitely aren't worse

so if the 2500K isn't better, then it can't be the best, at least not here in the USA. Maybe the 2500K is still widely available in India and being sold new retail for significantly cheaper than 3570K/4670K?

 

[blackened23]

While the 2500k was a great chip, let's discuss this "price/performance" advantage that you mention - There's absolutely no reason to get a 2500k over a 4670k because the MSRP of both is roughly the same, and a 4670k at 4.2ghz will match a 2500k at 5ghz. So with the price being the same, how can the price/performance be an advantage for the 2500k? Aside from that, performance wise - I myself upgraded from a 2600k to a 3770k, and my 3770k even with a 400mhz overclock deficit still managed to beat the 2600k in all synthetics. Extrapolating from that, a Haswell with an 800mhz deficit will still beat SB.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with appreciating your CPU, the 2500k certainly was a great chip with a lot of longevity. However, since you specifically mention price/performance - that is an incorrect statement. The price has not changed in years and the 4670k is a better chip in the current time frame. That's basically what I don't understand, price / performance? What? If anything seeing as the MSRP of the 4670k is basically the SAME, it is better price performance since it has a 22% IPC advantage over the 2500k. And as mentioned, even with an 800-900mhz overclocked clockspeed deficit the Haswell is still faster.

I think you're mostly appreciating the longevity of the chip, and to that I don't disagree. The 2500/2600k were/are legendary chips.

 

[NTMBK]

I don't have one either.

 

[Haserath]

While the 2500k was a great chip, let's discuss this "price/performance" advantage that you mention - There's absolutely no reason to get a 2500k over a 4670k because the MSRP of both is roughly the same, and a 4670k at 4.2ghz will match a 2500k at 5ghz. So with the price being the same, how can the price/performance be an advantage for the 2500k? Aside from that, performance wise - I myself upgraded from a 2600k to a 3770k, and my 3770k even with a 400mhz overclock deficit still managed to beat the 2600k in all synthetics. Extrapolating from that, a Haswell with an 800mhz deficit will still beat SB.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with appreciating your CPU, the 2500k certainly was a great chip with a lot of longevity. However, since you specifically mention price/performance - that is an incorrect statement. The price has not changed in years and the 4670k is a better chip in the current time frame. That's basically what I don't understand, price / performance? What? If anything seeing as the MSRP of the 4670k is basically the SAME, it is better price performance since it has a 22% IPC advantage over the 2500k. And as mentioned, even with an 800-900mhz overclocked clockspeed deficit the Haswell is still faster.

I think you're mostly appreciating the longevity of the chip, and to that I don't disagree. The 2500/2600k were/are legendary chips.

The k cpu's have gone up in price 10%.

2500k vs 4670k would be $220 vs $240.

 

[blackened23]

The k cpu's have gone up in price 10%.

2500k vs 4670k would be $220 vs $240.

Curious, as amazon seems to be selling the 4670k for 225$. The 2500k on amazon is 249.99$. Either way this is meaningless, there's no valid reason to buy a 2500k over the Haswell with price not being a factor. Again, I appreciate the longevity of the 2500, it is a legendary chip. But the price / performance hasn't changed, so I can't see that as being a valid argument - the price difference between it and the 4670k is trivial or non existent, so there isn't any sort of price/performance advantage.

 

[Silverforce11]

Do you guys even notice the IPC gains from SB to IvB and Haswell? It's single digits clock for clock.. that's not really noticeable frankly.

Is there a reason to upgrade from a 2500K to a newer quad core? It's 2 generations old and there's still absolutely no reason to switch.. Intel is so slack without competition.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you guys even notice the IPC gains from SB to IvB and Haswell? It's single digits clock for clock.. that's not really noticeable frankly.

Yet a 4.2Ghz HW easily beats a 5Ghz SB.