Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core 2 Duo And Quad

[jake2447]

wheres the q6600?

 

[smeezekitty]

DDR3 would probably benefit the higher FSB parts like the 1333MHz ones.

 

[flong777]

[citation][nom]flong777[/nom]I have a gold-rated 850W PSU and a Noctua NH-D14 and so if I need more power all I have to do is overclock and it doesn't cost me a dime. In the long-term view this saves me money. [/citation]

It cost you however many dimes you spent on your aftermarket cooler.

[citation][nom]flong777[/nom]I am saying that for $40-$75 more, the 3570K blows away the lower cost CPUs and $40-$75 is not a lot of money when you are building a computer. The 3570K will maintain its speed competence much longer than the cheaper CPUs and thus will save the builder money. [/citation]

At similar clock rates, the 3570k buys you a little more than 50% more CPU performance in multi-threaded apps than the i3 3220. Off the top of my head, the 3220 costs about $120. The 3570k costs about $220. Almost double the cost for 1.5 times the performance isn't a slam dunk.

If you're talking about cheaper i5s like the 3350p, the issue is even murkier, because cheaper i5s don't perform appreciably worse than the 3570k at stock speeds. And even locked-multiplier i5s can be overclocked a little -- just enough to give you a small boost without requiring you to buy an aftermarket cooler.

I'm not saying you're wrong; clearly the i5 3570k (if you're comfortable with overclocking) is the enthusiast's price-performance choice for the current generation of CPU. You can take the results of this excellent review of older CPUs in two different directions: on the one hand, you can argue that because CPU performance is advancing so slowly, it makes more sense than ever to buy the best CPU you can afford now because if it has a decent number of cores, it'll last for a very, very long time. The old idea that you should buy cheap now because even low-end parts in two years will lap the current high-end parts is long dead.

On the other hand, that reasoning can go in the opposite direction too: if CPU performance has slowed to a crawl, then a lower-end CPU will likely hold its value longer. And although the older CPUs in Tom's article perform surprisingly well in comparison with the new stuff, it's also worth noting that ~$50 parts from today compete favorably with $200+ stuff from years ago.

Budgets exist for a reason. For most any person looking to buy a new computer, the budget probably isn't a hard-and-fast limit, but it's important to pick a limit of some sort -- whether that limit's at $500 or $3000 -- because otherwise you might lose the plot. And I think you'd be surprised if you really believe that only teenagers buy budget rigs; in fact, older adults are probably more budget-oriented than the younger crew on this site, both because older adults have lower standards of performance, and because older adults have mortgages, car payments, spouses, children, and so on. That stuff adds up fast, and unless you're unusually well-off or unless you relish the idea of being up to your ears in debt forever, you eventually reach a point after which you have a real hard time justifying an expenditure of more than $1,000 on what amounts to a personal toy.

On the contrary, my theory is that the people who are fastest to point out that costs are trivial are younger people just out of school, living on their own, making what seems (to them) like a lot of money at their first (or second) "real job," and yet somehow nonetheless still living paycheck to paycheck because their entertainment/social expenses are through the roof.

Just a quick note, I got my Noctua NH-D14 on sale for $75 which is a great buy. I got my OCZ Vertex 4 128GB on sale for $75. If you buy when sales come out, you don't have to break the bank to get high-end components. I got my Corsair HX 850 PSU for $144 on sale. These three components have very long warranties and so I was not worried about replacing a defective one in the 30 day return period.

After owning the D14 I would recommend it to any builder on any budget - it is a beast. It keeps all of my components frosty cool and it was worth every dime for the peace of mind it provides.

The Vertex 4 is really fast. I boot Win 7 in 20 - 25 seconds and I could shorten that with more SSD optimization.

So budget builders can wait and buy PSUs, SSDs, case, HDDs and CPU coolers on sale and then get their mobo, CPU and RAM to finish their build in the 30 day return period to make sure everything works. That is one way to save major bucks and get better components.

I don't mean any offense, and you are right in saying the 3570K is a good choice, but;
1. Apps are becoming more multithreaded, so in a few years' time an 8-core may last longer. The E8400 was basically the 3570K of the Core2Duo era, but now we see that everyone that has some cash to spend on their build has at least a quadcore, and the E8400 is outperformed by today's processors. A dualcore is no longer sufficient anymore for anything that requires powerful hardware and are basically obsolete for heavy tasks. Eventually, in the course of time, the same fate will befall quadcores.
2. I believe you are listing components that are too expensive. "Only $75 for this NH-D14." and "I bought this 850W PSU for only $144." This adds up to over $200. I personally (your opinions may differ, please no flaming) would recommend the Coolermaster Hyper 212 to budget builders, as would many, because the NH-D14 is an expensive high-end cooler and is GIGANTIC. Also, when you buy everything high-end, the budget blows. There are probably many under 18 that only have an allowance of only about $5 a week.
3. Not everything is always on sale. I live overseas and my local store (as well as online retailers)have almost no sales, and anything that's on sale is a really high-end part or a non-essential accessory.
4. Some people need theirs immediately. I built my rig for only $363 in Q1 using memory and HDDs that I already had, and I added the sound card later as the integrated audio broke. I also have a Lynnfield i5 rig but the motherboard has some problems along with the tiny fan sounding like a vacuum cleaner and taking 3-5 minutes to boot, along with a graphics card from 6 years ago.
5. This point supports your statement that you can buy high-end parts with a budget. I managed to fit in a SSD in $363, the compromises being the processor (more than enough for my purpose) and the motherboard (which I deeply regret because of the substandard quality). Windows 7 boots up like Windows 8 because of this neat addition.

