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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
we answered back. And apparently, Intel heard us. Its new Ivy Bridge-based desktop line-up consists of 14 models. Seven of those are low-power SKUs, and none of them cost more than the standard versions.
Click to expand...

Don't pat yourself on the back too much. They probably just raised prices on some other thing that we all really wanted and lowered the price on the junky S making them all "equal".
 
Chris another fine Article & Thanks!!! :)

I remember all too well the 95W & Temp debates...you knew where I stood on that issue 😉 Brother, if you like AMD you're not going to be getting that love'n feeling here.

Hmm...why no i5-2500K vs i5-3570K in the comparisons?! For iGPU duh the IB will clean house on the SB, but most folks, some not, will be only interested in discrete GPU(s) and how especially the IB vs SB 4/4 compare. None of this really is a surprise, and I assume there's a follow-up Article for discrete GPU(s). Those that do OC know all too well the issues of noise, raised room temps, and as I've seen even with an unequal OC the performance is very close.

I guess we'll stay tuned. I would have a hard time for a new build recommending the i5-2500K over the i5-3570K especially since they're the same price and most folks don't 24/7 OC their CPU.
 
[citation][nom]mavikt[/nom]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![/citation]
That was it--it turns out that I couldn't use the -2550K data because it was all generated with discrete graphics. So, I re-ran everything I had already done with the two i7s, since that was a popular request in the first story, and added the i5s.

In retrospect, re-running all of the -2550K data would have been a good idea too. Fortunately, the focus of this story centered on comparing performance and power. I think there's definitely a case to be made for putting the -2500K against the -3570K in a stock/overclocked performance piece as well. I'll add it the calendar!
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]That was it[/citation]
I think I missed the surprise element of it. I'm still not sure what kind of animal the -2550K is. I think I was expecting to see the -2550K as a 2500K with a quarter or so of the die fused off, resulting in lower power consumption overall, perhaps touching an IB (with integrated GPU) power wise, and even better OC headroom.
I.e a lean and mean CPU for people with discrete gfx ambition.
 
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]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.[/citation]

An A8 Llano wont bottleneck a Radeon 6950 , or 560 ti .
 


It probably will:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/50952-amd-a8-3870k-unlocked-llano-apu-review.html

Thats the best review I could find of the top of the line A8-3870K Llano CPU with a discrete GPU instead of onboard, as IGP is what Llano is mainly about.

At the same settings in every game, it pretty much falls behind even the lowest end Core i3 2120 with just a GTX460. I imagine a 560ti, or better yet a 660 or HD7950, would start to see a bottleneck from a CPU that has a original base design of the Athlon II.

Still, this article is not about Llano or AMD vs Intel but rather Intel vs Intel and how efficient the "Efficient" CPUs are and as well if they are worth it at all. Stop pushing Llano around.
 
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]It probably will:[/citation]

It probably wont . From your link
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/50952-amd-a8-3870k-unlocked-llano-apu-review-13.html
At 1080p the rig with the 2500K scores 43.9 fps
At 1080p the rig with the Llano scores 42.1 fps
Not that either of these were actually using a 6950 , and of course higher clocked Llano apu's are now available .
But thats just a side show . In this review of the intel processors a result is presented with a graphics card ........ and thats the only way the intel can beat an AMD chip a fraction of the cost even if you ignore the extra cost of the graphics card .

 
[citation][nom]mavikt[/nom]I think I missed the surprise element of it. I'm still not sure what kind of animal the -2550K is. I think I was expecting to see the -2550K as a 2500K with a quarter or so of the die fused off, resulting in lower power consumption overall, perhaps touching an IB (with integrated GPU) power wise, and even better OC headroom.I.e a lean and mean CPU for people with discrete gfx ambition.[/citation]
I think 2550K has OC warranty and no integrated graphics.
 
[citation][nom]yargnit[/nom]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.[/citation]

I don't know why people always think an HTPC system needs a powerful GPU. I have a laptop with a older 2.4 GHz Core i5 32 nanometer non Sandy Bridge with integrated graphics. I run video on my big screen 1080 P Television. There is never any stutter or lag. My wife's laptop has a C2 Duo T7300 @2 GHz and it also does fine. Unless you're gaming with it you don't need powerful graphics. Hers did stutter until I replaced the Celeron processor. But with the C2D it's all good. You just can't game.
 
