# i5-3570k or i7-3770k?



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

I'm upgrading my main rig to Ivy Bridge this winter.  I've already bought bought 16GB of DDR3 ram, and have nothing to put it in 

Next up, the CPU:

i7-3770k @ $330 (Newegg)
i5-3750k @ $190 Here: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173973

Difference of about $140 - *Help, I can't decide!*
After that, need to choose a MB.

I'll be running AutoCAD Civil3D/Map 2013 with some large datasets, some video and photo editing (fairly lightweight), and a moderate amount of gaming.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I'm upgrading my main rig to Ivy Bridge this winter.  I've already bought bought 16GB of DDR3 ram, and have nothing to put it in
> 
> Next up, the CPU:
> 
> ...



For those programs, you would want the extra threads. I would get the 3770K


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 19, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> For those programs, you would want the extra threads. I would get the 3770K



agreed

As for a MB, if your looking for a high-end board, I've been very happy with my GD80. Might be worth looking at the Z77 version?

MSI Z77A-GD80 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s U...


----------



## Nordic (Oct 19, 2012)

It all comes down to do you need/ those 4 extra logical cores and if they are worth the price.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I'm upgrading my main rig to Ivy Bridge this winter.  I've already bought bought 16GB of DDR3 ram, and have nothing to put it in
> 
> Next up, the CPU:
> 
> ...



Chances are, you'll get a better overclocker with 3770K, too.


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 19, 2012)

IMC on 3770K is better than 3570K also. Ram will overclock much higher.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> IMC on 3770K is better than 3570K also. Ram will overclock much higher.



ha, not with my 3570k and 3770k. Same ram overclocks, exactly, although the 3570 needs voltage and the 3770k does not. I guess I need to find a better ram kit then. 

What's interesting to me is that the failures with memory with the two chips are EXACTLY the same, at the same speeds and such, so I know that ram is holding my 3770k back, for sure...and my 3570k has no issues with 2666 MHz+


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 19, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> ha, not with my 3570k and 3770k. Same ram overclocks, exactly, although the 3570 needs voltage and the 3770k does not. I guess I need to find a better ram kit then.
> 
> What's interesting to me is that the failures with memory with the two chips are EXACTLY the same, at the same speeds and such, so I know that ram is holding my 3770k back, for sure...and my 3570k has no issues with 2666 MHz+




This is not correct. Maybe you have a lucky 3570K. I thought they would overclock the same but Kingston told me the IMC is better on 3770K.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> This is not correct.



It is with my two chips, thanks. Not all chips are equal. 

Like really, I could care less. My experience is not like yours, however. I'm not saying you are wrong, and I am right...just that what you can get is pretty varied.


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 19, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> It is with my two chips, thanks. Not all chips are equal.



I thought they would overclock the same but Kingston told me the IMC is better on 3770K.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> I thought they would overclock the same but Kingston told me the IMC is better on 3770K.



I don't have a kit that will hit 2800 MHz well yet, or both my chips have the exact same wall.

I'll say it might be BIOS, dunno. Need more ram, or more chips, to find out.

Liek clearly, 3770K is much better chip for me...4.6 GHz @ 1.2 V for 3770K, and haven't even got 4.5 GHz stable @ 1.3 V on the 3570K.


Both crap out @ 2750 Mhz on hte ram, and I have several 2666 MHz + kits.


As much as overclocking is apaprantly dead, there's still a tonne of variation that keeps things interesting, i think!


----------



## BlackOmega (Oct 19, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> For those programs, you would want the extra threads. I would get the 3770K



^This. For CAD and Photoshop you want as many cores/threads as possible and as much memory as you can get.


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 19, 2012)

16G of memory is plenty and more cores the better


----------



## Nordic (Oct 19, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I don't have a kit that will hit 2800 MHz well yet, or both my chips have the exact same wall.
> 
> I'll say it might be BIOS, dunno. Need more ram, or more chips, to find out.
> 
> ...


