# 3570K OC - performance increment



## uptech (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm building a new PC and 3570K costs $40 more than 3470, and it's only 0.1Ghz. I WOULD overclock my 3570K but not that the lifetime would decrease... So I think I would be able to overclock it to something like 4.5Ghz, maybe more, maybe less (increasing the voltage to 1.1v or so).

I'm short on cash, so $40 matters to me. Does anyone have a real-life gaming comparison of 3570K OCed like this vs. no OC? Or maybe even a comparison to 3470?

I would much appreciate this.

P.S. I CAN afford it, but I can use the $40 for something else otherwise. I am not sure if it's worth it, that's all. That's why I'm asking for real-world performance.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 7, 2012)

uptech said:


> I'm building a new PC and 3570K costs $40 more than 3470, and it's only 0.1Ghz. I WOULD overclock my 3570K but not that the lifetime would decrease... So I think I would be able to overclock it to something like 4.5Ghz, maybe more, maybe less (increasing the voltage to 1.1v or so).
> 
> I'm short on cash, so $40 matters to me. Does anyone have a real-life gaming comparison of 3570K OCed like this vs. no OC? Or maybe even a comparison to 3470?
> 
> I would much appreciate this.



just save a lil more cash


----------



## DarkOCean (Nov 7, 2012)

yeah just wait until you have the cash to buy the k.


----------



## uptech (Nov 7, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> just save a lil more cash



I can afford it, I'm just not sure if it's worth it. I could buy a bunch of fans, a webcam, put it to the SSD fund, etc.. That's why I'm asking about real-world performance.


----------



## Flibolito (Nov 7, 2012)

Depends since on a stock intel heatsink it might get a little warm under the hood. so a good solid 4.5GHz might not be attainable that way and might cost another 50-60 in a good heatsink. Stock intel is good for about 4.0GHz sustained maybe a bit higher if just gaming in a cool room. So there is more to consider here than just the $40. In the end it is better to spend the extra and OC it because it will extend the lifespan rather than shortening it since a few years from now the extra clock speed will keep it viable.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 7, 2012)

Flibolito said:


> Depends since on a stock intel heatsink it might get a little warm under the hood. so a good solid 4.5GHz might not be attainable that way and might cost another 50-60 in a good heatsink. Stock intel is good for about 4.0GHz sustained maybe a bit higher if just gaming in a cool room. So there is more to consider here than just the $40. In the end it is better to spend the extra and OC it because it will extend the lifespan rather than shortening it since a few years from now the extra clock speed will keep it viable.



overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability



uptech said:


> I can afford it, I'm just not sure if it's worth it. I could buy a bunch of fans, a webcam, put it to the SSD fund, etc.. That's why I'm asking about real-world performance.



compare specs of them both then decide- if cache and core levels are different same with Thermal Design Power then they are totally different. if they are the same other than the K being unlocked and .1 GHz difference then they perform the same. However the K Model has an unlocked multiplier so if you want to overclock high you can just dont expect to reach 4.5GHz on a locked model. Also K models lack virutalization too


----------



## uptech (Nov 7, 2012)

Flibolito said:


> Depends since on a stock intel heatsink it might get a little warm under the hood. so a good solid 4.5GHz might not be attainable that way and might cost another 50-60 in a good heatsink. Stock intel is good for about 4.0GHz sustained maybe a bit higher if just gaming in a cool room. So there is more to consider here than just the $40. In the end it is better to spend the extra and OC it because it will extend the lifespan rather than shortening it since a few years from now the extra clock speed will keep it viable.



I don't think I'm going to need the extra power now, maybe in 6-12 months or so I will. So the solution of $30 for a cooler would be cheap. The question is, however, is the extra, total, $80 worth it or not. I don't know what performance increment it would give...



eidairaman1 said:


> overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability
> 
> 
> 
> compare specs of them both then decide- if cache and core levels are different same with Thermal Design Power then they are totally different. if they are the same other than the K being unlocked and .1 GHz difference then they perform the same. However the K Model has an unlocked multiplier so if you want to overclock high you can just dont expect to reach 4.5GHz on a locked model. Also K models lack virutalization too



Yes it does, however it doesn't necessarily cause instability. Plenty of people run those CPUs over 5Ghz without any stability issues. 

Specs are the same, except it has .1Ghz extra and is unlocked.

By the way, how can I use virtualization? I think it's only useful if I wanted to use something like VirtualBox?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 7, 2012)

uptech said:


> I don't think I'm going to need the extra power now, maybe in 6-12 months or so I will. So the solution of $30 for a cooler would be cheap. The question is, however, is the extra, total, $80 worth it or not. I don't know what performance increment it would give...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




i dont see any here that run em 5.0GHz so its a moot point, Virtualization helps with any virtual programs. But If you really are not going to overclock at all you might aswell just stick on a Standard model.


----------



## uptech (Nov 7, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> i dont see any here that run em 5.0GHz so its a moot point, Virtualization helps with any virtual programs. But If you really are not going to overclock at all you might aswell just stick on a Standard model.



I don't see a point to OC now, but in a couple months, new technologies and all, there may be a very valid point to OC it to 4.5Ghz or so... But that's of course assuming that it WILL give me a performance boost, which is what I'm trying to find out here - what performance boost I would get.


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability



He will not notice shorter lifespan(if much) if he stays resonable with overclock and since when did overclocking cause instablity? What are we talking 8 years to 7 years with a decent stable good temp overclock?


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Nov 8, 2012)

What are you going to be doing with the chip? Gaming, CAD?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> He will not notice shorter lifespan(if much) if he stays resonable with overclock and since when did overclocking cause instablity? What are we talking 8 years to 7 years with a decent stable good temp overclock?



ask Qubit on that


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> ask Qubit on that



Then he has a shitty chip that he wasn't cooling well with the proper voltage. I have an Athlon XP 2500+ that has been overclocked since the day I got it and it's perfectly fine.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

TacoTown said:


> What are you going to be doing?



That's what I'm trying to find out here, no luck yet.



eidairaman1 said:


> ask Qubit on that



One incident doesn't mean that everything else even remotely similar is the same. It just means that it has happened once for that particular guy, with those particular conditions. I, however, don't know the details here and am going by what you and TacoTown have said.

So, without extensive testing with the same conditions, I go with TacoTown.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 8, 2012)

I hold my 3770k on stock for now. But I'm glad because my sample can stable 4.8GHz.
I will never go over 4.5GHz, that OC sounds good for me. And I suggest 4.5GHz like some last clock for air or closed liquid cooler. 4.5GHz is 30% over specification. ENOUGH.
Stable on 1.225-1.250V I can't damage chip with that OC in long-term use.
When you hit chip like that you can't complain about IB like bad overclocker.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

over prolonged time running a CPU out of its recommended range causes the die to break down internally. In Windows that means instability/BSODs. It Even degrades further especially when additional voltage has to be applied just to maintain that clock speed. It can get to the point where you can only run it at Stock speeds and nothing more.

You can overclock the non K model but you probably would be limited because of the Motherboards Bus speed. If overclocking isnt the main point of this machine Id go with the Non K Model and save the money. Otherwise if you decide to make it a main point go with it.

Personally Overclocking isnt anything special anymore...


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> over prolonged time running a CPU out of its recommended range causes the die to break down internally. In Windows that means instability/BSODs. It Even degrades further especially when additional voltage has to be applied just to maintain that clock speed. It can get to the point where you can only run it at Stock speeds and nothing more.
> 
> You can overclock the non K model but you probably would be limited because of the Motherboards Bus speed. If overclocking isnt the main point of this machine Id go with the Non K Model and save the money. Otherwise if you decide to make it a main point go with it.
> 
> Personally Overclocking isnt anything special anymore...



