Why is Intel Core i5-3570K so fast?

[Deathaim]

Hmm hi can someone answer me why is this CPU so awesome ? I read many reviews/benchmarks and it crush most of the other CPUS.. I was thinking between AMD FX-8350 & Intel Core i5-3570K since from my noob view FX 8350 rap** since it got (16 cores total 8/8) compared to 8(4/4) of intel it also got higher core frequency of 4GHZ without overclocking compared to 3.4 of i5 and also got 8MB L2 cache and 8MB L3 cache compared to 6MB L3 cache
I know most of the apllication atm wont use so many cores but I want to buy a computer for upcoming 5years or so to be able to operate it and from my point of view I dunno how can be i5 3570K so much faster can someone explain it ? tyvm

 

[$hawn]

Two things majorly,

1. Intels cores are faster, for a rough estimate, AMD's core can only perform around 70% as fast as Intel cores on average.
2. Most software never use more than 4 cores, so the extra cores are not used often.

However, if software CAN use all 8 cores, then the AMD chip will screw the 3570K, and even catch up with the much more expensive i7's too, as seen here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html

PS:- Avoid the use of words like r****, it may get you banned from the forum for a few days, like i just got a few days back

 

[Deathaim]

Two things majorly,

1. Intels cores are faster, for a rough estimate, AMD's core can only perform around 70% as fast as Intel cores on average.
2. Most software never use more than 4 cores, so the extra cores are not used often.

However, if software CAN use all 8 cores, then the AMD chip will screw the 3570K, and even catch up with the much more expensive i7's too, as seen here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html

PS:- Avoid the use of words like r****, it may get you banned from the forum for a few days, like i just got a few days back

already changed it to few * didn´t ment it offensively through okay so I will go for the i5 hopefully games in near years wont start to support more cores tyvm for your answer

 

[DarkSable]

I was thinking between AMD FX-8350 & Intel Core i5-3570K since from my noob view FX 8350 rap** since it got (16 cores total 8/8) compared to 8(4/4) of intel it also got higher core frequency of 4GHZ without overclocking compared to 3.4 of i5

First of all, the i5-3570k has 4 cores, and no hyperthreading, thus it has 4 threads, not 8 like you say.

Second, the FX 8350 has 4 modules with 2 integer processing units each, giving it 8 threads, not 16 like you say.
(It's also not a "true" 8-core CPU - when using those integer processing units, it has 8 threads, yes, but when you're doing floating point calculations, where accuracy isn't as important (i.e. gaming), it can only use the single FPU that is in each module, making it the equivalent of a quad-core.)

As for the higher core frequency, I'm going to say this as simply as I can: "GHz" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
It's a meaningless number. The ONLY time it can be used to compare anything is within CPUs of the exact same architecture.

For example:

1) An ivy bridge Intel chip running at 3.4 GHz is going to be (very slightly) faster than one running at 3.1 GHz.

2) An Intel SANDY bridge chip running at 3.4 GHz is going to be (very slightly) slower than an ivy bridge chip running at 3.1 GHz, because the ivy bridge architecture is more efficient by 10-15%.

3) Amd has been focusing on more cores, as opposed to single core efficiency. This means that the i5-3570k running at 3.4 GHz is going to be a goodly bit faster than an FX-8350 running at 4.0 GHz.


Ivy bridge has much, much higher core efficiency, so core-for-core, Bulldozer is flattened. This is why, when it comes down to gaming, which is usually only coded for one, two, or very rarely, four cores, the i5 wins hands down. There are very many things at which Bulldozer shines, and is far better than Ivy Bridge, but gaming is not one of them.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

PFM (Pure Freaking Magic)

As the others have said it all comes down to the IPC and our micro-architecture. To top this off is the fact that most of the software on the market isn't using more than 4 threads.

 

[Kamen_BG]

Pretty much what they all said.

But to be honest the FX 8350 is still quite a bit faster than the 3570K on avarage.
It's much closer to the 3770K.
If you're buying a PC and you want it to last you five years, the AMD is likely to be the superior choice. (No fanboyism it just performs better in multithreaded apps, and that's where the future is headed).

 

[cbrunnem]

Two things majorly,

1. Intels cores are faster, for a rough estimate, AMD's core can only perform around 70% as fast as Intel cores on average.
2. Most software never use more than 4 cores, so the extra cores are not used often.

However, if software CAN use all 8 cores, then the AMD chip will screw the 3570K, and even catch up with the much more expensive i7's too, as seen here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html

PS:- Avoid the use of words like r****, it may get you banned from the forum for a few days, like i just got a few days back

The i5 still beats the 8350 in a lot of threaded programs as well . Look at crysis 3 benchmark. I5 beats the 8350 even when crysis shows an improvement beyond 4 cores.

 

[DarkSable]

Pretty much what they all said.

But to be honest the FX 8350 is still quite a bit faster than the 3570K on avarage.
It's much closer to the 3770K.
If you're buying a PC and you want it to last you five years, the AMD is likely to be the superior choice. (No fanboyism it just performs better in multithreaded apps, and that's where the future is headed).

The 3570k and the 3770k are virtually identical.

For gaming, no, the AMD is not the superior choice, and won't be for many years.

For just data crunching, well... that's where piledriver shines, and I'd reccommend it.

However, Intel is still the way to go for gaming, and will be for a long while yet.

 

[cbrunnem]

The 3570k and the 3770k are virtually identical.

For gaming, no, the AMD is not the superior choice, and won't be for many years.

For just data crunching, well... that's where piledriver shines, and I'd reccommend it.

However, Intel is still the way to go for gaming, and will be for a long while yet.

idk what you mean by virtually identical? other then the fact that the i7 are higher binned have more cache and have hyperthreading they are identical but so are pentiums and i3s?

for data crunching idk why you say piledriver shines cause for the casual user its going to be single threaded maybe up to four threads and to people who really on data crunching the bump up to intel i7 is well worth the money.

 

[DarkSable]

idk what you mean by virtually identical? other then the fact that the i7 are higher binned have more cache and have hyperthreading they are identical but so are pentiums and i3s?

for data crunching idk why you say piledriver shines cause for the casual user its going to be single threaded maybe up to four threads and to people who really on data crunching the bump up to intel i7 is well worth the money.

Whether or not they're higher binned has been debated for a while now.

They do have more l3 cashe, but that's not a practical difference, and hyperthreading makes anywhere from no difference to a moderate difference, depending on the benchmark / usage of the computer.

As for piledriver shining for data crunching, I mean exactly what I said - for gaming, it's not that amazing, but if you're running numbers or doing another heavily threaded task, it's a very good chip.

 

[cbrunnem]

Whether or not they're higher binned has been debated for a while now.

They do have more l3 cashe, but that's not a practical difference, and hyperthreading makes anywhere from no difference to a moderate difference, depending on the benchmark / usage of the computer.

As for piledriver shining for data crunching, I mean exactly what I said - for gaming, it's not that amazing, but if you're running numbers or doing another heavily threaded task, it's a very good chip.

very good compared to an i5 or i7?