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

[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.

...

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."

No that is not what we were talking about although I agree with the statement. We never discussed whether you need to OC to play games or not. Dude are you on something?

 

[pauldh]

[citation][nom]flong777[/nom]Here's the conclusion to that article:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 41-14.htmlIt 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.[/citation]
Yes.... in overall performance, which was the goal.

But it seems you were talking games, in which case, more money would first go into graphics. The $600 PC bumped to Tahiti LE would game just as well as the $800 PC. Next you'd want 8GB RAM, not the i5-3570K. Eventually, once supporting hardware is in check, the 3570K is awesome, and could easily extend the life of the gaming platform through multiple GPU upgrades. I can guarantee you Don (the $800 builder) would quickly shed the 3570K in a pure gaming system facing budgetary constraints. It would be the first thing to go if he was lowering the budget. The 3570K was picked to gain an advantage in applications (60% weighting) once overclocked.

In short, the 3570K isn't the best bang for buck gaming CPU, rather the best bang for buck gaming CPU over $200. It's the goal for enthusiasts/gamers to shoot for if you can still afford the desired supporting platform.

edit - BTW, I haven't' read most of your discussions, so don't read into this as speaking against you or your other points.

 

[Fulgurant]

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

I haven't made any statements about my personal situation or my build habits at all, thanks. I'm talking about value for money. When I recommend a build to someone on the forum here, for example, I have to evaluate their needs, their budget, and so on.

This isn't about me, and it isn't about you. This is about making sensible recommendations to system builders of all stripes and on all kinds of different budgets.

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.

For the last time, I'm not accusing you of "putting down" people who use their computers for web surfing. I'm telling you that when you continuously disclaim that you're not insulting users on the most extreme low end of the spectrum in a discussion comparing two relatively powerful CPUs, you are (perhaps unintentionally) implying that only your CPU of choice is suitable for anyone else. Context.

You do not need an overclocked i5 to play games, and to play them very well. Period. All of your rhetoric about people with $400 computers, mowing lawns for a living, etc, is irrelevant.

You seem kind of sensitive about making budget choices and I'm not sure why.

Are you sure you want to go down this road? Really? Cause I could say a lot of things about what I suspect is true of you, based on what you've said in this thread. Let's start with the least offensive: you seem like someone who only just built his first computer two years ago on the advice of his scantly informed and hype-prone l33t gamer buddies.

This is why ad hominems are bad, by the way. They don't lead anywhere constructive or even interesting.

 

[flong777]

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

I haven't made any statements about my personal situation or my build habits at all, thanks. I'm talking about value for money. When I recommend a build to someone on the forum here, for example, I have to evaluate their needs, their budget, and so on.

This isn't about me, and it isn't about you. This is about making sensible recommendations to system builders of all stripes and on all kinds of different budgets.

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.

For the last time, I'm not accusing you of "putting down" people who use their computers for web surfing. I'm telling you that when you continuously disclaim that you're not insulting users on the most extreme low end of the spectrum in a discussion comparing two relatively powerful CPUs, you are (perhaps unintentionally) implying that only your CPU of choice is suitable for anyone else. Context.

You do not need an overclocked i5 to play games, and to play them very well. Period. All of your rhetoric about people with $400 computers, mowing lawns for a living, etc, is irrelevant.

You seem kind of sensitive about making budget choices and I'm not sure why.

Are you sure you want to go down this road? Really? Cause I could say a lot of things about what I suspect is true of you, based on what you've said in this thread. Let's start with the least offensive: you seem like someone who only just built his first computer two years ago on the advice of his scantly informed and hype-prone l33t gamer buddies.

This is why ad hominems are bad, by the way. They don't lead anywhere constructive or even interesting.

OMG do you ever stop talking?

Someone else wrote a very thoughtful post in this thread where they were saying that not everyone can afford more expensive CPU coolers and PSUs. In my posts I am referring to their post which I agree with. Some people don't have a lot of money for their build.

For that last time, by saying the 3570K is the best GAMING CPU for the buck IF you are going to OC this is not inferring anything to anyone who chooses a different CPU. You are just irrational. If I wanted to waste more time on this useless discussion I could list at least three different professional reviews of CPUs that have said the same thing and the professional reviewers aren't putting anyone down.

And again with the ad hominem statement, I'm not sure you understand what an ad hominem attack is because I have patiently tried to answer your concerns over and over an over again.

There is no value of continuing this discussion for a $40 issue it has been a HUGE waste of everyone's time.

 

[Fulgurant]

Yes.... in overall performance, which was the goal.

But it seems you were talking games, in which case, more money would first go into graphics. The $600 PC bumped to Tahiti LE would game just as well as the $800 PC. Next you'd want 8GB RAM, not the i5-3570K. Eventually, once supporting hardware is in check, the 3570K is awesome, and could easily extend the life of the gaming platform through multiple GPU upgrades. I can guarantee you Don (the $800 builder) would quickly shed the 3570K in a pure gaming system facing budgetary constraints. It would be the first thing to go if he was lowering the budget. The 3570K was picked to gain an advantage in applications (60% weighting) once overclocked.

In short, the 3570K isn't the best bang for buck gaming CPU, rather the best bang for buck gaming CPU over $200. It's the goal for enthusiasts/gamers to shoot for if you can still afford the desired supporting platform.

edit - BTW, I haven't' read most of your discussions, so don't read into this as speaking against you or your other points.

I'd say you've pretty much nailed the whole discussion. Flong has argued from the beginning that is flatly unjustifiable not to spend the extra money on a 3570k if you can possibly afford to do so, which of course is true if all else is equal, but that extra money can always be spent elsewhere, and in many cases elsewhere is the correct choice.

 

[Fulgurant]

OMG do you ever stop talking?

Have you talked less than I have in this thread? Physician, heal thyself.

For that last time, by saying the 3570K is the best GAMING CPU for the buck IF you are going to OC

The disclaimer about overclocking is new; it was not part of your original argument. Your original argument was that anyone who's not planning to buy an unlocked i5 for their new system is foolish not to save up the extra money to spring for the 3570k. You then disclaimed that you were not discussing people on the extremest of extreme low-end budgets. (~$400 total)

All of which leaves the reader to conclude that you believe there is literally no good justification for buying a locked-multiplier i5. "It's only $40 extra for the 3570k!!! Go collect cans for the extra money if you have to! It's worth it!"

You've wriggled a lot since then, but that's the essence of your position. And it's wrong. The 3570k is the best bang-for-buck CPU given a ~$250 CPU budget. Everyone's agreed with that from the first moment; your pointing to that uncontroversial statement now, as if it was all you ever intended to argue, seems disingenuous.

Given a lower CPU budget, there are cheaper CPUs on the market that offer equivalent or superior value, or if you prefer, cost-efficiency. One wouldn't think that that's a controversial statement, and yet you've been quibbling with it vociferously for the last several pages, all the while complaining that you were wasting your time.

 

[jesot]

You guys are crazy. Just shop at Microcenter and get the 3570k for the same price as a 3350P 😀.

 

[jessterman21]

You guys are crazy. Just shop at Microcenter and get the 3570k for the same price as a 3350P 😀.

Or if you're 4+ hours away from one, get your brother-in-law to buy it for you. Got my i3 for $89 last summer. Getting him to pick up the i5-3570K for me at Xmas.

And enough of this vociferous quibbling!!! :lol:

 

[jesot]

You guys are crazy. Just shop at Microcenter and get the 3570k for the same price as a 3350P 😀.

Or if you're 4+ hours away from one, get your brother-in-law to buy it for you. Got my i3 for $89 last summer. Getting him to pick up the i5-3570K for me at Xmas.

And enough of this vociferous quibbling!!! :lol:

Luckily, there's one on the way home from work. The price on their i7's ($230!) is why I'm going 4770K over 4670K next month.

 

[CompuTronix]

For myself and friends, I've built Q9650's (E0 stepping) OC'd @ 4.2, and Q6600's (G0 stepping) OC'd @ 3.6. One of each system continues to run perfectly within Vcore and temperature specs. Both have had SSD and GPU upgrades.

Since these were popular overclocks back in their day, I would like to have seen such a comparison. Nevertheless, there was enough data in the article to interpolate how those overclocks would perform against the 3570K.

I think my friend's Q9650 @ 4.2 is still a very effective gaming platform.

 

[spentshells]

For myself and friends, I've built Q9650's (E0 stepping) OC'd @ 4.2, and Q6600's (G0 stepping) OC'd @ 3.6. One of each system continues to run perfectly within Vcore and temperature specs. Both have had SSD and GPU upgrades.

Since these were popular overclocks back in their day, I would like to have seen such a comparison. Nevertheless, there was enough data in the article to interpolate how those overclocks would perform against the 3570K.

I think my friend's Q9650 @ 4.2 is still a very effective gaming platform.

Absolutely.

 

[InvalidError]

Since these were popular overclocks back in their day, I would like to have seen such a comparison.

If every retrospect type article had to include every "popular" model ever made over the period of interest, there would be no end to it.

When the main objective is to show how much (or little) some things have changed between two given snapshot periods, I think two or three representative samples from each period are more than sufficient to get the general idea.

 

[icerider]

I think I may have asked the wrong question last time considering the high level of tech proficiency in this forum currently.

Is a Q6600 G0 running 3.6ghz @1600 fsb into 8 gigs of ddr3-1600 cl9 on an EVGA 790i ultra sli mb worth upgrading the graphics on from 2x gtx 260s in sli?

If so what graphics cards level would I start seeing bottle necks from the cpu/mb at?

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

I think I may have asked the wrong question last time considering the high level of tech proficiency in this forum currently.

Is a Q6600 G0 running 3.6ghz @1600 fsb into 8 gigs of ddr3-1600 cl9 on an EVGA 790i ultra sli mb worth upgrading the graphics on from 2x gtx 260s in sli?

If so what graphics cards level would I start seeing bottle necks from the cpu/mb at?

I responded to your question a few posts above, you can PM me if you want some other recomendations so the thread does not needlesly fill up.

 

[velocityg4]

With these lackluster improvements over the last few years it's no wonder PC sales are soft. It's been 5 years since the mid range e8400 has been released and today's mid range CPU is about two times faster for most uses. It used to be that if you waited five years for a new computer the upgrade would be monstrous.

Just think of the differences between GPU's or SSD drives from 5 years ago to those of today.

 

[Matsushima]

I supplied worst-case numbers taking the overclock's load scaling into account, and still couldn't come up with a slam-dunk case for the i5 3570k on a price/performance basis.

We're talking about an overclock (for the 3350p) at full load from 3.1 GHz to 3.5 GHz (3.7 GHz single-threaded). That's nothing special, true. But a ~13% overclock at full load is certainly worth mentioning. It's certainly not logical to dismiss the full-time 400 MHz overclock while simultaneously insisting that the extra 200 MHz of load-variable speed is deathlessly important.

With all due respect, the bolded statement is flatly asinine. If you think Tom's has been running a benchmark suite exclusively or even primarily comprised of single-threaded games, then you're still living in 2006. And if you really think an i5 3350P even at stock speeds can't run modern games extremely well, then you've lost all perspective. Have you read the article that goes with this comment thread?

usually whatever follows "with all due respect" is an insult. see that holds true here.

Listen. i'm not trolling you, nor am i saying what you think i'm saying, we're simply talking past eachother, and you're getting more and more agitated thinking i'm saying things i'm not. I'm not knocking an i5's performance. In the grand scheme of things ANY i5 is a high performing cpu.

I think what started this misunderstanding is i didn't quote the comment i was responding to, which of course left my initial comment without the necessary context (especially since the innitial comment wasn't directed at the post directly above mine).

I was commenting on people's general discussion about cheap intel mbs and cheap non-k chips being a better buy then a higher end settup. There was a great deal of confusion in the comment, with some weird expectation that this low end cpu would match an overclocked K series or something. Elsewhere in the forums, not too much sooner, i was chatting with someone who was trying and failing to overclock their non-k intel... and i was getting frustrated becuase he seemed to be quoting a Tom's article expressing how awesome the i5 (non-k) will performed overclocked.

In general, turbo overclocking is what i'd call "extremely light" overclocking. The way Tom's portrays (in their i5-3350p reviews for example) the performance of these chips is very idealized. And in my experience well outside the range of what an end user might experience.

Lets put to bed the whole "turbo overclocking" thing... cause we all know it produces an imperceptible change in performance for the most part.

Lord, if a PhII x4 965 is generally inperceptibly slower then an i5-3570k, no one will be able to tell the difference between a stock i5-3350p and a turbo overclocked one.

My general stance on this issue is actually the opposite you think it is. I don't think the end user will ever be able to tell the difference between one quad core or another... be it a core2duo quad core, a Phenom II x4, an FX4300, a i5-3350p or an i5-3570k. Generally in 95% of day to day operation there will be almost no way to tell them appart without a stopwatch.

which leaves us with the performance end of the scale under heavy loads... where more cores, or higher clocks will rule... and a turbo overclocked i5-3350p will be noticeably slower then an actual overclocked i5-3570k.

as a result i think the general conversation about cheap motherboards and impressive performance in locked chips is sorta funny. because there really hasn't been a great deal of cpu inovation in the past 5 years that the end user can detect, appart from high end high cpu usage aps.

and if you're buying/building a new pc and not building it for the "other" 5% of the time where all that extra power IS evident, then you have no reason (unless you're on something worse then a core2due) to upgrade.

[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.

You are right. I built mine for $363 but I'm happy with it so I'll save up, and buy a Haswell/Broadwell K model in the future. Or I could upgrade my i5 750 system. But I'll see if I need an upgrade, because even in 2-3 years I may be still running Windows 7 and MS Office 2007 and playing only TF2. And my Lynnfield from 4 years ago is still not showing its age.

 

[flong777]

OMG do you ever stop talking?

Have you talked less than I have in this thread? Physician, heal thyself.

For that last time, by saying the 3570K is the best GAMING CPU for the buck IF you are going to OC

The disclaimer about overclocking is new; it was not part of your original argument. Your original argument was that anyone who's not planning to buy an unlocked i5 for their new system is foolish not to save up the extra money to spring for the 3570k. You then disclaimed that you were not discussing people on the extremest of extreme low-end budgets. (~$400 total)

All of which leaves the reader to conclude that you believe there is literally no good justification for buying a locked-multiplier i5. "It's only $40 extra for the 3570k!!! Go collect cans for the extra money if you have to! It's worth it!"

You've wriggled a lot since then, but that's the essence of your position. And it's wrong. The 3570k is the best bang-for-buck CPU given a ~$250 CPU budget. Everyone's agreed with that from the first moment; your pointing to that uncontroversial statement now, as if it was all you ever intended to argue, seems disingenuous.

Given a lower CPU budget, there are cheaper CPUs on the market that offer equivalent or superior value, or if you prefer, cost-efficiency. One wouldn't think that that's a controversial statement, and yet you've been quibbling with it vociferously for the last several pages, all the while complaining that you were wasting your time.

I'll repeat it again - you're a complete waste of everyone's time that reads this thread. First you argued non-stop with someone who disagreed with you then you can't shut your mouth now.

This is a $40 issue and you can't shut up. And what is more sad is Pauld is backing up your stupidity.

Frankly, my original opinion still stands. In no circumstance would I recommend the 3350P over the 3570K for a gamer. EVEN IF, they don't plan to overclock right now, the extra $40 buys you the flexibility to upgrade your computer's performance by an average of 20% (and that is an average, separate gains will be more in many cases) which is a HUGE advantage over the 3350P and it doesn't cost a dime more than $40. People who game grow and their power needs grow and change - they may want to overclock later as more and more CPU intensive games come out.

If you and Pauld disagree, fine, that's your right. But don't try to shove your choice off on me or the many others on this thread who would spend a whole $40 for a 20% performance improvement!

A 20% increase is the difference in CPU performance between Sandy Bridge and Haswell. So spend $40 now and you jump two generations in average CPU performance. That IS a huge advantage of the 3570K and it is a no-brainer for any serious gamer.

If a builder can't afford a more expensive CPU and has a $400 budget then they should be looking at a $120 CPU anyway and not the 3350P.

If this were even a $100 discussion then it might be worth having but it's not and this discussion is of no value to the community.

 

[Matsushima]

The fact is,(I'll repeat this again) applications are becoming multithreaded and quadcores will probably become obsolete in the next 3-5 years, just like the dualcores such as the E8400 became obsolete nowadays. However if you happen to have a Coolermaster Hyper 212 or NH-D14 sitting on top of your 3570K four years later, go ahead and overclock the hell out of it, and feel good about yourself for spending the extra $40. I would save up for a 3770K if it is not urgent. I would prefer not to overclock, so I would have no problem with buying a locked multiplier processor. Not to mention that the 3350P was featured in Best Gaming CPUs for the Money in Tom's Hardware. Apart from people being rude and having flamewars, the discussion is of value, because the 3350P simply has a locked multiplier and a slightly lower clock. I am NOT attempting to change anyone's opinions on this(no bashing/flaming please) but we do not know for sure if the performance of an overclocked quadcore today can match the performance of a processor with 8, 10, 16 or more cores 3-5 years later in applications which by then will take advantage of more and more threads. Also, flong777 said that if a builder has a $400 budget then they should not consider the 3570K and he/she's right. Try to cram a $200 processor plus a cooler and an overclocking motherboard (otherwise there is no point for unlocked) into a $400 budget. I would, however, consider the 3350P if to be used with a H77/B75 motherboard and a low/midrange graphics card such as a 7850 or a GTX660. I'm sorry, that's only my opinion and yours may differ, and I'm honestly not forcing anyone to change their opinion and this discussion should be of value if the flamewars stopped. Otherwise I am wasting my time debating this.