Personally, I don't see a point in OCing, I see a point in performance when it's needed however. That's why I'm trying to find out how much performance I would get.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Personally, I don't see a point in OCing, I see a point in performance when it's needed however. That's why I'm trying to find out how much performance I would get.



well if you see no point might aswell go for the Extreme Processor then that way you pay for what youre getting.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

Buy an 8320. They handle voltage and overclocking rather well are cheaper, boards will likely support the next batch of AMD chips unlike the 3570K you are looking at and performance will be similar overall with better performance flip-flopping between the two.

As for overclocking on either side. I built a rig 5 years ago with an overclocked C2D based Celeron and it has not degraded nor has the memory or board its installed to. Same goes for the Phenom X4 910 I have beat to death for 3-4 years and is still cranking out 3.4ghz.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> well if you see no point might aswell go for the Extreme Processor then that way you pay for what youre getting.



Not sure what you mean by "Extreme Processor."



cdawall said:


> Buy an 8320. They handle voltage and overclocking rather well are cheaper, boards will likely support the next batch of AMD chips unlike the 3570K you are looking at and performance will be similar overall with better performance flip-flopping between the two.
> 
> As for overclocking on either side. I built a rig 5 years ago with an overclocked C2D based Celeron and it has not degraded nor has the memory or board its installed to. Same goes for the Phenom X4 910 I have beat to death for 3-4 years and is still cranking out 3.4ghz.



8320's much weaker than 3470, not to mention 3570K, NOT to mention OC.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> 8320's much weaker than 3470, not to mention 3570K, NOT to mention OC.



Depends what you are doing. Since you haven't mentioned that I have to guess. There are about a billion benchmarks that say you are wrong depending what you are doing.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Depends what you are doing. Since you haven't mentioned that I have to guess. There are about a billion benchmarks that say you are wrong depending what you are doing.



Actually I have in the OP - gaming.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Actually I have in the OP - gaming.



That's about as unspecific as normal computing. FPS? MMO? Skyrim? WTF are you doing with the computer?

Doesn't seem that bad in BF3







Seeing how most major game developers are going multithreaded are you sure you want to stick with something somewhat lacking in that department? Are you sure that is the wisest choice for being future proof? Single IPC is dieing, multithreading is gaining were do you want to be sitting? Don't forget LGA 1155 is sitting on the EOL charts with Haswell and LGA 1150 sitting on the horizon


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cdawall said:


> That's about as unspecific as normal computing. FPS? MMO? Skyrim? WTF are you doing with the computer?
> 
> Doesn't seem that bad in BF3
> 
> Seeing how most major game developers are going multithreaded are you sure you want to stick with something somewhat lacking in that department? Are you sure that is the wisest choice for being future proof? Single IPC is dieing, multithreading is gaining were do you want to be sitting? Don't forget LGA 1155 is sitting on the EOL charts with Haswell and LGA 1150 sitting on the horizon



I'm playing all kinds of games, both new and old. And by all kinds I mean all kinds, I mean 10s, 100s of different games. So I can't be more specific here.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

why not step up to skt 2011 then?

heres a compare between certain models

http://ark.intel.com/compare/52214,65647,52210,61275,65520,65523


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> why not step up to skt 2011 then?
> 
> heres a compare between certain models
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/compare/52214,65647,52210,61275,65520,65523



Not sure what you mean.


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> ask Qubit on that





Don't have to. Been doing it for a decade.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Not sure what you mean.



ok the platform you were looking at initially was the Skt 1155 platform so Why not consider the Skt 2011 platform.

I provided all of the top Model Core i7/ Core i5 Extreme Models for the 1155 Platform (highest clock speed- all lack VT-D) and the Core i7s have Hyperthreading and 2 MB higher on L3 Cache (hence the thread counts)

Most users who had bought the core i5 2500K  then didnt notice any performance different between that and the core i7 2600K.

Most Common Overclock between all of them is 4.3-4.5 GHz


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> I'm playing all kinds of games, both new and old. And by all kinds I mean all kinds, I mean 10s, 100s of different games. So I can't be more specific here.



Well in older games even the single threaded ones the FX series of chips is substantially better than the 2.2ghz AMD Athlon 64 they were designed for. In modern games things are moving to multithreading so the FX would be a better choice. So what games are you looking at that the i5 is so much better?



uptech said:


> Not sure what you mean.



He means if all you are going to be doing is gaming and complaining the AMD is not powerful enough than LGA1155 isn't going to have what you apparently need so you may as well get an LGA2011 setup.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Well in older games even the single threaded ones the FX series of chips is substantially better than the 2.2ghz AMD Athlon 64 they were designed for. In modern games things are moving to multithreading so the FX would be a better choice. So what games are you looking at that the i5 is so much better?
> 
> 
> 
> He means if all you are going to be doing is gaming and complaining the AMD is not powerful enough than LGA1155 isn't going to have what you apparently need so you may as well get an LGA2011 setup.



I mean atleast you know what youre getting into performance wise with a 2011 platform and there really isnt any worry of overclocking or not, plus has enough bandwidth to run 2-4 AMD or Nvidia Video cards and supports 64+ GB ram. Ask Wile E on it


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok the platform you were looking at initially was the Skt 1155 platform so Why not consider the Skt 2011 platform.
> 
> I provided all of the top Model Core i7/ Core i5 Extreme Models for the 1155 Platform (highest clock speed- all lack VT-D) and the Core i7s have Hyperthreading and 2 MB higher on L3 Cache (hence the thread counts)
> 
> ...



The 2011 slot has only 3 CPUs, and they are all ~30% costlier. That would be closer to 3770K, not 3570K or 3470.



cdawall said:


> Well in older games even the single threaded ones the FX series of chips is substantially better than the 2.2ghz AMD Athlon 64 they were designed for. In modern games things are moving to multithreading so the FX would be a better choice. So what games are you looking at that the i5 is so much better?
> 
> 
> 
> He means if all you are going to be doing is gaming and complaining the AMD is not powerful enough than LGA1155 isn't going to have what you apparently need so you may as well get an LGA2011 setup.



Skyrim, BF3, WoW, Starcraft, and some others I can't recall.

I was comparing AMD to Intel...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> The 2011 slot has only 3 CPUs, and they are all ~30% costlier. That would be closer to 3770K, not 3570K or 3470.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Skyrim is the only one that has any issues whatsoever on AMD and it isn't by much...


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> I mean atleast you know what youre getting into performance wise with a 2011 platform and there really isnt any worry of overclocking or not, plus has enough bandwidth to run 2-4 AMD or Nvidia Video cards and supports 64+ GB ram. Ask Wile E on it



Except it's costlier, and that I can't afford.

I also am not planning to run more than 2 cards (MIGHT add a second one in a year or two), which is supported by all the LGA1155 CPUs. And I definitely am not going to need more than 16GB of memory for the next 3 or 4 years.

Besides, getting an exact benchmark isn't a good reason to buy a CPU. I don't think nobody will be able to provide me with some kind of information on the question about ~4.5 OC vs. no OC.



cdawall said:


> Skyrim is the only one that has any issues whatsoever in AMD and it isn't by much...



Issues, I didn't notice that. I just saw lower FPS by 5-20+ on those games.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Except it's costlier, and that I can't afford.
> 
> I also am not planning to run more than 2 cards (MIGHT add a second one in a year or two), which is supported by all the LGA1155 CPUs. And I definitely am not going to need more than 16GB of memory for the next 3 or 4 years.
> 
> ...



ok clock for clock the CPUs perform the same whether at 3 GHz or 4.5 GHz I gave you 6 CPU choices for Skt 1155 so pick one.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Except it's costlier, and that I can't afford.
> 
> I also am not planning to run more than 2 cards (MIGHT add a second one in a year or two), which is supported by all the LGA1155 CPUs. And I definitely am not going to need more than 16GB of memory for the next 3 or 4 years.
> 
> Besides, getting an exact benchmark isn't a good reason to buy a CPU. I don't think nobody will be able to provide me with some kind of information on the question about ~4.5 OC vs. no OC.



