# Intel Core i5-3570K vs. i7-3770K Ivy Bridge



## FireKillerGR (Dec 27, 2012)

Intel's latest Ivy Bridge processors promise extra high performance in every sector (gaming, encoding, etc.). Today, we will compare the performance of the most popular models: the Core i5-3570K and the Core i7-3770K, at stock and overclocked.

*Show full review*


----------



## dj-electric (Mar 1, 2013)

Thanks for the review. Ignore the upcoming complains.


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Thanks for the review. Ignore the upcoming complains.



Thank you but I do not ignore anything 
It is my first review which means that its normal to have things to improve and include on it.
So, possible complains will be used as a guide for future reviews.


----------



## Disparia (Mar 1, 2013)

Yeah, guessed as much. Got the wife a 3570K last month and saved $100 as there would be no difference based on her usage. 

I'll take a 3770/K/S/T though, for good gaming performance while archiving or transcoding.


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 1, 2013)

Great review!, Preety much if you want to game get the 3570K and if you need multi threads for work get the 3770K.

The only HUGE problem with these CPU's is that they have such horrible cooling. how can a cpu hit 80c+ on stock! With such a small nm and TDP of 77 that's just sad my Q6600 with 65nm 105w TDP stock it hit's Idle 34c Load 49c and Oc to 3Ghz 58C.

I'm happy to see a TPU CPU review I wish TPU could get some more.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 1, 2013)

> For our tests we overclocked by adjusting the multiplier on both processors. The maximum we achieved with the i5 3570K was 4.5 GHz at 1.335 V and 4.9 GHz for the i7-3770K at 1.32 V.
> 
> As you can see, it is crystal clear that we were not that lucky with our 3570K in comparison to the 3770K, which overclocks better.



Instantly imagined that when saw a Malay batch for the 3570K and a Costa Rica batch for the 3770K. 

Great review/comparison, FireKiller! Hope we see more around here!


----------



## erixx (Mar 1, 2013)

Didn't know you, great review man! And I feel better after the scaring title!


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Mar 1, 2013)

this makes me want to get an aftermarket HSF even more when i get my i5 3570K, as stock cooling @ 4ghz is pathetic at 80 C


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

Delta6326 said:


> Great review!, Preety much if you want to game get the 3570K and if you need multi threads for work get the 3770K.
> 
> The only HUGE problem with these CPU's is that they have such horrible cooling. how can a cpu hit 80c+ on stock! With such a small nm and TDP of 77 that's just sad my Q6600 with 65nm 105w TDP stock it hit's Idle 34c Load 49c and Oc to 3Ghz 58C.
> 
> I'm happy to see a TPU CPU review I wish TPU could get some more.



Yeap exactly; its all about TIM.

More reviews in the future 



PatoRodrigues said:


> Instantly imagined that when saw a Malay batch for the 3570K and a Costa Rica batch for the 3770K.
> 
> Great review/comparison, FireKiller! Hope we see more around here!



Do not believe in batches my friend, have tested more than 7 Ivy Bridge processors the last 6 months. Batch just give an average result nothing more 
My good i7-3770K is Malay and it can go higher than me previous Costa-Rica

Anyway, thanks for your message, really appreciated


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 1, 2013)

If i was to get real picky about the review it would be the following
*http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_3570K_and_i7_3770K_Comparison/3.html Needs a pic of the 3570K OC also and in the Test System you didn't put the GPU used.
*I would like to see a few more games that possible are more CPU dependent.
*On the temp page would be nice if you could add a accurate reading of the power that the cpu draws.

I still really like this review! and hope to see more.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 1, 2013)

Delta6326 said:


> If i was to get real picky about the review it would be the following
> *http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_3570K_and_i7_3770K_Comparison/3.html Needs a pic of the 3570K OC also and in the Test System you didn't put the GPU used.
> *I would like to see a few more games that possible are more CPU dependent.
> *On the temp page would be nice if you could add a accurate reading of the power that the cpu draws.
> ...



Exactly. Looked for the GPU after seeing those 50FPS marks in Metro 2033 but it wasn't on the test setup...




FireKillerGR said:


> Yeap exactly; its all about TIM.
> 
> More reviews in the future
> 
> ...



You're actually the first person i see here on TPU that has a Malay 3770K that OC's better than a Costa Rica one...

Well, i do not review processors so... lesson learned!


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

Delta6326 said:


> If i was to get real picky about the review it would be the following
> *http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_3570K_and_i7_3770K_Comparison/3.html Needs a pic of the 3570K OC also and in the Test System you didn't put the GPU used.
> *I would like to see a few more games that possible are more CPU dependent.
> *On the temp page would be nice if you could add a accurate reading of the power that the cpu draws.
> ...





PatoRodrigues said:


> Exactly. Looked for the GPU after seeing those 50FPS marks in Metro 2033 but it wasn't on the test setup...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just added the Gpu on the _Test Setup_
Thank you


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Mar 1, 2013)

Sorry but I'm not entirely sure what the point of this review even is....  It appears to be a clock-for-clock comparison which of course the processor with a larger L3 cache and hyperthreading is going to win (given the same architecture).  What would have made it interesting to me would be to also turn off the hyperthreading of the i7 and add those results to the mix as well.  At least that way you can see the benefit of of going from the i5 @ 4.5GHz to the i7 (no HT @ 4.5GHz) but with its larger L3.  Then from there we can also see the percentage diff when you turn on HT.  Otherwise, more expensive processor is faster.

Edit:  Don't get me wrong, nice review and all and I'd like to see more processor reviews on TPU; however, these results I can get just about anywhere.


----------



## qubit (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't like getting second best, even if the difference is fairly small, so I'd go for the 3770K.

So, Ivy Bridge CPUs are great (thermal performance aside)? Yes, of course, that's obvious!


