That's a lower rez though, I knew there were gains below 1080p. I'm mostly concerned about 1440p
If you have the time or another computer to use for your regular business over several hours and days here and there, you have a choice to "invest" in over-clocking. You may, in fact, base your choice on "gaming benefits." It's really your choice, though.
Depending on the motherboard you use for the i5-2500K, you can store BIOS setting "profiles" under different names after you have perfected them. For instance, you might have a profile for "stock" voltage and speed settings -- tweaked according to your hardware configuration, choices for RAM and other things. So if something goes "wrong" while you attempt to clock at higher speeds, you can always load this profile to handle "daily business" until you free up the machine again for the intensive testing you apply to validate higher speeds as stable.
You can then accumulate profile settings for a range of speeds. For instance, if there is common wisdom or an intel spec which says "don't run the K chip above [some voltage] setting, but you can achieve a stable overclock that seems to violate those guidelines only slightly, you could run those overclock settings occasionally while using lower (safer) settings for 24/7 operation.
Generally, entering the world of over-clocking is sort of like living in the 19th century town of Deadwood. There may be norms of behavior, but the laws aren't enforced consistently. Or in overclocking, Intel isn't "telling you what to do." Intel publishes specs on its processors -- and it used to publish a dual voltage spec -- a "safe" range and an "operable" range around the safe range. With Sandy Bridge, there is now mostly just "consensus" based on the lithography of the processor and other Intel specs.
If someone cautions against overclocking, the underlying premise of it is that they don't know -- whether you know . . . . what you're doing. You may know . . . you may be confident . . . you may not know, or you only just think you know. The remedy there is to consult several OC'ing guides for the chips you're working with.
So -- sure -- overclocking could lead to "instability" and "data loss" or other horrors. I can only say I've been doing it since 2003. Never lost any data. Never corrupted a hard disk or OS installation; never damaged a processor, although I found a couple models of RAM which had been promoted with overconfident performance prospects, and I had to replace them. I had maybe one motherboard go south after a couple years, but in those days, the mobo makers used parts that weren't up to snuff for overclocking.
My view? If you're going to do it (and in fact -- if you're going to buy "K" processors for that purpose [what other purpose would there be? . . .]) -- take a little time at the beginning to find the right motherboard and RAM when you build the system in the first place. Personally, I wouldn't buy a name-brand OEM computer and over-clock it; I'd think companies like Dell or Gateway would make it more difficult for you. So I can speak to "building" and OC'ing as interrelated choices.