 

[Matsushima]

Yes, the 3570K is the new E8400. But like the E8400, it too will become obsolete as programs begin to have more and more threads. Now about the article, I would have liked FX/Trinity vs AM2 Phenom/Athlon64 and Lynnfield/Clarkdale vs Ivy Bridge Core i3/i5. I really would like to see how my i5-750 stacks up against an i3-3220. Also helpful would be Intel's Graphics Media Decelerator series/1st gen HD Graphics series vs Ivy Bridge HD Graphics. Not that it would matter much to gamers anyway. I also discovered that my HD2600XT (installed in Lynnfield rig) was on the same tier as Intel's HD4000.

 

[spentshells]

The fact is,(I'll repeat this again) applications are becoming multithreaded and quadcores will probably become obsolete in the next 3-5 years, just like the dualcores such as the E8400 became obsolete nowadays. However if you happen to have a Coolermaster Hyper 212 or NH-D14 sitting on top of your 3570K four years later, go ahead and overclock the hell out of it, and feel good about yourself for spending the extra $40. I would save up for a 3770K if it is not urgent. I would prefer not to overclock, so I would have no problem with buying a locked multiplier processor. Not to mention that the 3350P was featured in Best Gaming CPUs for the Money in Tom's Hardware. Apart from people being rude and having flamewars, the discussion is of value, because the 3350P simply has a locked multiplier and a slightly lower clock. I am NOT attempting to change anyone's opinions on this(no bashing/flaming please) but we do not know for sure if the performance of an overclocked quadcore today can match the performance of a processor with 8, 10, 16 or more cores 3-5 years later in applications which by then will take advantage of more and more threads. Also, flong777 said that if a builder has a $400 budget then they should not consider the 3570K and he/she's right. Try to cram a $200 processor plus a cooler and an overclocking motherboard (otherwise there is no point for unlocked) into a $400 budget. I would, however, consider the 3350P if to be used with a H77/B75 motherboard and a low/midrange graphics card such as a 7850 or a GTX660. I'm sorry, that's only my opinion and yours may differ, and I'm honestly not forcing anyone to change their opinion and this discussion should be of value if the flamewars stopped. Otherwise I am wasting my time debating this.

Let me stop you and Im not flaming..... this multithreading you speak of still hasn't happened to the extent it should and all our old core 2 quads are doing just fine because the multithreading that was all the talk 5 years ago still hasn't happened. In another 5 years maybe all cores/threads can be used but currently there is very little of this happening, the scheduling in apps and windows hasn't advanced even the 35% that processing power has on the quad core cpu's

I'm sitting on my core 2 quad machine until I can find another 570 for sli, the games don't need more threads they want more single core performance.... for now.

I like the idea of multithreaded apps but it hasn't been happening as it was sold to us core 2Q users 4 or 5 years ago, which is of course is not intels fault. but the programers frankly didn't/don't ususaly require more processing power than what they already had available and I suppose the apps that came out were not really designed with anything more than 2 threads

 

[InvalidError]

the multithreading that was all the talk 5 years ago still hasn't happened. In another 5 years maybe all cores/threads can be used but currently there is very little of this happening, the scheduling in apps and windows hasn't advanced even the 35% that processing power has on the quad core cpu's

Windows is perfectly capable of scheduling multiple threads as shown by benchmarks of the i7-39xx running heavily threaded workloads.

But there is no point of worrying about Windows' scheduling capabilities when apps and games are for the most part still fundamentally single-threaded so Windows has nothing to schedule on other cores most of the time regardless of how good/bad it may be at it.

Since Windows does get used on multi-socket workstations and servers, it has to be at least somewhat good at scheduling otherwise it wouldn't be worth spending thousands of dollars on dual/quad-socket Xeon CPUs for heavily threaded workloads.

 

[spentshells]

the multithreading that was all the talk 5 years ago still hasn't happened. In another 5 years maybe all cores/threads can be used but currently there is very little of this happening, the scheduling in apps and windows hasn't advanced even the 35% that processing power has on the quad core cpu's

Windows is perfectly capable of scheduling multiple threads as shown by benchmarks of the i7-39xx running heavily threaded workloads.

But there is no point of worrying about Windows' scheduling capabilities when apps and games are for the most part still fundamentally single-threaded so Windows has nothing to schedule on other cores most of the time regardless of how good/bad it may be at it.

Since Windows does get used on multi-socket workstations and servers, it has to be at least somewhat good at scheduling otherwise it wouldn't be worth spending thousands of dollars on dual/quad-socket Xeon CPUs for heavily threaded workloads.

If what you are saying is COMPLETELY true the BULLDOZER would have crushed intels hyperthreaded options in the same price range, AMD effectively has made hardware hyperthreading.....which I think is pretty awesome but for some reason the amount of threading that windows can do is not what you think, those multi core systems you speaking of show good results not because of windows being able to schedule and handle multiple cores well but they do it adequately, the saving grace is the pure brute force processing power provided by those workstations.

From what I've seen anyway...... trust me I don't take this to seriously it is simply a matter of opinion from what I've seen and experienced and should in no way be considered fact,
BUT at the same time
Do you remember MS promising better threading in win 8 vs 7 after BD really pooped the bed? .... that really never happened at all and you must be able to at least agree with that.....

 

[InvalidError]

for some reason the amount of threading that windows can do is not what you think, those multi core systems you speaking of show good results not because of windows being able to schedule and handle multiple cores well but they do it adequately

If by 'they' you mean applications, you seem to have a weird understanding of how scheduling works. Applications run in user-space and at best, they can set thread properties to give the OS scheduler some hints of about how they should be scheduled but then that requires that the application be aware of the underlying CPU's specifics. The actual scheduling decisions however occur in kernel-space and applications have very little control over that.

Part of the reason why so much multi-threaded code behaves poorly on AMD's modular CPUs could simply be that a lot of it is compiled with Intel-optimized tool chain and libraries. No amount of messing with the OS' scheduler or trying to make the OS itself more heavily threaded can fix that.

 

[spentshells]

for some reason the amount of threading that windows can do is not what you think, those multi core systems you speaking of show good results not because of windows being able to schedule and handle multiple cores well but they do it adequately

If by 'they' you mean applications, you seem to have a weird understanding of how scheduling works. Applications run in user-space and at best, they can set thread properties to give the OS scheduler some hints of about how they should be scheduled but then that requires that the application be aware of the underlying CPU's specifics. The actual scheduling decisions however occur in kernel-space and applications have very little control over that.

Part of the reason why so much multi-threaded code behaves poorly on AMD's modular CPUs could simply be that a lot of it is compiled with Intel-optimized tool chain and libraries. No amount of messing with the OS' scheduler or trying to make the OS itself more heavily threaded can fix that.

By they I mean MS

 

[spentshells]

for some reason the amount of threading that windows can do is not what you think, those multi core systems you speaking of show good results not because of windows being able to schedule and handle multiple cores well but they do it adequately

If by 'they' you mean applications, you seem to have a weird understanding of how scheduling works. Applications run in user-space and at best, they can set thread properties to give the OS scheduler some hints of about how they should be scheduled but then that requires that the application be aware of the underlying CPU's specifics. The actual scheduling decisions however occur in kernel-space and applications have very little control over that.

Part of the reason why so much multi-threaded code behaves poorly on AMD's modular CPUs could simply be that a lot of it is compiled with Intel-optimized tool chain and libraries. No amount of messing with the OS' scheduler or trying to make the OS itself more heavily threaded can fix that.

If by 'they' you mean applications, you seem to have a weird understanding of how scheduling works. Applications run in user-space and at best, they can set thread properties to give the OS scheduler some hints of about how they should be scheduled but then that requires that the application be aware of the underlying CPU's specifics. The actual scheduling decisions however occur in kernel-space and applications have very little control over that.

From the results of an 8350 vs a 3770 in some heavily threaded apps you can easily see that the last statement you made is surely wrong. The Bridge arch really only wins because it is a plainly more powerful but BD/ST keep up some how so Im not sure the last statement you made really isn't true at all.

But all this below, I couldn't argue it in any way, task Scheduling is not my thing IDK what I should take from what you have said in relation to scheduling tasks to resources available. Pretty much greek to me but I can see plainly it is not an issue of hardware, but more a lack of innovation like we see in quite a bit of games and applications. PS seems like you know enough to confuse, any links? PM only please.