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> Sorry but I'm not entirely sure what the point of this review even is....  It appears to be a clock-for-clock comparison which of course the processor with a larger L3 cache and hyperthreading is going to win (given the same architecture).  What would have made it interesting to me would be to also turn off the hyperthreading of the i7 and add those results to the mix as well.  At least that way you can see the benefit of of going from the i5 @ 4.5GHz to the i7 (no HT @ 4.5GHz) but with its larger L3.  Then from there we can also see the percentage diff when you turn on HT.  Otherwise, more expensive processor is faster.
> 
> Edit:  Don't get me wrong, nice review and all and I'd like to see more processor reviews on TPU; however, these results I can get just about anywhere.



Nice idea Beertintedgoggles
Will do that on the next reviews don't worry


----------



## chinmi (Mar 1, 2013)

So for gaming, i only need the 3570k right... ??? great review as always by tpu team 
this will save me around $100,- and gonna put that money on a better videocard upgrade


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 1, 2013)

Thanks for the review.

I would like to point out that - in the gaming section - you compared the performance of the CPUs with GPU-limited gaming scenarios (for example Metro2033 is flat out entirely GPU-bond). While a single 680 is an awesome card indeed, it still struggles with 1080p when you max out everything to ultra in games.
I recommend next time you try games which are more CPU-bond (Civilization V for example).


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 1, 2013)

Ikaruga said:


> I recommend next time you try games which are more CPU-bond (Civilization V for example).



any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 1, 2013)

What cpu hsf/cooler did you use in this review? seems I overlooked that info.

Good review btw.




AlienIsGOD said:


> this makes me want to get an aftermarket HSF even more when i get my i5 3570K, as stock cooling @ 4ghz is pathetic at 80 C


I use a $20 Xigmatek Gaia and my max temps so far have been 50c


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

Every cpu is different; and due to the TIM issue the difference is even higher.
I used Prolimatech Megahalems with a Sunon 120mmx38mm


----------



## TheGrapist (Mar 1, 2013)

my i5 3570k is at 4.5ghz @1.288V,hit's 80C after an hour of prime 95 with an old h50 w/a san ace h1011.I haven't tried to push it further yet,anyways great review!


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 1, 2013)

Good review 

I do want to point out tho that I have used both of these processors and the in-game benchmarks make a very misguided opinion of their gaming performances.

I switched from the i5 to the i7 after some extensive in-game testing of games like BF3 on multiplayer maps.

In standard benchmarks, they see no difference, but games like BF3 utilize those hyper-threaded cores in a huge way.

My minimum FPS over a period of time in BF3 rose by over 25 Frames.

I game at 120FPS on a 120hz monitor.  With the i5-3570k and GTX 670's in SLI I saw significant, frequent dips to below 80 frames.

Now, with the exact same setup and only changing to an i7-3770k I NEVER see my FPS go below 100.  Lowest I've seen is 102 or so.

Just an FYI, it really makes a huge difference in online, multiplayer games.  MMO's, FPS's, etc.


----------



## qubit (Mar 1, 2013)

cmaxvt said:


> Good review
> 
> I do want to point out tho that I have used both of these processors and the in-game benchmarks make a very misguided opinion of their gaming performances.
> 
> ...



That's quite a significant difference you're seeing there and it tallies with other reviews I've seen.

It was a similar picture between the 2500K and the 2600K (AnandTech and Tom's Hardware, among others) so getting my 2700K was a no-brainer. It didn't let me down either and paired with my new GTX 590, my rig really flies in games!


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 1, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



I'm not Ikaruga, but... Skyrim!

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/467/bench/CPU_2.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/K/360272/original/skyrim 1920.png


----------



## bogami (Mar 1, 2013)

Well which processor to buy. Both processors belong to the category of best buy then you asck for what you need and how much you are willing to pay for better. If you are a gamer could see that there is almost no difference in FPS regardless of the game. Serious advantage against i5k i7k model in which threads option 8 against 4 ensures fewer jams somehow brings pentium processor main advantage over AMD. Of course we all know how bad the thermal paste and so I suggest removing the cover and replacing as I also did in my CPU.Naw got much cooler processor and consequently easily it can be more wound. I use thermal EK CPU block Suprime LTX, D5 pump, EK dual top 2 LOOPS onle 1 for CPU, EK reservoir, EK Collstream RAD XTC (280mm x 55mm), 2 X 140/1300 fan Lamptron - Fen controller..Switch 810 Casy. Below maunt. temperature when as much as 5 Gh constant load at 1.35V very acceptable 30 ° C in a room with 23 C and under load 70 C max.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 1, 2013)

Aw, thank you! Something else I can point out to show people they don't need an i7 to play games.
What I would  be interested in is how an ivy bridge i3 stacks up


----------



## Nordic (Mar 1, 2013)

Even for what those extra threads give you, an i7 just does not seem worth it.


----------



## Sah7d (Mar 1, 2013)

Nice review, what cooler did you use for the test ?
Becouse I imagine that with a $40 cooler the problem would be more than solve isn´t ?


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

sah7d said:


> nice review, what cooler did you use for the test ?
> Becouse i imagine that with a $40 cooler the problem would be more than solve isn´t ?





firekillergr said:


> i used prolimatech megahalems with a sunon 120mmx38mm



^^


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 1, 2013)

niko084 said:


> Aw, thank you! Something else I can point out to show people they don't need an i7 to play games.
> What I would  be interested in is how an ivy bridge i3 stacks up



You say this...but these extra threads/cores give you a HUGE advantage in many of the games we play each day.  Benchmarks alone are testing a very specific environment that are not very CPU dependent.  Games like MMO's, online-FPS's, etc all require significant CPU grunt and the difference in both threads, clocks, cache, etc make significant gains, ESPECIALLY in minimum FPS.  The old "put a rig together and throw a benchmark run of a singleplayer game" only tests the GPU horsepower, it does almost nothing to test real-world CPU stresses.


----------



## manofthem (Mar 1, 2013)

I just grabbed a 3570k and a 212 Evo for my brother's PC build, and I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do. I'm hoping temps aren't too bad as I'd like to get a 24/7 stable mild overclock. 

Nice review, it was good stuff


----------



## HammerON (Mar 1, 2013)

Great review and keep them coming


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 1, 2013)

manofthem said:


> I just grabbed a 3570k and a 212 Evo for my brother's PC build, and I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do. I'm hoping temps aren't too bad as I'd like to get a 24/7 stable mild overclock.
> 
> Nice review, it was good stuff



Temps are honestly totally fine, especially with a cooler like that, until you start getting heavy OC's.  You have to really start pushing it to be worried about temps.  On my okay-binned i5-3570k I hit 4.2ghz before I even had to bump up the voltage.  Follow an overclock guide and you will be fine.  I stabilized my 3570k at 4.4ghz with barely a bump in voltage and with a Corsair A70 never saw over 80 degrees while stress testing.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 1, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



Crysis3 for sure, perhaps Left4Dead2 (but it runs too fast on these new systems, so it's for bench only)

The thing is that there are many game engines out there which uses HT efficiently  (especially with ivy bridge where some of the resources are not shared anymore): Dunia (FarCry2), Frostbite (BF:BC2), Rage Engine (GTA4, but this one is far from being efficient in anything expect killing the CPU), etc.., but the problem is that GPUs are too weak at 1080p with ultra settings, so games are GPU limited. 
If you test any of those games in 1024x768, you will see that the difference is quite "significant" (10-20fps or more), it's just meaningless because nobody cares if something runs 160 or 185fps. Perhaps future games (AMD gaming evolved titles, XBOX720 and PS4 ports will run much better on i7s, at least that's my guess.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Mar 1, 2013)

Good review... little dated and I am sure more would like more data too

SLi/crossfire/High res/120hz see a bigger need for OC in games.... but if you are just gaming at 1080p why even waste you money on either of these CPUs, just to say you have it? you could do with a low end non-K model IVY Bridge and get the same gaming results.


----------



## MaKCuMyC (Mar 1, 2013)

What's wrong with WinRAR?
3770K without oc in my system shows around 8 MiB/s with 4.20 version.


----------



## Nordic (Mar 1, 2013)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> Good review... little dated and I am sure more would like more data too
> 
> SLi/crossfire/High res/120hz see a bigger need for OC in games.... but if you are just gaming at 1080p why even waste you money on either of these CPUs, just to say you have it? you could do with a low end non-K model IVY Bridge and get the same gaming results.



In my case, natural selection 2 requires a lot of single threaded cpu grunt. Most games don't though.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 1, 2013)

james888 said:


> Even for what those extra threads give you, an i7 just does not seem worth it.



I'm sitting happy with a 3750k, knowing it wasn't as good, but at $169 the price/perforamance was better and the benches confirm that.

Speaking of which, too bad no price performance charts like with the GPUs.  Though it would be hard to compile the different measures to put something meaningful together.


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 1, 2013)

MaKCuMyC said:


> What's wrong with WinRAR?
> 3770K in my system shows around 8 MiB/s with 4.20 version.



Seemed to be an OS bug, cause it limits the load of winrar on cpu :/


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 1, 2013)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> Good review... little dated and I am sure more would like more data too
> 
> SLi/crossfire/High res/120hz see a bigger need for OC in games.... but if you are just gaming at 1080p why even waste you money on either of these CPUs, just to say you have it? you could do with a low end non-K model IVY Bridge and get the same gaming results.



I hate to say it but I completely disagree.  Framerates, especially minimum, are heavily dependent on core clock.  Clocking from stock 3.5 to the 4.6 that my 3770k is at increased my minimum FPS by over 20 in BF3.  There are SIGNIFICANT improvements to be had.

There are tons of people testing this information and lots of sources to back it up.

Having an unlocked CPU makes for big gains in the gaming world of framerates.

However, if you just play games like say.. league of legends on a 1080p 60hz monitor, then there is no need.

These processors are meant for playing BF3, Farcry, Crysis, etc, at their best framerates and to be paired with high end video cards.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 1, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



Grand Theft Auto 4 (more if vehicle count and object view distance is maxed).
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Battlefield 3 MP 64 players
Total war series, Shogun 2, Supreme commander (huge battles)

... and Skyrim for CPU bottlenecked fun with cheese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrhDamN82k ... I suggest this test to be called "a million cheese wedges test"


----------



## Enmitynz (Mar 1, 2013)

cmaxvt said:


> Good review
> 
> I do want to point out tho that I have used both of these processors and the in-game benchmarks make a very misguided opinion of their gaming performances.
> 
> ...



This is a very good point, a lot of reviewers seem to only record the average frame rates, or the maximum achieved framerates when it comes to cpu reviewing, testing  games.

I think when it comes to gaming, it would be very beneficial to us all to see the minimum, average and the maximum frames achieved. I can understand that testing bf3 in multiplayer is pretty much impossible as you cannot reproduce the same bench...but min/max/avg would be great 

Really nice review man! keep up the great work and i'm looking forward to seeing your next review to see how you've improved


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 1, 2013)

Enmitynz said:


> This is a very good point, a lot of reviewers seem to only record the average frame rates, or the maximum achieved framerates when it comes to cpu reviewing, testing  games.
> 
> I think when it comes to gaming, it would be very beneficial to us all to see the minimum, average and the maximum frames achieved. I can understand that testing bf3 in multiplayer is pretty much impossible as you cannot reproduce the same bench...but min/max/avg would be great
> 
> Really nice review man! keep up the great work and i'm looking forward to seeing your next review to see how you've improved



You can test BF3 multiplayer, but it takes a lot of time on the same maps to really get a better idea.

You play the same map for a few hours and then test A/B you will receive a decent idea of the frames.  As long as playercount is the same, it evens out over time.  It's not perfect, but for an A/B test it makes a pretty good assessment.


----------



## deadmansclick (Mar 1, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



X3 Terran Conflict rolling demo  http://www.egosoft.com/download/x3tc/demos_en.php?list=92

This is really all about the cpu. o/cing a cpu will yield a massive fps bump.