I think you are suggesting parts not for people with budgets under $800, which can be described as 'budget', and perhaps a little overkill on some components. AMD's architecture is very inefficient, but the FX-8350 for a similar price is also overclockable and has 8 cores which futureproofs your build. I'm saying this with kindness as well.

Matumisha, I compliment you on a thoughtful and polite post and I agree with you that there are a lot of builders who cannot afford the HX850 and NH-D14 - I do get it and I do hear you.

My posts are more for those people who don't want to sacrifice their Starbucks money to get a better PSU and CPU cooler. Those who could save a little longer and could get better components.

Also my post is to try to get even budget builders that if they can spend an extra $200 they will save money in the long run. A long term view not only saves money for cash strapped budget builders, it provides them a much more enjoyable gaming experience and computer user experience.

More than this it provides the budget builder a safer, more reliable, less trouble free building experience. As you go down to the cheapest parts, you get a huge increase in unreliability.

For example, for a budget PSU I recommend the Corsair CX600 which you can get for $50 on sale at Newegg right now. It is a stable bronze rated PSU but judging from the Newegg reviews, a lot of the units arrive DOA. Corsair is one of the best component suppliers on the planet - maybe the best, but their low-end bronze units are having reliability issues. This is true of most 450-600W PSUs, they have a lot more reliability and quality issues.

I totally get your point and agree that some people have a $350-$500 budget and that is it. I don't criticize anyone for that. But if it is a matter of not going to Starbucks for a month in order to afford a better PSU, then I am trying to get that person to think a little.

BTW I do recommend the CM EVO 212 to budget builders - it is a competent CPU cooler.

 

[flong777]

See the above argument about the 3350P and the 3570K is what I just don't get. We are talking about a $40 difference in cost max and that is just stupid when a movie ticket costs $10 nowadays. You can't tell me that even the most strapped budget builder can't save an extra $40 to afford a much more powerful and flexible CPU. Even if it's a $5 a week allowance that is just a couple of months not counting the extra money from grandma and birthday money.

Now when we move down into the much cheaper CPUs I do get it. Like matumisha said in his very intelligent post, some people have $400 to build a computer and that is stretching their budget. In this case, yes buying a cheaper CPU in the $120 range makes a lot of sense and I do get it.

When the 3570K is overclocked it competes with the I-7 3770 which is a wicked fast CPU for the money and frankly it blows the 3350p away in comparison and it costs just $40 more. Frankly it's a no brainer to use grandma money and save your allowance an extra month to get the 3570K if you are going into gaming in a big way because you will be using all of that extra power. Games are some of the biggest CPU power / speed users on the planet and so it makes sense to spend the extra $40.

Also, because the 3570K is popular, you can find it on sale more often and the price difference becomes even less.

The only case that the 3350P makes sense is for the person who is not a heavy gamer or a power user; but then why do they need to go to the expense of the 3350P? Why not move down to a cheaper CPU because it will meet all their needs and not be that much slower than the 3350P.

I realize that reasonable people can disagree but when we are spending this much time arguing over a $40 it is a huge waste of time. Hell you can collect aluminum cans and make an extra $40 in two weeks no sweat.

BTW, a CPU cooler for both the 3350P and the 3570K would be advised even if the 3350P can skate by without one because the aftermarket CPUs are so much more efficient. And when you can pick up the Cooler Master 212 EVO for $20-$30 online, it only make sense to get one. Why risk your $200+ CPU with inferior cooling?

 

[flong777]

Just a quick note, I got my Noctua NH-D14 on sale for $75 which is a great buy. I got my OCZ Vertex 4 128GB on sale for $75. If you buy when sales come out, you don't have to break the bank to get high-end components. I got my Corsair HX 850 PSU for $144 on sale. These three components have very long warranties and so I was not worried about replacing a defective one in the 30 day return period.

I don't dispute that the NH-D14 is good at what it does. The point is that it isn't free. $75 is a pretty hefty chunk of the retail cost of your CPU; if the i5 3570k averages about $220 retail, then $75 is a whopping 34% mark up on the total cost of your CPU subsystem.

You could, in fact, almost buy an i7 3770k for the combined price of those two items. Is a heavily overclocked i5 better right now than a stock i7? Sure it is, at least for games. But I can't be sure that even a heavily overclocked i5 will necessarily age better than the stock i7 with hyperthreading. And worse comes to worst, the guy with the i7 can just pick up an aftermarket cooler later and try his hand at heavy overclocking too. InvalidError makes the argument about increasing core counts better than I can, so I'll just leave it at that.

(Unlike InvalidError, I've also left AMD's CPUs out of my post, but only for simplicity's sake.)

By the same token, someone who buys an i3 3220 today for ~$120 could buy another, analogous next-gen CPU (possibly even a 4-core i3 in a few years) for less than the difference between his current CPU's price and what you might've paid for your i5 + cooler. Granted, you get the benefit of higher performance now, but you probably also have higher standards. Can we honestly say for sure that the guy with the i3 is worse off, in terms of bang for buck?

The upshot of all of this talk is that speculation about future proofing is almost always fruitless. The general rule of system building is, and always has been, that you should buy the best stuff you feel you can afford at the time that you want to buy it, because there's always a better deal around the corner -- and if you let the prospect of future deals dissuade you, you'll never pull the trigger.

As to the rest of your points, I tend to agree that one should spend money on power supplies and cases. If they're of sufficient quality, those two components can be reused for two or more builds, and thus it's not sensible to cut corners on them. Everything else should be subject to the limits of your budget, not because a couple of hundred dollars is the difference between life and death, but because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

1. If you are talking about a budget strapped builder with a max budget of $400 then this discussion is worth having and I agree with you. But today in the US that is extremely rare. In other countries it is probably more common. So the first thing to clarify is what country are we discussing. For example Someone in UK with their huge VAT tax may not be able to afford as much computer as someone in the US.

2. Your discussion about the 3570K with cooler is as much as a 3770 is not very bright because both need CPU coolers. The 3770 is a rocket ship but it runs very hot. So your point doesn't make any sense. Yes in a perfect world I would recommend the I-7 3770 over the 33570K but a lot of people cannot afford the extra $100 and the gaming difference between the two CPUs stock is not that much.

3. No one is saying that someone who does not need a power user computer and builds a cheaper slower computer to surf the web is a second class citizen or is as you say it, "worse off." If a person builds a computer that meets their needs, they should be complimented for their initiative.

4. I strongly disagree with you about "future proofing" when we are talking CPUs. Nearly every computer whiz I know advises to buy the most CPU you can for the money because it does offer some amount of "future proofing." I agree with you to a point, there really is no such thing with computers but you can marginally protect yourself.

My build is the perfect example. I opted for the 2600K almost 2 years ago and included the Noctua NH-D14 and an ATI 6950. Today, 2 years later, my computer still competes with the I-7 3770 (it is something like 10% slower on average) in speed and computing ability and the 2600K provides higher over clocks than the 3770. I have no need to upgrade to the 3770 and I can run virtually any game today at very high settings. If I upgraded my GPU only, I could game at max settings (GPUs cannot be future proofed to any great degree).

If I had bought a slower CPU and saved $100 2 years ago, there would now be a significant difference is computing speed and it would make sense to consider the upgrade to the 3570K or the 3770.

You and I are in agreement in situations where the builder is scraping together every nickle and dime to get to $400 (USD) to build a computer. In the US, arguing over a $40 difference is in general a waste of time for all but the very poor. This same kid will go out and spend $10 for a movie ticket to see Iron Man 3, $5 for a coke and $6 for a popcorn and then complain about spending that same $21 bucks on a much better computer. But hey, you GOTTA go see Iron Man 3 with your friends right?

 

[Fulgurant]

See the above argument about the 3350P and the 3570K is what I just don't get. We are talking about a $40 difference in cost max and that is just stupid when a movie ticket costs $10 nowadays.

Where the money comes from is irrelevant. You can always make a case for another $40 here, another $10 there, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Any money spent on your computer can be spent elsewhere. More to the point, any money spent on your CPU can be spent elsewhere within your build, and there are arguably much better places to throw an extra $X once you've passed a certain threshold of CPU performance, as the article for this comment thread demonstrates.

And by the way, the effective price difference between the 3570k and the 3350p isn't $40; it's more like $70. If you pay the small price premium to buy an unlocked Intel CPU, you are almost obligated to buy an aftermarket cooler to justify your initial investment.

You can't tell me that even the most strapped budget builder can't save an extra $40 to afford a much more powerful and flexible CPU. Even if it's a $5 a week allowance that is just a couple of months not counting the extra money from grandma and birthday money.

Your quips about saving allowance money border on ad hominem. When we discuss value on an enthusiast website like Tom's, we seek to make objective observations about the price/performance ratio of certain parts. We do that because we're enthusiasts, and because we therefore find the subject interesting. We also do that so that we know, and so that we can recommend to our friends, the most cost-efficient parts at any given budget and for any given person's usage preferences.

The amount of money involved in these value decisions is only relevant if we can demonstrate that a trivially small extra bit of of money results in an obviously and significantly better value. For example, $5 or $10 extra dollars might buy you a 1 TB HDD instead of a 500GB HDD. In that case, you almost would have to be crazy not to scrape together the extra pennies.

In the case of the 3570k versus the 3350p? You haven't demonstrated that the 3570k is obviously a better value. The numbers appear to suggest that the 3570k is roughly an equal value for the money.

Put it this way: $10 isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend paying $10 for a soda. It also doesn't mean that I'd tell someone arbitrarily to spend an extra $10. The point of the exercise is to get good bang for the buck, regardless of the number of bucks in question.

Frankly it's a no brainer to use grandma money and save your allowance an extra month to get the 3570K if you are going into gaming in a big way because you will be using all of that extra power.

Assumes facts not in evidence. If your argument is simply that a more powerful CPU is always better because eventually games will use more CPU resources, then that's fine, but it's also a pointless truism. For current games? I refer you to the many charts in the article.

BTW, a CPU cooler for both the 3350P and the 3570K would be advised even if the 3350P can skate by without one because the aftermarket CPUs are so much more efficient. And when you can pick up the Cooler Master 212 EVO for $20-$30 online, it only make sense to get one. Why risk your $200+ CPU with inferior cooling?

See now this looks like a case of enthusiast myopia. "An aftermarket cooler is better than the stock cooler, so why not buy one?" You're starting to sound like the yuppie kids who hang out at the skateboard shop buying up every shiny accessory available because the salesman told you it'll help you shred. See how easy it is to make irrelevant and baseless judgments about people's private lives?

