Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 4670 or Xeon E3 1230 V2

Tags:
  • Xeon
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:23:46 AM

Hi guys,I'm confused as to which one I should go forward with. I'm inclined towards the i5. But I find that the Xeon has some good numbers in benchmarking. But it's a little bit old in comparison to the haswell i5,and moreover it's a server CPU. So I was wondering if I'd benefit anything from the Xeon in nothing but gaming. Please tell me about the advantages of i5 over the Xeon,if any.
Thanks.

More about : 4670 xeon 1230

a c 900 à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:28:32 AM

No benefit from the Xeon in gaming! It is basically a I7.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:30:10 AM

litarly noe but for some reason (dont ask me why) they can somtimes be found for less then a locked core i7 so buy whichever is cheaper
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 166 à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:31:20 AM

The i5, Haswell have some great performance benchmarks already and the i5 Quad core is an excellent CPU. Overall The i5 is better as the Xeon isn't really a gaming and casual user CPU. I went for a 4930k Hex core for my work and it's insane (3D design as quad core wasn't enough), I was considering a Hex core Xeon but it actually wasn't as good in the types of programs I was using so I went for the i7 4930k. Not many advantages over the Xeon anyways that's why i didn't go for it, I'd go for the i5 any day.
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
January 13, 2014 8:33:40 AM

on multiplayer games, it need more cpu power, a xeon would be great for that, if you only play single player game, and i5 would do.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 4:27:30 AM

Thanks for your replies guys. So I guess it's the i5 for gaming. But what about the temperatures? Do you think the i5 will be much hotter than the Xeon? I'm worried about that after looking at the TDPs of both. Xeon has a lower 69W TDP and the i5 has 84W. So do you think it will cause much of a temperature rise in the i5? And,I understand the greater TDP is due to the integrated graphics core. But since I'm having a graphics card,do you think my temperatures will drop with an i5,since the iGPU gets disabled?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 5:21:22 AM

If you don't plan on overclocking I would personally go with the Xeon. Similiar or cheaper price and you get hyperthreading.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 5:24:22 AM

I don't think I should prefer the Xeon because of the Hyperthreading,because the games don't benefit much from it. All I see is some 2 or 3 fps difference. I don't think hyperthreading is worth those extra bucks,since I use my system mainly for gaming.
Anyway,thanks for the reply. :) 
m
0
l
a c 900 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 5:24:43 AM

dannylivesforher said:
Thanks for your replies guys. So I guess it's the i5 for gaming. But what about the temperatures? Do you think the i5 will be much hotter than the Xeon? I'm worried about that after looking at the TDPs of both. Xeon has a lower 69W TDP and the i5 has 84W. So do you think it will cause much of a temperature rise in the i5? And,I understand the greater TDP is due to the integrated graphics core. But since I'm having a graphics card,do you think my temperatures will drop with an i5,since the iGPU gets disabled?


Temp should not be an issue, as you say the TDP rating is with the IGP in the I5 and if you are not using it the rating will drop.
m
0
l
a c 463 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 5:57:43 AM

What's the price difference? If the Xeon is only slightly more I'd get it for the benefits of hyperthreading.
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:19:34 AM

dannylivesforher said:
I don't think I should prefer the Xeon because of the Hyperthreading,because the games don't benefit much from it. All I see is some 2 or 3 fps difference. I don't think hyperthreading is worth those extra bucks,since I use my system mainly for gaming.
Anyway,thanks for the reply. :) 


New games Hyperthreading is helping, its just that older games were only using 2-4 threads. Thats why the dual core +HT i3s are getting big benefits to having HT enabled.

BF4 for example benefits from an i7 with HT, especially on big multiplayer games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:26:39 AM

dacquesta1 said:
If you don't plan on overclocking I would personally go with the Xeon. Similiar or cheaper price and you get hyperthreading.

The "similar or cheaper price" is nonsense. Those Xeons cost approximately the same as their Core i7-counterparts, and significantly more than any Core i5. For that reason, they are only a viable alternative to a Core i7.

dannylivesforher said:
Thanks for your replies guys. So I guess it's the i5 for gaming. But what about the temperatures? Do you think the i5 will be much hotter than the Xeon?
I'm worried about that after looking at the TDPs of both. Xeon has a lower 69W TDP and the i5 has 84W.

I do not know where your numbers are coming from. The Haswell-based Xeon CPUs have a TDP of 80-84W. Your 69W are simply wrong (unless you got those from some sort of outdated Xeon from an earlier chip generation, which you hopefully do not plan on buying).

dannylivesforher said:
So do you think it will cause much of a temperature rise in the i5?

No. All these chips can and do go up to 100°C when under maximum load. Not that maximum load ever occurred except in dedicated torture tests like the one Prime95 does.

With the i5, not using the internal graphics means you can use its thermal budget for the CPU. With the Xeon, you do not have an integrated graphics in the first place. The result is the same. The advantage of the Xeon is slightly larger CPU cache in exchange for the missing graphics. But again, the Xeon is an alternative to the i7, not to the i5 (based on prices).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:29:26 AM

RobCrezz said:

BF4 for example benefits from an i7 with HT, especially on big multiplayer games.

BF4 is a much quoted measurement for CPU performance, yet a pretty silly one, as CPU demand of BF4 is minimal. You can run BF4 perfectly fluently on really crappy CPUs. I would use different games to judge CPU performance, games in which a better processor actually makes a difference.
m
0
l
a c 463 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:31:47 AM

DeathAndPain said:
dacquesta1 said:
If you don't plan on overclocking I would personally go with the Xeon. Similiar or cheaper price and you get hyperthreading.

