• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Need to decide: 3570k vs 2500k for a gaming, non productivity build.

C

Cythreill

Member
I'm in the middle of building a computer and have all my parts besides the CPU, which I'm now carefully considering.

Since this is a gaming PC and I do not use many productivity apps, I will not really benefit from HyperThreading, so an i7 is a waste for me, and I will be going with an i5.

The choice is now narrowed down to an i5 3570k or i5 2500k.

Now, as a gamer, all I really care about is which will provide better performance and last the longest without creating a bottleneck, when both are heavily overclocked.

I use a 2560*1440 monitor and a GTX 680. I am considering going multi-monitor in the coming years, and will be doing 680 SLI when I do so.

So basically; which will last me the longest before creating a bottleneck and which will generally provide me higher FPS?

bonus questions:

1. Are these the only differences between the chips?
  • Power consumption lower on IB
  • QuickSync performance higher on IB
  • Clock for clock performance slightly higher in IB
  • Much stronger iGPU with IB
  • Higher attainable clocks for SB

Are there any features I'm missing that are exclusive to IB?

2. Is Lucid Virtu's 'MVP' and 'HyPerformance' gimmicks? I've seen benchmarks showing that HyPerformance can significantly increase FPS, but I've only seen this true for lower resolutions, while it seems to decrease performance for higher resolutions like mine.
 
OP, I would say that you have a good grasp of what the 3rd generation Intel® Core™ processors will bring to the table until they are released and the NDA drops off and people in the know can say what they have experienced.
 
Ivy is 5-10% faster than Sandy but the overclocks on Ivy so far are stuck at 4.5ghz so from what we understand so far Sandy is the better overclocker. I'd say with what we know so far Ivy and Sandy overclocked will perform the same and neither will last longer than the other. A 10% difference won't mean much in the long run so as far as longevity they are equivalent because as soon as one of them gets long in the tooth, the other one will too.
 
Hubb1e said:
Ivy is 5-10% faster than Sandy but the overclocks on Ivy so far are stuck at 4.5ghz so from what we understand so far Sandy is the better overclocker.
Click to expand...

No they're not. New bios did the trick. 4.5Ghz on stock volts

45pi.png
 
I have faith that Intel will launch IB as a slightly better all around choice , no matter the user requirements./// 🙂
hubblecomputer486.png
 
Gigabyte has a windows utility to update a bios or you can d/l the newest bios from their website, put it on a usb stick and select a option in bios at boot, select a certain F# key, and point the upgrade utility that starts at the usb stick.
 
as noted, the difference between the two will probably be small enough that by the time one seems "too slow", the other will probably also seem pretty slow. i'd say get a 2500k now, especially if you can find one cheap. then whenever it's too slow, sell it and roll that into the cost of a new chip. that's the most valuable solution (performance now + performance later/overall cost).
 
Since you said you will be upgrading to GTX 680s in SLI, you are better off waiting for the 3570k. Ivy Bridge is suppose to support PCI-E 3.0 but you also need a Z77 or a Z68 Gen 3 motherboard for PCI-E 3.0 to work. PCI-E 2.0 at 8x will cripple GTX 680 SLI performance significantly but PCI-E 3.0 at 8x should have enough bandwidth for them to run to their full potential in SLI. I wouldn't suggest a Sandy Bridge CPU if you are going to SLI GTX 680s.
 
A sandybridge CPU in a Z77 board won't support PCI 3?

If that's true I won't be buying a sandybridge CPU afterall.

EDIT: Question solved. I found SB does not support PCI 3 and I would be stupid to deny myself PCI 3 if the graphs I've seen of PCI 3's impact on multi-monitor multi-GPU setups are correct.
 
Last edited:
I see no reason not to wait another week to get Ivy Bridge instead of Sandy.

So far, almost nobody can make a case for upgrading *from* sandy to Ivy, but there's plenty of reason to start from scratch with ivy instead of sandy.
 
Definitely get the Ivy Bridge CPU, i5 2500K won't bottleneck any single card on the market today in any sense, but for the monstrous SLI configuration you will be getting you better get a really good processor. Perhaps you should even consider a six-core if you have the moolah.
 
ensign_lee said:
I see no reason not to wait another week to get Ivy Bridge instead of Sandy.

So far, almost nobody can make a case for upgrading *from* sandy to Ivy, but there's plenty of reason to start from scratch with ivy instead of sandy.
Click to expand...

Although I agree a new person buying a new build is always getting more for their money than someone who is upgrading from previous generation components, there is a case to be made for people to upgrade.

But only a specific type of people.

People who have multi monitor multi GPU setups (say 5760x1080 and 680 SLI) will benefit hugely from PCI 3. From that graphs I've seen of people doing a before-after comparison, going from PCI 3 with those GPUs at that resolution generally results in 50% higher FPS.

For the cost of upgrading to IB, you could just add in a third GPU to experience ~50% FPS, but you will encounter more heat, more noise, more weight and possibly more driver issues than if you spent $300 upgrading to IB.

The question is, will they be willing to spend $300 on a ~50% improvement in FPS?
 
680 SLI for 5760x1080
gCqS1.jpg


680 x4 SLI
NLZkp.jpg


Neither of the graphs are mine, but I know where I found them. If you want me to direct you where I found them I can.

The first graph was not well presented but it still shows PCI 3 being incredibly good for multi GPU multi monitor setups.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
I'm moving from a 5GHz 24/7 i5-2500k to Ivy Bridge because when it matters, in cpu limited gaming, it still bottlenecks.
Click to expand...



good luck hitting 5.0 ghz with the ivy.

In the end you will hit 4.3-4.5 with the Ivy, while being 10% faster clock for clock... so compared to a 5.0 Sandy and the tiny power difference? Not to mention how Hot the Ivy's are running from what we've seen so far...

Just pissin money away. My 2 cents.

I honestly see no reason to upgrade from a 2500k to a 3570k for anyone unless you use the iGPU and Quicksync a lot.

Also, the difference in FPS is so little (if any)... is it worth $230?

Remember, when the 2500k becomes obsolete, so will the Ivy. Thats enough right there for me to say, why?
 
Last edited:
Cythreill said:
The first graph was not well presented but it still shows PCI 3 being incredibly good for multi GPU multi monitor setups.
Click to expand...

With 4 way 680 SLI !


How realistic is this for the majority of users ?


What does PCI 3 vs PCI 2 have to do with 2500K vs 3570K ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top