The 3350p isn't capable of overclocks to justify the expense of an aftermarket cooler. That's the point. It is irrational to criticize the 3350p for its inferior overclockability and then in the same breath to insist that it needs an overclocker's HSF.

 

[flong777]

Having gone the step to upgrade from my trusted Q9450@3.4 with Radeon 6950@6970 and a first generation Indilinx controller 64GB SSD to i5 3570K, Radeon 7950 and a Samsung 830 256MB I have to assess that the upgrade sucked. While all the synthetic benchmarks doubled or more there was no perceptible difference in startup (3 seconds more on the old system), app loading, web browsing and even gaming.

The only redeeming fact is the power consumption and hence noise but the $1000 bill is a bit harsh to swallow just for that - given the fact that I had some sentimental attachment to my old system that never failed me for a long 5 year old period.

Fact is that there is little incentive to upgrade from a C2D if you do not do gaming or video encoding - which basically covers the 95% of PC users out there...

Wow - I really feel for you (really). That sucks.

But you are upgrading from an already fast GPU /CPU with an SSD for your OS. You already had a fast computer and so the upgrade really wasn't needed. I own the 6950, 2600K and I have an SSD for my OS (Vertex 4 128GB) and if I upgraded to a 3770 or an I-7 3930 I would see only marginal improvements. You really did not need to upgrade yet. Haswell might had been a better place to look at moving up.

On the positive side, you have great components and you won't need to upgrade for a while. If you overclock your 3570K it will actually beat the I-7 3770 and the 7950 is a first class GPU which should let you game at very high settings. Also the Samsung 830 is a very fast SSD and with 256GB you have a lot of storage space.

You've got a great computer, one of the very best - so be happy. You just upgraded a little to soon to see a huge difference in performance.

 

[flong777]

See the above argument about the 3350P and the 3570K is what I just don't get. We are talking about a $40 difference in cost max and that is just stupid when a movie ticket costs $10 nowadays.

Where the money comes from is irrelevant. You can always make a case for another $40 here, another $10 there, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Any money spent on your computer can be spent elsewhere. More to the point, any money spent on your CPU can be spent elsewhere within your build, and there are arguably much better places to throw an extra $X once you've passed a certain threshold of CPU performance, as the article for this comment thread demonstrates.

And by the way, the effective price difference between the 3570k and the 3350p isn't $40; it's more like $70. If you pay the small price premium to buy an unlocked Intel CPU, you are almost obligated to buy an aftermarket cooler to justify your initial investment.

You can't tell me that even the most strapped budget builder can't save an extra $40 to afford a much more powerful and flexible CPU. Even if it's a $5 a week allowance that is just a couple of months not counting the extra money from grandma and birthday money.

Your quips about saving allowance money border on ad hominem. When we discuss value on an enthusiast website like Tom's, we seek to make objective observations about the price/performance ratio of certain parts. We do that because we're enthusiasts, and because we therefore find the subject interesting. We also do that so that we know, and so that we can recommend to our friends, the most cost-efficient parts at any given budget and for any given person's usage preferences.

The amount of money involved in these value decisions is only relevant if we can demonstrate that a trivially small extra bit of of money results in an obviously and significantly better value. For example, $5 or $10 extra dollars might buy you a 1 TB HDD instead of a 500GB HDD. In that case, you almost would have to be crazy not to scrape together the extra pennies.

In the case of the 3570k versus the 3350p? You haven't demonstrated that the 3570k is obviously a better value. The numbers appear to suggest that the 3570k is roughly an equal value for the money.

Put it this way: $10 isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend paying $10 for a soda. It also doesn't mean that I'd tell someone arbitrarily to spend an extra $10. The point of the exercise is to get good bang for the buck, regardless of the number of bucks in question.

Frankly it's a no brainer to use grandma money and save your allowance an extra month to get the 3570K if you are going into gaming in a big way because you will be using all of that extra power.

Assumes facts not in evidence. If your argument is simply that a more powerful CPU is always better because eventually games will use more CPU resources, then that's fine, but it's also a pointless truism. For current games? I refer you to the many charts in the article.

BTW, a CPU cooler for both the 3350P and the 3570K would be advised even if the 3350P can skate by without one because the aftermarket CPUs are so much more efficient. And when you can pick up the Cooler Master 212 EVO for $20-$30 online, it only make sense to get one. Why risk your $200+ CPU with inferior cooling?

See now this looks like a case of enthusiast myopia. "An aftermarket cooler is better than the stock cooler, so why not buy one?" You're starting to sound like the yuppie kids who hang out at the skateboard shop buying up every shiny accessory available because the salesman told you it'll help you shred. See how easy it is to make irrelevant and baseless judgments about people's private lives?

The 3350p isn't capable of overclocks to justify the expense of an aftermarket cooler. That's the point. It is irrational to criticize the 3350p for its inferior overclockability and then in the same breath to insist that it needs an overclocker's HSF.

Hmmm, I'll make one more attempt to communicate. If we are talking about a cash-strapped builder that is doing everything they can to scrape together $400 to build his computer WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT. If not you are wasting everyone's time with a stupid argument.

Here are actual real-time costs from Newegg for the 3570K and the 3350P:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116782
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504&Tpk=3570k&IsVirtualParent=1

The cost difference is $40 neglecting any sales and so again you are wrong and you are wasting everyone's time.

Both of these CPUs might be found cheaper at different locations or on sale but $40 is a very fair comparison cost and I have as you say, "supplied facts," to back it up

When I talk about saving allowance money these are not ad hominem attacks - I am not even sure where you get that from. Saying you are wasting people's time arguing about a $40 difference comes closer but it is still very factual EXCEPT in cases where the builder is very poor.

In those particular cases where the builder is just plain poor and $400 is the MOST they can scrape together to get a computer the 3350P would be a very poor choice. They should down grade to a $120 CPU or so. And so your arguments for the 3350P have even less merit.

I cannot think of a single reason to choose the 3350P over the 3570K and apparently Tom's Hardware agrees with me in their CPU recommendations. I mean $40 in the USA today, this is just not worth anyone's time.

On aftermarket coolers we simply disagree and that is OK. I would recommend an aftermarket cooler like the $25 Cooler Master 212 on ANY build just to protect the expensive components. The CPU cooler ideally exhausts hot air out of the case which cools ALL of the components in the case. So a good cooler is a necessity in my thinking - reasonable people can disagree on this.

Again I will repeat myself, this article by Tom's Hardware really demonstrates that the 3570K is a monster compared to just about every other CPU other than the 3350P which is only $40 cheaper. This is why I think that if a builder can afford this CPU, they should get it. Tom's Hardware makes the very same recommendation in the best CPUs articles.

 

[Fulgurant]

1. If you are talking about a budget strapped builder with a max budget of $400 then this discussion is worth having and I agree with you. But today in the US that is extremely rare. In other countries it is probably more common. So the first thing to clarify is what country are we discussing. For example Someone in UK with their huge VAT tax may not be able to afford as much computer as someone in the US.

LOL, really? I could've sworn that the USA was a society full of people with high credit-card debt (because, you know, we all need the latest smart phone!) and a job market featuring largely stagnant wages over the last 30 years.

But leaving your curious opinions about the US economy aside, you've created a false dilemma. A $400 build is extraordinarily low-end. To say that only people at the extremest of the extreme low end should have less than an unlocked i5 is absurd.

3. No one is saying that someone who does not need a power user computer and builds a cheaper slower computer to surf the web is a second class citizen or is as you say it, "worse off." If a person builds a computer that meets their needs, they should be complimented for their initiative.

Are you seriously arguing that a locked-multiplier i5 is for "surfing the web?" Remember the context of our discussion here.

My build is the perfect example. I opted for the 2600K almost 2 years ago and included the Noctua NH-D14 and an ATI 6950. Today, 2 years later, my computer still competes with the I-7 3770 (it is something like 10% slower on average) in speed and computing ability and the 2600K provides higher over clocks than the 3770. I have no need to upgrade to the 3770 and I can run virtually any game today at very high settings. If I upgraded my GPU only, I could game at max settings (GPUs cannot be future proofed to any great degree).

Ok, that's it for me. If you think that a period of two years defines or even suggests anything interesting about the topic of future proofing, then I don't know what to tell you. And if you think that your buying an unlocked Sandy Bridge CPU (as opposed to a locked one) two years ago is somehow the difference between performance nirvana and abject misery today, then you haven't read the charts in the article.

 

[pauldh]

[citation][nom]makah21[/nom]Would have like to see the performance difference with ddr3 for the core 2 group. The performance from ddr2 to 3 made a huge difference for my q9550.[/citation]
“A huge difference” - How so? Can you be more specific? Performance gains? (If so, synthetics only?) Increased overclocking headroom, stability? Were both the same chipset, and clean systems?

When talking the same/similar performing chipsets (P35, P45, X38, X48) we haven’t seen gains, especially not comparing DDR2-800 CAS4, DDR2-1066 CAS5, and DDR3-1333 CAS 9. They were all pretty much on par overall in the performance charts.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-p45-motherboard,2001.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/x48-motherboard-comparison,1781.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/x38-comparison-part-1,1715.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/x38-comparison-part2,1733.html

And here you can see a big bump from P965 to P35, but no difference between P35 DDR2 vs. DDR3.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2232/5

These don’t test Yorkfield, nor push high memory overclocks, but rather initial DDR2 vs. DDR3 comparisons on Core 2. If you can provide links to back up a real world performance boost of DDR3 that would in any way impact this comparison, I’d love to give it a look. The difference to our knowledge & experience is very small, and wouldn’t impact the outcome here in any way. Nor would 8GB had for that matter.

 

[flong777]

1. If you are talking about a budget strapped builder with a max budget of $400 then this discussion is worth having and I agree with you. But today in the US that is extremely rare. In other countries it is probably more common. So the first thing to clarify is what country are we discussing. For example Someone in UK with their huge VAT tax may not be able to afford as much computer as someone in the US.

LOL, really? I could've sworn that the USA was a society full of people with high credit-card debt (because, you know, we all need the latest smart phone!) and a job market featuring largely stagnant wages over the last 30 years.

But leaving your curious opinions about the US economy aside, you've created a false dilemma. A $400 build is extraordinarily low-end. To say that only people at the extremest of the extreme low end should have less than an unlocked i5 is absurd.

3. No one is saying that someone who does not need a power user computer and builds a cheaper slower computer to surf the web is a second class citizen or is as you say it, "worse off." If a person builds a computer that meets their needs, they should be complimented for their initiative.

Are you seriously arguing that a locked-multiplier i5 is for "surfing the web?" Remember the context of our discussion here.