[citation][nom]actionjksn[/nom]You just can't game.[/citation]
And that is why. Wouldn't it be cool, if you could simply attach a gamepad and game a bit?

In fact, in that respect, I think Tom's should test games like FIFA12 and MW3 on the IGP.

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]It probably will:http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/for [...] eview.htmlThats the best review I could find of the top of the line A8-3870K Llano CPU with a discrete GPU instead of onboard, as IGP is what Llano is mainly about.At the same settings in every game, it pretty much falls behind even the lowest end Core i3 2120 with just a GTX460. I imagine a 560ti, or better yet a 660 or HD7950, would start to see a bottleneck from a CPU that has a original base design of the Athlon II.Still, this article is not about Llano or AMD vs Intel but rather Intel vs Intel and how efficient the "Efficient" CPUs are and as well if they are worth it at all. Stop pushing Llano around.[/citation]
+1
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289&i=62.129.50.49.48.47.60.61
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=363&i=60.61.62.129.50.49.48
 
[citation][nom]amdfangirl[/nom]Does Intel allow underclocking and undervolting on H-series boards? If so, S and T series are pretty redundant.[/citation]

A very small number of consumers undervolt/underclock. S and T chips are for the majority that don't.
 
[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]

@ 1280x720? HA! Intel will win every time. Obviously you've never seen a CPU review before.
 
Just for kicks I went to this website and calculated the savings of 18w. It estimated about $0.12 every 10 hours when I assumed 18w every 10 minutes based on the review testing.

So I guess I don't get it. Is this CPU for computer labs with 20 computers running 24/7? That would be $2,190 a year for the entire lab, saved. But about $20 a year for an addicted gamer playing 5 hours a day all year long.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/elecenergycalcs.html
 
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]And that is why. Wouldn't it be cool, if you could simply attach a gamepad and game a bit?In fact, in that respect, I think Tom's should test games like FIFA12 and MW3 on the IGP.+1http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pro [...] 8.47.60.61http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Pro [...] 9.50.49.48[/citation]

Who would buy Intel graphics if they wanted to game? I was talking about using it for a "home theater PC" I'm a total Intel guy but if I was wanting to game on integrated graphics I would go AMD all the way. But if I'm doing something to play games it will always be discrete graphics. At least until integrated graphics get a good bit better.
 
[citation][nom]actionjksn[/nom]Who would buy Intel graphics if they wanted to game? I was talking about using it for a "home theater PC" I'm a total Intel guy but if I was wanting to game on integrated graphics I would go AMD all the way. But if I'm doing something to play games it will always be discrete graphics. At least until integrated graphics get a good bit better.[/citation]
See...i understand your point and fully agree, my friend. I know full well that even the older integrated graphics controllers (the ones on mobos) are sufficient to carry out most HTPC tasks.

What i meant was an HTPC with a low power footprint which can game on the IGP. Something like a console, but which is not a console. After all, no one's going to play any hardcore game on this stuff. Maybe Trinity, but that's about it. But this is about how efficient you can make the HTPC. After all, depending on how you've set up the stuff, it could be on all day.

I mean you could combine your media server and HTPC into one, so now if you wanted to play a game of FIFA with a friend on your HDTV, you could just plug in two controllers and go. Here you would want efficient performance.

i was also interested in seeing how much the -T model bottlenecks a higher end GPU in more resource intensive games, partly for the same purpose. With Kepler and Southern Islands so much more efficient, it could be an interesting thing to do.

That was all i had in mind. Fully accept the fact that AMD's the only way to go when it comes to gaming using the IGP.
 
See...i understand your point and fully agree, my friend. I know full well that even the older integrated graphics controllers (the ones on mobos) are sufficient to carry out most HTPC tasks.
Click to expand...
nope, even if it had hardware support for video decoding, it simply was not fast enough. CPU would be the one decoding.
 
[citation][nom]SuperVeloce[/nom]nope, even if it had hardware support for video decoding, it simply was not fast enough. CPU would be the one decoding.[/citation]
I know, but it can play 1080p without a prob. At least my G35 based board can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom