What determines when a CPU is obsolete these days? In the past it used to be when even basic use like installing the OS or browsing the web became slow and arduous. But these days even the oldest CPUs are still fully capable. And don't say gaming because you can buy brand new low end laptops today that can't play the latest games.
>>79683242>its the i5 2500k fag againJust fuck off already. No one cares.
>>79683242a cpu is obsolete when for the same money you can get much better
If you have 4C/8T @3.6GHz you are good to go for everything except the most intensive professional workloads, and should be fine for another 4-5 years.
CPU is obsolete when basedboys cant run their latest CONSOOOOOOOOOM at 60 FPS
>>79683242>And don't say gaming because you can buy brand new low end laptops today that can't play the latest gamesThen they're already obsolete
>>79683242>What determines when a CPU is obsolete these days?Can it compile the Linux kernel in under 15 minutes?
>>79683242A CPU is obsolete when the power draw it sucks up isn't worth the computing power it offers anymore.
>>79683242Its obsolete when you can only buy the motherboard used from china.
>>79683242>2500k>4c/4t>4tJesus christ, these poorfag threadlets aren't going to make it, no wonder they copepost all day everyday.
>>79683242It's obsolete when what you are trying to do doesn't work anymore. This means that obsolescence depends on your use case.If your use case is shit posting on 4chan, you can use a 15 year old CPU to do that just fine. If your use case is 8k video editing, then you need to have a high end modern 16+ core HEDT class CPU and even 2 year old CPUs are mostly obsolete.
>>79683242When it is no longer economical to run, if a cpu runs with a higher power than something else to do the same task in the same time then it is obsolete.Modern cpus have efficient and powerful instructions per core and use less power
>>79683242>What determines when a CPU is obsolete these days?when either its too slow or cant do what you need it to
>>79683242>What determines when a CPU is obsolete these days?For 24/7 server use: Power consumption.For casual pleb use: Whether after using a SSD and reinstalling Windows if on Windows, software still runs too slow.
>>79683242Obsolescence for PC hardware and CPUs in particular doesn't really mean much anymore these days. If it's x86-64 and can run windows 10, you can probably use it for basic tasks like web browsing, office and very light games like among us. Depending on what you're doing though, it could be obsolete because it's missing some specific task instruction or it's just too slow or not powerful enough to finish the tasks you give it in a timely matter or at all. If your shit still works for you, great. Keep using it until it dies. If you don't like it anymore, at least sell it for peanuts or give it away for free and let someone else make use of it instead of thowing it away. Less e-waste is always good in my book.
>>79683257There are probably 50 2500k fags on here, it will never stop.
>>79683242>browsing the web became slow and arduous.>But these days even the oldest CPUs are still fully capableyou need at least 3GHz and at least 6 cores to browse the web nowso, an FX-6100 at a minimumthis is because html5 is vastly inferior to flash in every single way imaginable
>>79685800then why is flash kill
>>79685800You can browse the web on a Pentium 4 just fine, assuming you have enough RAM, and a good adblocker to block bloated nigger JS from raping it to death.
>>79683242When it no longer fits your use case, or when people start offering you better systems for free to take it off their hands.
It cannot maintain 240+ FPS on low settings.
>>79685773It's literally one person.
>>79683242When Intel stops releasing microcode patches for vulnerabilities for a CPU, and then a new exploit for that CPU is found.Aka anything before Haswell or Sandy-E
>>79685566>it could be obsolete because it's missing some specific task instructionplease elaborate
>>79687091AVX2and very soon AVX512
>>79686971My secondary pc runs a 2500k tho
>>79683288Really? So a year old cpu is obsolete? It is literally not usable.
>>7968324260fps on current game, for laptops it doesn't matter, as long battery is good and it doesn't lag on youtube it's fine
>>79687121That is possible though, for example Apple drops the M1 in favor of M1X and M2 and stop providing new MacOS and also drops that generation of neural engine support for developers. Now a lot of apps will not run or run slower than a Core 2 Duo
>>79683242When it can't do what you want it to do.But not when it's just a little slow, I'm talking about processors that are old enough to be missing instruction sets necessary to run the modern applications at all. Sure there's workarounds but once you get into that territory you should probably just upgrade.
>>79683242when it can't run the software you need it to?
