i5-2550K - IB Sneaks Out @ MC?

I'd be interested to see what kind of OC can be achieved with this chip. Might try to talk my boy who has a 2500k into "upgrading" to this chip so he can over clock it more.
 
Skillz said:
I'd be interested to see what kind of OC can be achieved with this chip. Might try to talk my boy who has a 2500k into "upgrading" to this chip so he can over clock it more.
Click to expand...

It's a bit annoying that none of the review sites have taken this chip for a run yet so we can put this issue to rest.
 
chemojay said:
I don't understand the price point argument for intel making more money for less of a chip.
Click to expand...

Intel is making money hand over fist as it is. That's not the issue - the issue is the value for the consumer - and it's less with 2550k than it is with 2500k which is priced lower and offers more features.:rolleyes: It's Intel's deceptive marketing practices that target uninformed consumer to offer less for more is what pissing people off.

Put it another way - if people put up with this, who knows what Intel will come with next... For example, rebadging old cpus with new model numbers to make it look like it's new tech (*cough*nvidia*cough*)
 
Last edited:
Is ivy bridge better than sandy bridge? Whats the advantage?
 
Reduced power usage. A few optimizations (3% to 5%) at the same frequency. Maybe higher overclocks.
 
PaperclipGod said:
It's a bit annoying that none of the review sites have taken this chip for a run yet so we can put this issue to rest.
Click to expand...

Overclocking with SB is too much of a crapshoot for just one or two review sites giving reliable overclock numbers. You would need at least 50 2550k overclock results compared to the same number of 2500k overclocks to get any kind of conclusion. Even then, 50 might be too small of a number.
 
TehQuick said:
Intel is making money hand over fist as it is. That's not the issue - the issue is the value for the consumer - and it's less with 2550k than it is with 2500k which is priced lower and offers more features.:rolleyes: It's Intel's deceptive marketing practices that target uninformed consumer to offer less for more is what pissing people off.

Put it another way - if people put up with this, who knows what Intel will come with next... For example, rebadging old cpus with new model numbers to make it look like it's new tech (*cough*nvidia*cough*)
Click to expand...
These CPUs without IGP are sold due the fact they remained from the production with not fully working IGP, the IGP part was maybe cut off or its circuitry remains within processors just it is disconnected. It would be waste of either money and materials to just throw them away, I think this is simple to understand. The reason why are they priced same as the IGP based chips is because let's be honest most users at least on sites like [H] wont be ever using IGP.If they would price the 2550K for example $50 less due to lacking IGP and possible better OC than 2500k. No one would be buying the IGP based ones because hardly someone is using that feature. Than Intel would be left with another bunch of CPUs so I consider what they did as best move they could do. You buy the specific model based on what you think is better for you and probably it is a good choice for P67 owners as it wont support onboard video at all.
Sometimes I think Intel should produce CPUs in lesser quantities, there are numerous core 2 and pre-core CPUs still sold around, and many of them were never sold and used. They delayed IB probably intentionally as well due to drastical overstock of SBs and so on. Seems the weaker economy and market demand is no longer as it once was.
 
PaperclipGod said:
It's a bit annoying that none of the review sites have taken this chip for a run yet so we can put this issue to rest.
Click to expand...

Because it's just a 2500K whose graphics failed to pass the test.

These won't overclock any better unless they're being binned differently or it's a new stepping. It's definitely not the latter and I highly doubt it's the prior. Basically, you're being asked to pay more for a 100mhz bump on an unlocked but neutered chip.
 
pelo said:
Because it's just a 2500K whose graphics failed to pass the test
Click to expand...

how do you know that when there arent any reviews? did intel say this? or are we just guessing? because I cant guess that too, but I dont say it for sure like you
 
bAMtan2 said:
how do you know that when there arent any reviews? did intel say this? or are we just guessing? because I cant guess that too, but I dont say it for sure like you
Click to expand...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2226140&page=4

Graphic-less 2500K with the same TDP likely means they aren't being binned differently (unless that TDP is wrong and therefore Intel is lying) and you can disable the graphics in your BIOS and it's much the same as Intel is doing but they're charging you more money for it. It's intel trying to sell failed chips at higher prices. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read that whole thread. He starts off attempting to defend it but quickly realizes we're not idiots then vanishes =P It's Intel refreshing the market by attempting to sell failed chips at higher prices.
 
Last edited:
Myabe this chip would make more sense locked, the i5-2520? It'd probably be attractive to OEMs selling high-end computers with GPUs. They could upsell the higher MHz on Dell.com.
 
TehQuick said:
Intel is making money hand over fist as it is. That's not the issue - the issue is the value for the consumer - and it's less with 2550k than it is with 2500k which is priced lower and offers more features.:rolleyes: It's Intel's deceptive marketing practices that target uninformed consumer to offer less for more is what pissing people off.
Click to expand...


I don't pity the uninformed consumer. IMO consumers should not be pitied for not doing research when buying stuff. Intel is not trying to rip people off here. Intel is offering a unique CPU for those that want it.

Also the 2550k is valuable to the person that wants to buy it for its lower TDP and increased over clocking potential.

Retail pricing on 2500K and 2550k is the same. Each has unique features about them that make them valuable to the consumer buying them.

I find the iGPU in the 2500K useful at times but in general I don't rely on the iGPU for over clocking CPU and discrete GPU. I'd rather have a leaner and meaner more efficient 2550k for cpu processing and use a powerful discrete gpu for gaming.

So IMO Intel really is stepping up to their market by having the 2550K available to those that want this.

My only complaint is that I wish Intel would have had offered the 2550K right from the get go and I hope Intel offers a IB 35XXK version similar to the 2550K at release date of the new IB cpus.

If Lucid or NVIDA/AMD could figure out a way to properly use iGPU with discrete GPU for parallel improved performance then I would rather have the 2500K but this isn't the case right now.
 
Last edited:
"Also the 2550k is valuable to the person that wants to buy it for its lower TDP and increased over clocking potential."

There is the problem. There is no proof of increased overclocking potential. Or do you have something? Are there any reviews?

Also, where do you get your information about the lower tdp?
Intel still rates this as a 95W cpu: http://ark.intel.com/products/65647/

The Intel shill posting here and on Anandtech hinted at how it probably should be rated at 80W, but besides this one guy, I have seen nothing to prove that it has a lower TDP than the regular 2500k.

It still all boils down to Intel charging $10 to $20 more..(newegg and microcenter pricing)..for a cpu that has the same TDP rating, is still unlocked, but does not have an IGP that works. You pay more for less.

No wonder AMD does not make $$$ like Intel. They should have charged more for the cpus with disabled cores. Hey, they may have a lower TDP and may overclock better. That makes them more valuable right?
 
pgaster said:
No wonder AMD does not make $$$ like Intel. They should have charged more for the cpus with disabled cores.
Click to expand...


AMD just needs to make a better CPU. Once AMD beats out Intel on performance and value then AMD will make more money.
 
pgaster said:
"Also the 2550k is valuable to the person that wants to buy it for its lower TDP and increased over clocking potential."

There is the problem. There is no proof of increased overclocking potential. Or do you have something? Are there any reviews?

Also, where do you get your information about the lower tdp?
Intel still rates this as a 95W cpu: http://ark.intel.com/products/65647/

The Intel shill posting here and on Anandtech hinted at how it probably should be rated at 80W, but besides this one guy, I have seen nothing to prove that it has a lower TDP than the regular 2500k.

It still all boils down to Intel charging $10 to $20 more..(newegg and microcenter pricing)..for a cpu that has the same TDP rating, is still unlocked, but does not have an IGP that works. You pay more for less.

No wonder AMD does not make $$$ like Intel. They should have charged more for the cpus with disabled cores. Hey, they may have a lower TDP and may overclock better. That makes them more valuable right?
Click to expand...
This debate about this CPU being pay more for less is pretty ridiculous. If not, why all the people around pay houndreds and thousands of dollars more for much less in apple products for example? Anything else is 60% cheaper and beats it by raw performance like nothing.
Even if the CPU without IGP is $10 more expensive it's probably due to it's 3.4 GHz clock(which was back than starting at i7 already), and if even it would be just like that, it's still nothing compared to how much money are people willing to pay for lesser and slower hardware intentionally.
If you plan to OC and getting P67 motherboard, you going to use standalone graphics card. There should be no discussion about buying 2500K over 2550K when you can't use the onboard video at all. So i'd rather get the 3.4GHz clock rate and possibly higher room for OC.
The integrated graphics is mostly intended to mini ITX computers, laptops, office computers and so on. Any mainstream user should get the discrete card.
 
Last edited:
Acer_Sheep said:
This debate about this CPU being pay more for less is pretty ridiculous. If not, why all the people around pay houndreds and thousands of dollars more for much less in apple products for example? Anything else is 60% cheaper and beats it by raw performance like nothing.
Even if the CPU without IGP is $10 more expensive it's probably due to it's 3.4 GHz clock(which was back than starting at i7 already), and if even it would be just like that, it's still nothing compared to how much money are people willing to pay for lesser and slower hardware intentionally.
If you plan to OC and getting P67 motherboard, you going to use standalone graphics card. There should be no discussion about buying 2500K over 2550K when you can't use the onboard video at all. So i'd rather get the 3.4GHz clock rate and possibly higher room for OC.
The integrated graphics is mostly intended to mini ITX computers, laptops, office computers and so on. Any mainstream user should get the discrete card.
Click to expand...
I do not understand your logic at all. It is a "pay more, get less" situation.

