Closed

3570k vs 3470 Budget Gaming Build

Alright, so this is my first post, so if its in the wrong section(i believe its correct) please forgive me.

So im building my first gaming rig, and so far i have everything set out good.
But for my cpu, i see a good deal on amazon for a i5 3470 for 180$ and the 3570k for 210$
I know the 3570k is the "best" gaming cpu, but is it worth the money over the 3470?

I understand the 3470 is 3.2 ghz and 3570k is 3.4 ghz, so is the .2ghz = 200mhz going to change anything IN gaming?
And because im on a budget, im getting an H61 chip set motherboard, therefore overclocking in sort of out the equation. So the unlocked multiplier is nothing to me at the moment. just the extra 200Mhz


Games im building this pc for is the Arma series, Dayz(standalone aswell) Bf3, and other similar games, mostly the arma series and Dayz.
Which from my understanding is very CPU intensive.

My gpu is a Radeon 7870.
42 answers Last reply
More about 3570k 3470 budget gaming build
  1. For budget purposes, you might consider the AMD FX6350 + 970 series MB. Would probably allow you to spend more money elsewhere in your system...like RAM or HDD or even a SSD. Plus you could OC the FX6350 for far less money than the i5's and get even more performance.

    If you're stuck on intel...go 3470...you won't notice the difference and you couldn't OC the 3570k on the MB you fit in your budget.
  2. the difference would most likely go unnoticed. and because youre getting the h61 motherboard i would just get the 3470. to answer your question (is it worth the extra $30) i really do not think so in this situation. the 3470 is still going to play the same games with almost the exact same performance of the stock 3570k (which is all you would get with your chipset).
  3. The 200MHz difference shouldn't impact your performance in games in a significant way. The big draw to the 3570K is the overclocking potential and as you stated, your chipset won't allow that. Any of the Sandybridge or Ivy Bridge i5s should be good for gaming. Unless you are planning on getting a Z77 motherboard in the future, the 3570K doesn't really do anything that the 3470 won't.
  4. if you haven't bought the GPU yet, you might want to consider using the $30 difference to bump the GPU to a 7870XT (Tahiti LE)
  5. So lets say, i were to switch to a b75 chipset Motherboard....Would it be worth it to get that and the 3570k? or stilll no?
  6. saverill4 said:
    So lets say, i were to switch to a b75 chipset Motherboard....Would it be worth it to get that and the 3570k? or stilll no?


    no b75 doesnt allow overclocking either. you'll need something like a z75 or z77 to make a 3570k really worth it
  7. Quote:
    Plus you could OC the FX6350 for far less money than the i5's and get even more performance then a stock 6350.


    FIFY. OC'd or not I don't think the 6350 will catch even the 3470 in games.

    Seeing as you have the h61 chipset the 3570K isn't going to help you. I'd buy it if you think you might upgrade the board at some point soon. But as others have said because you can't OC don't bother buying the k chip. Spend the money elsewhere.
  8. Geekkid said:
    The 200MHz difference shouldn't impact your performance in games in a significant way. The big draw to the 3570K is the overclocking potential and as you stated, your chipset won't allow that. Any of the Sandybridge or Ivy Bridge i5s should be good for gaming. Unless you are planning on getting a Z77 motherboard in the future, the 3570K doesn't really do anything that the 3470 won't.

    Alright, seems to me that the 3470 is the way to go.
    I do have one more question? can z68 motherboards overclock? if not then i wont worry about it, and just get a 3470.
  9. saverill4 said:
    Geekkid said:
    The 200MHz difference shouldn't impact your performance in games in a significant way. The big draw to the 3570K is the overclocking potential and as you stated, your chipset won't allow that. Any of the Sandybridge or Ivy Bridge i5s should be good for gaming. Unless you are planning on getting a Z77 motherboard in the future, the 3570K doesn't really do anything that the 3470 won't.

