Question On 2500k at 4.6ghz

[trt740]

What would the performance come close to on any of the newer Intel chips at this Overclock.


Any Ideas on this? With the newer chip at stock of course. FYI trying to go higher on air, so far so good. I"m going to shoot for 4.7Ghz. I'm cooling with air on a Pro Meg that I have had for years. At onetime, this chip was at 4.8ghz, but I notice with more power efficient parts my overclocking is going a lot better. Who know maybe it will go higher. I have been out of the game a while but I think on air 1.46v is okay? If I remember correctly, 1.52v is the max recommended air voltage 24/7 by intel with decent temps.

 

[FR@NK]

What would the performance come close to on any of the newer Intel chips at this Overclock.

Not really, the 6600k will turbo up to 3.9GHz, and the 6700k even higher.

 

[Jetster]

It's a hard question to answer. It depends what program your talking about, and what other hardware with it ie SLI, SSDs, GPU, memory. But the 2500K is still a useful chip

 

[natr0n]

Use cpu-z it has a built in benchmark and a dropdown menu to give you an idea how your chip compares to many new chips.

 

[FireFox]

the 6700k even higher.

4.2GHz.

 

[hertz9753]

I used to have a 2500k and it took a little over 1.4 volts to get to 4.6

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I had a 2500k and it took 1.38v to do 4.9ghz

 

[LightningJR]

Using the CPUz benchmark it seems my 2500K at 4.6Ghz needs to reach 4.8Ghz to match a 6600k at stock. I remember comparing Cinebench scores and coming to the same conclusion as well.

If my memory serves I believe people didn't like to put more than 1.4 through the chips and not reach 72C but I think it was the conservative number. 80C and 1.5V was around max if not crunching or something that stressing the CPU near 100% for long periods of time.

This is the thread from my overclocking adventures back in the day. https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/new-2500k-overclocking.158403/#post-2511842

 

[silkstone]

I get around 4.6 @ 1.3V on mine, but I have to turn off c-6 for stability. The temps get too extreme for my liking to keep it at this for 25/7. IBT pushes it just past 80 C (though I do need to clean the dust out of my computer)

I can also get 4.8 Ghz at a little over 1.3 V, but again, c-states give instability so need to be turned off.

Look at either getting high clocked ram or just overclocking that too. I know it makes a difference in some games such as GTAV. I've got mine at 1866 10-10-10-31. I'd love to push it to 2133, but I can't do that at the timings i like.

I've no idea what CPU it's equivalent to, but games are still snappy and it handles everything I want to do on a day-to-day basis. I would upgrade to a 6600K, but then i'd be looking at a $600+ outlay. Not chump change

 

[LightningJR]

My motherboards droop is making me mad

I had/have this exact same thing, I should have bought a better mobo from the beginning, I could have got 5Ghz I am sure of it.

 

[silkstone]

[



To get 4.8Ghz on air looks like1.38v and that's as far as she will go because of the temps. What does c state do. I have them turned off. I think for gaming 4.5 to 4.6 is plenty. My motherboards droop is making me mad. I have the opportunity to pick up a I7 3770k, but I'm not sure it is worth it at this point.

c-states are the power saving options. In general, they will allow the voltage to drop when idle, but the latency between voltage switching can cause your computer to crash when overclocked.

 

[FR@NK]

c-states are the power saving options. In general, they will allow the voltage to drop when idle, but the latency between voltage switching can cause your computer to crash when overclocked.

If your computer isnt stable with c states enabled then it might be overclocked too far for 24/7 clocks.

 

[silkstone]

If your computer isnt stable with c states enabled then it might be overclocked too far for 24/7 clocks.

I agree. I have mine at 4.4Ghz for 24/7. Then I have a profile for 4.6Ghz with C6 disabled and I need to work on a profile for 4.8-5.0 Ghz for gaming/benchmarking

 

[Recon-UK]

Had my 2500k at 5ghz on 1.4v and would turbo it's self to 5.2ghz on 2 cores, was a very very good chip and a rarity.

 

[trt740]

I had/have this exact same thing, I should have bought a better mobo from the beginning, I could have got 5Ghz I am sure of it.

I have changed a few of the phase and power settings and my droop is completely gone. I wonder with the phase settings increase along with several other settings just how high I can go.

