The Longevity Factor.. i3 2100 vs. i5 2400 vs. i5 2500K....?!?

[rana_kirti]

The Longevity Factor.. i3 2100 vs. i5 2400 vs. i5 2500K....?!?

Hi Friends,

I'm in market for a new CPU for a brand new build. I'm upgrading from a Core 2 Duo after 4-5 yrs. I did a bit or re-search and catching up reading to realize the above mentioned 3 Intel CPUs are currently the best bang for buck.

Now my usage is web surfing with 20-30 tabs open, itunes running in the background and other simple stuff. So pretty much a general usage PC. I'm play games occasionally but when i do play i'd like excellent performance.

I had decided to go for the i3 2100 but further reading/researching other threads seems to imply that there are now many games that have started utilizing the 3rd and 4th core and in the future there will be many more. I don't want to be caught in a situation where i feel that i would have been better off with i5 2400.

Also i read that many apps are now started to utilize the 3rd and 4th core so in that case too the i5 2400 will be a better bet than the i3 2100.

Now i make a new PC every 3-5 yrs so i'm looking at a CPU which will give me acceptable performance for a long time.

So say in 3-5 yrs time will it have been more sensible for me to go for a Quad core CPU over a Dual core CPU considering the needs and demands of upcoming games and software ?

Question 1. Is my above research and conclusion correct ? Will the i5 2400 provide me the benefit of being able to avoid upgrading the CPU for a little or much longer than a i3 2100 ?

So now on to the second part. I've also read that the i5 2500K is a favorite among a lot of people due to it's excellent overclocking ability. Now keeping the same thing of future upgrading in mind just like the above scenario...

Question 2. Will getting a i5 2500K provide me the benefit of being able to avoid upgrading the CPU for a little or much longer than a i5 2400 ? Or will it be better to buy a new CPU/Motherboard at that time depending on the architecture and technology of that time ? ( By the way i've never done any sort of overclocking in my life )

Any help/guidance on the above 2 questions will be truly appreciated.

Warm Regards,

Rana

 

[classy]

The 2400 and 2500K are quite a bit faster than the 2100. For you I think it comes down to price. The 2400 seems to be your best bet. It is $30-40 cheaper than the 2500K. Now the 2100 is quite a bit cheaper than either the 2400 or 2500K which would allow you to purchase a much better video card with same amount of money you have alloted for a new build. The 2500K is setup to be overclocked, its the fastest stock, and overclcoked probably has the longest longevity.

 

[nemesismk2]

The i3 2100 is a good value CPU but if you want long term performance then you can't beat the i5 2500.

 

[blckgrffn]

If you won't be overclocking, don't bother with the 2500k.

 

[sm625]

A year from now you'll be able to get a new ib, remove your old chip, and sell it for X dollars.

For an i3-2100, X = about $55, depreciation = $55
For an i5-2400, X = about $110, depreciation = $75
For an i5-2500k, X = about $150, depreciation = $60
Clearly the 2500k holds more % of its value. I think the 2500k is the only chip you can buy on a good sale day and sell in a year for less than 10% loss.

 

[BlueBlazer]

I must say, I've voted for 2500K also...

 

[Chiropteran]

A year from now you'll be able to get a new ib, remove your old chip, and sell it for X dollars.

For an i5-2500k, X = about $150, depreciation = $60

Can you also see the winning lotto numbers from next week, or is your future telling power limited to used CPU prices?

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

I think that the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K is one of the best bang for the buck of any processors you can get your hands on today. While it is the most expensive of all the processors you listed it has the potential give you the most long term performance of any of them. Let’s say you get this processor and for the next year you do nothing but run it at stock speeds but in a year you are finding that you would like a little more performance so you add in a 3rd party cooler and go into the Bios and overclock it and give yourself another 1GHz performance. None of the other processors can do.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[sm625]

Can you also see the winning lotto numbers from next week, or is your future telling power limited to used CPU prices?

I may have been too optimistic on my estimates of the 2500k's resale value. If we end up being able to buy a stripped down $120 BD chip and it ends up overclocking to 4.8GHz with a cheap cooler, then the 2500k wont be worth more than $140 a year from now.

 

[gmaster456]

If your not planning on overclocking, there isn't really an advantage in getting the 2500k. Save the $40 and go with the 2400. Especially for your needs.

 

[Munky]

I'd go with the 2500k, unless your budget is tight, in which case go with the 2400. The 2100 is good for web browsing and general office use, but when it comes to gaming, you want 4 real cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Unless your current C2D rig is failing, why not max that one out rather than build a new rig?

If you are dead-set on building a new rig, might as well "go big, or go home".

2500K and a nice Z68 mobo, and a 64GB SSD for SRT caching.

 

[gevorg]

For 3-5 years, I'd go with 2500K or even 2600K.