Oh the life


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

I hear a resounding 3770k... 

I read this, got 5Ghz on the 3570k out of the box, though running very hot with an H100

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/1



cadaveca said:


> ha, not with my 3570k and 3770k. Same ram overclocks, exactly, although the 3570 needs voltage and the 3770k does not. I guess I need to find a better ram kit then.
> 
> What's interesting to me is that the failures with memory with the two chips are EXACTLY the same, at the same speeds and such, so I know that ram is holding my 3770k back, for sure...and my 3570k has no issues with 2666 MHz+



Memory controller portion on the 3770k perhaps?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

1.4 V though for that 5 ghz. NO wonder it was hot 

I'll have to volt mine up, I guess. My 3770k is hot with just 1.25V...I could not imagine pushing even 1.3 V through that chip.


And yeah, I dunno, it's just odd that the 3570K and 3770K both end at the same ram speed. Cpu clocking is very different though.


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I hear a resounding 3770k...
> 
> I read this, got 5Ghz on the 3570k out of the box, though running very hot with an H100
> 
> ...



Time to travel back... back to 2009... the i7 920 was catching enthusiasts by storm for being an easy OC to 4.2GHz... There were one observation was made on a regular basis.  Users memory controllers varied from chip to chip and some people couldn't get higher than 1866MHz if not 1600 while achieving speeds higher than stock.  Considering intel has the mem controllers on the die I'd also assume this concept remains intact.

Oddly enough getting 950s or 960s did not help the memory OC either.  The chips are basically the same they just have different areas unlocked or stepped up.

You will love the extra HT when it comes to processing.  It does make a difference.  I wish I had the money to spend on a 3770k while I was upgrading to ivy.  I do video work a lot and the 3570k is good but I know it could be better.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> 1.4 V though for that 5 ghz. NO wonder it was hot
> I'll have to volt mine up, I guess. My 3770k is hot with just 1.25V...I could not imagine pushing even 1.3 V through that chip.



Gotta say, I'm looking forward to playing with a new OC toy!  I always start with stock volts, and push as high as she'll go to failure, then try a notch up on voltage, always keeping an eye on temps.  Lather, rinse, repeat   Takes a few days, usually to find the sweet spot.



Binge said:


> You will love the extra HT when it comes to processing.  It does make a difference.  I wish I had the money to spend on a 3770k while I was upgrading to ivy.  I do video work a lot and the 3570k is good but I know it could be better.



I just wonder how much I'd notice.  I don't like the idea of getting the "next best thing" with the i5, but the price point seems to be pretty darn good.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

Binge said:


> Time to travel back... back to 2009... the i7 920 was catching enthusiasts by storm for being an easy OC to 4.2GHz... There were one observation was made on a regular basis.  Users memory controllers varied from chip to chip and some people couldn't get higher than 1866MHz if not 1600 while achieving speeds higher than stock.  Considering intel has the mem controllers on the die I'd also assume this concept remains intact.
> 
> Oddly enough getting 950s or 960s did not help the memory OC either.  The chips are basically the same they just have different areas unlocked or stepped up.
> 
> You will love the extra HT when it comes to processing.  It does make a difference.  I wish I had the money to spend on a 3770k while I was upgrading to ivy.  I do video work a lot and the 3570k is good but I know it could be better.



Most "power" and "extreme" users relate that memory clocking is largely CPU-dependant with IVB. And usually, that info comes from guys and gals that access many many chips.

For me, this is not the case, at all.


But with everyone saying the same thing, there must be something to it, or everyone is listening to the same advice from the same person. With the parts I have, many boards and ram kits, but just 3 CPUs so far, my results vastly contradict what's professed as the "norm".


Of course this makes me test even more...but I don't have enough funds to keep buying chips, and I don't get CPUs for free, generally.  At least we can still try things out and see what works.



Oh, and I still do not agree with the whole "IVB runs HOT" BS, too.


