Intel i7 3770K vs 3770T

[dorfma05]

Hello all. Does anyone know if there's any point to getting the 3770K vs the 3770T?

I was thinking I'd like to set up the processor with a very low non-turbo clock speed and a high turbo clock speed, kind of like what the 3770T does. Does it pay to get the 'T' or can this same thing be achieved with the 'K' version. Low power consumption is important to me for this build.

My understanding is that the factory presets are different with the 'T' but is anything locked out moreso than the 'K'?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Don Karnage]

Same thing can be done with the K. Just downclock and undervolt

 

[Borat]

deleted

 

[dorfma05]

Hmmm, as far as I'm concerned the 'T' versions of the Ivy Bridge CPUs are rated at very low TDP.

So I guess, you'd be able to downclock that 3770T but won't be able to overclock it much. (they're only rated @ 45Watt).

When in turbo mode, only difference between the two is 200MHz (3.7GHz vs 3.9GHz).

I may be misunderstanding the way turbo works, but it seems like it would be better to run at 2.5GHz all the time like the 3770T does and only go to 3.7GHz when under high CPU load. What's the advantage to running at 3.4 GHz like the 3770K does at low CPU load?

EDIT:

After more reading, it seems like what you're saying is, that the overclock on the 'T' version would be limited by the listed TDP. Since it's rated at a lower TDP, it would throttle the overclock sooner.

Still having said that, wouldn't it make sense to run a 3770K at 2.5GHz with a turbo at 3.9GHz?

 

[Puppies04]

So I guess, you'd be able to downclock that 3770T but won't be able to overclock it much. (they're only rated @ 45Watt).

Being rated at 45 watt has nothing to do with it not being very overclockable. It is not a "K" CPU so you can't overclock it anyway (other than maybe 4 bins on turbo).

I may be misunderstanding the way turbo works, but it seems like it would be better to run at 2.5GHz all the time like the 3770T does and only go to 3.7GHz when under high CPU load. What's the advantage to running at 3.4 GHz like the 3770K does at low CPU load?

You can turn a 3770K into a 3770T by manually underclocking the non turbo multiplier and turning down the maximum turbo by a couple of bins. You cannot however turn a 3770T into a 4.5ghz overclocked CPU. If this doesn't matter to you then go for whichever is cheaper but keep in mind that if power consumption is your main interest you could underclock a 3770K to run at 1.6ghz (non turbo) and 3.5 (turbo) and use even less power (while idleing) than a stock 3770T. I am unsure if you could achive the same through the bios on a 3770T as the multiplier is "locked" and I don't know if you can mess around with it without resorting to 3rd party software, maybe someone else can shine some light on this...

 

[dorfma05]

Being rated at 45 watt has nothing to do with it not being very overclockable. It is not a "K" CPU so you can't overclock it anyway (other than maybe 4 bins on turbo).



You can turn a 3770K into a 3770T by manually underclocking the non turbo multiplier and turning down the maximum turbo by a couple of bins. You cannot however turn a 3770T into a 4.5ghz overclocked CPU. If this doesn't matter to you then go for whichever is cheaper but keep in mind that if power consumption is your main interest you could underclock a 3770K to run at 1.6ghz (non turbo) and 3.5 (turbo) and use even less power (while idleing) than a stock 3770T. I am unsure if you could achive the same through the bios on a 3770T as the multiplier is "locked" and I don't know if you can mess around with it without resorting to 3rd party software, maybe someone else can shine some light on this...

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Is there really any reason to not do this? Why not always set the non-turbo to a low clock speed like 1.6GHz with a 3.5GHz turbo?

 

[ShintaiDK]

T and S versions only makes sense if you are limited to a certain low TDP due to your chassis/cooler.

And it makes no sense if you want high turbo. Because the chip will turbo very regularly. The idle states for both chips are the same. And they both more or less uses the same power for a computational task. The 3770T just takes longer to do so.

 

[Puppies04]

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Is there really any reason to not do this? Why not always set the non-turbo to a low clock speed like 1.6GHz with a 3.5GHz turbo?

I suppose the slower you set the non turbo speed the more likely you will have to turbo on any given task which would kind of negate the savings of having a low non turbo although once again i'm not sure about that.

 

[philipma1957]

okay I can give you this much.

the 2500t runs lower then the 2500k on the same mobo.

I have an asus maximus iv gene 2 2500t's and 1 2500k.

both of the t's use less watts measured by my kill a watt meter.


I have 3 3770t's on the way .

I paid 310 each for them special order.

I can't get a 3770k for that price. the i7 3700k is 290 at micro center plus tax 3.5 % tax (patterson nj has low tax) brings it to 300,

but It is 120 miles round trip.

I bit the bullet grabbed the 3 cpus for 930.

MY opinion is intel's micro code is better then any mobo for low power.

I am still trying to get my 2500k to run lower power then the 2500t.

But by and large even at idle the 2500k pulls more juice.

If some one has a 3770k how about giving us a run down on under clock watts.

For that matter if some one has a 2500k how about getting it to underclock. As low as you can. I will tell you this I under clocked my 2500k to 2.8GHz and 1.02 volts lowered pll to 1.7 and all seem well.

The next day over night the mobo freaked and was at 111c not the cpu just fine (42c) not the gpu (41c) but the mobo sensors all read over 100c. I power machine down and went back to normal clock.

 

[Yuriman]

Correct me if I'm wrong (my 3570k is still in the mail) but isnt one of the steps to overclocking a 1155 chip to uncap the TDP? I read a guide that says to set the TDP and Turbo TDP at the highest available values - could you not lower the TDP setting on the K chip?

Afaik, Turbo will only go as high as TDP allows, so the T model may not hit 3.5ghz in workloads that require multiple cores, while the K will.

 

[borisvodofsky]

If you consider the performance gains due to overclocking, it makes the performance to price ratio of ALL OTHER INTEL processor look like sh1t


The increased power consumption is nil' since the cpu will be idle most of the time regardless.

It only selectively works through your difficult tasks faster. Speed step has come a really long way.

 

[Ken g6]

Do you want to minimize TDP, as in allowing you to use a tiny heat sink? Or would you rather minimize total power use with the faster K processor?

 

[dorfma05]

Do you want to minimize TDP, as in allowing you to use a tiny heat sink? Or would you rather minimize total power use with the faster K processor?

I'm looking to lower power use as in use less total power (KWH). Ideally, I'd be using 30W or less idle and 77W at 100% load.

I can use an appropriately sized heatsink for the full TDP.

It confuses the heck out of me though. Why would you ever want the CPU running at a frequency greater than what is required to accomplish the work it needs to do? If a CPU is loaded at 50%, wouldn't it be fine to almost halve the clock frequency? If it ever gets over 90% loaded, you could up your clock frequency dynamically as needed. At least that's what makes sense to me.

 

[lopri]

It is likely that both will idle @1.60 GHz (16x100) when C1E/Speedstep are enabled. So in that sense comparing the base clocks (2.50 GHz v. 3.40 GHz) can be more complicated than what the number suggested.

Two possibilities (guesses!):

1. 3570T's turbo may be much more aggressive. In that case the proc itself will behave differently under load as well as the BIOS may be programmed to treat each processor differently.

2. The two processors may be binned differently. In this scenario the 3570T is likely to always consume less power than 3570K, everything being equal.

Under the scenario 1, you may be able to overcome the default BIOS by your own work. Under 2, the 3570T will consume less power than 3570K no matter what you do.

If you are not into overclocking but lower power consumption matters, I don't see much loss by going with the T version. (Note: I don't know the price difference. I assume they are close) Too many boards treats "K" CPUs to over-volting by default.

Edit: Woops 3770s, not 3570s. BTW if anyone's interested in how to tell Intel CPU's suffixes apart:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html

 

[srizo]

Something that hasn't been mentioned here,

3770K doesn't support Intel vPro , Intel VT-d , Intel Trusted Execution Technology while 3770T does.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Something that hasn't been mentioned here,

3770K doesn't support Intel vPro , Intel VT-d , Intel Trusted Execution Technology while 3770T does.