    Alright, seems to me that the 3470 is the way to go.
    I do have one more question? can z68 motherboards overclock? if not then i wont worry about it, and just get a 3470.


    z68 can, it will require a bios update for use with either of the processors youre looking at because they are ivy bridge
  10. So, if a z68 can, would it be worth it to buy that and the 3570k, and eventually overclock? I wont overclock until i get fairly familiar with the system. And will the update pose any problem with anything to get it running?
  11. The H61 would as well wouldn't it? Same generation. He might be better off going down to a SB CPU as well. No bios issues, loses only a bit of speed, and cheaper as well.
  12. So between a z68 and 3570k vs. 3470 and h61....What would be better? if the price was 30$ difference in cpus as 15$ in motherboards?
  13. he means second generation core i3/i5/i7 (SB=Sandy Bridge). and yeah i guess the h61 would need a bios flash. he raises a good point about swapping to an older one and still getting a good processor, just cheaper. I am currently using an i5 2500k (sandy bridge, predecessor to the i5 3570k) and it is very nice.
  14. idk. $45. Doesn't sound like a lot to get a much better board and CPU. I personally would try to find the money and get it. But then again for a budget build, probably not worth it. If that $45 can bump your video card up to something better it's better spent there.
  15. 4745454b said:
    Quote:
    Plus you could OC the FX6350 for far less money than the i5's and get even more performance then a stock 6350.


    FIFY. OC'd or not I don't think the 6350 will catch even the 3470 in games.

    Seeing as you have the h61 chipset the 3570K isn't going to help you. I'd buy it if you think you might upgrade the board at some point soon. But as others have said because you can't OC don't bother buying the k chip. Spend the money elsewhere.


    The FX6350 is clocked @ 3.9 GHz putting it on par with the FX8350 @ stock velocity in games. The FX8350 performs as well as any i5.

    The FX6300 on the other hand...is a different animal. However, that CPU is also $112 now.
  16. You want that WoW picture again? (I think it was WoW.) Ah heck, I'll post it anyways.



    Intel can do 3D gaming at 60Hz, not so for Vishera.



    Not even 60FPS.

    I know the 6350 isn't in here, I can't seem to find any benchies for it. But considering how poorly these chips do, adding another GHz isn't going to change much. Their single threaded performance just isn't there yet. Hopefully AMD can keep improving it.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
  17. LOL. You post the last version of WoW (the MoP WoW benches are much closer btw) and SC2 benches? That's funny...what else is in your repertoire? Skyrim maybe? Planetside 2 as well? That's not at all surprising.

    Pull up Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, BF3 multiplayer, Metro 2033, Crysis Warhead....the list of games that are within margin of error is far longer than the list of those with any sort of gap, by a long shot.

    Additionally, you have GTA 5 on the horizon, BF4 and many other games that will use 4+ cores. Still think single thread performance is an important metric? (maybe you're a fan of iTunes...I suppose that's the only other valid argument) Either way, intel has it's strengths and AMD has it's own. They do overlap though, quite a bit actually. So, what it boils down to is simply this:

    GPU is a much bigger difference maker in games than CPU. The i5-3570k and the FX8350 will both be fine with any GPU you can throw at them. If, by going AMD over intel, you can bump up a notch in GPU, that is a more worthy place to spend your dollars. Far more games are GPU bound than CPU bound, and your dollars go a lot farther there than they will nitpicking a few FPS difference in CPU.
  18. I hear claims. I don't see benchies.
  19. If you play mmos then intel is generally better.
  20. First tek syndicate link. (I really hate this site. His output is VERY hard to follow because its just a dump of info.)

    8350: Crysis 2 1080 - 29.84
    3570k -Crysis 2 1080 - 39.520

    So in your first link you give us a case where the 8350 can't hit/can barely hit 30FPS while the 3570 can do that and 33% more?

    http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

    Quote:
    Before we discuss the individual CPU performance tests, let’s just take a quick look at how the AMD FX-4100 processor scales when testing between 2GHz and 4GHz. When paired with the single-GPU GeForce GTX 580 the average frame rate goes almost untouched. This suggests to us that Battlefield 3 is not very CPU demanding, at least not enough to max out a quad-core processor


    I purposefully linked games where there was a difference. Yes, i fully admit. Most games, nearly all, will be fine with either CPU. I care about those few games where the AMD CPU for some reason can't keep up all of sudden. If you want to buy a CPU that can handle 8/10 or 9 out of 10 games that's fine. But don't kid yourself or con others by saying you can OC a 6xxx or 8xxx and everything will be fine. Because there will be a game here and there where it won't. As I already linked.
  21. You missed the part where the FX8350 beat the intel CPUs @ 1440p...but, I digress.

    My point is, if you're not into those games...then what's the point of pitching them to someone? If they only play FPS games...then Skyrim and WoW make no difference. If they don't like RTS, then SC2 isn't a valid argument either. It just depends on what you're going to play more. For some people intel makes sense, for the vast majority...it won't make a difference. (80-90% to quote your numbers)
  22. throw out techsyndiacte because the numbers make no sense. How on earth are you getting a cpu bottleneck at 1440p max settings?
  23. whyso said:
    throw out techsyndiacte because the numbers make no sense. How on earth are you getting a gpu bottleneck at 1440p max settings?


