3570K OC - performance increment

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

why not step up to skt 2011 then?

heres a compare between certain models

http://ark.intel.com/compare/52214,6...75,65520,65523

Not sure what you mean.

[drdeathx]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

ask Qubit on that

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

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by uptech

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]

Originally Posted by uptech

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?

Originally Posted by uptech

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]

Originally Posted by cdawall

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]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

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

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

Originally Posted by cdawall

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]

Originally Posted by uptech

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



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

I was comparing AMD to Intel...

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

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

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.

Originally Posted by cdawall

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]

Originally Posted by uptech

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.



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

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]

Originally Posted by uptech

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.

Originally Posted by uptech

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 8150 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]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

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.

Originally Posted by cdawall

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.




By issues I meant lower framerates. BF3 shows the FX 8150 outperforming the 3570K.

For skyrim you do understand you are already sitting over 200FPS it could be 100FPS slower and you would never visibly see it within the game same goes for WOW and starcraft.

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]

Originally Posted by uptech

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]

Originally Posted by cdawall

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]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

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]

Originally Posted by uptech

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Vlada011

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

dude give it up..

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

[Vlada011]

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]

Originally Posted by Vlada011

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by cdawall

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.

Originally Posted by Vlada011

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Aquinus

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.

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]

well its Settled Go for a Core i5 K model then

[uptech]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

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]

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