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I just wonder how much I'd notice.  I don't like the idea of getting the "next best thing" with the i5, but the price point seems to be pretty darn good.



If the price point is too good for you I am currently interested in selling my i5 for $160 shipped so I can buy an i7.  So you know, with the i5 @ 3.8GHz, I encode in real time, record to HDD, game, and drive a virtual sound-board for audio routing simultaneously.  The i7 will buy you 20-30% extra performance for 50% more cost.  To me it is worth it.  For you it might be a wash.  



cadaveca said:


> Most "power" and "extreme" users relate that memory clocking is largely CPU-dependant with IVB. And usually, that info comes from guys and gals that access many many chips.
> 
> For me, this is not the case, at all.
> 
> ...



The great thing about that time was that people were asking me to buy i7 920s (microcenter 199.99 vs newegg 349.99) and test them before sending them out.  I'd probably had my hands on over 80 920s by mid 2010.  This forum saw so many of my trips to microcenter that on a fluke I recently bought one of my chips back from a forum member.   The memory controller on the CPU is where all of the memory overclocking is bottle-necked.  Without the ability for the CPU to handle the speed at which the ram is communicating the IMC will crash and you will BSOD or hard restart.

I also agree with you on the IVB to an extent.  The chip will contain heat because of the 3d transistors and self insulates so despite the die shrink it produces the same heat as 32nm process.  That aside intels IHS causes a minor setback to some users, but for every day WC/Air removing the IHS will not do enough.  I'd take it off to super cool the thing.


----------



## BlackOmega (Oct 19, 2012)

Intel's new slogan ----> Intel, AMD inside.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

Binge said:


> If the price point is too good for you I am currently interested in selling my i5 for $160 shipped so I can buy an i7. So you know, with the i5 @ 3.8GHz, I encode in real time, record to HDD, game, and drive a virtual sound-board for audio routing simultaneously. The i7 will buy you 20-30% extra performance for 50% more cost. To me it is worth it. For you it might be a wash.



Binge, perhaps a stupid question, but are you OC'ing the chip now?


Oh and a correction to my last statement:


Sasqui said:


> I just wonder how much I'd notice.  I don't like the idea of *NOT *getting the "next best thing" with the i5, but the price point seems to be pretty darn good.


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Binge, perhaps a stupid question, but are you OC'ing the chip now?
> 
> 
> Oh and a correction to my last statement:



normally the chip does not run at 3.8Ghz on all cores.  Usually it does 3.4Ghz with 3.8Ghz turbo on core 00.  When you OC an IVB the turbo does not work like it does on stock.

Technically its a small OC but there's no heat impact or extra voltage.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

Binge said:


> normally the chip does not run at 3.8Ghz on all cores.  Usually it does 3.4Ghz with 3.8Ghz turbo on core 00.  When you OC an IVB the turbo does not work like it does on stock.
> 
> Technically its a small OC but there's no heat impact or extra voltage.



Down the rabbit hole.  The specs for the chips (in this case the 3570k) list 3.4Ghz/3.8Ghz Turbo.  So when you change the multiplier for an OC, I assume there's some point when you have to cut out the power saver & turbo boost mode for the OC to be stable.  I suspect it's motherboard/bios dependant?


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Down the rabbit hole.  The specs for the chips (in this case the 3570k) list 3.4Ghz/3.8Ghz Turbo.  So when you change the multiplier for an OC, I assume there's some point when you have to cut out the power saver & turbo boost mode for the OC to be stable.  I suspect it's motherboard/bios dependant?



All power-saving features and turbo are enabled.  This is just how the new chips work.  If you use a non-standard multi it cuts the turbo to one core only.  I've pushed the chip to 4.5Ghz without much issue, but I don't see the benefit in my encoding apps for the heat difference made under load.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Down the rabbit hole. The specs for the chips (in this case the 3570k) list 3.4Ghz/3.8Ghz Turbo. So when you change the multiplier for an OC, I assume there's some point when you have to cut out the power saver & turbo boost mode for the OC to be stable. I suspect it's motherboard/bios dependant?



Yes/no. All boards offer power-saving disabling and regular multi-clocking.



It is best, however, to clock using Turbo itself, like the CPU does at stock.


Some boards, when XMP is enabled, run all cores at the max turbo multi. Some do not. Most gamer-oriented and OC boards do though, no matter the brand.


I recommend overclocking using Turbo.

Don't forget, the game has changed considerably, and Intel will warranty overclocking, too. For a small cost($25 or so), Intel will replace your chip once, even if you give it 5000V. No questions asked.

http://click.intel.com/tuningplan/



			
				Intel said:
			
		

> So what we are saying is this: Go ahead and push it, we've got your back.




I hate to push marketing on you guys, but to me, this is worth it. Clock that chip up, pay the small cost, and don't worry about anything.


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Down the rabbit hole.  The specs for the chips (in this case the 3570k) list 3.4Ghz/3.8Ghz Turbo.  So when you change the multiplier for an OC, I assume there's some point when you have to cut out the power saver & turbo boost mode for the OC to be stable.  I suspect it's motherboard/bios dependant?



With both SandyBridge and IvyBridge, you need to keep turbo enabled to overclock.


----------



## erocker (Oct 19, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> I thought they would overclock the same but Kingston told me the IMC is better on 3770K.



I can't fathom how Kingston would know the strength of an IMC on a chip by chip basis.


----------



## Vlada011 (Oct 19, 2012)

My voice go for 3770k. I love i7. 3570k is good for gaming if you change more often configuration but you never know when you need i7 for longer time. 
My 3700k OC similar like i7 SB. Only is hotter. 4.8GHz Linx 1.275V, Prime95 1.300V 12h Blend with 90-92% RAM.
I didn't count 5.0GHz like some minus for IB, because that is more for i5 clock.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

Binge said:


> All power-saving features and turbo are enabled.  This is just how the new chips work.  If you use a non-standard multi it cuts the turbo to one core only.  I've pushed the chip to 4.5Ghz without much issue, but I don't see the benefit in my encoding apps for the heat difference made under load.



What would a non-standard multiplier be?


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 19, 2012)

erocker said:


> I can't fathom how Kingston would know the strength of an IMC on a chip by chip basis.



pretty simple, they test their memory on all Ivybridge chips

It is Not a chip per chip basis. IMC is different on both.


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> pretty simple, they test their memory on all Ivybridge chips
> 
> It is Not a chip per chip basis. IMC is different on both.



That is false sir.  IMC is the same. 3570k is just a 3770k with HT disabled.  My source?  Intel.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

Binge said:


> That is false sir.  IMC is the same. 3570k is just a 3770k with HT disabled.  My source?  Intel.



And 2MB of cache disabled.

....
I bought 2x of this memory: G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133 (PC3 17000) Desktop Memory Model F3-17000CL9D-8GBSR

Capacity 8GB (2 x 4GB)
Speed DDR3 2133 (PC3 17000)
Cas Latency 9
Timing 9-11-10-28
Voltage 1.65V

G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 S...


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> And 2MB of cache disabled.
> 
> ....
> I bought 2x of this memory: G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133 (PC3 17000) Desktop Memory Model F3-17000CL9D-8GBSR
> ...



this is a good read 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6372/...333-to-ddr32400-on-ivy-bridge-igp-with-gskill


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

Binge said:


> this is a good read
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6372/...333-to-ddr32400-on-ivy-bridge-igp-with-gskill



It really is surprising how the timings make much more of a difference on DDR3, the CL9 2133 is pretty damn close to CL10 2400.

No reviews of that Sniper memory I have, it's all the older ans slower versions.


----------



## Binge (Oct 19, 2012)

The principal still applies, and thankfully you'll be able to use this knowledge to an advantage in your own overclocking


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 19, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> With both SandyBridge and IvyBridge, you need to keep turbo enabled to overclock.



Missed that comment before... if you disable it, you can't change the multiplier?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 21, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> With both SandyBridge and IvyBridge, you need to keep turbo enabled to overclock.





Sasqui said:


> Missed that comment before... if you disable it, you can't change the multiplier?



False, I have no problems with changing my multi with turbo-mode disabled. System specs for details(Barb's Domain)


----------



## qubit (Oct 21, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I'm upgrading my main rig to Ivy Bridge this winter.  I've already bought bought 16GB of DDR3 ram, and have nothing to put it in
> 
> Next up, the CPU:
> 
> ...



As you like to overclock, I would get the previous 2700K instead, like I have. As you know, Ivy Bridge runs around 20C hotter when overclocked due to the inferior IHS. The IPC improvements are only around 5%, so the better overclock would more than make up for it with the 2700K. Also, I assume you won't be using the iGPU, making the improved version redundant.

If you still want to go IB, then get the 3770K, no question. Yes, it's more expensive, but you do get a better chip with HT and heck, why does an enthusiast need a reason for getting the better part! 

My 2700K is running at 4.7GHz, because it's the sweet spot for heat, power, noise and CPU lifetime for me. However, it does go well over 5K even on air, if you're into hardcore overclocking. That will be difficult with IB, due to all that heat, likely forcing you to use water.


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 21, 2012)

Binge said:


> That is false sir.  IMC is the same. 3570k is just a 3770k with HT disabled.  My source?  Intel.



No comment on 2Mb of disabled cache?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 21, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> No comment on 2Mb of disabled cache?



No comment about the turbo-mode/multi statement?


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 21, 2012)

BarbaricSoul said:


> No comment about the turbo-mode/multi statement?



I will rephrase. You do not have to disable turbo. I think your smart enough to get that.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 21, 2012)

It is true about not having to disable turbo to OC, but that's not what you said. 





> You need to keep turbo enabled to overclock


 is in no way a correct statement.


Let me retrack my last statement. By Qubit's post after this one, it appears that you may have to have turbo enabled *on some boards*, but not all of them.


----------



## qubit (Oct 21, 2012)

I can't overclock the CPU without enabling turbo. Is it different on an Ivy Bridge CPU?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 21, 2012)

qubit said:


> I can't overclock the CPU without enabling turbo. Is it different on an Ivy Bridge CPU?



You can't? I can OC in bios or in the MSI Control Center on my desktop and I have turbo-mode disabled. I actually went and disabled it after I first read DrDeath's statement about turbo needing to be enabled to OC. I disabled it and set my multi to 40 in bios to see if I could, and I could. I then changed my voltage in MSI CC with no problems. Maybe it depends on the MB's vendor.


----------



## qubit (Oct 21, 2012)

BarbaricSoul said:


> You can't? I can OC in bios or in the MSI Control Center on my desktop and I have turbo-mode disabled. I actually went and disabled it after I first read DrDeath's statement about turbo needing to be enabled to OC. I disabled it and set my multi to 40 in bios to see if I could, and I could. I then changed my voltage in MSI CC with no problems. Maybe it depends on the MB's vendor.



That's really strange. I remember reading in reviews that turbo needs to be enabled for this, so the behaviour I see is consistent with that and is a design feature of the CPU. You can underclock it with turbo off though. I've only ever overclocked it through the bios, too.

I have no idea why yours should be different.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 21, 2012)

Its more about fine tuning the turbo and making it turbo harder. you could disable it of course, but better it turbo when it really needs to rather then be running at full turbo even in mundane tasks such as browsing the internet or just listening to music.


----------



## cookiemonster (Oct 21, 2012)

Hi just upgraded to this and i am very happy, I have not tried overclocking yet as i am waiting for Intel Performance Tuning Protection Plan to arrive.  

Intel Core i5 3570K,1155, Ivy Bridge, Quad Core, 3.4GHz, 
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP5 TH Socket 1155 VGA DVI HDMI Dual Thunderbolt 7.1 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard 
16GB (2x8GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance (1600mhz)
256GB Crucial RealSSD M4, 2.5" SATA


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 21, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Its more about fine tuning the turbo and making it turbo harder. you could disable it of course, but better it turbo when it really needs to rather then be running at full turbo even in mundane tasks such as browsing the internet or just listening to music.



Don't matter with my rig considering it's always running at full load crunching. Gaming is actually a break/rest for my 2600k rig.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 21, 2012)

cookiemonster said:


> I have not tried overclocking yet as i am waiting for Intel Performance Tuning Protection Plan to arrive.



Im surprised that you thought you needed to pay for something like that.

Id really only consider it if I was going for an EXTREME OC. 

going from 3.8Ghz to 4.6Ghz is well within the safety zone of the 3570k. Most people here even run their SB CPUs at that same speed.

I Like my 4.9Ghz though.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 21, 2012)

qubit said:


> That's really strange. I remember reading in reviews that turbo needs to be enabled for this, so the behaviour I see is consistent with that and is a design feature of the CPU. You can underclock it with turbo off though. I've only ever overclocked it through the bios, too.
> 
> I have no idea why yours should be different.



no idea, but here's a pic of my bios. as you can see, turbo is disabled


----------



## cookiemonster (Oct 21, 2012)

Hi FreedomEclipse, If its going to happen it will happen to me so i like a little bit of insurance on my side and at £15.00 to me it's worth it.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 21, 2012)

cookiemonster said:


> Hi FreedomEclipse, If its going to happen it will happen to me so i like a little bit of insurance on my side and at £15.00 to me it's worth it.



thats your call obviously, but its honestly a waste of time (and money)

When you buy the CPU, It comes with 1 years shop warranty & 3 years manufacturers warranty. THATS your 'Performance Tuning Protection Plan' and it doesnt cost anything extra. 

Nothing can protect you against bad luck but the risk of damaging hardware is significantly less if you know what you are doing.

Key things like:

- A case with good airflow/ventilation.
- A good aftermarket CPU cooler.
- Knowing the 'safety' limits of your hardware

And most Importantly of all:

*- Knowing what you are doing*

these things can significantly decrease the risk.

Ive been overclocking since 2001 and I have never fried any CPUs. almost 98% of my parts were well looked after and healthy enough to be sold on and almost all of my parts are still working and doing their job perfectly fine apart from the lady who decided to bathe the PC in hot coffee.

£15 might not be a lot of money. But with a little reading, asking a few questions here n there and lurking around some. You will gain enough knowledge and regret parting with that £15 because you could have bought yourself a nice medium rare 14oz steak dinner and a few beers to go with.


Unless the CPU is out of warranty and you want to overclock it then fair enough, by all means go ahead and purchase the protection plan.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 21, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Unless the CPU is out of warranty and you want to overclock it then fair enough, by all means go ahead and purchase the protection plan.



What the tuning plan offers is not really more, you are right, except one part.  What it does offer that the normal warranty does not is "NO QUESTIONS ASKED" replacement.


You'll also note for the first time ever, noone knows what the safe max voltage for these chips are. IVB has no known public limit for 24/7 clocking.



I can tell you've never had to warranty a CPU, since you don't place any value on that "NO QUESTIONS ASKED", so that good, maybe it's not for you.

If you are like me, and are pushing things every day, trying to get more, erven though it might seem within reason, then yes, the value is there.


Plus, OC voids warranty. If you RMA after OC, then you're kinda a low-life in my books, especially when this costs so little.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 21, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I can tell you've never had to warranty a CPU, since you don't place any value on that "NO QUESTIONS ASKED", so that good, maybe it's not for you.



Never - I'm not that wreckless neither do I push my hardware to breaking point by trying to find out how many volts I can pump through it.

Ive always been careful with my hardware especially when it comes to any sort of tweaking. So no i dont place any value in the 'no questions asked' warranty policy.

I dont like faffing around with lengthy RMA processes and procedures unless I really have to. Ive had my fair share of RMA'ing graphic cards and the odd hard drive here and there though.

But its getting to a point where I dont even bother making any serious effort to OC my graphics cards. Slap an extra 20-30mhz on the clocks here and there, stress test it a little then jump in a game and see how it does.


as for 24/7 voltage for IB, I simply just googled the recommended voltage and gleamed info from loads of other forums. I recently did my first IB build for a friend of mine and his is doing 4.6Ghz at something like 1.37v. Only had enough to put it through one pass of Prime for 12hrs but it passed it and chewed through IBT without any problems and has been working flawlessly with any game my friend throws at it, from BF3 to ARMA II, Crysis 2 and whatever he plays.

I keep watch on the temps and i keep it under 70'c as much as I can.


----------



## qubit (Oct 21, 2012)

Has anyone been able to overclock these CPUs without turning on turbo mode, like BarbaricSoul in the picture above? I'm talking about multiplier overclocking, because the CPU ignores any value higher than the default if turbo is turned off. This is what I see.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 21, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Never - I'm not that wreckless neither do I push my hardware to breaking point by trying to find out how many volts I can pump through it.
> 
> Ive always been careful with my hardware especially when it comes to any sort of tweaking. So no i dont place any value in the 'no questions asked' warranty policy.
> 
> ...



I was speaking in generalizations, not to you specifically.  I mean really, at this point, there are so many protections built into the hardware, it really is pretty hard to hurt one of these chips, adn that's why Intel is willing to offer that warranty in the first place. Now, if you're gonna puish it and go really cold, then sure, you might break things. If you pop the lid, you void the wartranty, obviously, so I see that choice of TIM for IVB an intentional one made to save your CPU.


However, at teh same time, when you overvolt, you're gonna shorten the life of the chip, so why not get the warranty? You can transfer it to a new user when you sell the chip, too...Intel really has taken this to the next level when it comes to this warranty.



qubit said:


> Has anyone been able to overclock these CPUs without turning on turbo mode, like BarbaricSoul in the picture above? I'm talking about multiplier overclocking, because the CPU ignores any value higher than the default if turbo is turned off. This is what I see.



Yes, it can work, and it might be board-BIOS dependant. I know SB does, I haven't bothered to try with IVB, and SB-E, you need Turbo for OC with some 3960X chips, and Intel will replace retail chips that do that, I heard.


----------



## qubit (Oct 21, 2012)

From what I'm seeing here (thanks cad, especially) this warranty at a very reasonable £15 is quite a good deal for those looking for that extra peace of mind, so I don't think cookiemonster has made a mistake in going for it.

I didn't bother with it, but then I just don't care. Just gives me an excuse to buy the better one if I break it.


----------



## cookiemonster (Oct 21, 2012)

Hi there thanks for all the advice, but to me it just means i spent £15 more to buy the processor, maybe i could have got it cheaper from somewhere else but to me peace of mind is a lot when accidents happen. I will give you all a shout when i decide to overclock.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 22, 2012)

Interesting reading, i cant clock my 3570k as high as my old 2500k would go, seems to top out around 4.6, 4.8 but that's enough anyway for me.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 22, 2012)

So back to turbo and overclock!

Sounds like that's board dependent, if it needs to be enabled to overclock.  From what I understand, turbo will save some power and keep things a lot cooler in idle mode.

Wo with the 3770k, stock speeds are 3.5Ghz (idle) &  3.9Ghz (turbo).  How does that work?  Does the chip regulate the multiplier increase depending on the load?  Does it do it core-for-core?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2012)

I would pick an i5-3570K for any application over the i7-3770K. There's too little in the 3770K that warrants the price gap between the two chips.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 22, 2012)

btarunr said:


> I would pick an i5-3570K for any application over the i7-3770K. There's too little in the 3770K that warrants the price gap between the two chips.



