Why is my i5 2500K at 5Ghz still so great?

[BallaTheFeared]

Depends on how well it clocked, I sold my 5.5GHz i5-2500k several months before Haswell even came out for more than I paid for my i5-4670k.

Most i5's with reasonable voltage and on mid sized tower coolers were doing 4.4GHz.

It's kind of like Intel has to fight the myth of their own product, not the reality of it for many.

 

[Engineer]

Depends on how well it clocked.

Don't know. Never tried (and never do).

 

[FalseChristian]

If I upgraded it would have to be to an i7-4770K to make it worthwhile.

 

[Lonyo]

Probably if you found a similar graph with GPUs it would follow a similar trend.

The trend with all electronics seems to be to do more with less, as in size, power requirement, etc.

I think the next big jump will be when the alien technology is reverse engineered....Guess it's just a matter of time and who's doing it

Old CPUs used to be passively cooled, or didn't have a heatsink at all.
As performance went up significantly, so did power use, then we started to hit a power wall (not an actual one, but getting too close for comfort), so now the performance improvements are dropping off, because we aren't adding more power consumption as a way to get that extra performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CPU_power_dissipation#Desktop_processors
Pentium 75Mhz - 8w
Pentium 2 450MHz - 27w
Pentium 3 1.4GHz - 32w
Pentium 4 3.8Ghz - 114w
Core 2 Quad 3GHz - 95w
Haswell - 84w.

So we went from 8w to 114w (or 130w for Extreme editions) in order to get those performance improvements over the years, especially in the 2000s.
Now we're running on pure node and technology improvements, rather than also using more power as a way to get more performance.

 

[SPBHM]

If I upgraded it would have to be to an i7-4770K to make it worthwhile.

yes, I think from a sandy bridge i5 K your best upgrade option is 4770k or LGA 2011, and that's if you really need extra MT performance, so the 4770 adds HT and IPC gains.

2500K to 4670K doesn't look like a worthy upgrade (well, it is if you pay nothing or almost nothing)

haswell compared to sandy bridge have a decent IPC gain, but the the max clock possible on average looks to be some 300-400MHz lower(?), so OC vs OC is not going to look to bad for SB.

stock vs stock you have higher IPC + higher clock, which makes it clearly better
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=288

 

[Ventanni]

Intel has still managed to bring about fairly consistent IPC gains with each release. The reason Sandy Bridge stands out above the rest is due to the 32nm HK-MG process it was founded on. Sandy Bridge brought about improvements in IPC, clock speeds, and a reduction in power consumption over Nehalem. If anything, it was Conroe and Nehalem that brought us the highest IPC gains, as everything since has been pretty consistent since then. With that said, Haswell does have a pretty strong IPC advantage over Sandy Bridge. It's just hard to beat the overclockability of the 32nm process it was founded on, as 22nm is more built for power savings at the low end.

How many of us are really going to notice outside a few case-specific scenarios gaming on a 2700k vs a 4770k though? For the games I play, I probably wouldn't.

 

[rgallant]

but when the gtx 780's drop to $500.00 next week I want both to run @ pci-e 3.0. x8

 

[Kenmitch]

Nothing wrong with the 2500k cranked up to higher clockspeeds and I'm sure it's got years of use left still

I know that CPUmark99 is a very, very dated benchmark and doesn't even take advantage of modern instructions, but it does give a good example of raw cpu horsepower thru the generations.

SB - IB didn't gain a whole lot at the same clockspeeds, Haswell is in another league it looks like.

2500k 709pts
3770k 721pts
4670k 804pts

All above chips are clocked at 4.6ghz

Results taken from the chart in this post in the CPUmark99 thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34265396&postcount=234

I just looked for the 1st matching SB and IB results and cranked my 4670k to match.

4670k at 4.6ghz trumps the 3770k at 5.1ghz

 

[rgallant]

Nothing wrong with the 2500k cranked up to higher clockspeeds and I'm sure it's got years of use left still

I know that CPUmark99 is a very, very dated benchmark and doesn't even take advantage of modern instructions, but it does give a good example of raw cpu horsepower thru the generations.

SB - IB didn't gain a whole lot at the same clockspeeds, Haswell is in another league it looks like.

2500k 709pts
3770k 721pts
4670k 804pts

All above chips are clocked at 4.6ghz

Results taken from the chart in this post in the CPUmark99 thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34265396&postcount=234

I just looked for the 1st matching SB and IB results and cranked my 4670k to match.

4670k at 4.6ghz trumps the 3770k at 5.1ghz

a haswell-e 6 core version might be the next high end game platform for sure ,I might look at it when it comes out.

 

[Torn Mind]

Please don't take my statement out of context, those are different market all together... There has be no real increase in performance per watt between Haswell and ivy on desktop for the enthusiast market.

Let me see that statement again:

Lack of real competition tends to stagnate technological advancements.

Your statement provides no context whatsoever. It is one sentence and leads the reader to infer Intel has no competition anywhere as the "default" inference. Don't blame me for your omission in providing context.

I will state the same thing as last time, but in different words: Intel does have competition, but not in the desktop market. Intel also realizes that there are a whole bunch more of buyers in the mobile(laptops, tablets, phones) market. These two forces are what has pulled Intel towards making perf/watt an priority. Those devices need to do things fast yet not kill the battery quickly.

 

[Liquid_Static]

Honestly, I think these last 3 architectures (sandy,ivy,haswell) are going to last for quite a long time...

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Toss Nehalem/Westmere onto the pile too. If you're at >= 4GHz (especially if you have a hex-core), it is hard as heck to justify an upgrade (other than if you want/need USB3, SATA3, PCI-E 3).

 

[Techhog]

Which is relevant to yearly CPU performance improvements in what aspect?

You means that sets the trend for what improvements can be expected in all other areas; the max speed of cars, the resolution of TV displays, how far humans can jump, and everything else?



Very interesting graphs indeed! But was it only the 80s and 90s where we had impressive performance improvements? Looking at the first graph it seems like performance improvements were decent all the way from 1975 until about 2005 or so, and from then on it has been quite miserable.

We've hit the point of diminishing returns. If AMD would compete things would be a bit better, but it still wouldn't be like it used to be.

 

[tweakboy]

Does this CPU even have HT or is it a 4 thread CPU.

 

[frozentundra123456]

We've hit the point of diminishing returns. If AMD would compete things would be a bit better, but it still wouldn't be like it used to be.

Yea, I agree. As a technology becomes more mature, it becomes harder and harder to keep increasing the performance. Granted, the emphasis on low power exacerbates this slowdown, as well as devoting more and more of the power budget to the igp.

I am not sure how much more intel can wring out of only 4 cores. Hopefully (faint hope??) someday they bring out a mainstream hex core.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Well, the IPC increase with Haswell is just fine. Intel just gimped the OC headroom - if it clocked up to Sandybridge levels without delidding, we would all be ecstatic.
Guess we could always hope for a D0 Haswell stepping - it made a nice difference for Bloomfield.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Well, the IPC increase with Haswell is just fine. Intel just gimped the OC headroom - if it clocked up to Sandybridge levels without delidding, we would all be ecstatic.
Guess we could always hope for a D0 Haswell stepping - it made a nice difference for Bloomfield.

Probably won't happen because Haswell like SB and IVY will be short lived one year cycle products.

I thoroughly enjoy my Haswell, because it does exactly what you say


Interestingly even after having really good SB chips, and a really good Haswell chip I'll still move to the next uarch when it arrives in less than two years... :sneaky:

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'll probably update my cpu xmas 2014. No real desire nor need to do so before. GPU's are more important for gamers. GPU will be next year as well.

 

[lopri]

My guess is:

1) x86 (or at least the current Core architecture) is reaching towards the dreaded ceiling, or
2) Intel is just sitting, while dipping unsuccessful toes outside x86 desktops/servers.

Compare it to ARM. No, not ARM taking over Intel. Just look at how fast ARM is moving forward and how much more performance each new chip brings to their respective platforms.

Apple : A5 -> A6 -> A7 -> (A7X/A8)
Qualcomm : S400 -> S600 -> S800 -> (Huge leap when they adopt ARMv8, just like Apple did with A7)
Samsung : Exynos 4000 -> Exynos 5 dual -> Exynos 5 Octa -> (same as Qualcomm, 64-bit ARM all but inevitable)

v.

Intel : Sandy -> Ivy -> Haswell -> (? sorry I don't know the code name, heh)
AMD : @#*)^#&? (I have no knowledge of what they are doing)
NV : Kepler -> Kepler -> (probably another Kepler rebadge)

Not that I care. It's just an observation. I am running a 2500K myself as well.