If it has Intel written on it ;-)
>>79688350Not even, I'm talking SSE4.2 old, the core 2 processors are still being used but certain games (probably caused by fucking denuvo) won't run at all without it.
>>79685800FX 4100 here and it behaves just fine.Heh, Nothing personnel kid
>>79688452I upgraded from one of these to a 3600, god it's a night and day difference. That shit is just slow man, even my i5 laptop from 2013 was doing laps around it
>>79685800This is a very sad lack of knowledge and I dislike to see it. GHz and core count is a bad measurement standard and far to over simplified. What truly matters is the instructions per clock (ipc). For example. I'll be using bogus numbers, but the arguement will be valid. Let's say the 2500k has an ipc of 20. Let's say the 9600k has an ipc of 100. Both chips will be manually clocked to 4ghz. Running at the same speeds (ghz) would show that the 9600k is theoretically 5x the performance of the 2500k. It is simply doing 5x the work in the same exact time span. This is also an overly simplified example. I'd implore people who actually care to do their own research.As for core count most day to day applications do not support the use of many cores. We'll likely not see a use case where we'll need more cores for a few more years. A 4 core is still perfectly reasonable for household use.
>>79688617instructions per clock is self explanatory and is also 3 words
>>79683242we get it.you can only get a i5 2500k in your country right now and you're mad that people haven't sold off enough of their used ryzens yet because your PC is an overglorified optiplex from an office building that imported women's lingerie from indiajust wait a few years, jesus.
Fun fact: In the past when people thought a PC was obsolete it was in fact the HDD or RAM that were obsolete and bottlenecking basic operations. Any desktop dual core will perform desktop browsing and even light office use and light internet browsing to a sufficient degree if paired with enough half decent RAM and an SSD.>>79683288>same moneyDoes that include having to buy a new motherboard and RAM for a newer CPU when you could otherwise repurpose ones from your stockpile if you bought an older CPU?>>79683407Desktop operation power usage is negligible in a world where people can afford running four feet wide fridges and the AC for the entire house all day.>>79684985>This means that obsolescence depends on your use case.Truthpilled.
>>79686971It's at least three. The guy making all the threads, the other guy who replied to you, and me. The only 2500K shilling I've ever done was celebrating its 10th birthday last Saturday.
>>79688617I like to use a truck analogy for explaining processors, cores, threads, and ipcs.Cores are tractor units.Threads are trailer units.Applications are warehouses.IPC is how much a truck can pull.Clock is how fast a truck can go.A warehouse with only one loading dock can only take advantage of one tractor, no matter how many you have. (Single cores, single thread.) If you have two docks you can either have two tractor-trailers or two trailers and one tractor. Or the tractor can serve two single dock warehouses, delivering one while the other is being loaded. (multithreading and how it's not exactly the same as splitting a core in two).It's cheaper for the warehouse (the devs making applications) to simply hire a tractor that can go faster/stronger than to invest money into adding more loading docks. (Why applications made in the past few decades only use a small number of cores, it's simply harder to program for multiple cores.)A newer tractor that is 5x as fast as the old tractor but is 10x as weak will lose in the total amount of work done. An older tractor that is 100x as strong as the nerwer will lose if it is 1000x as slow. (The relationship between clocks and IPC)And so on.It's a literal babby tier explanation but it seems to work in the few times I've used it.
I take the i5 2500k as reference. I still use it, but got a 5900x on order for 2 months now. It has to hold 10 years. Bought my 2500k in 2011 and been using since
>>79688617IPC hasn't increased as much as you seem to think it has. The 2500K clocked at 4.5 GHz gets 160 points in CB R15 single threaded, so 28 MHz per point. The most recent Intels approach 230 points boosting to 5.1 GHz, so 22 MHz per point, and the most recent AMDs are IPC monsters but still "only" get 270 points at 4.8 GHz, so 18 MHz per point. Effectively therefore IPC has only increased by 30-50% in the last ten years. You can add multithreading to efficiency in a lot of cases, most cases for new CPUs in fact, but far from all of them, and technically it's not a consideration for IPC. Single threaded means single threaded.
>>79688785That's the most convoluted and involuntarily cute analogy for something I've heard in a while. :3>>79688812I wouldn't apply the same expectations to new CPUs. The last decade has been particularly stagnant in part due to lacking competition, and no one who bought a 2500K in 2011 expected it to last ten years when previously you had to upgrade your CPU every four years, if not sooner. Maybe a 12-core will last a while, but in that case it's just due to brute force. The 2500K was a midrange value option.
