Intel started its "Sandy Bridge" LGA1155 family with two processors geared for overclocking, the Core i7-2600K, at a $320 price-point, and Core i5-2500K at around $210. Both are extremely successful products, among the two the Core i5-2500K struck a price-performance sweet-spot, while the Core i7-2600K became the ideal chip to build high-end gaming PCs with. Around the time when AMD was releasing its AMD FX processor family, Intel released the new Core i7-2700K. This chip didn't necessarily replace the i7-2600K, but took a price point slightly higher than it. According to a CPU World report, Intel is readying a new sweet-spot processor geared for overclocking, the Core i5-2550K.With a retail channel part number BX80623I52550K and OEM part number CM806230121300, the Core i5-2550K was added to the MDDS database. It will carry the S-spec code SR0QH. The exact clock speed of this chip is not known, but CPU World expects it to be 3.40 GHz. Based on the Sandy Bridge LGA1155 package, the Core i5-2550K will feature four cores, 256 KB L2 cache per core, 6 MB shared L3 cache, integrated dual-channel DDR3 IMC, , integrated PCI-Express 2.0 root complex, and TDP of 95W. We expect this not to necessarily displace the i5-2500K, but occupy a price-point slightly above it. Let's say, $239-$249, just to heat things up for the AMD FX-8150.

39 Comments on Intel Readies Core i5-2550K Quad-Core Unlocked Processor

1 to 25 of 39 Go to Page 12 PreviousNext

#1 brandonwh64

Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!! Hmm I dont see how this would be any better than the 2500K unless it OCs alot better but with the current clocks I have seen from 2500K owners it will be hard to beat Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 15:46 Reply

#2 BarbaricSoul

well considering the 2700k isn't just a higher-clocked 2600k, I kinda expect this to be more than just a higher-clocked 2500k. Not really sure of the differences between the 2600k and 2700k, but from what I read from what Qubit posted about the 2700k, he'd be the person I'd ask about the differences as he seems to have done the background work while doing his C2D>I7 upgrade. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 15:53 Reply

#3 silkstone

Gah! I just upgraded to a 2500k this week :( Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:10 Reply

#4 Over_Lord

News Editor I don't see the point of this, especially if this ends up being priced upwards of Core i5 2500k like the Core i7 2700k and 2600k Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:12 Reply

#5 Ross1

boooooring. ivy bridge of GTFO. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:13 Reply

#6 radrok

thunderising I don't see the point of this, especially if this ends up being priced upwards of Core i5 2500k like the Core i7 2700k and 2600k Better binning, it will surely overclock more at the same voltage compared with a 2500k... and to pay a bit more to be sure that your CPU reaches awesome clocks isn't that bad :) Better binning, it will surely overclock more at the same voltage compared with a 2500k... and to pay a bit more to be sure that your CPU reaches awesome clocks isn't that bad :) Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:15 Reply

#7 Wrigleyvillain

PTFO or GTFO Works for me. More options when I finally upgrade. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:16 Reply

#8 yogurt_21

"amd says they won't be trying to compete with intel anymore"



Intel "fine I'll compete with myself" Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:23 Reply

#9 twicksisted

The point of this chip is that people building a new i5 rig will likely choose this over a 2500k only because its newer and more e-peenish Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:25 Reply

#10 Soup

Binned 2500k's? Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:35 Reply

#11 JATownes

Everyone I know with a 2500K can clock it easily to 3.8 or 4.0Ghz on stock volts, if not clock it even higher. I don't understand why Intel doesn't release one clocked that high at stock. They run very cool and appear to be stable at that clock, and a stock 3.8Ghz SB 25XX would surely sell like mad. :confused: Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 16:56 Reply

#12 nikko

In order for 2500k to stay below 95 watts, clocks and voltages need to be set accordingly, the 95 watts being at 3.3Ghz 1.200V linpack 64bit (+int gFx ~15W incl.), so 2550 should have lower VID. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 17:47 Reply

#13 newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder nikko In order for 2500k to stay below 95 watts, clocks and voltages need to be set accordingly, the 95 watts being at 3.3Ghz 1.200V linpack 64bit (+int gFx ~15W incl.), so 2550 should have lower VID. That isn't how it works. Processors are labeled in thermal/power envelopes or ranges. So anything over 65w is labelled as a 95w processor. Just because the processor says 95w, that doesn't mean it is actually using 95w. It could be using 70w and it would still be labelled as a 95w processor.