That was my thought too, though many opinions to the contrary 

Price of 3570k is ~60% of the 3770k, performance (on average) of 3570K is about 80-90% of the 3770k.  So the price point doesn't suck.  Of course it's debatable, but the overclockability seems about the same.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 22, 2012)

I suppose I suffer from over simplification....... if you are regularily using apps that can use and perform significantly better with more than 4 cores/threads, then go 3770K, if not, the cheaper 3570 is the answer.

About 3 years ago after using my i7 920 for some months I decided to disable HT to see what impact it would have in terms of temps and reduced voltage requirements at high overclocks, I played around for a couple of weeks tweaking settings and benching, I realised about 4 months later when I updated the Bios that I  had forgotten to re-enable HT..... did not see any difference, but all I do is surf, a bit of light gaming and a fair bit of Office 2010 work.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 22, 2012)

Tatty_One said:


> I suppose I suffer from over simplification....... if you are regularily using apps that can use and perform significantly better with more than 4 cores/threads, then go 3770K, if not, the cheaper 3570 is the answer.
> 
> About 3 years ago after using my i7 920 for some months I decided to disable HT to see what impact it would have in terms of temps and reduced voltage requirements at high overclocks, I played around for a couple of weeks tweaking settings and benching, I realised about 4 months later when I updated the Bios that I  had forgotten to re-enable HT..... did not see any difference, but all I do is surf, a bit of light gaming and a fair bit of Office 2010 work.



4 cores vs. 8 virtual...  and from what I recall seeing in past performance tests, it does improve things if their being utilized, but each one is slight slower than a single core that is not broken into two.

I suspect that the 8MB vs 6MB cache is probably the biggest bottleneck.

Hell, I'm running a 2x Core2 rigs right now and even wondering why I'm upgrading


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Oct 22, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> 4 cores vs. 8 virtual...  and from what I recall seeing in past performance tests, it does improve things if their being utilized, but each one is slight slower than a single core that is not broken into two.
> 
> I suspect that the 8MB vs 6MB cache is probably the biggest bottleneck.
> 
> Hell, I'm running a 2x Core2 rigs right now and even wondering why I'm upgrading



If you're wondering why you're upgrading why are you then? haha Save your money and upgrade in the next generation then.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 22, 2012)

TacoTown said:


> If you're wondering why you're upgrading why are you then? haha Save your money and upgrade in the next generation then.



I've skipped generations of CPUs, from the 920, 2600 and now Ivy Bridge. My plan was always to jump to Ivy Bridge when it arrived and here it is.

Do I need to? Probably not.  Do I want to? Yes.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 22, 2012)

Between the 2 the greater cache will of course help, I was in a dilemma wheter I should upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade/anyGrade from my i7 920 to a 3570K, some have said that with the loss of HT AND cache size I would take a fair hit in performance, where actually the 3570k improves most CPU/Encode type benches by a fair bit, add to that the overclocking headroom on a typical 3570K in comparision to an i7 920 and it's good enough for me.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 22, 2012)

Tatty_One said:


> Between the 2 the greater cache will of course help, I was in a dilemma wheter I should upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade/anyGrade from my i7 920 to a 3570K, some have said that with the loss of HT AND cache size I would take a fair hit in performance, where actually the 3570k improves most CPU/Encode type benches by a fair bit, add to that the overclocking headroom on a typical 3570K in comparision to an i7 920 and it's good enough for me.



I haven't looked up any comparisons between the 920 and the 3570k or 3770k.

I just know in my case, the memory bandwidth alone with an IMC will be a big jump from a Core2 duo.

To bad the deal on the 3750k I listed before is expired, so now I'm looking at about $220 for a 3570k or $330 for a 3770k.


----------