My build is the perfect example. I opted for the 2600K almost 2 years ago and included the Noctua NH-D14 and an ATI 6950. Today, 2 years later, my computer still competes with the I-7 3770 (it is something like 10% slower on average) in speed and computing ability and the 2600K provides higher over clocks than the 3770. I have no need to upgrade to the 3770 and I can run virtually any game today at very high settings. If I upgraded my GPU only, I could game at max settings (GPUs cannot be future proofed to any great degree).

Ok, that's it for me. If you think that a period of two years defines or even suggests anything interesting about the topic of future proofing, then I don't know what to tell you. And if you think that your buying an unlocked Sandy Bridge CPU two years is somehow the difference between performance nirvana and abject misery today, then you haven't read the charts in the article.

Just fair warning you are coming across as irrational - I'm not sure why.

Yeah I have looked at the charts and the 2600K actually does a very good job in keeping up the the $600 I-7 3930 and to tell you the truth, no one was more surprised than me that the 2600K would be that good a CPU.

So yes two years later I don't need to upgrade and judging from Haswell's performance, I will only be 20% slower and so I doubt I will feel the need to upgrade then, yes that is future proofing in real life. If you are talking about GPUs, no you can't future proof them when they are changing every 6 months THEN I agree with you.

I have friends who eat live and breath computers and to a man they ALL say buy the most computer you can get for the money. Tom's Hardware recommends the 3570K as the best buy for the money. Those are two very good sources that agree with me.

No one said that you need the 3570K to just surf the web, again that is an irrational statement.

 

[Fulgurant]

Hmmm, I'll make one more attempt to communicate. If we are talking about a cash-strapped builder that is doing everything they can to scrape together $400 to build his computer WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT. If not you are wasting everyone's time with a stupid argument.

Here are actual real-time costs from Newegg for the 3570K and the 3350P:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116782
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504&Tpk=3570k&IsVirtualParent=1

The cost difference is $40 neglecting any sales and so again you are wrong and you are wasting everyone's time.

And you do not read. I have used those precise prices ($220 versus $180) for this entire discussion. I do not include sales because it's irresponsible to make a general recommendation for a piece of hardware based on a price that may or may not be achievable. And I cannot in good conscience advocate that anyone buy a 3570k without also buying at least a ~$30 aftermarket cooler. But then, you should know all of that; none of what I've said about the price comparisons is unclear.

Your crowing that I'm "wrong," when the facts in your supposed rebuttal doesn't even contradict me, is unintentionally hilarious.

When I talk about saving allowance money these are not ad hominem attacks - I am not even sure where you get that from. Saying you are wasting people's time arguing about a $40 difference comes closer but it is still very factual EXCEPT in cases where the builder is very poor.

An ad hominem attack is an argument that shifts the focus of the discussion from the matter at hand to an irrelevant discussion of personality, motives, lifestyles, and so on. It needn't necessarily be an insult leveraged at a specific person. In this case, instead of engaging the argument about value for money and the performance of the CPUs in question, you went on a lengthy screed about how the money involved is trivial, and that people who have lower-than-3570k budgets should just mow a few more lawns, ask for the cash from grandma, or collect cans for recycling, to earn the CPU of your choice.

Yours is not a rational or even an on-topic argument, in other words. Whether intentionally or not, you've instead cast aspersions on the type of people who might want to buy something less than the CPU of your choice.

 

[Fulgurant]

Yeah I have looked at the charts and the 2600K actually does a very good job in keeping up the the $600 I-7 3930 and to tell you the truth, no one was more surprised than me that the 2600K would be that good a CPU.

So yes two years later I don't need to upgrade and judging from Haswell's performance, I will only be 20% slower and so I doubt I will feel the need to upgrade then, yes that is future proofing in real life. If you are talking about GPUs, no you can't future proof them when they are changing every 6 months THEN I agree with you.

Hehe, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that your computer can't compete with current builds. I'm saying that two years is a tiny period of time after which to argue that you've "future proofed." I'm also saying that your computer's performance after two years doesn't prove anything about the "future proofing" importance of your particular CPU choice.

The entire point of this article is that CPUs last a very long time these days, after all. You could probably have bought a lesser CPU and feel just as future proofed, two years later.

No one said that you need the 3570K to just surf the web, again that is an irrational statement.

You implied that anyone who has less than a 3570k should either be a web surfer or using a $400 budget. When you keep repeating that you "don't judge people who are just web surfing or on an extreme of the extreme low end budget" that's what you're implying. Why? Because I haven't mentioned web browsers or $400 builds once. You're the one who keeps using those examples as if they were the delineator between those who need a 3570k, and those who don't.

Context.

 

[pauldh]

^^^ Tom's recommends numerous processors, including (but certainly not limited to) the Core i5-3570K.

Interestingly, the rig powered by a non-K-series earned best bang-for-buck ONCE OVERCLOCKED!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclock-benchmark,3441.html

 

[Fulgurant]

^^^ Tom's recommends numerous processors, including (but certainly not limited to) the Core i5-3570K.

Interestingly, the rig powered by a non-K-series earned best bang-for-buck ONCE OVERCLOCKED!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclock-benchmark,3441.html

Yes, I've cited that very build of yours a few times in this long-winded discussion. Thanks for your hard work, Paul.

 

[pauldh]

Ah, missed that. Have only had time to skim the last few pages.