P67? No serious overclocker would buy one of those, they would get a Z68. Those Z68 boards have more overclocking features along with, guess what....the ability to use the IGP if you want.
Even an overclocker may want to use Quick Sync, and all you need to use it would be to enable it in the BIOS, and have a cheap old monitor hooked up so the IGP is active.

And to your agrument about the extra 100 Mhz and the potentially higher overclock, give me a break. The 2500K typically hits mid 4's with ease on air. There are people at or over 5 with water, right? That is a 1 Ghz overclock probably on average on air, and you think a simple 100 Mhz extra by default is special and worth extra? What? Am I being punked? Is this the Twilight Zone? Really, that's how I feel here.

Crippled chips that have less features and would have otherwise ended up in a trash can should be sold for less than a full featured chip. If it was $10 or $20 cheaper it would make sense and sell well. The 2500k would sell well too because some people would want the ability to use the IGP. Think about how many of us geeks hand down old hardware to friends and family when we feel the itch for an upgrade. A fast cpu, but with IGP would be great for a parent's computer or a business computer.
With this in mind, the 2500k and 2550k model numbers should really be reversed. More features should get the higher number. Of course logic seems to not apply here, so don't mind me.
 
pgaster said:
I do not understand your logic at all. It is a "pay more, get less" situation.

P67? No serious overclocker would buy one of those, they would get a Z68. Those Z68 boards have more overclocking features along with, guess what....the ability to use the IGP if you want.
Even an overclocker may want to use Quick Sync, and all you need to use it would be to enable it in the BIOS, and have a cheap old monitor hooked up so the IGP is active.

And to your agrument about the extra 100 Mhz and the potentially higher overclock, give me a break. The 2500K typically hits mid 4's with ease on air. There are people at or over 5 with water, right? That is a 1 Ghz overclock probably on average on air, and you think a simple 100 Mhz extra by default is special and worth extra? What? Am I being punked? Is this the Twilight Zone? Really, that's how I feel here.

Crippled chips that have less features and would have otherwise ended up in a trash can should be sold for less than a full featured chip. If it was $10 or $20 cheaper it would make sense and sell well. The 2500k would sell well too because some people would want the ability to use the IGP. Think about how many of us geeks hand down old hardware to friends and family when we feel the itch for an upgrade. A fast cpu, but with IGP would be great for a parent's computer or a business computer.
With this in mind, the 2500k and 2550k model numbers should really be reversed. More features should get the higher number. Of course logic seems to not apply here, so don't mind me.
Click to expand...
As I said before, making this version cheaper would leave intel with dozens of 2500Ks than, because than only the minority requiring the onboard IGP would buy them. For example If you are gamer, and you have 6990 lying around, would you buy CPU $50 more expensive just because it would had IGP? I guess no. Yes I am aware that it comes here to pay more for less contradiction but it's really not a big deal here. The 2550K is intended to those who intentionally don't want onboard video and that's all. It still better to sell them and land into someone's computer rather than throw them to trash just because of the lacking IGP. It's not lying, it's not a money leeching, it is the way it is and those who don't agree can buy 2500K instead.
The 100Mhz is just bin, but you get the turbo raised to 3.8 as well, maybe you will overclock it than to 4.7 or 5.4 GHz, compared to raw 5GHz on 2500K(It's just my guess as no one has overclocked it yet, including me). But really if you think the donating old computer to friends/family would be reason to get IGP based processor when it is new is pretty pointless and it is not making IGP feature any better or more desired.
What is difference between P67 and Z68 apart from Z68 supporting the IGP? I also didn't mention any serious overclockers. But definitely there are decent P67 boards around for affordable price and OC well.
 
pelo said:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2226140&page=4

Graphic-less 2500K with the same TDP likely means they aren't being binned differently (unless that TDP is wrong and therefore Intel is lying) and you can disable the graphics in your BIOS and it's much the same as Intel is doing but they're charging you more money for it. It's intel trying to sell failed chips at higher prices. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read that whole thread. He starts off attempting to defend it but quickly realizes we're not idiots then vanishes =P It's Intel refreshing the market by attempting to sell failed chips at higher prices.
Click to expand...

you're making this up. you have zero evidence it is a broken 2500k. I mean, other than it seeming like a broken 2500k. you've recognized a very simple pattern. it seems like a 2500k! but no actual evidence.

why now, after a year of shipping 2500k, do they have broken 2500k to sell? doesn't that seem strange to you that it took a year for them to get some broken chips? what, were they collecting 10 a day this whole time and now they've got just enough to sell to those poor suckers at newegg?

the only evidence for anything: there are 2011 xeons that look like 2550k and ARENT broken. so if anything it is a modified xeon. not a modified 2500k. those e3 xeons werent super popular in the first place, and now they're due for replacement in like 2 months. they're liquidating them into consumer chips which are selling better. that is the probable answer, not your broken 2500k theory.

and in that case, the xeons can sometimes have nicer stock voltages, which means they can sometimes overclock better, which means we need some benchmarks of this thing.
 
pelo said:
Because it's just a 2500K whose graphics failed to pass the test.