 

[LightningJR]

I have changed a few of the phase and power settings and my droop is completely gone. I wonder with the phase settings increase along with several other settings just how high I can go.

? really, which specific settings? I may have them I hope so I maybe be able to reach 4.8Ghz again 24/7 stable.

 

[phanbuey]

apparently having 3200mhz ramboosts performance quite a bit

 

[EarthDog]

You would need to have around 5Ghz 2500K to match a stock 6600K in IPC.

..........but, you can also overclock the 6600K to mid 4Ghz too........so that makes the 2500K need to be in the 5Ghz + range for equal IPC performance. In other words, its not going to happen. Again, from the other thread... a viable chip, but leaves some meat on the table when using upper midrange+ GPUs...

Using the CPUz benchmark it seems my 2500K at 4.6Ghz needs to reach 4.8Ghz to match a 6600k at stock

I really don't think that a CPU which in reviews is 25%+ slower is going to catch a 6600K with 200Mhz... that CPUz bench... something isn't right there...

This graph shows that:

Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge: Average ~5.8% Up
Ivy Bridge to Haswell: Average ~11.2% Up
Haswell to Broadwell: Average ~3.3% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR4): Average ~2.7% Up

~23% difference in IPC.

The Results

Overall, Skylake is not an earth shattering leap in performance. In our IPC testing, with CPUs at 3 GHz, we saw a 5.7% increase in performance over a Haswell processor at the same clockspeed and ~ 25% gains over Sandy Bridge.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23

 

[Mussels]

helped a friend setup a 'new' 2500K setup last night
1.4V and see how high you can get, then undervolt at the max stable


in the benchmarks we tested at, 4.7GHz beats out a stock i5 skylake (barely, but hey - its 5 years older)

annoyingly he bought a shitty MSI board, 1.4v in the BIOS equals 1.6V in reality O.O - took a little tweaking

 

[EarthDog]

in the benchmarks we tested at, 4.7GHz beats out a stock i5 skylake (barely, but hey - its 5 years older)

This makes sense! But it would be helpful to know which bench mark (in that is it multi threaded or single threaded) as the difference between them can vary a notable amount considering........

6600K is 3.5Ghz, all cores boost to 3.6, 3 to 3.7, 2 to 3.8, and one to 3.9.

So in multi core tests, its 3.6 GHz vs 4.7 GHz and in single threaded, 3.9Ghz vs 4.7GHz.

 

[Mussels]

This makes sense! But it would be helpful to know which bench mark (in that is it multi threaded or single threaded) as the difference between them can vary a notable amount considering........

6600K is 3.5Ghz, all cores boost to 3.6, 3 to 3.7, 2 to 3.8, and one to 3.9.

So in multi core tests, its 3.6 GHz vs 4.7 GHz and in single threaded, 3.9Ghz vs 4.7GHz.

we just did multi threaded with what we had on hand - intel burn test, CPU-Z, etc. nothing too extreme, but since it was 4C/4T vs 4C/4T it was even enough (he wanted to compete with his friends skylake at a cheaper price, i delivered)

 

[EarthDog]

Just for the sake of saying it, that is a 1.1 GHz difference or ~31% increase in clocks over the 6600K and its 4C boost.

 

[Mussels]

Just for the sake of saying it, that is a 1.1 GHz difference or ~31% increase in clocks over the 6600K and its 4C boost.

it was 4T vs 4T, so it'd be 4.7 vs 3.5

 

[EarthDog]

All cores/threads (though it doesn't have HT) boost to 3.6 GHz. That is why I said "its 4C boost"....and post 20 explains that too.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

 

[trt740]

We all realize that the newer chips are faster. The point of this thread was to see if a 2500k could overclocked where it would match up with similar newer chip at stock speeds. It does not have to be a 6600k. We all know that if you overclock a higher end newer chip it will beat a 6 year old chip. If it did not no one will buy it. Most sites and information seems to indicate that a 2500k at 4.5 to 4.8Ghz will beat or match up with any chip at stock 6500 or lower. ( I know this now after doing a lot of reading), and that is just a general statement. The idea of overclocking is to buy cheap and get better performance than you payed for. Plus by overclocking you prolong the life of your system by getting the most performance possible out of it before rebuilding.