i5 2400 vs i5 3570k

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Sort by date Sort by votes
If you're going to compare processors, then compare apples to apples. The i5 3570K counterpart is the i5 2500K - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%20600005579%204018%2050001157%20600095610&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&CompareItemList=343%7C19%2D116%2D504%5E19%2D116%2D504%2DTS%2C19%2D115%2D072%5E19%2D115%2D072%2D02%23&percm=19%2D116%2D504%3A%24%24%24%24%24%24%24%3B19%2D115%2D072%3A%24%24%24%24%24%24%24 - which are the same price>

It has by far more 5 Egg reviews on Newegg than any other processor, and has been the most popular processor in recent history. It is thermally better behaved with lower overclock temperatures than the 3570K, because Intel "cheaped" on the Core to IHS thermal bond on the 3rd generation Core i processors.

The 2500K typically overclocks about 200Mhz higher than the 3570K, which means that due to the architectural advantages of the 3570K, they end up on par with one another, which means that a 3570K OC'd at 4.4Ghz is approximately equal to a 2500K OC'd at 4.6Ghz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


well it wasnt the question though XD
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i5-3570k, which is an ivy-bridge CPU has better architecture which means it's about 10% faster at same clock speeds as sandy-bridge which the i5-2400 features.

Ivy-bridge also has lower power consumption than sandy bridge.

i5-3570k has the ability to overclock as its multiplier is unlocked, and the k stands for 'unclocked' on Intel CPUs, just so you know.

One of the key points against sandy-bridge vs. ivy-bridge isn't actually the performance between the two, but actually a thing that the one offers over the other.
Ivy-bridge CPUs have support for PCI-E 3.0, while Sandy-bridge CPUs only have support for PCI-E 2.0. PCI-E 3.0 offers 2x the performance as PCI-E 2.0. Some GPUs nowadays are actually getting a slight bottleneck, when running on PCI-E 2.0, so I can only recommend you getting the i5-3570k, because GPUs in the future will be bottlenecked even more, due to the GPUs getting faster and faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
!0% faster? What is the source of that data?

The following Tom's article compares clock-per-clock the i7 3770K to the i7 2700K, which shows a 3.7% difference. Although there is no direct clock-per-clock comparison between the i5 3570K and the i5 2500K, we can extrapolate from Tom's data the difference should be nearly apples-to-apples identical:

How Much Faster Is Core i7 3770K Than Core i7 2700K - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-24.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In this comparison we clearly see difference in terms of performance of under 10% and over 10%. I didn't actually calculate that there was a 10% differe clock per clock wise. It's about what I assume.

ivy-bridge-benchmarks-11.png



 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In this comparison we clearly see difference in terms of performance of under 10% and over 10%. I didn't actually calculate that there was a 10% difference clock per clock wise. It's about what I assume.

ivy-bridge-benchmarks-11.png



 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In this comparison we clearly see difference in terms of performance of under 10% and over 10%. I didn't actually calculate that there was a 10% difference clock per clock wise. It's about what I assume.

ivy-bridge-benchmarks-11.png



 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In this comparison we clearly see difference in terms of performance of under 10% and over 10%. I didn't actually calculate that there was a 10% difference clock per clock wise. It's about what I assume.

ivy-bridge-benchmarks-11.png



 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I stand corrected! Thanks for the tip!

I think I'll junk my 2700K which runs at 4.9Ghz at 75C, run right out an buy a 3770K, "de-lid" it, clean off Intel's crappy thermal compound, apply a high quality compound, restore the processor, then rejoice that I have an i7 that has semi-well behaved thermal characteristics and somewhat less than ridiculously high overclock temperatures, and just count my lucky stars for the blazing increase in performance!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I agree that the thermal paste on ivy-bridge could be better. However good luck with it, mate. Hope you get some nice results! :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've built and tested several 2nd and 3rd generation i5 and i7 rigs, and I can't express how thoroughly disappointed I've been with the thermal performance of the 3rd generation processors.

It's not bad enough that the 22 nanometer die has less surface area to transfer heat from the top of the Cores to the underside of the IHS; Some MBA / BMW driving yuppie sitting in the Ivory Tower got a huge bonus by suggesting that the most "cost effective" solution to the final stage of the fabrication process was to use the cheapest thermal compound they could purchase in bulk quantities, rather than continue the tried and true method of using fluxless solder for an ideal thermal bond!

So what are the 3rd generation "K series" overclockers left to deal with? Ridiculously high temperatures when approaching 1.3 Vcore, compromised overclocking speeds, the necessity for expensive "big air" coolers or liquid cooling ... OR ... jump through all the hoops of "de-lidding" their IHS to fix Intel's f*ckup ... and all for just a 77 Watt processor!

I can't wait to see if Intel fixes this humongous blunder :fou: on their 14 nanometer 4th generation Haswell processors!!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom