92 of 93 people found the following review helpful
An upgrade I am happy with.,
This cpu comes with a cooler, the same cooler that came with my E8400 cpu in 2009, which was a surprise when I opened the box. The cooler is fine unless you want to overclock.
The i5 3570k is overclockable, and you can tell this from the k in its model number.
I got this, and was playing Skyrim full screen with windows task manager, permformance tab, showing on my second screen. None of the 4 cores seemed stressed out and the game was silky smooth. I then played skyrim with a hd movie playing on my second screen and skyrim didn't skip a beat. My E8400 couldn't handle that and it was overclocked by quite a bit.
I looked at getting an AMD FX 8 core cpu, but that costs about the same, is slower most of the time and the deciding factor was the AMD FX chips use far more electricity than the intel cpu's.
This cpu comes with built in hd4000 graphics, a built in graphics "card", It is not really upto gaming, but if you have to remove your graphics card for some reason, it is there as a back up. I intend to remove my graphics card and make a low profile home theatre pc when I upgrade this cpu, as the graphics should handle movies.
The hd4000 graphics also means you can use Lucid's Virtua MVP. That is a way of using the graphics on the cpu to help out with games or save energy, but I have not had much luck with it so far, and I do not regarde this as much of a selling point. Time will tell as Lucid sorts the software out for it.
If you buy this cpu and decide to overclock it, Intel has a tuning replacement plan. This means you pay 20 dollars and if you fry the cpu, they will send you a new one. Just don't bin the retail box like I did, you need to send the cpu back in it................
Hyperthreading isn't used in games, so if you just want to go on the internet, use Mircosoft Office and play games, there is no reason to get an i7. Hyperthreading isn't a part of this cpu and is part of the i7 lineup of cpu's, but for my needs the i5 3570k is the daddy cpu out at the moment. Coupled with 16gb ram and a Solid State Hard drive, is brutally quick. Happy days!
Update: Both of my GTX470's died, leaving me graphics card less apart from the hd4000 built into this cpu. I tried to play Witcher 2 in 1080p with settings to low and had a mighty 12 fps. So much for that! On the brighter side, Skyrim in 1080p set to low graphics and it was playable at around 28 fps in one of the towns, and overclocking the cpu to 4.2 Ghz raised the fps by around 3 fps. I can't wait for my new card, a AMD/ATI 7970 ghz Edition...
I have not really felt the urge to run the cpu overclocked for a while which is a reflection of how good it is.
I will not be upgrading to Haswell i5 4670k as it is just not worth it, a marginal increase in speed. If you are getting a new motherboard and cpu, get the Haswell but for me, I'll stick with my 3570k.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 24 Jun 2012 22:44:42 BDT
The FX-Series equivalent isn't the same price, it's £60 cheaper and can also be overclocked. When both can be clocked at speeds for ultra-high end modern gaming, I don't see the point in spending the extra money unless you value the difference between 80fps and 83fps. That's not to say this is a bad CPU, because it's actually quite good.
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 18:04:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jun 2012 18:05:45 BDT
AMD Bulldozer FX-8 Eight Core 8150 costs around the same, is slower in most things at the moment than the i5 3570k and uses FAR more wiggly amps out of the wall. With the price of electricity at the moment, over time that will make a difference. The only plus for the AMD FX series is that AMD do not change processor sockets as often as Intel does, which again makes a difference price wise in the long term in AMD's favor.
I really wanted to get another AMD processor, I waited and was very disappointed when they came out. Hopefully Piledriver, Bulldozer's replacement will be good. At no point did I say the FX series was bad, I just pointed out the differences and they are in favor of the intel chip.
Roughly the i5 3570k uses 80 watts (from the first review I found with power measured from both chips) less than the Fx 8150. If you leave the pc on working alot, that adds up.
10 hours a day, 10 * 80 / 1000 gives 0.8 kwh. Assume 10p per Kwh, so 8p a day. 8*365*3 gives 8760.
So £87.60 extra to run the AMD chip over the 3 years I will have it for. My pc is on every day, my kids, wife and I use it all the time so I might use less electricity than this, but to get a slower chip that costs the same and cots far more to run doesn't make sense.
Also, games don't really need the power now, but they will over time. When the next generation consoles come out, pc performance will take a big hit, so I'll have all the gaming power I can get at every upgrade.
Bear in mind, this is all my point of view...........
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 20:24:28 BDT
I meant the FX-8120 is £60 cheaper and is a very similar speed to this i5 - if not, the Black Edition is unlocked and so can be overclocked to your heart's content. Also, I have it on around 4 hours a day, and will probably swap it out in around 2 years for a more updated chip, so it'll work out at around the same price as the i5. Add running the i5's cost and it works out at around £170 buying and running the AMD for 2 years, and around £220 for the i5. That's for my personal needs, though (gaming), I understand that for running the CPU all day for 3 years, you'd take the i5, and I thank you for providing a smart and un-biased reply.
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 21:26:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jun 2012 21:32:09 BDT
AMD have more unlocked chips than Intel, another plus point to buying AMD. I really want AMD to do well, good competition is good for us buyers!
If you want a fast gaming CPU and don't mind spending the extra, the i5 3570k is the best choice at the moment. If I was more limited with my budget, AMD all the way. As you say, the overclocks make it worth it and I can't find an Intel cpu cheaper than the i5 that lets you overclock, where AMD has loads.
If overclocking is your thing, my 3570k comes stock at 3.4ghz and my runs happily at 4.4ghz, any higher the voltages get to much and it crashes all the time. My cpu won't hit 5ghz until I feel mean and try to kill it :)
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 23:39:22 BDT
Well, I'm definitely on a tight budget as I'm only 14, and so for my needs, considering both the i5 Sandybridge and FX chips are great for gaming, yet the FX chips are cheaper, they're the ones for me - though I'd see the point in buying Sandybridge or Ivybridge, if you wanted that little extra bit of power, or even just because you have an Intel-compatible motherboard, and can't be bothered to get a new one for an AMD chip. Also, the 8120 Black Edition, which I installed just earlier today after it arrived in the post from Amazon, can be overclocked to around 5GHZ on pretty cheap aftermarket coolers despite its reputation for major overheating. If you want, a water cooler will get it to 5GHZ at ~45-55*c, depending on the cooler. Either way, as Intel and AMD CPUs serve different needs for different people, no one can really outright state a superior CPU range, but just to get it out there, on a high-end water cooler, the 8120 can hit 6GHZ at ~50*c, and the 8150 can hit 6.3GHZ at ~50*c, which, undeniably, is pretty awesome.
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Sep 2012 20:30:01 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Sep 2012 20:32:44 BDT
B. Guy says:
Back when I was building PCs, when I was 14, AMD had some awesome budget processors in the first Athlon / Duron lines. The Venice core AMD64 3000 chip came out when I was 18, overclocked amazingly well and beat the Intel chips of the time (Pentium 4 H/T inc the Extreme Editions) into the dust.
However, these days, AMD's Bulldozer simply can't compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge, or Ivy Bridge, certainly for gaming. If I'm being honest, if looking for a budget AMD gaming rig, I'd stick with the Phenom II 965 or similar AM3 CPUs, and overclock them. Clock for clock, the Phenom II cores are more efficient than the Bulldozer FX cores.
For reference, 9 months ago, I went from a Phenom II 940 (overclocked to 4.2GHz on air) to an Intel Core i5 2500K (overclocked to 4.5GHz on air).
The difference was substantial in lower frame rates. For example, Heaven Benchmark, at points where the AMD dropped to 15FPS, the Intel was chugging along at 30FPS.
Having said that, the AMD CPU (at the time of buying) cost me £80 and the mainboard £50, whereas my Intel 2500K CPU cost me £150, and the motherboard £90. That's £130 against £240. I had to spend more on the Intel mainboard to get the P67 chipset allowing me to overclock - whereas even a cheap AMD mainboard will overclock. Do I feel it was worth the extra £110 for the extra performance? Yes, but in real world terms, it wasn't a MASSIVE difference when using normal tasks.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2012 03:41:29 BDT
THe marvasti man says:
my god you would have got better frame rates by upgrading your graphics card. £130 more on a graphics card (say 7970 or gtx 670 instead of 7870) will buy you smoother gaming than the CPU most of the time.
Also Ignore benchmarks the FX-8150 is faster for multi threading tasks(running an FX algo trade in the backgruond while playing Modern Warfare on monitor 2. I have one and it runs fine at 5ghz and kills all intel cpus I have. Electricity cost is trivial as most of the time when CPU is not running maxed out it uses very little.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2012 03:42:37 BDT
THe marvasti man says:
Spend the money on the graphics card, it worth it more if gaming is your thing.
Posted on 26 Sep 2012 14:34:27 BDT
When I brought this cpu, it was to help out multitasking while gaming. Skyrim ran fine on my old pc, 40 to 50 fps , but movies on my second screen would be almost unwatchable as they jerked about so much. The performance tab showed my 2 cpu cores maxed out at 100%, so the solution was a new i5-3570K CPU as a new graphics card wouldn't change that.
I brought another graphics card, so I have a Gigabyte Super Overclocked GTX470 SLI setup. Not the newest cards but it will be along while until I get rid of them as an upgrade is not worth the amount I would have to pay to replace both cards to get better performance.
I have overclocked my cpu, the more you overclock, the more power you use. When I looked into the AMD FX8150's power use while overclocked I decided that it was just to high. As I have 2 hot and noisy overclocked graphics cards, heat and power usage is important due to the limitations of my PSU. I have a habit of filling my case with hard drives and use all of my usb ports that also use more power. This all adds up, so why get a power hungry cpu that is slower and stresses out my PSU? After that, costs come into and I begrudge my monthly direct debit for electric................. (I will not buy cards like my GTX470's again, not efficient and chuck the heat out, which affects case temperature and reduces cpu overclocking ability.)
The biggest change I found was getting a solid state hard drive. My PC boots quickly and you don't wait for the hard drive to stopped making its clicking noises before you can load a program. Programs load quickly as well.
When I am not gaming, my old E8400 intel cpu ran desktop stuff well and if I didn't game, I would still be running that. PC gaming puts demands on your system that pottering around on the desktop doesn't. Which is why I got the i5-3570K CPU, for gaming.
Things have moved on a lot since my first pc, a 486 DX2 66. It was mighty, but looking back now, crap! I have had many pc's since 1995 and now buy the best I can for my needs, and I regard the i5-3570K CPU as just that.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2012 14:56:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Sep 2012 14:59:17 BDT
B. Guy says:
I'm not an idiot, I was using a Gigabyte Windforce Radeon 7950 at the time. There was a definite CPU bottleneck using the Phenom II CPU, because my minimum frame rates were unplayable (IIRC 15FPS isn't acceptable). Admittedly it was only at certain places. However, upon installing the i5 2500K and OC'ing to 4.5GHz, my minimum frame rate was 30FPS, which is totally acceptable. Max frame rate also jumped, but not by the same margin as the lower frame rates.
So, the Phenom II bottlenecked my gaming rig. Obviously not everyone games at 1920x1200, and not everyone would find that 15FPS at certain points could be an issue. Bulldozer is WORSE than Phenom II, so the bottlenecking is also WORSE. Not an issue if gaming at lower resolutions, and not a problem if you are building a budget gaming rig - but if you are spending £300 on a graphics card, you should really pair it with at least a 2500K CPU for gaming, or failing that, a 2600K i7.
I did also have an i7 950 rig at this time, and that also beat the Phenom II convincingly (so would beat a Bulldozer CPU even more), but it ran too hot when OC'd to 4.2GHz so I plumped for Sandy Bridge instead.
Obviously if your gaming experience is lacking, and you have a low end graphics card, £130 would be better spent. My opinion is though, that people buying overclocking i5 CPUs really should already have a decent graphics card, and if not, they probably shouldn't have built their PCs in the first place.