It might be a few years old now but still looks stunning. Also X Rebirth is due out this year & from what I've read will be much of the same with its newer engine in regards to the cpu, but utilise multicores better


----------



## Melvis (Mar 1, 2013)

Ikaruga said:


> Thanks for the review.
> 
> (for example Metro2033 is flat out entirely GPU-bond).



That is totally incorrect!! Ive benchmarked this game using two different CPU's using the same everything else, and the frame rate near doubled from a Phenom 965 to a 8350 at stock settings.

Metro 2033 ill tell you this right now loves moar cores period!!


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Mar 1, 2013)

Enmitynz said:


> This is a very good point, a lot of reviewers seem to only record the average frame rates, or the maximum achieved framerates when it comes to cpu reviewing, testing  games.
> 
> I think when it comes to gaming, it would be very beneficial to us all to see the minimum, average and the maximum frames achieved. I can understand that testing bf3 in multiplayer is pretty much impossible as you cannot reproduce the same bench...but min/max/avg would be great
> 
> Really nice review man! keep up the great work and i'm looking forward to seeing your next review to see how you've improved



What? did you see the gaming benchmarks??? they are 1-2FPS different.... no one cares what you are getting on your system, we aren't talking about your system, we are talking about the benchmarks in this review on a controlled environment system just like every other review on the internet.

Sorry but as far as gaming at 1080p is concerned the cores/threads/clock speed just doesn't matter, this review shows that:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_3570K_and_i7_3770K_Comparison/8.html

maybe you skipped that page? or didn't care to read the graphs? sorry but 78-80FPS isn't noticeable or worth $100+++ and plus $100 for a cooler


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 1, 2013)

Melvis said:


> That is totally incorrect!! Ive benchmarked this game using two different CPU's using the same everything else, and the frame rate near doubled from a Phenom 965 to a 8350 at stock settings.
> 
> Metro 2033 ill tell you this right now loves moar cores period!!



I also did my tests ofc, but why not compare the 8350 to a 486DX and see how much better result you will get?

The thread is about i5 vs i7, I'm trying to maintain context with the subject:
i7-980XE vs X4965 
average fps with 4 core 81.34 vs 81.81 with 6 cores: 

etc.... As soon as you reach 4 cores (in Metro2033), only the minimum fps is going to be affected a little bit,  but the overall gaming experience is about the speed of the GPU.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 1, 2013)

Ikaruga said:


> I also did my tests ofc, but why not compare the 8350 to a 486DX and see how much better result you will get?
> 
> The thread is about i5 vs i7, I'm trying to maintain context with the subject:
> http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/metro_2033_performance_guide,9.html
> ...



Now that's just plain stupid.

Im just telling you that your statement is wrong, nothing more.

No your not your saying that Metro 2033 is all about GPU and it isnt, hell even this video backs up my claims.

AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820 - Gami...

Just make sure in future you look into these things before saying stuff like that ok


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 1, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Now that's just plain stupid.
> 
> Im just telling you that your statement is wrong, nothing more.
> 
> ...



Oh, I already commented on that video ones, so I just gonna link that post here. 
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not doing this to disrespect you, or to offend you (definitely not how you just tried to offend me btw), but because that video doesn't really worth another unique post from me tbh.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2836720&postcount=92


----------



## Melvis (Mar 1, 2013)

Ikaruga said:


> Oh, I already commented on that video ones, so I just gonna link that post here.
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not doing this to disrespect you, or to offend you (definitely not how you just tried to offend me btw), but because that video doesn't really worth another unique post from me tbh.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2836720&postcount=92



Well i guess you haven't done personal testing like i have then? I have screen shots to prove those results you posted are wrong, what can i say?

Im not trying to offend you either im just saying that its a false statement from personal (not from some website) that the game does indeed like more cores (for me anyway) i got told the same thing by many that 2033 was all gpu bound till i tested it personally and found that to be false.

Just for you ill make a thread to show you the results i got with my own system and you can see for your self, what else can i say or do?


----------



## HammerON (Mar 1, 2013)

Let's not derail this thread by arguing please. Take it to PM's or agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 1, 2013)

I Second Crysis 3. Never seen a game get the cpu that hot, it's like stress testing. I think they're dumping a full on physics engine on it.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 1, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I Second Crysis 3. Never seen a game get the cpu that hot, it's like stress testing. I think they're dumping a full on physics engine on it.



Indeed, I was surprised too. All the cores were running full on all kind of CPUs. And it's also optimized for AMD very well, runs really smooth on the top Visheras, reaching Intel kind of performances in a game, finally.


----------



## Sharx69 (Mar 2, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



I would really like if you would include the ARMA 2 OA in the benchmarks. This game is quite demanding


----------



## rumblesushi (Mar 2, 2013)

WTF, those temperatures are mental. Are you using the stock coolers?

I have two 3570k's in my office, and they both reach 50 degrees at full load, in NZXT phantoms, with stock heatsink and fans.


----------



## Sah7d (Mar 2, 2013)

rumblesushi said:


> WTF, those temperatures are mental. Are you using the stock coolers?
> 
> I have two 3570k's in my office, and they both reach 50 degrees at full load, in NZXT phantoms, with stock heatsink and fans.




I guess that the temp in the room is important.
The lack of info about the cooling method is not well documented becouse there is no
info about the temp in the room at the moment of the review nor the cooler used.

Probably the temp  in the room is also high and you can not be under the environment temp
or at least not with air coolers.


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 2, 2013)

For future reference i would like to see something like this.
 shows min. avg. would be nice to see max


----------



## TheGrapist (Mar 2, 2013)

Sharx69 said:


> I would really like if you would include the ARMA 2 OA in the benchmarks. This game is quite demanding



ARMA 2 OA benches would be interesting,though i don't think it can use more than 2 cores.


----------



## warrior420 (Mar 2, 2013)

Nice review.  My delidded 3570K is the best thing ever... at 4.5gHz it never goes about 60c on water.  They desporatly need to be delidded.