 

[jvroig]

With your use case, i5 2400, because of no overclocking.

If you decide you want to overclock, then my vote will change towards the 2500K. As our friendly Intel Rep said, the 2500K currently offers unbeatable price/performance ratio.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I think that the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K is one of the best bang for the buck of any processors you can get your hands on today. While it is the most expensive of all the processors you listed it has the potential give you the most long term performance of any of them. Let’s say you get this processor and for the next year you do nothing but run it at stock speeds but in a year you are finding that you would like a little more performance so you add in a 3rd party cooler and go into the Bios and overclock it and give yourself another 1GHz performance. None of the other processors can do.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

You can also overclock the Core i5 2400 to 3.8GHz, though.

Given what the OP is doing, the i5 2400 looks like an easy choice. It's $40 cheaper than the i5 2500K, and it can also overclock a decent amount if he wants more performance in the future.

 

[RU482]

If you won't be overclocking, don't bother with the 2500k.

Except....the 2500k will probably be easier to sell later (to the guy building a machine today with the i3 2100, who wants an easy upgrade)

 

[TomSeek]

My core 2 Q9550 bought a few years ago for $250 is still worth $200 on Ebay now. I would get the 2500K, use it until it's obsolete (3-4 years), then sell it for $150-$200 on Ebay. The key is to get the popular chip models, ie, Q6600, Q9550, 2500K/2600K in a few years.

Tom

 

[rana_kirti]

A BIG thanks guys. i ve received some great feedback and what i have concluded is that a quad core is a must for today and for the future not just for regular apps but also for games.

i see the majority of people to suggest me to go for the i5 2500K. I only make a new build every 3-5 yrs.

As far as i have understood.... i can run it at stock for a few years and then then when i feel it is not fast enough then i can Overclock it to about 4.9 ghz and this will make it usable for another year or 2 and help me avoid buying a new system and save money.

1. Is that correct ?

2. Also is it correct that Ivy Bridge is only going to come out by feb-march 2012 ? I assume it will be 15-20 % faster and have lower power consumption. But i'm understand the wait forever for the next technology syndrome

Interestingly, I was looking at the H77, Z75 and Z77 chipset which will come out with Ivy Bridge and as far as i can see the only thing it'll have over the Z68 is USB 3.0, Intel Rapid Storage Technology and PCie 3.0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1155

Is it worth waiting for the above 3 features ?

Regards,

Rana

 

[gevorg]

Features, no. Faster and more power efficient CPU, maybe.

 

[jvroig]

can Overclock it to about 4.9 ghz

No overclocking is guaranteed, and 4.9GHz is on the high side of what is possible, and that certainly requires a very hefty 3rd-party cooler.

As for the waiting, if you are in no hurry to upgrade (meaning you'd be just fine with what you have now for the things you do and plan to do in the immediate future), then just sit it out and wait. Your options will generally only increase.

 

[Ben90]

I definitely wouldn't expect 4.9Ghz out of a 2500k. In my opinion it comes down to this:

Stock: 2400
Overclock: 2500k

 

[dbcooper1]

I definitely wouldn't expect 4.9Ghz out of a 2500k. In my opinion it comes down to this:

Stock: 2400
Overclock: 2500k

+1

Even that 2400 will turbo up to 3.8; not bad for the money. I'm running one like that and I can't tell the difference on most things between it and my 2600k. The 2400 was the better buy in my case and will be for many unless you're doing something that utilizes the specific resources and isn't otherwise bottlenecked.

 

[StrangerGuy]

2500K + P67/Z68 is the cheapest SB setup worth buying. Anything cheaper and the performance/price ratio drops.

 

[rana_kirti]

guys there has been a dramatic turn of events in the last 2 days. I have been gifted a PS3 and now i've decided that i wont be adding a graphics card to this new PC as i'll be doing my gaming on the PS3.

Hence now i've decided to go Small Form Factor with a mini itx mobo and a small case. This new PC will now only be used for..

1. Surfing the Internet with 20-30 web pages open in chrome.
2. Listening to music on itunes.
3. Other general work.

I won't be using this new PC for any productivity related works like encoding video etc. It's just a General Home PC. I want to keep it for 3-5 yrs.

Question 1. Do you guys still recommend that i go for a i5 2500K or should i settle with a i5 2400 or are both way too overkill for my requirements ?

In that case is the i3 2100 more than ample for my needs ?

Regards,

Rana

 

[velis]

Yes it is. It is also quite a bit more powerful than your existing C2D. Speaking from personal observations. I just bought a 2105 and I also have a E8400.
2400 or 2500K would be a total overkill though you may need to think in that direction as well - you never know if there'll be a great PC only game that you want to play - bad joke, I know
However, your C2D should now also be plenty sufficient for what you want to do.