Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.

erraticfocus

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2010
25
0
18,530
0
nice work in sorting out the facts and reminding us about the history and change from the lower power offerings in the intel stable..

 

Onikage

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
28
0
18,530
0
2700K looks a clear Winner to me ! got one last week from Microcenter at an ironic but sensational price 270$ !!!! hey 3770K try and beat that !
 
In the real world gaming section you got a great big graph for the 3770k by adding a discreet graphics card . Why didn't you try a Llano system with an identical graphics card? Afraid the second tier AMD product would kick sand in intels face?
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,876
5
19,795
4
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]In the real world gaming section you got a great big graph for the 3770k by adding a discreet graphics card . Why didn't you try a Llano system with an identical graphics card? Afraid the second tier AMD product would kick sand in intels face?[/citation]
Because this is a story about the Intel chips. To the contrary, though, the AMD-based platform is more likely to bottleneck a discrete graphics card than the Intel one. AMD's strength is in the integrated graphics right now.
 
The performance of a Llano chip is included in the article to compare its performance so it not just about intel cpu's . The intels were not as good in gaming in the integrated graphics so a graphics card was added so they'd look better there too . Its an unfair comparison and shows intel bias IMO
 

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]The performance of a Llano chip is included in the article to compare its performance so it not just about intel cpu's . The intels were not as good in gaming in the integrated graphics so a graphics card was added so they'd look better there too . Its an unfair comparison and shows intel bias IMO[/citation]

Actually a lot of sites have shown just what Chris is talking about. Even a dual core Pentium with a HD6670 beats the top end Llano piece (a quad core) even with CFX of the IGP with a HD6570. Llano is great for some things but overall in DT its only a low end entry level product and is much weaker per core and per clock than Intels CPUs.

What Chris did was pulled the same charts from his first IB review and added in the HD2500 (the new low end Intel IGP) for comparison.

If someone cannot take this information and realize that its just for comparison and that its not to show anything better, then thats their problem. If this was a Llano article, or the Trinity article when it comes out, you better believe Chris will do everything to check ever performance aspect. But its not. Its an article to see if the T and S models are worth it.

Overll, llano is overrate in my book. We have barley sold any at my work place. Just doesn't have the pulling power like a CPU and discrete GPU does.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
I was wondering, would you be able to test a Llano in a dual GPU config vs the -T model i5 with the same card, and with another efficient higher end card like 7870 or 670 (with the i5 as the CPU)?

I'm thinking in terms of a HTPC/"Super-Console". Low power, high gaming+A/V performance, quiet, 'instant'-on.

If you guys get the time to, of course. :)
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,198
3
19,285
0
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]If you are going to show the performance of an intel cpu with a graphics card then any reasonable comparison would also show the AMD cpu with the same graphics card .[/citation]
I must admit, with a low to mid end card, Llano wouldn't really cause any bottlenecking issues, however it wouldn't be reasonable to expect Llano to perform the same or better than SB or IB i3s and i5s using the same card for most games. SB and IV are just faster even if Llano had a higher clock, period.
 

Yargnit

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2010
260
0
18,810
10
If the goal of the low power models is HTPC's and the like they should really have given them HD4000 instead of just HD2500 so they would be less likely to need a discrete GPU that negates the power saving benefits of a low power SKU.

In instances where he HD4000 has enough GPU power, but the HD2500 does not, the 3570k will offer a lower total system power option than either of the t/s options once you factor in adding a GPU that meets your needs.

If you jut bought a 3570k and undervoled it, which IB seems very good at, the results wouldn't even be close.
 

K-beam

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2011
52
0
18,640
1
Those processors may be the only ones that you could get into your min-ITS board. For example, Foxconn H61S mini-ITX will only accept
 

K-beam

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2011
52
0
18,640
1
Sorry, the post got cut.
Those processors may be the only ones that you could get into your mini-ITX board. For example, Foxconn H61S mini-ITX will only accept less than 65W CPUs http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-Foxconn/H61S.html
However, seeing that the 77W CPUs top power draw is practically the same as 3550S, I wonder whether they will not fit in those mini-ITX boards.
 

mavikt

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2011
172
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Chris Angelini[/nom]I also have data for the -2550K, but I’m working on a surprise with that information.[/citation]

That was a teaser from the original Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge.
What happened? Was this it?
I'm still very curious!
 

Sonny73N

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2011
221
0
18,710
5
If I build a new rig today, I'd still go with SB. Simply because Intel had replaced the fluxless solder with some kind of thermal paste inside these 3rd gen chips. No wonder IB has heat issue despite their lower TDP compared to SB.

Thermal paste is only usefull when used to fill in air gaps between heat conductive materials so it can disipate more heat than air can. But replace metal with the paste? Look like someone tried to make more profit here by cutting down production cost. Next Bridge, please!
 

suddenstop

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2007
109
0
18,690
3
I think this article has some flaws, especially due to pcmark. It would have been better to add the same chips with a discrete graphics card to the test. Sandy and Ivy are a lot different on graphics, but not so much so otherwise. We already know hd graphics in the new chips is better.

What I want to know, is take the i5 k series chips. Ivy starts out more efficient, but as you overclock them, due to voltage jumps on ivy - does sandy become more efficient at some point.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,535
0
22,790
2
And still... the Intel Chips that really need HDG-4000 are the bottom end CPUs.

Really intel, it should be HDG-4000 across the board. That would raise your standards a bit. Otherwise for semi-3D gaming, even a lowly $100 AMD Llano can killing you. And that's not the new A10 Piledriver version.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
944
0
18,980
0
I know Ivy does not have that much more performance vs Sandy but I am going to get Ivy just for the lower power requirements.

I have a good 500w modular PSU and I am thinking with 3770k I can still have plenty of power for an AMD 7870 or 7950.
 

robwright

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2006
1,123
0
19,280
0
"Instead, Intel charges the same price, asking only that you choose between more speed and lower power."

I choose speed. Looking forward to the i5 2500K comparison....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS