• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

2500+ vs. 3000+

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.


New Member
Jan 1, 2004
I'm looking a building my first sytem and am deciding between the 2500+ and the 3000+. I plan on keeping this new system for about 2 years and am concerned about the 2500+ not lasting if oc'ed. How much would overclocking shorten the life?

also included:
abit nf7-s
kingston 3200 valueram
ait 9600

So what would you recomend for a tight budget?


Senior Member
Jun 26, 2002
cpus are designed to work for about 10 years. overclocking mildly would probably reduce it to 7 years and extreme overclocking would probably reduce life to 3-5 years.

even if its only 3 years you will probably have upgraded by then anyways and then it doesn't matter :)

the 2500 is far better than the 3000+ barton mostly on price. if you want.. get the 2500 and clock it up to 3000+ speeds and voila you have a 3000 and saved a ton of money. :)

The Coolest

Senior Member
Jul 29, 2001
If you get a 2500+ you can just boost ur FSB to 200 and have urself a 3200+, you won't loose any life expectancy as these 2500+ are just downclocked 3200+s

Saints 26

Dec 20, 2003
get the 2500. I went with the 3000 400 fsb and it was locked tightewr that a knats a$$. I oc for about a week and the l4 bridge burnt out. The 3000 I personally got was a waste of money if you want to oc.