And all 3 are basicly worthless.

 

[philipma1957]

It is likely that both will idle @1.60 GHz (16x100) when C1E/Speedstep are enabled. So in that sense comparing the base clocks (2.50 GHz v. 3.40 GHz) can be more complicated than what the number suggested.

Two possibilities (guesses!):

1. 3570T's turbo may be much more aggressive. In that case the proc itself will behave differently under load as well as the BIOS may be programmed to treat each processor differently.

2. The two processors may be binned differently. In this scenario the 3570T is likely to always consume less power than 3570K, everything being equal.

Under the scenario 1, you may be able to overcome the default BIOS by your own work. Under 2, the 3570T will consume less power than 3570K no matter what you do.

If you are not into overclocking but lower power consumption matters, I don't see much loss by going with the T version. (Note: I don't know the price difference. I assume they are close) Too many boards treats "K" CPUs to over-volting by default.

Edit: Woops 3770s, not 3570s. BTW if anyone's interested in how to tell Intel CPU's suffixes apart:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html

2 is true with i5 2500k vs i5 2500t my 2500t's run lower watts. then my 2500k. this is why I ordered i7 3770t's. also i can save money on the t's 310 each vs 349 or so for the k's

 

[dorfma05]

I think I'm going to take my chances and go with the 3770T but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Has anyone had any luck finding any for sale at the normal price?

 

[philipma1957]

I think I'm going to take my chances and go with the 3770T. I can't find it anywhere. Has anyone had any luck finding any for sale at the normal price?

email www.provantage.com

they sold me my 2500t's and they sold me 3 3770t's. other users from here were able to special order it. 2-3 weeks

around 318 - 322 for 1. 3770t chip

pm me if you want more info.

to mods I am not selling this. i have a contact email at provantage . I would share it privately. I am not sure if that is okay if it is wrong please let me know.

 

[lopri]

And all 3 are basicly worthless.

VT-d could become useful in the next couple years. (Though you can upgrade when that time comes) It's beyond silly how Intel disables such features to confuse users.

 

[ShintaiDK]

VT-d could become useful in the next couple years. (Though you can upgrade when that time comes) It's beyond silly how Intel disables such features to confuse users.

Well, VT-D requires validation as well. Specially the K CPUs gets rather clumsy when you need to garantee certain functions.

VT-D was supported since the series 3 chipsets with Core 2. So what makes you think it will get more important in the next couple of years that we havent done since 2007?

In all our enterprise virtualization deployments. We dont use VT-D on a single one.

 

[lopri]

Didn't NV announce the GPU virtualization plan lately? If I remember correctly it was for cloud services, but there is no reason the same technology can't translate into the desktop. GPU virtualization will make me very very happy.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Didn't NV announce the GPU virtualization plan lately? If I remember correctly it was for cloud services, but there is no reason the same technology can't translate into the desktop. GPU virtualization will make me very very happy.

GPU virtualization doesnt require VT-D. It uses VT-X plus a SLAT capable CPU (Nehalem/Barcelona and up).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Do you want to minimize TDP, as in allowing you to use a tiny heat sink? Or would you rather minimize total power use with the faster K processor?

That's fine if you're occasionally submitting a large batch job to a machine that's otherwise idle, but HTPCs and Gaming rigs usually operate in realtime - between 25% and 50% load on 2-3 cores, for several hours at a time. How long the job takes is a function of the operator, not the job itself - when the movie or gaming session is over, then it's over.

After the credits roll, or after I ragequit after being ganked again, the slower chip doesn't have to keep working. What's important is how much energy it consumed while I was using it.

 

[lopri]

GPU virtualization doesnt require VT-D. It uses VT-X plus a SLAT capable CPU (Nehalem/Barcelona and up).

Are you sure about that? We're talking about PCI I/O here. And GPU virtualization is at its infancy currently and I'm expecting it'll be much more advanced in the future. I am talking about fully functional GPU (DirectX, OpenGL/OpenCL, whatever that GPU does now) on a VM.