Only reasons I'll upgrade a CPU:>I need access to new features of the latest CPU's for some specific workload>Overlocking incurs energy costs that in less than 12 months could have purchased a new CPU anyway>The motherboard eats shit and buying used parts is almost the same cost as buying new.Seems like something nobody is going to actually seek an opinion on unless they're 12 and want to learn how to computer. Everyone else just throws their old computer in the shit bin and buys a new one.
I just set up a refurb HP Elite 8300 SFF for a boomer couple. It's from 2011 and has a i5-3570s, 8gb ddr3 1333, and 120gb Samsung OEM SSD. I was expecting it to be barely usable, but better than what they had. It surprised the shit out of me how usable it actually is for web/office tasks. Even plays 1440p youtube vids without any hiccups. Tech really has been stagnant because a ~10 year old PC in 2011 would have been fucking miserable to use.
>tfw upgrading from a ten years old CPU to an eight and a half years old CPU this year expecting to run it for another three years
>>79687121obsolete is just referring to the jew market
>>79687102Those instructions are irrelevant to 99.9% of users.
>>79683242When the costs of buying a new machine that can do the same tasks are quickly offset by cost savings due to a lower power bill.t. someone who upgraded from a desktop from 2009 to a Thinkpad X220 last year and cut about $20/month off their power bill. My desktop literally accounted for half of my total power usage.>>79688714>Desktop operation power usage is negligible in a world where people can afford running four feet wide fridges and the AC for the entire house all day.Except I upgraded and cut a good $20/month off my power bill. I could have dropped almost $500 on a better Thinkpad than I bought and it still would have paid for itself in 2 years.
>>79689280Where the hell do you live where a shit PC can amount to a +$20 in the electricity bill? How much do you pay for KW/h?
>>79689280The fuck you running to cut 20 bucks off your monthly electricity? Even with astronomical German electricity prices (30c/kwh) you'd have to reduce your CPU power consumption by 80W 24/7 (not just under load and when the computer is running) to achieve these savings.
>>79689280Was your PC running at full load 24/7? If not I call bullshit.
>>79689311$0.12906 per kWh. My usage in December this year was 4.17 kWh, last year was 8.34 kWh. Heat is gas so that wouldn't affect the bill.>>79689337A processor with a 95 watt TDP and a fixed clock rate due to shit motherboard firmware.
>>79689417That's the average daily usage, not total power usage.
>>79689417>A processor with a 95 watt TDP and a fixed clock rate due to shit motherboard firmware.lmeo didn't know these existed in the current millennium, and yours isn't a case of upgrade savings, it's a case of fault correction savings
When you cant justify spending money on other parts because the cpu will cause bottlenecks and make the other parts have 20-40% less value.
>>79683257FBPBFuck off poorfag, your shitty chip can't handle a 1070 lmfao>i-i don't need gayming!Go buy a pentium then
>>79683242When using it is more of a hindrance for your current use case than paying half its initial RRP for an upgrade.
>>79683242being slower than the 2500k
Why does /g/ have such a hard on for this chip?
being a nigger
>>79692680cpus used to get betterafter 2500k cpus plateaued until amd released 5600x
>>79692783ryzen 1600 destroys the 2500k
>>79689417Yeah, I call bullshit. The math doesn't add up
>>79692894*overclocks*At stock the 2500k is not very impressive, but when overclocked it can achieve better single core than Zen1. The only issue with it is the fact it's 4C4T, which really started showing its age recently.
>>79693574>overclocked it can achieve better single core than Zen1only slightly and zen has multithreading and 6-8 cores. its dead, just buy a 3600
>>79693639Yeah sure, the age of 4 threads is over, but it was really a good chip until ~2018-2019https://youtu.be/huKwuauhCVQ
>>79683242>In the past it used to be when even basic use like installing the OS or browsing the web became slow and arduous.>But these days even the oldest CPUs are still fully capable. of course, you're right
>>79693903>the age of 4 threads is overyes, EOT
>>79683242your components are obsolete when they no longer satisfy you
>>79688667your comment reads like reach cope. just stop, man.
>>79689514This. My last CPU bottlenecked my GPU to like 40% of its performance