 

[Ventanni]

Apple : A5 -> A6 -> A7 -> (A7X/A8)
Qualcomm : S400 -> S600 -> S800 -> (Huge leap when they adopt ARMv8, just like Apple did with A7)
Samsung : Exynos 4000 -> Exynos 5 dual -> Exynos 5 Octa -> (same as Qualcomm, 64-bit ARM all but inevitable)

v.

Intel : Sandy -> Ivy -> Haswell -> Broadwell -> Skylake
AMD : Bobcat -> Jaguar -> Puma+ -> Leopard? (I have no knowledge of what they are doing)
NV : Kepler -> Maxwell -> Volta

Fixed that for ya.

I think the old guns are advancing much faster than you think. Just because we're not seeing huge gains in raw performance (the way we enthusiasts only seem to see things) doesn't mean they're not moving anywhere. Just referencing Intel here, Haswell still brings 15-20% IPC improvement over Sandy Bridge, and vastly superior power efficiency at the low end thanks to the new sleep states and onboard power regulators. Also, Intel GPUs have come a long, long ways since the pre-SB days.

Also, when you look at Intel, you really need to be looking at the Atom line, not the Core line. It was painfully obvious several years ago that Intel's investment into Atom was more of an afterthought, and that most of the engineering talent was going into the Core line of products. Now that Intel is actually dedicating real R&D into it, we're starting to see the fruits of their labor. Silvermont is an enormous advancement over the previous Atom core, and is a true competitor in the market.

I'm not an Intel drum beater, but they are a very big, intelligent, and rich company. When they want to do something, you can't argue that they do things pretty darn well.

 

[Techhog]

Probably won't happen because Haswell like SB and IVY will be short lived one year cycle products.

I thoroughly enjoy my Haswell, because it does exactly what you say


Interestingly even after having really good SB chips, and a really good Haswell chip I'll still move to the next uarch when it arrives in less than two years... :sneaky:

Isn't it rumored that Broadwell won't hit desktops? Haswell Refresh could see some gains.

 

[Hulk]

I have a 2500k although not clocked as high. But I don't think it's that impressive when you if you consider video compression against a 4770.

Still a great chip but I'm itching for an upgrade to give me more compute.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Isn't it rumored that Broadwell won't hit desktops? Haswell Refresh could see some gains.

Yes that's the rumor, but my interest is in the Tocks, not the Ticks.

Hopefully we'll still see a desktop Tock on 14nm, otherwise we're dead in the water!

 

[ArchAngel777]

I would totally not mind going to Haswell. Why? I want the new chipset. I want more native SATA 6Gb/s ports. I currently have three SATA 6Gb/s SSDs and socket 1155 only has two native SATA 6Gb/s ports. It isn't much of a difference, but it matters (somewhat) to me and my use case.

This - I upgraded from a 4.5Ghz SB to 4.2Ghz Haswell. It may be a lateral move, but now I have a much faster SSD RAID setup as the throughput has basically increased 50% or so 1GB/sec versus 1.5GB/sec

Additionally, the system consumes quite a bit less power, too. I could clock my Haswell higher, but why? 4.2Ghz is plenty.

The room already feels cooler in my house... Besides, I needed to upgrade my son's machine.

 

[Face2Face]

Nothing wrong with the 2500k cranked up to higher clockspeeds and I'm sure it's got years of use left still

I know that CPUmark99 is a very, very dated benchmark and doesn't even take advantage of modern instructions, but it does give a good example of raw cpu horsepower thru the generations.

SB - IB didn't gain a whole lot at the same clockspeeds, Haswell is in another league it looks like.

2500k 709pts
3770k 721pts
4670k 804pts

All above chips are clocked at 4.6ghz

Results taken from the chart in this post in the CPUmark99 thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34265396&postcount=234

I just looked for the 1st matching SB and IB results and cranked my 4670k to match.

4670k at 4.6ghz trumps the 3770k at 5.1ghz

Looking @ Cinebench 11.5 the difference is not that drastic for multicore.

19.) BallaTheFeared | i5-4670K| 4.9GHz| 8.35 DDR3 @ 1600Mhz
21.) Face2Face| i5-3570K| 5GHz| 8.29 DDR3 @ 1866Mhz