Make sure you get the correct LGA1155 board otherwise you will be trying to run dual cards with 16x on one slot and 4x on the other which doesn't work worth a damn. As for overclock vs no overclock you are not looking at a night and day difference maybe 5-15% in most games that are CPU limited.




uptech said:


> Issues, I didn't notice that. I just saw lower FPS by 5-20+ on those games.



By issues I meant lower framerates. BF3 shows the FX 8*1*50 outperforming the 3570K.

If you went the best performance in Skyrim, WOW and Starcraft 2 you may want to look into the absolutely highest clocked i3 you can get your hands on. If you want to play anything new that's coming out I recommend looking at the better multithreading chips.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok clock for clock the CPUs perform the same whether at 3 GHz or 4.5 GHz I gave you 6 CPU choices for Skt 1155 so pick one.



That explains a lot.



cdawall said:


> Make sure you get the correct LGA1155 board otherwise you will be trying to run dual cards with 16x on one slot and 4x on the other which doesn't work worth a damn. As for overclock vs no overclock you are not looking at a night and day difference maybe 5-15% in most games that are CPU limited.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the advice. I'm yet to pick a motherboard depending on if I'm going to OC or not.

5-15% isn't much, I'm not sure if it's worth $40... It could increase the performance by ~5FPS at ~50-60 frames then, which, I think, isn't worth the extra $40 then.

The point is, some games are CPU dependent more or less, and they use different technologies. If it's much slower at high frame rate, it still means that it'd be slower in other, whether already released or will be released, games as well.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Thanks for the advice. I'm yet to pick a motherboard depending on if I'm going to OC or not.
> 
> 5-15% isn't much, I'm not sure if it's worth $40... It could increase the performance by ~5FPS at ~50-60 frames then, which, I think, isn't worth the extra $40 then.
> 
> The point is, some games are CPU dependent more or less, and they use different technologies. If it's much slower at high frame rate, it still means that it'd be slower in other, whether already released or will be released, games as well.



You do understand the monitors you have been looking at in your other thread have a 60Hz refresh rate which means over 60FPS isn't seen on your monitor. The cheaper and easily overclockable 8320 can handle that in ALL of the games you have listed. Also the nice thing about AMD is the 970 series boards support all of the same options as the high end Z77 boards out there.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cdawall said:


> You do understand the monitors you have been looking at in your other thread have a 60Hz refresh rate which means over 60FPS isn't seen on your monitor. The cheaper and easily overclockable 8320 can handle that in ALL of the games you have listed. Also the nice thing about AMD is the 970 series boards support all of the same options as the high end Z77 boards out there.



As I said, I'm looking at the future too.  New games, new engines will be created. So the over 60FPS will become below 60FPS, and then I'll need to do something to increase it.


----------



## Flibolito (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability



Right but its relative. Smart overclocking extends the usefulness of the chip making it perform well longer. If overclock reduces the lifespan from 11-9 years so be it that chip wont be around in 10 years let alone be worth more than a few pennies.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> As I said, I'm looking at the future too.  New games, new engines will be created. So the over 60FPS will become below 60FPS, and then I'll need to do something to increase it.



Yes and as we can see from the heavily multithreaded games such as BF3 you should look into a CPU that performs well with multithreading like the AMD FX series which perform better in multithreading. The other 3 games you listed have a high single IPC need. That is something that is of the past. We are already seeing more and more applications being threaded to utilize all 8 threads of a BD/PD chip and they perform better than even the 3770K.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 8, 2012)

People don't buy non K models! That is for people who don't need OC at all. 
I know people who hold first generation and today on clock over 1GHz. That is 30% improvements. Why not 30% more for 20$.
That is OK offer. You never know when that 20$ can save your money and hold until something new show up for 2-3 years.
You can't improvement graphic never so much.
Vishera is bad option because most of time you need single tread performance. 
For same price 3570k is double better in that and almost same in multi tread.
BF3 and two more games is not gaming world. 
But 2011 is platform for people who work with multi tread applications every day, stock clock, 15h daily 100% load, IMC is weaker, you pay much more and games can't use 6 cores.

That is good long term option because 2011 is 2 years top platform and IB-E can fit in 2011 and than you have more two years top platform. But only 6 cores, 2011 and 4 core for me is nothing. 
Better OC 2700k or 3770k better and you are faster in games, better IMC, natural Intel SATA III Ports, natural USB 3.0 not some third party like on AMD, you don't need to tweak PCI-E 3.0...For one graphic card 90% PC for gaming you lose much with 3930k except if you want 4-5 year upgrade. Than 3930k is excellent together with expensive motherboard.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

Vlada011 said:


> Vishera is bad option because most of time you need single tread performance.



dude give it up.:shadedshu.

IMC on 2011 isnt weaker actually, the Platform is built for Future Expansion.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 8, 2012)

Yes Vishera is bad option. I have board for Vishera and I will sell that. 
Because what they offer it's not interesting for me. I need strong CPU in both 
single-multi tread and yes double performance in single tread for me worth 100$ more. 
Special if 3770k is faster and in multi if OC both. Faster on single almost double better, faster on multi little, faster both OC in single and multi core app, faster SSD, faster RAM, faster USB 3.0 everything for little and single tread is important until completely new softwares and OS and...
3570K is real gaming killer CPU. Most of them can OC on 4.2GHz with stock voltage and little more on 4.5GHz.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

Vlada011 said:


> Yes Vishera is bad option. I have board for Vishera and I will sell that.
> Because what they offer it's not interesting for me. I need strong CPU in both
> single-multi tread and yes double performance in single tread for me worth 100$ more.
> Special if 3770k is faster and in multi if OC both. Faster on single almost double better, faster on multi little, faster both OC in single and multi core app, faster SSD, faster RAM, faster USB 3.0 everything for little and single tread is important until completely new softwares and OS and...
> 3570K is real gaming killer CPU.



USB 3.0, really isnt needed for Mice or GamePads, HDs maybe but how many will you have hooked up at a time honestly? An SSD would speed up my Signature Rig actually no problem. 1155/AM3 run off of 1600 MHz Ram by Jedec.

8320 is no slouch actually.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 8, 2012)

Skt2011 is stupid for strictly gamers unless your planning on running > 3-way CFX or SLI, not to mention the platform costs more giving the user everything they don't need for gaming.  If all I did was gaming on my rig, I wouldn't have gotten a i7 3820. This is a bad recommendation, sorry. 

In all honesty, if you're gaming, grab the i5 3570k. It will be perfectly adequate, it will use less power, and it will cost less (in terms of power usage and cost.) SB-E and future IVB-E won't be light and day when it comes to games so don't waste your money.

Also don't go mentioning VT-d for someone who will never use virtualization, you'll only confuse people with facts that won't benefit them. 

As far as the IMC on SB-E, I have memory running at 2333Mhz @ 10-11-10-30 atm and it is perfectly stable.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 8, 2012)

Yes I told that 3570K is excellent gaming CPU. i7 good but not worth 100e more for gaming mainly.
Together with Z77 you have new generation of everything.
Haswell will not bring USB 4.0, SATA 5 or I don't know... Everything important is in Z77 + IB.
And less power consumption allow you to save one 3930k for 18-24 months if you buy Intel instead of AMD.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Yes and as we can see from the heavily multithreaded games such as BF3 you should look into a CPU that performs well with multithreading like the AMD FX series which perform better in multithreading. The other 3 games you listed have a high single IPC need. That is something that is of the past. We are already seeing more and more applications being threaded to utilize all 8 threads of a BD/PD chip and they perform better than even the 3770K.



There's more single-threaded games than multi-threaded games actually, and many latest games wouldn't utilize more than 2 cores. If it will move somewhere, it'll be more games using 3 and 4 cores.



Vlada011 said:


> People don't buy non K models! That is for people who don't need OC at all.
> I know people who hold first generation and today on clock over 1GHz. That is 30% improvements. Why not 30% more for 20$.
> That is OK offer. You never know when that 20$ can save your money and hold until something new show up for 2-3 years.
> You can't improvement graphic never so much.
> ...



Actually, my CPU would be on at least 80-90% load every day for 10-16 hours. If I don't game, I do other CPU-dependent tasks most of the time, sometimes it's all day, sometimes it's a few hours of relaxation.

By that said, I don't think that OC is a good idea, because the people who OC and wouldn't upgrade their computers for the next 4 years don't use them 10-16h a day with heavy CPU load all day long.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, by the way.



Aquinus said:


> Skt2011 is stupid for strictly gamers unless your planning on running > 3-way CFX or SLI, not to mention the platform costs more giving the user everything they don't need for gaming.  If all I did was gaming on my rig, I wouldn't have gotten a i7 3820. This is a bad recommendation, sorry.
> 
> In all honesty, if you're gaming, grab the i5 3570k. It will be perfectly adequate, it will use less power, and it will cost less (in terms of power usage and cost.) SB-E and future IVB-E won't be light and day when it comes to games so don't waste your money.
> 
> ...



I'm not even considering 2011 CPUs. I'm considering 3470 or 3570K. Please read the few lines above your quote about the 10-16h/day of PC usage.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

well its Settled Go for a Core i5 K model then


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> well its Settled Go for a Core i5 K model then



Not for me. I'm still unsure if it's worth going for the K model. Especially after reading the post about NOT running the PC on high CPU usage for a lot of time, and my PC WOULD run for 10-16 hours every single day on high CPU utilization.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

well look at S and T Models which offer lower power use, You can still overclock them to what the K Models are though


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> well look at S and T Models which offer lower power use, You can still overclock them to what the K Models are though



Is it worth buying a CPU that are initially weaker and would save me $15 a year on electricity bill but can be overclocked, which would both void my warranty and, since they are made differently, decrease their lifetime?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Is it worth buying a CPU that are initially weaker and would save me $15 a year on electricity bill but can be overclocked, which would both void my warranty and, since they are made differently, decrease their lifetime?



a lil secret they are made from the same brood, just certain models are cherry picked


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> but can be overclocked, which would both void my warranty



Let me tell you a little secret. Intel and AMD can't actually find out if you've overclocked or not unless you physical damage the chip by feeding it excessive voltage. Typical overclocks don't do anything to the CPU to "void the warranty" unless you tell them you were overclocking.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> a lil secret they are made from the same brood, just certain models are cherry picked



And what exactly do you mean by "cherry picked?"



Aquinus said:


> Let me tell you a little secret. Intel and AMD can't actually find out if you've overclocked or not unless you physical damage the chip by feeding it excessive voltage. Typical overclocks don't do anything to the CPU to "void the warranty" unless you tell them you were overclocking.



Seriously? So you mean, if I _would not touch the voltages_ there is absolutely no way for them knowing that I have overclocked the CPU and voided the warranty? Only if I added at least 0.025v they would know that I have overclocked it?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> And what exactly do you mean by "cherry picked?"
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? So you mean, if I _would not touch the voltages_ there is absolutely no way for them knowing that I have overclocked the CPU and voided the warranty? Only if I added at least 0.025v they would know that I have overclocked it?



no they wouldnt know if you overclocked it or not, not even if putting voltage through it.

Cherry Picked means either Certain CPUs can run on lower voltages at certain clock speeds or be able to run at very high clock speeds with minor voltage increases.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> no they wouldnt know if you overclocked it or not, not even if putting voltage through it.
> 
> Cherry Picked means either Certain CPUs can run on lower voltages at certain clock speeds or be able to run at very high clock speeds with minor voltage increases.



So... I don't get it. How does the warranty work then, if they can't determine if it was overclocked or not?

But essentially, if I'd be overclocking them to 4.5Ghz, it'd be the same voltage increment.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> And what exactly do you mean by "cherry picked?"
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? So you mean, if I _would not touch the voltages_ there is absolutely no way for them knowing that I have overclocked the CPU and voided the warranty? Only if I added at least 0.025v they would know that I have overclocked it?



Cherry picked means that they tested it for better silicon, even out of the same wafer. wafers get cut into many chips, but in the wafer itself chip quality is varied.



As to volting, Intel will sell you a warranty that covers that, for a very small fee. 



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




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

if you are concerned with voltages and overclocking, this warranty will cover you for that. 

Kinda takes all your concerns, and then flushes them down the toilet, doesn't it?


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Cherry picked means that they tested it for better silicon, even out of the same wafer. wafers get cut into many chips, but in the wafer itself chip quality is varied.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually quit the opposite.  First I bet the vendor has to agree to provide it, which I can bet you anything won't be the case here. Second, it's extra $20, so overall it's extra $60, which is almost a new SSD, or if I'd buy a cheaper one - a new SSD.

So my need to know the performance difference is even bigger now. AND additionally, I want to know _for sure_ if I was right on the "no 0.025v increment, no void warranty, otherwise warranty's void" statement, which would mean that I could get 3570K, and probably 3570 to probably 4+Ghz without voiding my warranty.

Which still means that it's not worth buying the K version, as the extra juice with it, on air, would give me maybe another 3% of FPS addition, and only IF I paid those extra $20, and ASSUMING that it doesn't need a confirmation with the vendor.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

OK, I see what direction you are coming from now.


For no OC, then yes, I'd just go with a non-K chip. the added cost of the "T" or "S" chips is more than the power savings will give you.


For gaming, I feel the 3570k is fine with a single GPU, but add in a second, and you need to OC to get good performance, 4.4 GHz or so, and with 2600K, for example, you'd need 4.6 or so. If you play BF3, it seems to love high CPU speed. Other games are not as sensitive to CPU performance, unless you play games like Shogun2, or similar.


I test all motherboards with chips at 4.6 GHz. I have both a 3770K and a 3570k that will do those clocks. I have been running a multitude of tests since these chips launched, and you are kind of right, only certain scenarios show any benefit from OC.

That said, I'd get a "K" chip, so that in the future, should you want a bit more power, than you can increase clocks. 

Non-K chip, you can only OC the multi up by 4 steps only.

In the same breath...an new FX AMD chip (fx-8350)would serve you just as well.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> OK, I see what direction you are coming from now.
> 
> 
> For no OC, then yes, I'd just go with a non-K chip. the added cost of the "T" or "S" chips is more than the power savings will give you.
> ...



That's good to hear. 

So anyway, for now I'm gonna use a single VGA, but in the future I MIGHT add another. But that is a VERY BIG might, so there's a 95% that I will not.

I would play all kinds of games, so yes, I would definitely play games like that, including Shogun2, Civ5, and Bf3, but I wouldn't spend anymore time on them than on any other game, like COD, UT, Dishonored, Skyrim, Max Payne 3, etc..

Okay, so if I get this right... The non-K chip can be overclocked as far as non-voltage overclocking goes, right? So that would be... 4Ghz for 3570? And the 3570K, assuming I'm overclocking it within a safe range, would go as far as 4.4-4.6Ghz on air AND in the safe voltage range.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Okay, so if I get this right... The non-K chip can be overclocked as far as non-voltage overclocking goes, right? So that would be... 4Ghz for 3570? And the 3570K, assuming I'm overclocking it within a safe range, would go as far as 4.4-4.6Ghz on air AND in the safe voltage range.



3570 will not hit 4 GHz.


it is default 3.4 GHz, so can only do 3.9 GHz. +4 on Turbo multi only.

So to get 4 GHz, you gotta buy the "K" chip.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> 3570 will not hit 4 GHz.
> 
> 
> it is default 3.4 GHz, so can only do 3.9 GHz. +4 on Turbo multi only.
> ...



It's default is 3.6Ghz. 3470 is 3.4Ghz.


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 8, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> 3570 will not hit 4 GHz.
> 
> 
> it is default 3.4 GHz, so can only do 3.9 GHz. +4 on Turbo multi only.
> ...





I think 3570 has a BCLCK and can hit 4GHz.Just no multi.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> It's default is 3.6Ghz. 3470 is 3.4Ghz.



I have my box from 3570k in front of me. it is 3.4 ghz default, 3.5 GHz with Turbo.

see here:

3570:

http://ark.intel.com/products/65702/Intel-Core-i5-3570-Processor-6M-Cache-3_40-GHz

3570k:

http://ark.intel.com/products/65520/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz



drdeathx said:


> I think 3570 has a BCLCK and can hit 4GHz.Just no multi.



True enough, bclk can get it up to 4 GHz. Just not multis alone.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

Oh, sorry, my mistake. It IS 3.4Ghz. Then it'd be 3.8Ghz.

@cadaveca So with turbo, it would be 3.9Ghz.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Oh, sorry, my mistake. It IS 3.4Ghz. Then it'd be 3.8Ghz.



well, 3.4 GHz is without Turbo. Enable Turbo(which is enabled by default), and you get 3.5 GHz.


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> overclocking any cpu shortens the lifespan and causes instability



Yeah, the CPU will only last for 10-13 years instead of 15-20. By that time you'll be wanting an upgrade anyway. My 1999 PC is a Pentium 3 600 mhz for comparrison.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> well, 3.4 GHz is without Turbo. Enable Turbo(which is enabled by default), and you get 3.5 GHz.



Let's do a fact checkup and let's put everything we got here into this post:

1. Okay, so 3570/3570K, no turbo, 3.4Ghz, turbo - 3.5Ghz. So we can say "it's a 3.5Ghz CPU" here.

2. Back to overclocking: I could OC 3570 to 3.9Ghz. I could OC 3570K to ~4.2Ghz with no voltage. I could OC 3570K to 4.5Ghz with little voltage.

3. Back to warranty: There is *absolutely* no way for anybody to know if my CPU has been overclocked *if, and only if* I won't increase the voltage. If I increase the voltage even by a notch, 0.025v, they would know that overclocking was the reason that it died. Basically, if I don't increase voltage and go to ~4.2Ghz, my warranty *is not* void. If I increase voltage, my warranty *is* void.

Is everything in this post correct? If not, what's wrong? If yes, please do clarify.


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 8, 2012)

I don't see how Intel or AMD could tell if voltage was increased by .025v. Voltage fluxuates more than that on its own. Also, Intel chips are certified to run at a certain voltage, which is a LOT higher than what they run at. As long as you don't cross that barrier I think the voltage increase would be fine. I think the max voltage is around 1.52 - But most 24/7ers keep it under 1.3 to 1.35


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> If I increase the voltage even by a notch, 0.025v, they would know that overclocking was the reason that it died. Basically, if I don't increase voltage and go to ~4.2Ghz, my warranty is not void. If I increase voltage, my warranty is void.



adjusting clocks would technically void warranty just as much as adjusting voltages. CPU is only warrantied for stock setting using stock cooling, and nothing else. That also means there is a maximum memory speed, maximum memory voltage, etc...

Is there a way for them to know? It's possible, but not likely. I think simply asking what other hardware you use says a lot though.


Most people...most people buy the "K" chip, give it a bit of voltage, and don't worry about it at all. 

My 3770K, it does 4.6 GHz @ 1.2 V or less. I have given it up to 1.25 V, and no more.

My 3570K, it takes 1.35 V for 4.6 GHz, and I'm pushing 1.375 V into it now trying to get 4.7 GHz. 

Both run with 2666 MHz ram. The 3570K needs IMC and VCCIO voltage boosts to get there, the 3770K does not.

When the 3570k dies, I'll be sure to be posting about it. I'll also be posting how my tuning plan warranty claim goes too, and what the replacement chip is like. For $20, it was well worth the extra cost, IMHO.


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 8, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> My 3770K, it does 4.6 GHz @ 1.2 V or less. I have given it up to 1.25 V, and no more.
> 
> My 3570K, it takes 1.35 V for 4.6 GHz, and I'm pushing 1.375 V into it now trying to get 4.7 GHz.



Dave, I never actually looked (shame on me)... what are you using for cooler(s)?


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

NinkobEi said:


> I don't see how Intel or AMD could tell if voltage was increased by .025v. Voltage fluxuates more than that on its own. Also, Intel chips are certified to run at a certain voltage, which is a LOT higher than what they run at. As long as you don't cross that barrier I think the voltage increase would be fine. I think the max voltage is around 1.52



I've read that you shouldn't go over 1.3v on Ivy, it's very different from Sandy. Go over that and you're getting into the dangerous zone, to quote the article. So it would be more like 0.1v. 



cadaveca said:


> adjusting clocks would technically void warranty just as much as adjusting voltages. CPU is only warrantied for stock setting using stock cooling, and nothing else. That also means there is a maximum memory speed, maximum memory voltage, etc...
> 
> Is there a way for them to know? It's possible, but not likely. I think simply asking what other hardware you use says a lot though.
> 
> ...



So using a different cooler voids the warranty too. Well... I have little money, so I worry a lot about such things. I am not one of those people who worry about everything. I just worry about the things that cost money, and that I know I could not bare to damage because I couldn't afford to replace it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

dont worry about the warranty. To me it sounds like your unsure about alot, personally id save up more money and then take the machine to someone to build for you.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> dont worry about the warranty. To me it sounds like your unsure about alot, personally id save up more money and then take the machine to someone to build for you.



I'm unsure only because I don't know the details. I wouldn't trust someone to build me a PC, or if he would, I'd give him 50 questions about each part to make sure that it's the part that I want there to be. Then I'd go home and spend 8 hours reading about each part. Then I'd go back to him and give him 25 questions about each part. 

If I'd have all the concrete details, I would make my decision in seconds.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> I'm unsure only because I don't know the details. I wouldn't trust someone to build me a PC, or if he would, I'd give him 50 questions about each part to make sure that it's the part that I want there to be. Then I'd go home and spend 8 hours reading about each part. Then I'd go back to him and give him 25 questions about each part.
> 
> If I'd have all the concrete details, I would make my decision in seconds.



atleast with a PC shop you wouldnt void a warranty of doing it yourself

Honestly youre thinking a Lil too much


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> atleast with a PC shop you wouldnt void a warranty of doing it yourself
> 
> Honestly youre thinking a Lil too much



That's because I don't have too much money and I want to choose the best for me.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> That's because I don't have too much money and I want to choose the best for me.



ok heres the deal how things in this world works for RMAs etc.

You dont tell then what you did exactly as to the reason your Parts didnt work/died, just say they stopped working and that is it and if you had any error codes from windows itself.

Before Youtube and major forums there were books on how to build and trouble shoot computers- Read them.

The 1st thing to remember always is to take Electro Static Discharge/Static Electricity Precautions.

Since You dont know anything about overclocking right now, dont do it till you build the machine and get a full understanding of how all the hardware works, and Read up on how to overclock such a configuration when you build it. Basically give yourself a few months before deciding to overclock, give the machine a chance to break in.

Personally Select 1 of the 6 CPUs I have posted earlier, whichever is cheaper, they all OC to around 4.3-4.5GHz manually (Non Turbo Mode) Before You even think of overclocking get a Different CPU cooler (Stock units normally come with CPUs- only good for running at Stock) up to Turbo speed- tend to be noisy)


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok heres the deal how things in this world works for RMAs etc.
> 
> You dont tell then what you did exactly as to the reason your Parts didnt work/died, just say they stopped working and that is it and if you had any error codes from windows itself.
> 
> ...



I know a little. I have overclocked a friend's computer. Not with multipliers though, it was a locked CPU.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> I know a little. I have overclocked a friend's computer. Not with multipliers though, it was a locked CPU.



ok so you know about FSB overclocking which is good.

its FSB x base clock (or Multiplier) which gets your Operational Clock speed of your CPU


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok so you know about FSB overclocking which is good.
> 
> its FSB x base clock (or Multiplier) which gets your Operational Clock speed of your CPU



And over here, it would be multiplier. If it would be the non-K version, I'd read some info about the turbo multiplier, or if it was named like that, I'd just increase it, that's all. It's simple.

Anyway, by details I didn't mean how to overclock, etc.. I meant the performance difference between overclocked and not and overclocked 2570 and 2570K (4Ghz vs 4.5Ghz).

...and also I've some questions about RMA, as you guys are speaking mostly about the US, I assume, and it differs from country to country and from store to store.

How does it work? I mean, you take the CPU to them, say it's failed, do they instantly give you a new one? Do you have to wait 3 days until they get a new one from their warehouse? Or how else does it work?


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> atleast with a PC shop you wouldnt void a warranty of doing it yourself
> 
> Honestly youre thinking a Lil too much





How do you void a warranty by doing it yourself. Your sounding real wierd.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> How do you void a warranty by doing it yourself. Your sounding real wierd.



http://download.intel.com/support/processors/sb/sockethfinallayout.pdf

they used to void warranty if you claimed to built the machine yourself doh.

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-020033.htm


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> http://download.intel.com/support/processors/sb/sockethfinallayout.pdf
> 
> they used to void warranty if you claimed to built the machine yourself doh.
> 
> http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-020033.htm



The funniest things void the warranty...

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you'd "walk me through" the RMA process as in my previous post. I assume you've missed it due to a question in the post above.


----------



## erocker (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> The funniest things void the warranty...
> 
> Anyway, I would appreciate it if you'd "walk me through" the RMA process as in my previous post. I assume you've missed it due to a question in the post above.



How RMA's work:

Call the support number or send an email claiming the product is defective. They will decide if it needs RMA and you send the product to an address. If the RMA is approved, after some time they will send you a new product.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

erocker said:


> How RMA's work:
> 
> Call the support number or send an email claiming the product is defective. They will decide if it needs RMA and you send the product to an address. If the RMA is approved, after some time they will send you a new product.



So you guys don't do it something like this?

"Take it to the service store, tell them it's defected and give it in the original packing, wait for a replacement."

And anyway, if it needs an approvement, they are likely to check if it's been overclocked. :/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> So you guys don't do it something like this?
> 
> "Take it to the service store, tell them it's defected and give it in the original packing, wait for a replacement."
> 
> And anyway, if it needs an approvement, they are likely to check if it's been overclocked. :/



if the processor is dead, they cant check to see if it is, They only would check and see if the CPU runs fine at Stock clock and at Turbo Clock thats it.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> if the processor is dead, they cant check to see if it is, They only would check and see if the CPU runs fine at Stock clock and at Turbo Clock thats it.



Exactly. They verify stock operation(stock clocks, memory speeds, with stock cooling, etc) ONLY...anything over and above that, they do not need to test. You can only claim warranty if those things do not work.


Stores do not have the equipment to test for more. However, if you buy a CPU, typically, the store only handles warranty claims for a limited period, and then it's up to the manufacturer, who is more likely to have equipment capable of testing such things.

Things get broken during shipping, etc...stores do not test parts in sealed boxes before sale, so warranty is there to cover that sort of thing. Usually issues caused by such will materialize within a very short period of time, which is why stores only handle short warranty periods in most instances.



Sasqui said:


> Dave, I never actually looked (shame on me)... what are you using for cooler(s)?



Corsair H100. I have two for testing.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> if the processor is dead, they cant check to see if it is, They only would check and see if the CPU runs fine at Stock clock and at Turbo Clock thats it.





cadaveca said:


> Exactly. They verify stock operation(stock clocks, memory speeds, with stock cooling, etc) ONLY...anything over and above that, they do not need to test. You can only claim warranty if those things do not work.
> 
> 
> Stores do not have the equipment to test for more. However, if you buy a CPU, typically, the store only handles warranty claims for a limited period, and then it's up to the manufacturer, who is more likely to have equipment capable of testing such things.
> ...



Well if they test if it's working and it isn't, there still must be a way to find it out. Like different electronics degradation inside the CPU, to see if it's been overclocked or not. Or am I tripping here? There MUST be a way to find out about OC and especially overvoltage.

I believe I can claim warranty if I get the "20C higher" version too. I've read some people complaining about that.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 8, 2012)

uptech said:


> Well if they test if it's working and it isn't, there still must be a way to find it out. Like different electronics degradation inside the CPU, to see if it's been overclocked or not. Or am I tripping here? There MUST be a way to find out about OC and especially overvoltage.



Your tripping. 

CPU degradation doesn't imply overclocking. So even if they could check for it, it isn't a valid indicator that the CPU was overclocked because excessive heat could cause it which doesn't need an overclock to occur. Either way, if you're not overclocking and not shoving 1.5v through a 22nm chip I think you will be fine.


----------



## uptech (Nov 8, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Your tripping.
> 
> CPU degradation doesn't imply overclocking. So even if they could check for it, it isn't a valid indicator that the CPU was overclocked because excessive heat could cause it which doesn't need an overclock to occur. Either way, if you're not overclocking and not shoving 1.5v through a 22nm chip I think you will be fine.



Hm, I didn't explain it further. Here's what I had in mind: you have bought the CPU 1 month ago. At the worst, let's assume that has been working 24/day, which means a total of 720 hours. Calculating the "normal" degradation of electronics if it was used under stock voltage AND frequency, would show how it should be degraded. Now if it was running on 4.5Ghz with + 0.1v, the degradation would differ and there would be inconsistency. I think, even if there would be no volts in play, it could be calculated as in lesser degradation of parts.

Degradation from heat and from electronics working "faster" is different. I think. I'm just using logic here, no physics knowledge involved.


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> if the processor is dead, they cant check to see if it is, They only would check and see if the CPU runs fine at Stock clock and at Turbo Clock thats it.





AMD and Intel would still replace it


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 8, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> http://download.intel.com/support/processors/sb/sockethfinallayout.pdf
> 
> they used to void warranty if you claimed to built the machine yourself doh.
> 
> http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-020033.htm



I have never seen them deny one. DOH!

You are also using key words "Used to"


----------



## cdawall (Nov 9, 2012)

uptech said:


> There's more single-threaded games than multi-threaded games actually, and many latest games wouldn't utilize more than 2 cores. If it will move somewhere, it'll be more games using 3 and 4 cores.



Why? Most games already use 4 cores. New games such as BF3 and Crysis 3 are using all 8 threads available to the 3770K, 8150 and 8350. 

You obvious lack of knowledge in a lot of these areas makes me question why you would argue with someone who is sitting there telling you from personal experience and the experience of other members. 

As for all of your overclocking woes. 3470, 3570K, 3770K doesn't matter you will not be clocking much if any on the bus speed everything is pretty much pure multiplier clocking. Yes you technically void your warranty overclocking but there isn't some piece of paper that changes color on the CPU to say you were overclocking. Even if you do pump 2V through your brand spanking new 3570K because you think you know best Intel wont know that is the exact reason the processor stopped working. That would lead to high level degradation and possibly death of certain internal components none of which is visible to the techie who plugs the CPU into a mobo and sees it not POST.

If you are that freaked out about overclocking save the money buy a 3470 and move on. Obviously overclocking isn't for you.


----------



## uptech (Nov 9, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Why? Most games already use 4 cores. New games such as BF3 and Crysis 3 are using all 8 threads available to the 3770K, 8150 and 8350.
> 
> You obvious lack of knowledge in a lot of these areas makes me question why you would argue with someone who is sitting there telling you from personal experience and the experience of other members.
> 
> ...



I'm just recapping what I've read in various articles of earlier this year. Supposedly they did tests.

Sorry for that. I just can't believe that there is no way of detecting that CPU has died of overclocking, that it was running on higher than allowed frequency or voltage, etc.. It's... Very odd.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 9, 2012)

Guys he can OC on 4.5GHz on some good cooler like Silver Arrow, H80, H100, Noctua, or Phanteks.
That's sure, on 1.300V no chance to start some degradation with gaming. No chance with benchmarking and 100% load. Intel CPU are famous like durable CPU in some mid OC.
Good cooling, good motherboard, and 30% over specification for next 3 years without problems.
I'm not to leave CPU on 4.8GHz every day and 1.4V first, maybe for short tests, but IB can 
4.2-4.3GHz with stock voltage Prime95 stable test. Don't throw performance through window if don't need for that.
4.5GHz is jogging for IB. But these CPU is so powerful you don't need OC first 2 years at all or first 12 months.
3570K and stop talking. Turn on what you want side no better option for gaming.


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 9, 2012)

uptech said:


> I'm just recapping what I've read in various articles of earlier this year. Supposedly they did tests.
> 
> Sorry for that. I just can't believe that there is no way of detecting that CPU has died of overclocking, that it was running on higher than allowed frequency or voltage, etc.. It's... Very odd.



overclocking doesn't damage the chip unless its pretty extreme and poorly cooled. judging by all of your insecure posts I suggest you try to find someone to help you put the pc together. or take a computer maintenance class.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 9, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> I have never seen them deny one. DOH!
> 
> You are also using key words "Used to"



fix your double post


----------



## Hood (Nov 9, 2012)

uptech said:


> That's why I'm asking for real-world performance.



A 30% overclock means everything the processor does is done 30% faster (more or less), so "real world" performance will depend on how CPU-dependent your program or game is.  Overclocking also helps RAM realize it's full potential when using high speed memory clocks such as 2133, 2400, or 2600, resulting in even more speed and lower latency.  Of course, to realize these gains will require more cash outlay for enhanced CPU cooling, at the very least $30 for a Hyper 212 Evo, or even better an H100 liquid cooling system for peace of mind.  In my book the ability to boost performance 30% or more is well worth the extra $70-$80 needed for the right hardware.  Get the 3570K


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 9, 2012)

Hood said:


> A 30% overclock means everything the processor does is done 30% faster (more or less), so "real world" performance will depend on how CPU-dependent your program or game is.  Overclocking also helps RAM realize it's full potential when using high speed memory clocks such as 2133, 2400, or 2600, resulting in even more speed and lower latency.  Of course, to realize these gains will require more cash outlay for enhanced CPU cooling, at the very least $30 for a Hyper 212 Evo, or even better an H100 liquid cooling system for peace of mind.  In my book the ability to boost performance 30% or more is well worth the extra $70-$80 needed for the right hardware.  Get the 3570K



ya only if the FSB is increased to match those ram speeds (good luck on that)


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 9, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Why? Most games already use 4 cores. New games such as BF3 and Crysis 3 are using all 8 threads available to the 3770K, 8150 and 8350.
> 
> You obvious lack of knowledge in a lot of these areas makes me question why you would argue with someone who is sitting there telling you from personal experience and the experience of other members.
> 
> ...



I have to say one thing. This is an overclocking club so overclock it!


----------



## cdawall (Nov 9, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> I have to say one thing. This is an overclocking club so overclock it!



I am all for overclocking, but when the guy doing it has no idea what to do it is immature to tell people to just go for it.


----------



## uptech (Nov 9, 2012)

Hood said:


> A 30% overclock means everything the processor does is done 30% faster (more or less), so "real world" performance will depend on how CPU-dependent your program or game is.  Overclocking also helps RAM realize it's full potential when using high speed memory clocks such as 2133, 2400, or 2600, resulting in even more speed and lower latency.  Of course, to realize these gains will require more cash outlay for enhanced CPU cooling, at the very least $30 for a Hyper 212 Evo, or even better an H100 liquid cooling system for peace of mind.  In my book the ability to boost performance 30% or more is well worth the extra $70-$80 needed for the right hardware.  Get the 3570K



What about 1600 or 1866?


----------



## Hood (Nov 12, 2012)

uptech said:


> What about 1600 or 1866?



Ivy Bridge has a very good memory controller, it is designed for best compatibility with 1600 RAM.  It also works even better with modules rated up to 2800 MHz if your motherboard and wallet can handle it.  But with the 1600 modules your throughput is around 20 GB/s, more than you really need, so you won't feel the difference in normal use if you opt for higher speed RAM.  Your real goal should be to reduce latency, so another strategy is to buy the higher binned RAM and underclock it so you can tighten the timings (and reduce the latency).  You may be able to feel the difference then.  But any decent 1600 modules will work great.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 12, 2012)

Hood said:


> Ivy Bridge has a very good memory controller, it is designed for best compatibility with 1600 RAM.  It also works even better with modules rated up to 2800 MHz if your motherboard and wallet can handle it.  But with the 1600 modules your throughput is around 20 GB/s, more than you really need, so you won't feel the difference in normal use if you opt for higher speed RAM.  Your real goal should be to reduce latency, so another strategy is to buy the higher binned RAM and underclock it so you can tighten the timings (and reduce the latency).  You may be able to feel the difference then.  But any decent 1600 modules will work great.



Well as far as the 3570K its a toss up if they will work with 2800mhz so I wouldn't go that far...


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 12, 2012)

I like to go with memory speed only in 9 or 10 latency limit. More than that for me is stupid.
Better 2000MHz on some 8-9 latency than 2400MHz C12. 
1866 and 2133 MHz 2x8GB modules are perfect, I recommend two CORSAIR and GSkill newer models but more expensive RAM 1.5V and tighter latency.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Nov 12, 2012)

uptech said:


> I don't see a point to OC now, but in a couple months, new technologies and all, there may be a very valid point to OC it to 4.5Ghz or so... But that's of course assuming that it WILL give me a performance boost, which is what I'm trying to find out here - what performance boost I would get.




The stock frequency is 3.40ghz, you can oc without much fear and so long as you have good cooling, to pretty easily 4.20-4.60ghz, so the performance boost is, "at a guess", between about 10-25% more speed in most instances.[i'm guessing here].

I can notice the difference when i do, which is quite often.