FYI, the next budget build costs more, but sports less processor. 3570K wasn't even a consideration. ;-)

 

[flong777]

Yeah I have looked at the charts and the 2600K actually does a very good job in keeping up the the $600 I-7 3930 and to tell you the truth, no one was more surprised than me that the 2600K would be that good a CPU.

So yes two years later I don't need to upgrade and judging from Haswell's performance, I will only be 20% slower and so I doubt I will feel the need to upgrade then, yes that is future proofing in real life. If you are talking about GPUs, no you can't future proof them when they are changing every 6 months THEN I agree with you.

Hehe, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that your computer can't compete with current builds. I'm saying that two years is a tiny period of time after which to argue that you've "future proofed." I'm also saying that your computer's performance after two years doesn't prove anything about the "future proofing" importance of your particular CPU choice.

The entire point of this article is that CPUs last a very long time these days, after all. You could probably have bought a lesser CPU and feel just as future proofed, two years later.

No one said that you need the 3570K to just surf the web, again that is an irrational statement.

You implied that anyone who has less than a 3570k should either be a web surfer or using a $400 budget. When you keep repeating that you "don't judge people who are just web surfing or on an extreme of the extreme low end budget" that's what you're implying. Why? Because I haven't mentioned web browsers or $400 builds once. You're the one who keeps using those examples as if they were the delineator between those who need a 3570k, and those who don't.

Context.

Dude I don't think that you are even reading my posts - you sure are not understanding them.

I have ONLY talked about the 3570K as a GAMING CPU - that's it. It is NOT for web surfing - I haven't changed this position during the discussion. I don't think I brought up the subject of web surfing. My point was for people who are not power users, there is no need to get either the 3350P or the 3570K. This is not a put-down of anyone. Why by a high power CPU if you are never going to use it?

Your point that a lesser CPU can last a long time is valid, but I never said otherwise. The discussion was what is the best gaming CPU for the money and why the 3570K is the best choice over the 3350P. Not what is the best web surfing CPU. By saying the 3570K is the best gaming choice, I am not criticizing others who disagree with me. People don't always agree and that's OK.

Also judging from the preliminary Haswell numbers, I my build will still be competitive and I won't need to upgrade. So this is an example of future proofing.

 

[flong777]

Ah, missed that. Have only had time to skim the last few pages.

FYI, the next budget build costs more, but sports less processor. 3570K wasn't even a consideration. ;-)

I did read this article and yes I as I have said several times, for a builder with a very limited budget the 3570K does not make sense. Not sure how many times I have to say this.

However, when I read this Tom's Hardware build and my first thought was "what a waste," for $40 more they could have had a computer that when overclocked competes with the I-7 3930 ($600 CPU) and I-7 3770 in speed, a. Obviously the 3570K is the best choice but in this case we ARE talking about the builder with a very limited budget that I have already discussed many times. And once again for that builder, the 3570K may not be the best choice because they simply cannot afford it.

Low budget builds are always a challenge and I like the fact that Tom's puts out different ideas and shows their performance. It is a great idea. In this case for a real-world builder with a $600 budget, I would have recommended that they increase their budget the extra $40 for the better CPU IF the use of the computer was heavy gaming.

 

[flong777]

This is the Tom's Hardware recommendation for the 3570K I was referring to:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

The TH article states that if you are not going to OC then the 3570K is not the best choice and the 3350P is the better choice and I agree with that statement. But for gamers who game a lot and overclock the 3570K is the better choice. When overclocking is brought into play the 3570K is a very impressive performer based on the charts that I have seen.

Actually if I were building a computer today, I would spend the extra $100 to get the 3770, because it is a rocket ship for the money, but not everyone feels that way.

So it depends on how much you are going to game I suppose and if you are going to overclock.

Apart from Tom's Hardware several professional reviews have recommended the 3570K as the best bang for the buck CPU for gamers. But a reasonable person can disagree with even the professional.

The Tom's Hardware $600 build shows a 20% increase in performance advantage for the 3570K when compared to the 3350P and both are overclocked. So if you are going to overclock, the 3570K enjoys a huge performance advantage and is well worth the $40 extra.

And my original point stands for a $40 difference in cost, this argument is a waste of time. But different people can reasonably disagree.

 

[Fulgurant]

My point was for people who are not power users, there is no need to get either the 3350P or the 3570K.

Agreed, but when the only concessions you make, over and over again, are that people on $400 system budgets and that people who don't play games (web browsers) don't need a 3570k, then the implication is pretty contentious.

[citation]Your point that a lesser CPU can last a long time is valid, but I never said otherwise. [/citation]

No, but if the only example you can cite with regard to future proofing is your two-year-old Sandy Bridge build, then I think we're operating on wholly different wavelengths, with vastly different perspectives, based on vastly disparate pools of experience.

Future proofing doesn't typically refer just to performance, by the way. Future proofing refers to the mindset that you should twist yourself into a pretzel trying to craft a build today to anticipate the needs of tomorrow. And because the needs, the technology, and the market of tomorrow are largely mysterious, it's a fool's errand.

As InvalidError pointed out earlier, there are a whole host of attendant factors that might encourage someone to upgrade his platform in the future, even if his CPU is still pushing good numbers in benchmarks. To say that you can make a build today that'll still perform admirably in two years isn't to argue for or against the concept of future proofing; if you build correctly for the present, your build SHOULD perform admirably two years hence, whether you gave the future any thought or not.

But all of the future-proofing talk is only tangentially relevant here; the point is that the best course of action, when crafting a new build, is to determine the best value for money based on what you know today, and no one in this thread has even come close to supporting the argument that an i5 3570k is the no-brainer, slam-dunk, value-for-money choice over a lower-tier processor. Your arguments boil down to, "Why not pick up the faster processor?"

And that's fine for you. For me? I'll continue to weigh the options on a case-by-case basis. For example, it might make more sense for a given user at a given budget to spend the extra $70 on the GPU, or an SSD, or even to buy that somewhat pricey chassis he really loves because he can reuse it for his next build.

 

[Fulgurant]

Ah, missed that. Have only had time to skim the last few pages.

FYI, the next budget build costs more, but sports less processor. 3570K wasn't even a consideration. ;-)

Looking forward to it!

 

[flong777]

^^^ Tom's recommends numerous processors, including (but certainly not limited to) the Core i5-3570K.

Interestingly, the rig powered by a non-K-series earned best bang-for-buck ONCE OVERCLOCKED!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclock-benchmark,3441.html

Here's the conclusion to that article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclock-benchmark,3441-14.html

It shows that the overclocked 3570K had an average of 20% better performance than the overclocked 3350P. That is a big performance gain for $40 and I would take that choice in real life every time. A 20% increase in computer performance is the difference between Sandy Bridge and Haswell for my CPU (the 2600K). It is a huge difference. It is $40 well spent IMHO.

 

[flong777]

My point was for people who are not power users, there is no need to get either the 3350P or the 3570K.

Agreed, but when the only concessions you make, over and over again, are that people on $400 system budgets and that people who don't play games (web browsers) don't need a 3570k, then the implication is pretty contentious.

[citation]Your point that a lesser CPU can last a long time is valid, but I never said otherwise. [/citation]

No, but if the only example you can cite with regard to future proofing is your two-year-old Sandy Bridge build, then I think we're operating on wholly different wavelengths, with vastly different perspectives, based on vastly disparate pools of experience.

Future proofing doesn't typically refer just to performance, by the way. Future proofing refers to the mindset that you should twist yourself into a pretzel trying to craft a build today to anticipate the needs of tomorrow. And because the needs, the technology, and the market of tomorrow are largely mysterious, it's a fool's errand.

As InvalidError pointed out earlier, there are a whole host of attendant factors that might encourage someone to upgrade his platform in the future, even if his CPU is still pushing good numbers in benchmarks. To say that you can make a build today that'll still perform admirably in two years isn't to argue for or against the concept of future proofing; if you build correctly for the present, your build SHOULD perform admirably two years hence, whether you gave the future any thought or not.

But all of the future-proofing talk is only tangentially relevant here; the point is that the best course of action, when crafting a new build, is to determine the best value for money based on what you know today, and no one in this thread has even come close to supporting the argument that an i5 3570k is the no-brainer, slam-dunk, value-for-money choice over a lower-tier processor. Your arguments boil down to, "Why not pick up the faster processor?"

And that's fine for you. For me? I'll continue to weigh the options on a case-by-case basis. For example, it might make more sense for a given user at a given budget to spend the extra $70 on the GPU, or an SSD, or even to buy that somewhat pricey chassis he really loves because he can reuse it for his next build.

OK so you've got a budget mentality and probably build on a budget I get it.

By saying that someone is going to use their computer for web surfing and not for gaming is NOT a put down - I'm not sure where you even infer that. Hell I worked off a Pentium for years that was damn slow at web surfing and so I am not looking down at anyone. This is why I have spent a lot of time trying to help builders on a budget (not just on Tom's Hardware but with friends) . You seem kind of sensitive about making budget choices and I'm not sure why.

To me future proofing is a lot simpler. I don't want to look at my build 2-4 years later and regret my choices because my computer is so damn slow compared to current options. I would like to get 5 years or so out of a build and feel that my build is still competitive. I don't care about having the fastest most trick computer, but I do want something that is competitive. So far I am very happy with the build choices I made two years ago. Depending on your uses that might be achievable with cheaper slower CPUs. Like I said, if you don't need a lot of speed why pay for it. I personally despise a slow computer because I was forced to work on several (at work and at home) for many years.

 

[InvalidError]

It shows that the overclocked 3570K had an average of 20% better performance than the overclocked 3350P. That is a big performance gain for $40 and I would take that choice in real life every time.

It is a huge difference. It is $40 well spent IMHO.

Whether or not it is worth anything at all to someone depends on whether or not said someone ever needed it in the first place and the difference is a whole lot more than $40 after you add the likely higher-end aftermarket HSF, higher-end overclocking motherboard, possibly higher-end RAM, higher-end PSU, etc. The total cost difference can go over $200 vs simply buying good mainstream components.

Personally, I prefer keeping the $200 in my bank account. It will give me far more bang-per-buck 4+ years down the road when I may want to upgrade my PC again or replace it with a new laptop or PC-tablet.

 

[Fulgurant]

This is the Tom's Hardware recommendation for the 3570K I was referring to:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

The TH article states that if you are not going to OC then the 3570K is not the best choice and the 3350P is the better choice and I agree with that statement. But for gamers who game a lot and overclock the 3570K is the better choice. When overclocking is brought into play the 3570K is a very impressive performer based on the charts that I have seen.

...

So it depends on how much you are going to game I suppose and if you are going to overclock.

The nutshell-condensed form of this discussion goes something like this, "You don't need to overclock to play lots of games, and to play them very well."