The 2550K will likely use more power than the 2500K, it could be 75w while the 2500K is using 70w, both would still be labelled as 95w.



I'm guessing since this isn't even a new stepping that there might be some slight better binning, but to a normal consumer that isn't using extreme cooling it won't make one bit of difference. And with 2500Ks easily doing 4.0GHz all day long, I don't think there is much point to this processor. That isn't how it works. Processors are labeled in thermal/power envelopes or ranges. So anything over 65w is labelled as a 95w processor. Just because the processor says 95w, that doesn't mean it is actually using 95w. It could be using 70w and it would still be labelled as a 95w processor.The 2550K will likely use more power than the 2500K, it could be 75w while the 2500K is using 70w, both would still be labelled as 95w.I'm guessing since this isn't even a new stepping that there might be some slight better binning, but to a normal consumer that isn't using extreme cooling it won't make one bit of difference. And with 2500Ks easily doing 4.0GHz all day long, I don't think there is much point to this processor. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 18:48 Reply

#14 Trackr

newtekie1 That isn't how it works. Processors are labeled in thermal/power envelopes or ranges. So anything over 65w is labelled as a 95w processor. Just because the processor says 95w, that doesn't mean it is actually using 95w. It could be using 70w and it would still be labelled as a 95w processor.



The 2550K will likely use more power than the 2500K, it could be 75w while the 2500K is using 70w, both would still be labelled as 95w.



I'm guessing since this isn't even a new stepping that there might be some slight better binning, but to a normal consumer that isn't using extreme cooling it won't make one bit of difference. And with 2500Ks easily doing 4.0GHz all day long, I don't think there is much point to this processor. Of course not.



The only reason to release an identical product under a different name is to get the people who own the first product to buy the second.



I foresee the poor masses upgrading from the 2500k to the 2550k.



Usually, if I like the company I'll make an excuse for it saying that it needs to burn off chips and has to take such measures.. but in Intel's case, that's ridiculous. 2500ks are selling like flapjacks.



Oh, I foresee more such slight evil from Intel in the next decade. Of course not.The only reason to release an identical product under a different name is to get the people who own the first product to buy the second.I foresee the poor masses upgrading from the 2500k to the 2550k.Usually, if I like the company I'll make an excuse for it saying that it needs to burn off chips and has to take such measures.. but in Intel's case, that's ridiculous. 2500ks are selling like flapjacks.Oh, I foresee more such slight evil from Intel in the next decade. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 19:54 Reply

#15 erocker

* Intel is smart. Instead of raising the prices on their current lineup due to a lack of real competition, they change the model number a bit and increase the price. I hope many people buy this over the 2500K. :) Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 20:06 Reply

#16 newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder Trackr Of course not.



The only reason to release an identical product under a different name is to get the people who own the first product to buy the second.



I foresee the poor masses upgrading from the 2500k to the 2550k.



Usually, if I like the company I'll make an excuse for it saying that it needs to burn off chips and has to take such measures.. but in Intel's case, that's ridiculous. 2500ks are selling like flapjacks.



Oh, I foresee more such slight evil from Intel in the next decade. I don't think they are doing it to get people with 2500Ks to upgrade to 2550Ks. The "poor" masses don't upgrade CPUs, and the ones that do upgrade CPUs know that the 2500K with an unlocked multiplier will do the same as this 2550K.



They are releasing the 2550K so that they can basically sell the same product at a slightly higher price to make more money off the poor masses that are just now upgrading to SandyBridge and don't know that there really is no difference and don't know the 2500K can do everything the 2550K can do just by upping the multiplier yourself. I don't think they are doing it to get people with 2500Ks to upgrade to 2550Ks. The "poor" masses don't upgrade CPUs, and the ones that do upgrade CPUs know that the 2500K with an unlocked multiplier will do the same as this 2550K.They are releasing the 2550K so that they can basically sell the same product at a slightly higher price to make more money off the poor masses that are just now upgrading to SandyBridge and don't know that there really is no difference and don't know the 2500K can do everything the 2550K can do just by upping the multiplier yourself. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 20:07 Reply

#17 Enmity

In some ways yes it is the same chip as the current 2500ks, but just like in the case of 2600k vs 2700k, the 27 is higher binned and clocks higher than the CURRENT 26s, so unless you have one of the earlier 25s the likelihood of you getting a highly clockable 25k once the 2550k is around will be much less likely indeed. This is what i would imagine anyway, just because we have seen this already with the 2700k. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 22:50 Reply

#18 arnoo1

Probally cherry picked 2500k's if i'm right it will oc better with lowrr core voltage, i gues we have to wait for reviews Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 22:58 Reply

#19 twicksisted

loads of people havent yet upgraded to SB but will likely due to BD's poor performance... so what better way to do that than to get the 2550K.

Why buy the "old" 2500K when there is a new kid on the block for probably not much more? and it gives extra incentive too, I mean its new and shiny ;) Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 23:00 Reply

#20 R_1

newtekie1 That isn't how it works. Well, yeah - that is some kind of average power envelope , not power maximum in Linpack or other super demanding app. Same is true for the actual voltage, cause it is not fixed , but changes rapidly according CPU load. So who is going to say that there is a difference between i5 2500k and i5 2550k, when CPU multiplier is unlocked? Well, yeah - that is some kind of average power envelope , not power maximum in Linpack or other super demanding app. Same is true for the actual voltage, cause it is not fixed , but changes rapidly according CPU load. So who is going to say that there is a difference between i5 2500k and i5 2550k, when CPU multiplier is unlocked? Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 23:03 Reply

#21 HumanSmoke

arnoo1 Probally cherry picked 2500k's if i'm right it will oc better with lowrr core voltage, i gues we have to wait for reviews You win.



2500K aimed at gamers -> 2550K aimed at gamers



We already know that the 2500K is on par with the 2600K/2700K in the majority of gaming scenarios...so the reviews will basically show:

1.The 2500K/2550K still reigns as a bang-per-buck CPU, and

2.Is still a better prospect (for the target audience) than Bulldozer



Free publicity and another opportunity for the tech forums to cue up the Benny Hill music for it's competitor, all for the vast sum of...a CPUID change and some automated binning time which may, or may not be required*



* I'm pretty certain that most (if not all) 2500-2700's could have been released with at least 3.8+ G base frequency and still not affect vCore/VID/TDP to any great extent. You win.2500K aimed at gamers -> 2550K aimed at gamersWe already know that the 2500K is on par with the 2600K/2700K in the majority of gaming scenarios...so the reviews will basically show:1.The 2500K/2550K still reigns as a bang-per-buck CPU, and2.Is still a better prospect (for the target audience) than BulldozerFree publicity and another opportunity for the tech forums to cue up the Benny Hill music for it's competitor, all for the vast sum of...a CPUID change and some automated binning time which may, or may not be required** I'm pretty certain that most (if not all) 2500-2700's could have been released with at least 3.8+ G base frequency and still not affect vCore/VID/TDP to any great extent. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 23:26 Reply

#22 Enmity

The only two gains we are likely to see here is lower tdp and/or voltage for any given clock when compared to a 2500k, and higher overclockability. Like i said before, the 26k nowadays (not the earlier ones) are hitting a wall at 4.7 - 4.8ghz all because the higher binned chips are now 2700ks which seem to geberally hit 5-5.2ghz. For tye average joe they wont care but for those of us that overclock its worth the extra few bucks. Im betting my left nut that this is the same process in regards to the 2500k and 2550k. cant wait for the benchies since alot of 25ks oc higher than 26ks. Time will tell i suppose. Posted on Dec 16th 2011, 23:58 Reply

#23 Enmity

Lol geberally....im not even gonna try n fix that...i cbfed Posted on Dec 17th 2011, 0:00 Reply

#24 micropage7

why they dont go to socket 2011 as their future Posted on Dec 17th 2011, 0:10 Reply

#25 radrok

Enmity]lower tdp and/or voltage for any given clock when compared to a 2500k why they dont go to socket 2011 as their future Socket 2011 will see Core i7 3820 in January and will have IvyBridge-E :) Hopefully an X version with 20MB L3 cache and 8 Cores

Great times ahead for LGA 2011 Socket 2011 will see Core i7 3820 in January and will have IvyBridge-E :) Hopefully an X version with 20MB L3 cache and 8 CoresGreat times ahead for LGA 2011 Posted on Dec 17th 2011, 0:33 Reply