    Cryengine 3 would be my guess...

    EDIT: Correction
  24. 8350rocks said:
    whyso said:
    throw out techsyndiacte because the numbers make no sense. How on earth are you getting a gpu bottleneck at 1440p max settings?


    Cryengine 4 would be my guess...


    Is that even out yet?

    But aside that website makes no sense and has no coherence with any other reviews.

    (BTW quite impressed with Cryengine 3 in crysis 3, little pop in or frame drops VERY smooth at lower fps levels)
  25. Even if you toss it out, the other reviews are actually closer @ 1080p.

    Err...I meant Cryengine 3 above, must've hit 4 instead.
  26. I see whyso understands. Someone also linked the same game multiple times.



    Look at who gets above 120FPS for anyone who wants 3D gaming.



    Better at getting above 60FPS in BL2.

    The other games are all similar. Hopefully I've made my point. Intel can do better in shooters as well. Again, I suggest Intel for those few games that won't slow down. In my link all score the same at 1080 in Metro. Same with Dirt Showdown. Does this mean Vishera is as good as an i5? I would say no because there are also times where it just can't keep up. Or doesn't keep up enough.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0
  27. 4745454b said:
    I see whyso understands. Someone also linked the same game multiple times.


    Look at who gets above 120FPS for anyone who wants 3D gaming.


    Better at getting above 60FPS in BL2.

    The other games are all similar. Hopefully I've made my point. Intel can do better in shooters as well. Again, I suggest Intel for those few games that won't slow down. In my link all score the same at 1080 in Metro. Same with Dirt Showdown. Does this mean Vishera is as good as an i5? I would say no because there are also times where it just can't keep up. Or doesn't keep up enough.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0


    I never said AMD was exclusively better at FPS games...just that it keeps up...and it does. However, at 1080p or 1440p with graphics maxed, what's the difference there? Virtually none...the gap closes dramatically...then you're still talking 1-5 FPS average.

    Why? Because games are all mostly GPU bound. Some use more CPU than others...(Crysis 3 for example, planetside 2, etc.)...however, even those require an above average GPU to keep up. If you max out your GPU when you build your system and save some money to do it, you'll still be fine.

    I posted the multiple links to Crysis 3 because teksyndicate reviews it at different points than the others.
  28. saverill4 said:
    Alright, so this is my first post, so if its in the wrong section(i believe its correct) please forgive me.

    So im building my first gaming rig, and so far i have everything set out good.
    But for my cpu, i see a good deal on amazon for a i5 3470 for 180$ and the 3570k for 210$
    I know the 3570k is the "best" gaming cpu, but is it worth the money over the 3470?

    I understand the 3470 is 3.2 ghz and 3570k is 3.4 ghz, so is the .2ghz = 200mhz going to change anything IN gaming?
    And because im on a budget, im getting an H61 chip set motherboard, therefore overclocking in sort of out the equation. So the unlocked multiplier is nothing to me at the moment. just the extra 200Mhz


    Games im building this pc for is the Arma series, Dayz(standalone aswell) Bf3, and other similar games, mostly the arma series and Dayz.
    Which from my understanding is very CPU intensive.

    My gpu is a Radeon 7870.


    I5 3470 will do you enough for atleast 2 years, I5 for gaming is really enough.
    I5 3570k could be OC'ed if you go for a mobo who can OC, prolly' a z77 chipset.

    Anyways, any I5 is enough for atleast 2 years, no doubt, just go with the i5 3470 and a cheap 1155 mobo if you're short on cash. The i5-3470 will do you good. DONT do the mistake I did, I bought an AMD CPU just to get more money for something else(Graphics card in my case). I wish I never done that! I'ma upgrade to a i5-3450 and a cheap ATX mobo, cant wait! :D
  29. hasteone said:
    saverill4 said:
    Alright, so this is my first post, so if its in the wrong section(i believe its correct) please forgive me.

    So im building my first gaming rig, and so far i have everything set out good.
    But for my cpu, i see a good deal on amazon for a i5 3470 for 180$ and the 3570k for 210$
    I know the 3570k is the "best" gaming cpu, but is it worth the money over the 3470?

    I understand the 3470 is 3.2 ghz and 3570k is 3.4 ghz, so is the .2ghz = 200mhz going to change anything IN gaming?
    And because im on a budget, im getting an H61 chip set motherboard, therefore overclocking in sort of out the equation. So the unlocked multiplier is nothing to me at the moment. just the extra 200Mhz


    Games im building this pc for is the Arma series, Dayz(standalone aswell) Bf3, and other similar games, mostly the arma series and Dayz.
    Which from my understanding is very CPU intensive.

    My gpu is a Radeon 7870.


    I5 3470 will do you enough for atleast 2 years, I5 for gaming is really enough.
    I5 3570k could be OC'ed if you go for a mobo who can OC, prolly' a z77 chipset.

    Anyways, any I5 is enough for atleast 2 years, no doubt, just go with the i5 3470 and a cheap 1155 mobo if you're short on cash. The i5-3470 will do you good. DONT do the mistake I did, I bought an AMD CPU just to get more money for something else(Graphics card in my case). I wish I never done that! I'ma upgrade to a i5-3450 and a cheap ATX mobo, cant wait! :D


    lol...you think you miss the 3 FPS? That's funny...what AMD CPU did you buy? If you bought an FX4XXX series...save yourself money and upgrade to the FX6300/FX6350 or an 8 core.
  30. My links show a lot more then just 3FPS.
  31. 4745454b said:
    My links show a lot more then just 3FPS.


    Yep, your links show one where both have an unperceptible difference in frame rates at a highly playable level (113 vs. 130, the human eye cannot tell the difference past about 60-70 FPS), and the other one where both have playable frame rates and the difference is 11% or 1% over MoE.

    :)
  32. Look harder.



    Yes the difference is "only" ~10FPS, but one is below 60FPS and the other is above.

    I'm afraid as fun as this I have to put my Mod hat on as we've lost the OP. Time to get back on track. Hopefully we've each made our points well enough.

    Quote:
    So between a z68 and 3570k vs. 3470 and h61....What would be better? if the price was 30$ difference in cpus as 15$ in motherboards?


    To answer the OPs last question, if the difference in price was only $45 then I'd take the Z68 + 3570K over the weaker H61. You even want to consider the Z68 and the 3470. It gets you gaming now, and allows for upgrading to the 2500/3570 later if you need more CPU power. To me, the extra $45 is worth the bump in price. As long as you can afford it and that $45 isn't better spend on the GPU. I'm not sure where you build is right now, so not sure if it's worth spending the extra money.

    Edited for spelling.
  33. If $45 gets you a HD7870 over a HD 7850, then spend it on the GPU.
  34. 8350rocks said:
    4745454b said:
    My links show a lot more then just 3FPS.


    Yep, your links show one where both have an unperceptible difference in frame rates at a highly playable level (113 vs. 130, the human eye cannot tell the difference past about 60-70 FPS), and the other one where both have playable frame rates and the difference is 11% or 1% over MoE.

    :)

    Please stop spreading false information. This is a stupid misconception that has been proven wrong again and again. The human eye doesn't see in frames, it see's smoothness of motion, and can detect frame rates well beyond 120fps.

    Also, for the processor, the AMD ones might seem like they produce good enough frame rates, even though they are worse than intel. But, even if they are good enough for now, they will get outdated faster and need to be replaced sooner, despite their fact of producing playable frame rates on most games now.

    OP - I would go with a 3470 and H61 mobo if I was you. Do you live near a microcenter? If so, you can get a really good bundle deal on a 3570k and mobo, $190 for the CPU and $40 off any motherboard for it.

    Another option is to wait and see what Haswell brings to the table.
  35. Quote:
    and can detect frame rates well beyond 120fps.


    Even on a device that can only show 60FPS? What magic is that. Never mind, forget I asked. We've ruined this thread enough.
  36. saverill4 said:
    Alright, so this is my first post, so if its in the wrong section(i believe its correct) please forgive me.

    So im building my first gaming rig, and so far i have everything set out good.
    But for my cpu, i see a good deal on amazon for a i5 3470 for 180$ and the 3570k for 210$
    I know the 3570k is the "best" gaming cpu, but is it worth the money over the 3470?

    I understand the 3470 is 3.2 ghz and 3570k is 3.4 ghz, so is the .2ghz = 200mhz going to change anything IN gaming?
    And because im on a budget, im getting an H61 chip set motherboard, therefore overclocking in sort of out the equation. So the unlocked multiplier is nothing to me at the moment. just the extra 200Mhz


    Games im building this pc for is the Arma series, Dayz(standalone aswell) Bf3, and other similar games, mostly the arma series and Dayz.
    Which from my understanding is very CPU intensive.

    My gpu is a Radeon 7870.


    The k on the end of the processor means that it is very overclockable and if this is your first build you will probably not need that just go with the non k
  37. 4745454b said:
    Quote:
    and can detect frame rates well beyond 120fps.


    Even on a device that can only show 60FPS? What magic is that. Never mind, forget I asked. We've ruined this thread enough.


    I was just saying in general. I realize that most monitors are 60hz, but 8350rocks implied that even if the display is 120hz or greater, the human eye can't see the difference of over 70...
  38. trogdor796 said:
    8350rocks said:
    4745454b said:
    My links show a lot more then just 3FPS.


    Yep, your links show one where both have an unperceptible difference in frame rates at a highly playable level (113 vs. 130, the human eye cannot tell the difference past about 60-70 FPS), and the other one where both have playable frame rates and the difference is 11% or 1% over MoE.

    :)

    Please stop spreading false information. This is a stupid misconception that has been proven wrong again and again. The human eye doesn't see in frames, it see's smoothness of motion, and can detect frame rates well beyond 120fps.

    Also, for the processor, the AMD ones might seem like they produce good enough frame rates, even though they are worse than intel. But, even if they are good enough for now, they will get outdated faster and need to be replaced sooner, despite their fact of producing playable frame rates on most games now.

    OP - I would go with a 3470 and H61 mobo if I was you. Do you live near a microcenter? If so, you can get a really good bundle deal on a 3570k and mobo, $190 for the CPU and $40 off any motherboard for it.

    Another option is to wait and see what Haswell brings to the table.


    trogdor796 said:
    4745454b said:
    Quote:
    and can detect frame rates well beyond 120fps.


    Even on a device that can only show 60FPS? What magic is that. Never mind, forget I asked. We've ruined this thread enough.


    I was just saying in general. I realize that most monitors are 60hz, but 8350rocks implied that even if the display is 120hz or greater, the human eye can't see the difference of over 70...


    I have a 120 Hz monitor, and I couldn't tell you anything beyond about 70 FPS is any degree better. I also happen to have 20/10 vision, so my eyesight is not bad...(dad was a pilot for 35 years). I am curious where your information is coming from...because I can't find reasonable credible evidence to the contrary...? I would honestly like to see the test that conclusively proves the eye can distinguish say...120 FPS from 130 FPS.
  39. Well to see over 120fps you would obviously need a monitor with a higher refresh rate, like a few of the 144hz ones out there.

    I myself have a 120hz monitor and can distinctively tell the difference between 60, 90, and 120 frames. Others on here, I believe Bystander, too have 120hz monitors and will attest to their ability to see higher frames.

    I don't have the link right now or time to find it, but there is information out there about tests done with pilots where 120+ frames were flashed before their eyes per second, where all but one of the frames would be just black, and the other would have color or something on it. They were all able to detect the single frame that was different. Someone else posted this on here a while back, but I have no idea which thread it was in.
  40. I saw a comparison here (( http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-3470 )) (not sure how reliable this source is though
    The 3570K is so close I do not see any point in buying it over the cheaper 3470. I know it has a locked multi, But it is still very much overclockable, In this review it shows the 3570K having Better overclocking speed with water 4.81GHz vs 3.95 GHz for the 3470, That does not seem like that big of a deal or difference to me. Besides who wants to overclock a expensive CPU to the max and destroy it in just 1-2 years anyway, You could use it for 4-5 years instead. That is the whole point of buying a high performing CPU, So you will not have to worry about replacing it for a few years. And I can guarantee by the time the 3470 is no longer useful in gaming the 3570K will no longer be either. And to be honest I have never seen much difference in gaming after overclocking my i5 750 all the way up to 4Ghz. Of'course overclocking really helps allot. But going past a certain point you no longer gain enough performance to justify the extra heat and power draw. 3.6 to 3.8 is a perfect clock speed for a i5. However I know my old ancient i5 750 lynnfield is a bit different than a ivy i5 3470/3570K. But they are similar in the clock/performance gains.

    P.s Sorry for digging up this old rigor has already set in and past post.
  41. Because it's not a K chip the 3470 DOESN'T OC. it can turbo, maybe if you set the bus up a MHz or two you can get it just a bit faster as well. But with intel chips you really have to have a K series chip to OC.

    Closing thread now before it turns into another disaster.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gaming CPUs Intel i5