----------



## uptech (Nov 12, 2012)

Hood said:


> Ivy Bridge has a very good memory controller, it is designed for best compatibility with 1600 RAM.  It also works even better with modules rated up to 2800 MHz if your motherboard and wallet can handle it.  But with the 1600 modules your throughput is around 20 GB/s, more than you really need, so you won't feel the difference in normal use if you opt for higher speed RAM.  Your real goal should be to reduce latency, so another strategy is to buy the higher binned RAM and underclock it so you can tighten the timings (and reduce the latency).  You may be able to feel the difference then.  But any decent 1600 modules will work great.



I've read that latency isn't as important as frequency, actually.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 12, 2012)

Latency does infact have major play, lower the better actually



uptech said:


> I've read that latency isn't as important as frequency, actually.


----------



## uptech (Nov 12, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Latency does infact have major play, lower the better actually



How does CL10 @1866Mhz sound?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 12, 2012)

uptech said:


> How does CL10 @1866Mhz sound?



Slow as all get out


----------



## uptech (Nov 12, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Slow as all get out



So what would you recommend then?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 12, 2012)

uptech said:


> So what would you recommend then?



Something that can do 2400 CL11. Can be anything if you do your research I have a set of Samsung low profile low voltage sticks that can and ran $40 (2x4GB) just gotta shop.


----------



## uptech (Nov 12, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Something that can do 2400 CL11. Can be anything if you do your research I have a set of Samsung low profile low voltage sticks that can and ran $40 (2x4GB) just gotta shop.



Cheapest 2400 is $300 here. And I'm going 16GB.


----------



## drdeathx (Nov 12, 2012)

uptech said:


> Cheapest 2400 is $300 here. And I'm going 16GB.



GSkill Tridents are very good and $200 for 16G 2400MHz cas 11


----------



## anubis44 (Nov 13, 2012)

uptech said:


> Let's do a fact checkup and let's put everything we got here into this post:
> 
> 1. Okay, so 3570/3570K, no turbo, 3.4Ghz, turbo - 3.5Ghz. So we can say "it's a 3.5Ghz CPU" here.
> 
> ...



I've been using/tinkering with computers since 1979 and building IBM compatibles since my 1991 AMD 386/40MHz. In that entire time, the number of CPUs I've seen damaged by overclocking, even with additional voltages, it zero. Literally zero. This is why, despite my insistence on buying motherboards, ram, graphics cards from local stores so I can immediately return/exchange defective products, I will buy my CPUs from online retailers. Because I've NEVER seen a defective CPU from the factory. I don't even read the warranty coverage on a CPU anymore because they are so thoroughly tested.

As pertains to overclocking, every CPU will have a maximum recommended voltage. With Phenom IIs, for example, it's 1.5v, but even running it at 1.55v, so long as it doesn't go over 60 degrees celsius on a constant basis, is just fine.

You really need to understand that in order to permanently damage a CPU, the decisive factor is heat, not voltage. If you have liquid nitrogen cooling, you can over-volt an AMD FX chip to 1.9v, and so long as the temps are kept from shooting past 100 degrees celsius for any extended amount of time, the CPU will be just fine. So unless you plan to run your CPU without a heatsink and continually reboot it after thermal shutdown (which would happen within seconds), you really need to relax about warranty coverage on a CPU. You are MUCH more likely to bend off a pin on a CPU (AMD) or bend pins in a socket (Intel) then you are to pooch a CPU due to too much voltage.


----------



## anubis44 (Nov 13, 2012)

uptech said:


> I've read that latency isn't as important as frequency, actually.



That partly depends on the platform. AMD FX chips like tighter timings more than Intel chips. Read a thread on memory speed/latency for the exact CPU family you are planning to buy for before you decide how much to spend/which type of memory to buy. It will save you money.


----------



## uptech (Nov 13, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> GSkill Tridents are very good and $200 for 16G 2400MHz cas 11



Not available here.



anubis44 said:


> That partly depends on the platform. AMD FX chips like tighter timings more than Intel chips. Read a thread on memory speed/latency for the exact CPU family you are planning to buy for before you decide how much to spend/which type of memory to buy. It will save you money.





anubis44 said:


> I've been using/tinkering with computers since 1979 and building IBM compatibles since my 1991 AMD 386/40MHz. In that entire time, the number of CPUs I've seen damaged by overclocking, even with additional voltages, it zero. Literally zero. This is why, despite my insistence on buying motherboards, ram, graphics cards from local stores so I can immediately return/exchange defective products, I will buy my CPUs from online retailers. Because I've NEVER seen a defective CPU from the factory. I don't even read the warranty coverage on a CPU anymore because they are so thoroughly tested.
> 
> As pertains to overclocking, every CPU will have a maximum recommended voltage. With Phenom IIs, for example, it's 1.5v, but even running it at 1.55v, so long as it doesn't go over 60 degrees celsius on a constant basis, is just fine.
> 
> You really need to understand that in order to permanently damage a CPU, the decisive factor is heat, not voltage. If you have liquid nitrogen cooling, you can over-volt an AMD FX chip to 1.9v, and so long as the temps are kept from shooting past 100 degrees celsius for any extended amount of time, the CPU will be just fine. So unless you plan to run your CPU without a heatsink and continually reboot it after thermal shutdown (which would happen within seconds), you really need to relax about warranty coverage on a CPU. You are MUCH more likely to bend off a pin on a CPU (AMD) or bend pins in a socket (Intel) then you are to pooch a CPU due to too much voltage.



Thanks for the insight. That was a great read!


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 13, 2012)

uptech said:


> Cheapest 2400 is $300 here. And I'm going 16GB.



I saw on Newegg before few weeks for 134$ GSkill TridentX 2400 2x8GB.
I know some people order that RAM.


----------



## Hood (Nov 13, 2012)

cdawall said:


> I have a set of Samsung low profile low voltage sticks that can and ran $40 (2x4GB) just gotta shop.



Yeah, I read about those Samsung sticks, 1600 1.35v weren't they?  And they OC'd to 2400 with 12-11-12-30 timings at 1.65v if I remember right.  What kind of numbers are you getting?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 13, 2012)

Hood said:


> Yeah, I read about those Samsung sticks, 1600 1.35v weren't they?  And they OC'd to 2400 with 12-11-12-30 timings at 1.65v if I remember right.  What kind of numbers are you getting?



Most people can get 2400 with 11-11-11-28 1.55-1.6v. When my Xeon X3440 was running them before I started having stability issues with 8GB of ram, I had 2000 CL11 1.5v without issues. I will update with the CHVF when it shows up I should be able to push a little more out of my poor little C3 Phenom.


----------



## Eternalchaos (Nov 13, 2012)

Hood said:


> Yeah, I read about those Samsung sticks, 1600 1.35v weren't they?  And they OC'd to 2400 with 12-11-12-30 timings at 1.65v if I remember right.  What kind of numbers are you getting?



not bad here is what I get from mine 






I am running the ram a bit faster now 2200Mhz same timings


----------



## mrsemi (Nov 14, 2012)

uptech said:


> So what would you recommend then?



I am simply amazed at the tolerance and help you've gotten.  Great bunch of people here, you'd have been flamed to hell on a lot of other forums by now.

That said, I never owned a k chip before the most recent purchase.  Never been a heavy hardcore overclocker either but even if you're not going to overclock, take the option to make overclocking easier in the future if you think you might. The 3570k is a no brainer right now.  I'm running budget 1600 ram btw.

I plugged the sucker in, turned on the ASrock tuning utility and changed the number from a 34 to a 42 and now I'm running at 4.2 which is plenty enough for any gaming and the machine's running at 42 C at idle.  Voltage on that auto tuner fluctuates from 0.94 to 0.985 and I don't know if that's good or bad but it's working fine and my room is a lot cooler than it was with the 920 in here at 3.8.


----------