----------



## claylomax (Mar 2, 2013)

warrior420 said:


> Nice review.  My delidded 3570K is the best thing ever... at 4.5gHz it never goes about 60c on water.  They desporatly need to be delidded.



My 3820 at 4.625mhz never goes above 60c on air.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2013)

Delta6326 said:


> For future reference i would like to see something like this.
> shows min. avg. would be nice to see max



I don't think that's necessary. I mean look at the chart, they're in step with each other for every proc. There's no new information being revealed there.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 2, 2013)

Delta6326 said:


> For future reference i would like to see something like this.
> shows min. avg. would be nice to see max



Minimum is for serious gaming and for enthusiasts, average is kinda self explanatory, but why would you need max? If there is a point in the bench scenario when the camera just looks right into the ground/wall/sky/etc, you would get ridiculously high numbers that way, what would say nothing about performance.

ps.: funny I still have the letters  somewhere when I had to convince Tom's authors about including min fps in their test, and the replies about how much they didn't want to do it at the beginning, satisfying memories


----------



## chinmi (Mar 2, 2013)

well, just a thought, but if we wanna compare cpu power, why not bench using a powerfull gpu in the lowest resolution and graphic settings, like using a gtx 680 but using 1024x768 resolution and such... this will make sure that the game will never run out of gpu power, and the benchmark result can be limited totally by the cpu power ???

and the idea of comparing lv3 cache different by disabling HT on the 3770k is quite good too


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 2, 2013)

chinmi said:


> well, just a thought, but if we wanna compare cpu power, why not bench using a powerfull gpu in the lowest resolution and graphic settings, like using a gtx 680 but using 1024x768 resolution and such... this will make sure that the game will never run out of gpu power, and the benchmark result can be limited totally by the cpu power ???



The problem is that it would make the test similar to synthetic benchmarks, because powerful systems run games at 140-180fps in 1024x768, so it mostly doesn't really matter if one CPU does 150fps and the other can achieve 185. You simply don't need that kind of framerate with current display technologies.


----------



## bogami (Mar 2, 2013)

rumblesushi said:


> WTF, those temperatures are mental. Are you using the stock coolers?
> 
> I have two 3570k's in my office, and they both reach 50 degrees at full load, in NZXT phantoms, with stock heatsink and fans.


If i was the coss 70 degrees was max on foll load by 5000 hz 1.394 v normal  63 degrees 70 was max ! at 1 moment and by difault i got 48 deg. max by fool load Top of i stell need som tuning


----------



## HellasVagabond (Mar 2, 2013)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> Sorry but I'm not entirely sure what the point of this review even is....  It appears to be a clock-for-clock comparison which of course the processor with a larger L3 cache and hyperthreading is going to win (given the same architecture).  What would have made it interesting to me would be to also turn off the hyperthreading of the i7 and add those results to the mix as well.  At least that way you can see the benefit of of going from the i5 @ 4.5GHz to the i7 (no HT @ 4.5GHz) but with its larger L3.  Then from there we can also see the percentage diff when you turn on HT.  Otherwise, more expensive processor is faster.
> 
> Edit:  Don't get me wrong, nice review and all and I'd like to see more processor reviews on TPU; however, these results I can get just about anywhere.



Although a new reviewer is bound to make several mistakes i too fail to see the reason for this review/comparison. Perhaps if it was released when it should (a long time ago) it would make some sense, now it just doesn't (or at least i can't see it). Good try nevertheless so good luck to your future reviews


----------



## pokazene_maslo (Mar 2, 2013)

Thanks for nice review.

I have couple suggestions for the future:
1. gaming tests are a complete fail. Selected resolution is way too big (1920x1080). In that resolution is GPU limiting framerate. That's why all cpu frequencies show same framerate. Next time I want to see something like this: 
NFS Most Wanted
Dirt showdown 
it's in czech language but the importatnt thing is that they test in 1280x1024 where framerate is limited by CPU and not by GPU.

2. include games that are more cpu intensive: Civilization V, Starcraft II, Arma 2, etc.


----------



## FireKillerGR (Mar 2, 2013)

HellasVagabond said:


> Although a new reviewer is bound to make several mistakes i too fail to see the reason for this review/comparison. Perhaps if it was released when it should (a long time ago) it would make some sense, now it just doesn't (or at least i can't see it). Good try nevertheless so good luck to your future reviews



It was just to work on the testing methology and get some additional experience.
Do not worry, will review processors earlier next time


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 2, 2013)

pokazene_maslo said:


> 1. gaming tests are a complete fail. Selected resolution is way too big (1920x1080). In that resolution is GPU limiting framerate. That's why all cpu frequencies show same framerate. Next time I want to see something like this:



This is the best feature of the gaming review. People may like seeing big differences brought on by low res game benchmarks but they're utterly useless for us. I'd even like to see it done on 1440p displays. I'd like numbers that can actually be applied to the real world. When you think about it it's a shame a lot of people have probably run out and bought new cpus because of some exaggerated low res test and then ended up only gaining a frame or two at their native res.


----------



## pokazene_maslo (Mar 2, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> This is the best feature of the gaming review. People may like seeing big differences brought on by low res game benchmarks but they're utterly useless for us. I'd even like to see it done on 1440p displays. I'd like numbers that can actually be applied to the real world. When you think about it it's a shame a lot of people have probably run out and bought new cpus because of some exaggerated low res test and then ended up only gaining a frame or two at their native res.



Are we testing CPUs or GPUs? If you were testing in 1440p than in gaming tests is needed only one sentence: All games are limited by GPU, it doesn't matter which CPU you have.

If you still want to test in 1920x1080 it would be needed to test with Dual high end graphics cards (Crossfire/SLI)


----------



## Disparia (Mar 2, 2013)

FireKillerGR said:


> Every cpu is different; and due to the TIM issue the difference is even higher.
> I used Prolimatech Megahalems with a Sunon 120mmx38mm



That's for sure. 

The i5-3570K I mentioned earlier, with a Gemini S524:





It has never seen temps higher than 63 degrees 

I know, totally different setup and un-scientific testing but in it's current real world configuration I can run Prime95 and it'll stay at a steady 3.6Ghz (four-core Turbo speed) for hours.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 2, 2013)

pokazene_maslo said:


> If you still want to test in 1920x1080 it would be needed to test with Dual high end graphics cards (Crossfire/SLI)



You would add more CPU overhead in the graphics drivers for not needed graphics power to tests that are already CPU sensitive by design?
That's not necessary because of how the games work. 
When there is huge number of dynamic objects on screen every frame, CPU has to make a "draw call" to GPU for every object every frame. 
When number of these objects gets over say 10k GPU gets flooded with huge number of simple draw calls.
For the GPU that's much less efficient than small number of complex geometry draw calls.
In these cases frame buffer resolution has so much lesser effect on frame rate than huge amount of draw calls and time spent of physics/animation. Games are all about balance of static and dynamic geometry.
To test this with different screen resolutions in GTA4, go to times square and push vehicle number and object view distance to the max.
This old demo is also good for testing CPU bound scenario with single render thread http://www.geeks3d.com/20100629/test-opengl-geometry-instancing-geforce-gtx-480-vs-radeon-hd-5870/2/


----------



## redeye (Mar 2, 2013)

not really a cpu benchmark but the "GpuTest 0.2.0" is a great cross platform stress test... i.e. furmark for linux!.
http://www.geeks3d.com/20121113/gpu...gl-benchmark-furmark-lands-on-linux-and-os-x/

more Importantly, the furmark test is slightly less taxing than the furmark 10.4(meaning The throttling that happens with furmark) does not happen with this furmark version...
also as the gimark which stresses the gpu at about 80%, the tessark at about 105%...


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 2, 2013)

pokazene_maslo said:


> Are we testing CPUs or GPUs? If you were testing in 1440p than in gaming tests is needed only one sentence: All games are limited by GPU, it doesn't matter which CPU you have.
> 
> If you still want to test in 1920x1080 it would be needed to test with Dual high end graphics cards (Crossfire/SLI)



No, sorry.





I mean, yes, you do have a point, and if you simply wanted to compare useless CPU performance that's fine, but nearly no one games @ 1280x1024. As such, the numbers used reflect what differences the end users would get in their rig, and show accurate REAL WORLD testing, rather than SYNTHETIC TESTING like you suggested. This is TPU, not XS.


I mean, I could do my memory reviews and board reviews posting obscene LN2 clocks only. But very few users run such config, so doing reviews like that also have little importance.


That said, the only thing I can suggest is more CPUs in testing, and more tests. CPus are not really needed in this review, since it's a direct compare of those chips themselves, so that's covered.

The one useful feature not really covered, to me, is power consumption via 8-pin EPS connector, when OC'd to the same clocks, and stock.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 2, 2013)

this makes me want a 3770k even more now!


----------



## symmetrical (Mar 3, 2013)

pokazene_maslo said:


> Are we testing CPUs or GPUs? If you were testing in 1440p than in gaming tests is needed only one sentence: All games are limited by GPU, it doesn't matter which CPU you have.



Oh really, so you would pair a AMD Sempron 145 Single Core processor and GTX 680s in SLI to game at 1440p since "All games are limited by the GPU, it doesn't matter which CPU you have."

It doesn't work that way. If anything, gaming at 1440P with super high end GPUs will need a fast processor. Even the guys at PC Per found that with GTX Titan's SLI, there's a CPU bottleneck with an i7-3770K trying to drive those two massive cards. 

People seem to think "low resolutions tests CPU performance" but in reality, it's both extreme ends that tests a CPU's performance. The "middle range" which is 1080p, a GTX 660Ti-670-Radeon-7870-7950, and i5-i7-FX8350 is where you can't tell a difference.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 3, 2013)

pokazene_maslo said:


> Are we testing CPUs or GPUs? If you were testing in 1440p than in gaming tests is needed only one sentence: All games are limited by GPU, it doesn't matter which CPU you have.
> 
> If you still want to test in 1920x1080 it would be needed to test with Dual high end graphics cards (Crossfire/SLI)



Tell that to Crysis 3, where increasing core speed is the best way to increase your gpu usage.

You're arguing that we test for results that we expect to get. That doesn't tell you anything. If you test a dozen games at 1440p and only one of them scaled well with certain cpus then that's still worth the effort because at least you got one useful result. Low res testing gives you no useful results.


----------



## treboRR (Mar 3, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



Most def Battlefield 3 MP 64 is most CPU demanding!


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 3, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> but nearly no one games @ 1280x1024.



off topic, but I'm proud to be the exception here;-)
I'm quake-ing 1024x768@154Hz


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 4, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



Skyrim, Battle Field 3, Dragon Age 2, and some of the games using latest Unreal Engine.


----------



## tokyoduong (Mar 4, 2013)

Dang it! I should've just paid that $30 for the 3770k.


----------



## Sabishii Hito (Mar 4, 2013)

I guess it all depends on the particular CPU you get and what your main purpose is.  I primarily do memory overclocking/benching, and the 3570k I have trounced the 3770k I bought and subsequently got rid of.  The 3570k can do 2800 at least, the 3770 was limited to 2666.  Luck of the draw as to how good the IMC is.  Also my 3570k can do 4.5GHz with only 1.20v.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 4, 2013)

cmaxvt said:


> You say this...but these extra threads/cores give you a HUGE advantage in many of the games we play each day.  Benchmarks alone are testing a very specific environment that are not very CPU dependent.  Games like MMO's, online-FPS's, etc all require significant CPU grunt and the difference in both threads, clocks, cache, etc make significant gains, ESPECIALLY in minimum FPS.  The old "put a rig together and throw a benchmark run of a singleplayer game" only tests the GPU horsepower, it does almost nothing to test real-world CPU stresses.



I understand all this, however a strong well done test of performance will show the varying degrees of performance. So you play GameTitleA and your min FPS = 40 with your i7, however with the same system but an i3 your min FPS = 38, now you have a better understanding of exactly what you are spending money for.

That being said, I have a 3770K overclocked, you can see my system specs, I get nearly no difference in Min, Avg, Max FPS rates in D3, SC2, BF3, Bad Company 2 with HT On vs Off, nothing worth noting and no general system performance increase that would make me spend the extra money on the i7.

However I have my i7, because I run at any given time 1-4 VMs and often have audio/video work going on in the background while I'm playing a game, in which cases leaving HT on can make a noticeable difference.

Most people are surprised not by the fact i7 is faster than an i5, but how little the difference is in reality for their situation.

IME most people are very pleased with the gaming performance of their i3 and gpu no matter the title.

(Granted most people are not rollin GTX 680s either...)


----------



## xvi (Mar 4, 2013)

FireKillerGR said:


> Hexus PiFast is a single-thread Pi calculation software, which makes Hyper-Threading useless while running it. The results confirm that, since the i5-3570K beat the i7-3770K @ 4.5 GHz.



I would *REALLY* like to see how the 3770K performs with hyper-threading turned off in a lot of these tests. Just to see how much the extra cache helps and how much hyper-threading decreases single-threaded performance.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 4, 2013)

xvi said:


> I would *REALLY* like to see how the 3770K performs with hyper-threading turned off in a lot of these tests. Just to see how much the extra cache helps and how much hyper-threading decreases single-threaded performance.



HT doesn't hurt much, you could probably expect it to balance out with the 3570 nearly identically, the extra cache will help a bit in general responsiveness but I doubt much more.

I can probably get my hands on a 3570 to do some of this testing in otherwise identical hardware because with numbers so close that's going to matter.


----------



## Krneki (Mar 5, 2013)

Regarding gaming performance.

This CPUs are GPU limited. Use a 2 or 3 way SLI to check the difference (if there is any) between an i5 and i7.


----------



## Krneki (Mar 5, 2013)

xvi said:


> I would *REALLY* like to see how the 3770K performs with hyper-threading turned off in a lot of these tests. Just to see how much the extra cache helps and how much hyper-threading decreases single-threaded performance.



HT helps in some game and hurts in others, but we are talking at max 5% difference. No, the reason hard-core OC turn it off is to gain extra stability and higher clocks on the CPU.


----------



## Krneki (Mar 5, 2013)

treboRR said:


> Most def Battlefield 3 MP 64 is most CPU demanding!




Yap, but you can't get a reliable test to use on multiple CPUs.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 5, 2013)

Krneki, Please do not double or triple post. Use the multiqoute button.


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 5, 2013)

Krneki said:


> HT helps in some game and hurts in others, but we are talking at max 5% difference. No, the reason hard-core OC turn it off is to gain extra stability and higher clocks on the CPU.



I am confused as to where you get this information.

There are lots of games that benefit heavily from HT.  5% is an arbitrary number..


----------



## Krneki (Mar 6, 2013)

cmaxvt said:


> I am confused as to where you get this information.
> 
> There are lots of games that benefit heavily from HT.  5% is an arbitrary number..



Can you please provide a link to one?


----------



## leylek (Mar 6, 2013)

i would like to know if there is any difference between smoothnesses of the gameplays. Frametime in Msi Afterburner can be a good criteria.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 6, 2013)

cmaxvt said:


> I am confused as to where you get this information.
> 
> There are lots of games that benefit heavily from HT.  5% is an arbitrary number..



I have to agree with Krneki on this one. While there are some games where you can find more significant gains, the average is indeed around 5% or less. 
The reason is that 3 cores are usually enough to serve most of the current game engines, and that's why HT gives much more significant performance gains on dualcore CPUs compared to quads.
On the other hand, HT optimization also advanced in the last few years, so engines tend to get out more from HT than how it was before.

I spent a huge amount of time performing various benches on my L4D2 server which has a dualcore HT enabled CPU. While the Source client is heavily multi-threaded, the dedicated server binaries are not, they are "only" optimized for HT (well, the network load can be assigned to a separate core if available, but it doesn't make much difference in the bench results). I spawned different number of zombies on the server in the same scenarios (from a few to thousands!), and I can tell you that HT helped a lot. Source is one of the most optimized engines currently out there, and it's proves that proper optimization for HT is indeed provides better performance. I also found similar results while testing performance in bf:bc2 which is - apparently - also well optimized for HT.

But still, in this case (i5 vs i7), saying "only" 5% is probably the right number, or perhaps it's even too high.


----------



## cmaxvt (Mar 6, 2013)

Krneki said:


> Can you please provide a link to one?



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2249262

This was one of the forum posts that discusses it.  Great data provided here.  Someone who went from an i5-3570k to an i7-3770k to an i7-3930k.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 8, 2013)

Games were GPU limited. You need to lower resolution a little or use a SLI or 3 SLI setup for this...


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 8, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> Games were GPU limited. You need to lower resolution a little and also use a SLI or 3 SLI setup for this...



do you play your games at lower resolution with a triple sli setup?


----------



## Enmitynz (Mar 8, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> do you play your games at lower resolution with a triple sli setup?



This, they test this way to show us, the consumers, what real world differences we are going to see at resolutions that we play at. Yes, we all know lowering the resolution will exaggerate the differences in cpu power and clearly outline which cpu has the most raw grunt, but what good is it if at 1080p the difference between cpu a and cpu b is 1 fps. This is what you need to understand.

If you play at 800x600 then sure that would be more valid.


----------



## pokazene_maslo (Mar 8, 2013)

xvi said:


> I would *REALLY* like to see how the 3770K performs with hyper-threading turned off in a lot of these tests. Just to see how much the extra cache helps and how much hyper-threading decreases single-threaded performance.



Good idea!


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 8, 2013)

pokazene_maslo said:


> Good idea!