These won't overclock any better unless they're being binned differently or it's a new stepping. It's definitely not the latter and I highly doubt it's the prior. Basically, you're being asked to pay more for a 100mhz bump on an unlocked but neutered chip.
Click to expand...

I'd wager theyre being binned differently, so its OC potential should be evident after a half dozen chips. I mean, they aren't releasing 2650k's or 2750k's, so any of those with failed IGP's are likely getting tossed in with the 2550k's.
 
SonDa5 said:
I don't pity the uninformed consumer. IMO consumers should not be pitied for not doing research when buying stuff. Intel is not trying to rip people off here. Intel is offering a unique CPU for those that want it.

Also the 2550k is valuable to the person that wants to buy it for its lower TDP and increased over clocking potential.

Retail pricing on 2500K and 2550k is the same. Each has unique features about them that make them valuable to the consumer buying them.

I find the iGPU in the 2500K useful at times but in general I don't rely on the iGPU for over clocking CPU and discrete GPU. I'd rather have a leaner and meaner more efficient 2550k for cpu processing and use a powerful discrete gpu for gaming.

So IMO Intel really is stepping up to their market by having the 2550K available to those that want this.

My only complaint is that I wish Intel would have had offered the 2550K right from the get go and I hope Intel offers a IB 35XXK version similar to the 2550K at release date of the new IB cpus.

If Lucid or NVIDA/AMD could figure out a way to properly use iGPU with discrete GPU for parallel improved performance then I would rather have the 2500K but this isn't the case right now.
Click to expand...

You realize the 2550k is the same TDP as the 2500k.

Also there is no proof it has higher overclocking potential.
 
bAMtan2 said:
the only evidence for anything: there are 2011 xeons that look like 2550k and ARENT broken. so if anything it is a modified xeon. not a modified 2500k. those e3 xeons werent super popular in the first place, and now they're due for replacement in like 2 months. they're liquidating them into consumer chips which are selling better. that is the probable answer, not your broken 2500k theory.

and in that case, the xeons can sometimes have nicer stock voltages, which means they can sometimes overclock better, which means we need some benchmarks of this thing.
Click to expand...


This makes alot more sense and it helps validate the comment about the 80W TDP made earlier from the Intel representative.
 
Last edited:
I picked up one of these 2550K chips at Microcenter for $200. I just put a system together and have the chip running at 4.9GHZ (Vcore 1.4v). It was stable up to 4.6GHZ at default voltage. Seems to be on par with current 2500K results.
 
StryderxX said:
I picked up one of these 2550K chips at Microcenter for $200. I just put a system together and have the chip running at 4.9GHZ (Vcore 1.4v). It was stable up to 4.6GHZ at default voltage. Seems to be on par with current 2500K results.
Click to expand...

Dissappointing :(

Gonna try upping the voltage?
 
for a random chip that is not disappointing. you have no idea what he is doing. and by the way, it is not like anyone has done serious research to know how regular 2500k chips overclock and under what conditions. everyone has a different opinion and we know what those are worth.

4.9ghz at 1.4v from a random chip with unknown configuration is very good. that is at the top of the results people get with 2500k
 
michaelz said:
the post says 4.6ghz at 1.4. that's on par with most 2500k results.
Click to expand...
4.6GHZ was on default voltage. I've played around with this 2550K a bit more and it's stable (Prime95) at 5GHZ (1.46 Vcore) but temps are high at 74c. IntelBurnTest was worst at 81c! No lockups or blue screens yet but those temperatures will surely kill the chip in no time.
 
StryderxX said:
4.6GHZ was on default voltage. I've played around with this 2550K a bit more and it's stable (Prime95) at 5GHZ (1.46 Vcore) but temps are high at 74c. IntelBurnTest was worst at 81c! No lockups or blue screens yet but those temperatures will surely kill the chip in no time.
Click to expand...

81C isn't bad and definitely not in "this will surely kill the CPU" territory.
 
4.6v for 5ghz stable is great. Time for better cooling.
 
StryderxX said:
I've played around with this 2550K a bit more and it's stable (Prime95) at 5GHZ (1.46 Vcore) but temps are high at 74c. IntelBurnTest was worst at 81c! No lockups or blue screens yet
Click to expand...

that sounds pretty good. stable and 80c in the most unrealistic test is right at the limit of where you want to be... it'll be fine under normal circumstances, and it'll be fine under unusual circumstances too. as long as you don't stack unusual circumstances with another intelburntest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top