This is highly application dependent. It will decrease performance if the two virtual cores have to stall because of each other or even the lack of HT optimization is enough sometimes, but with the case of Ivy Bridge, single threaded codes would not suffer as much as if it would with Sandy Bridge (or before). Ivy Bridge can dynamically allocate resources if only one thread is active in the core, opposed to the solution in SB (and before) where some was left unused with the static allocation. I don't really remember the exact figures, but things were only 1-2% percent slower in the *few worst cases* with HT disabled, while leaving HT enabled tended to increase performance in most of the multithreaded situations.


----------



## Krneki (Mar 9, 2013)

cmaxvt said:


> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2249262
> 
> This was one of the forum posts that discusses it.  Great data provided here.  Someone who went from an i5-3570k to an i7-3770k to an i7-3930k.



I searched the topic for 5 min and I couldn't find any date supporting your claim about HT. More to it I found this replay.

Yes, I did same testing with HT off and there was just no measurable difference.

P.S: Don't take this as a personal attack, I only want to know how much HT will improve my FPS in games so I can better decide what my next CPU will be when I will need to upgrade my i5 750@4Ghz. As for now if you O/C your CPU you are better of disabling HT in order to gain a higher CPU clock.


----------



## Krneki (Mar 9, 2013)

Enmitynz said:


> This, they test this way to show us, the consumers, what real world differences we are going to see at resolutions that we play at. Yes, we all know lowering the resolution will exaggerate the differences in cpu power and clearly outline which cpu has the most raw grunt, but what good is it if at 1080p the difference between cpu a and cpu b is 1 fps. This is what you need to understand.
> 
> If you play at 800x600 then sure that would be more valid.



If you want to have a high end gaming ring you change video cards every year, but you don't do the same for the CPU. So when you buy one you want to be sure you get the most power for your money. So this is why it's important to review a CPU on lower resolution or triple SLI setups, so you have a clear idea about the CPU power you are going to buy.


----------



## chinmi (Mar 11, 2013)

change vga every year ?? wow... that's kinda expensive, lol... but you got a point there, especially if the new type of vga type has a new directx support...

my old i5 750 from 2009, and my old 6990 from 2011 thankfully still adequate to play all the current games at their max settings (except crysis series, lol)


----------



## winniethepujols (Mar 15, 2013)

I've been looking a lot into i5 and i7's lately, and I'd like to point out of the following: as I write this, NewEgg sells the i5 for $219. Microcenter has had the i7 on sale for 2+ months now at $229. At $10, it's a no-brainer.

The catch is that Microcenter.com will not ship the processor -- the deal requires you to pick it up in a store, and they only have a limited number of locations. 

Hopefully this helps someone that is on the fence and has a Microcenter near them!

EDIT: wait, I guess they have the i5 on sale for $169 too! I guess this is still helpful info, but what I said above is not necessarily valid anymore.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 15, 2013)

Nice review and thanks...



W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



I would like see Arma 3 tested..


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 15, 2013)

winniethepujols said:


> I've been looking a lot into i5 and i7's lately, and I'd like to point out of the following: as I write this, NewEgg sells the i5 for $219. Microcenter has had the i7 on sale for 2+ months now at $229. At $10, it's a no-brainer.
> 
> The catch is that Microcenter.com will not ship the processor -- the deal requires you to pick it up in a store, and they only have a limited number of locations.
> 
> ...



I got my I5 at Microcenter for $189 and the reason I didn't get the I7 was because Microcenter had $50 off any compatible mobo with a 3570 or a 3225...(its $40 off now)
I was able to get my MSI z77A G45 and the I5 3570 for $250 after tax....they do not have the same deal for I7....Those of that live close to a Microcenter look at the prices at places like Newegg and are like pfffft....Why so much?

The upgrade I did only cost me $550 total because of Microcenter...Newegg prices for the same stuff was $780...My SSD's cost $90 each at Microcenter...they are $105 at newegg

Yeah the list goes on and on...I feel blessed to live close to a Microcenter...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 18, 2013)

This one was from Tom's Hardware, they used Skyrim and F1,  for CPU testing:


----------



## TheHunter (Mar 24, 2013)

W1zzard said:


> any other games that you can recommend for cpu testing?



- X3 Terran Conflict (for single threaded perf.)
- Resident Evil5 fixed benchmark
- Resident Evil6 benchmark
- LostPlanet2 fixed benchmark (2-4xaa)
- Final Fantasy XIV benchmark
- 3dmark06 cpu test
- Crysis1 benchmark (mostly single threaded perf., 2-4xaa)
- GTA4 benchmark (medium/high shadows so its not gpu bottlenecked)


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 24, 2013)

TheHunter said:


> - X3 Terran Conflict (for single threaded perf.)
> - Resident Evil5 fixed benchmark
> - Resident Evil6 benchmark
> - LostPlanet2 fixed benchmark (2-4xaa)
> ...



How is adding 2-4x AA would help in any way? 
IIrc, I found Lostplanet2 to be quite GPU bound, at least that was the case with the early versions I tried.

Anyway, many recommended online games here like 64 slot Bf3 servers. I don't think those could be usable in performance tests, but if they would do, online Planetside2 and Natural selection2 would also fit into that category.


----------



## TheHunter (Mar 24, 2013)

I mean use only max 2-4xaa (preferably no aa) or there would be to much of a gpu bottleneck @1080p. LP2 fixed benchmark (test2) is cpu bound.


----------



## Hood (Apr 16, 2013)

PatoRodrigues said:


> Instantly imagined that when saw a Malay batch for the 3570K and a Costa Rica batch for the 3770K.



Damn, I have the 3570k Malay, and yes, it runs hot, and no, it doesn't want to go past 4.5 GHz.


----------



## AsRock (Apr 16, 2013)

TheGrapist said:


> ARMA 2 OA benches would be interesting,though i don't think it can use more than 2 cores.



I think ya right, be better with Arma 3 how ever that's if they sorted out the random FPS you can get.  Results can be crazy from Arma 2.

BUT as a CPU test well it demands a lot of it but it's a shame they still don't use the threads ..


----------