The "similar or cheaper price" is nonsense. Those Xeons cost approximately the same as their Core i7-counterparts, and significantly more than any Core i5. For that reason, they are only a viable alternative to a Core i7.

dannylivesforher said:
Thanks for your replies guys. So I guess it's the i5 for gaming. But what about the temperatures? Do you think the i5 will be much hotter than the Xeon?
I'm worried about that after looking at the TDPs of both. Xeon has a lower 69W TDP and the i5 has 84W.

I do not know where your numbers are coming from. The Haswell-based Xeon CPUs have a TDP of 80-84W. Your 69W are simply wrong (unless you got those from some sort of outdated Xeon from an earlier chip generation, which you hopefully do not plan on buying).

dannylivesforher said:
So do you think it will cause much of a temperature rise in the i5?

No. All these chips can and do go up to 100°C when under maximum load. Not that maximum load ever occurred except in dedicated torture tests like the one Prime95 does.

With the i5, not using the internal graphics means you can use its thermal budget for the CPU. With the Xeon, you do not have an integrated graphics in the first place. The result is the same. The advantage of the Xeon is slightly larger CPU cache in exchange for the missing graphics. But again, the Xeon is an alternative to the i7, not to the i5 (based on prices).


I guess the price depends on where you live. A Xeon E3-1230v2 costs around £170 in the UK, the same as an i5 3570k. Also, it has a 69W TDP.http://ark.intel.com/products/65732/

This is just as an example, using the LGA1155 socket. A 4670 costs basically the same as a 3570k anyway.
m
0
l
a c 900 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:32:14 AM

DeathAndPain said:
dacquesta1 said:
If you don't plan on overclocking I would personally go with the Xeon. Similiar or cheaper price and you get hyperthreading.

The "similar or cheaper price" is nonsense. Those Xeons cost approximately the same as their Core i7-counterparts, and significantly more than any Core i5. For that reason, they are only a viable alternative to a Core i7.

dannylivesforher said:
Thanks for your replies guys. So I guess it's the i5 for gaming. But what about the temperatures? Do you think the i5 will be much hotter than the Xeon?
I'm worried about that after looking at the TDPs of both. Xeon has a lower 69W TDP and the i5 has 84W.

I do not know where your numbers are coming from. The Haswell-based Xeon CPUs have a TDP of 80-84W. Your 69W are simply wrong (unless you got those from some sort of outdated Xeon from an earlier chip generation, which you hopefully do not plan on buying).

dannylivesforher said:
So do you think it will cause much of a temperature rise in the i5?

No. All these chips can and do go up to 100°C when under maximum load. Not that maximum load ever occurred except in dedicated torture tests like the one Prime95 does.

With the i5, not using the internal graphics means you can use its thermal budget for the CPU. With the Xeon, you do not have an integrated graphics in the first place. The result is the same. The advantage of the Xeon is slightly larger CPU cache in exchange for the missing graphics. But again, the Xeon is an alternative to the i7, not to the i5 (based on prices).


LGA1155 Ivy bridge I5 price http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... not yet outdated!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:46:47 AM

Theoretically, the Intel Xeon should perform better on BF4 and other multiplayer games as it has 8 threads as compared to the i5 which only has 4. So if they are the same price, you might want to consider the Intel Xeon.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:48:32 AM

Ivy production ended in summer 2013. Why would anyone who wants a $200-range-CPU still want to buy this obsolete stuff???

And yeah, everyone, keep on quoting my whole long post. This will help making this thread better readable!
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:49:07 AM

DeathAndPain said:
RobCrezz said:

BF4 for example benefits from an i7 with HT, especially on big multiplayer games.

BF4 is a much quoted measurement for CPU performance, yet a pretty silly one, as CPU demand of BF4 is minimal. You can run BF4 perfectly fluently on really crappy CPUs. I would use different games to judge CPU performance, games in which a better processor actually makes a difference.


Was just an example of a recent game that can take advantage of 8 threads.

Although the single player doesnt require too much CPU power, the 64 player multiplayer games are quite CPU heavy.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:49:43 AM

james77 said:
Theoretically, the Intel Xeon should perform better on BF4

You can run BF4 nicely on a Phenom II, so yeah, suggest buying a high-end Xeon for that purpose!
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 6:57:33 AM

DeathAndPain said:

And yeah, everyone, keep on quoting my whole long post. This will help making this thread better readable!


On newegg the Xeon 1230 v3 price is $265 a bit more expensive than the 4670k at $240 but much cheaper than the i7 4770 at $310 or the 4770k at $340.

If you want the 4770 but arent interested in the IGPU then its a good saving IMO.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:04:55 AM

DeathAndPain said:
james77 said:
Theoretically, the Intel Xeon should perform better on BF4

You can run BF4 nicely on a Phenom II, so yeah, suggest buying a high-end Xeon for that purpose!


RobCrezz said:
DeathAndPain said:

And yeah, everyone, keep on quoting my whole long post. This will help making this thread better readable!


On newegg the Xeon 1230 v3 price is $265 a bit more expensive than the 4670k at $240 but much cheaper than the i7 4770 at $310 or the 4770k at $340.

If you want the 4770 but arent interested in the IGPU then its a good saving IMO.


I agree with you. If I was the one who is going to buy, I would spend the extra $25 to get 8 threads instead of 4. Well, that's my personal opinion. It's still up to OP to decide.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:13:11 AM

You would also lose 100MHz of clock speed because that's how much the Xeon 1230 v3 is slower than the i5-4670. So paying more money for less clock speed... the hyperthreading and larger cache better be worth it!
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:20:57 AM

DeathAndPain said:
You would also lose 100MHz of clock speed because that's how much the Xeon 1230 v3 is slower than the i5-4670. So paying more money for less clock speed... the hyperthreading and larger cache better be worth it!


WOW! A whole 100mhz! :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 815 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:27:01 AM

100mhz isn't anything really in a modern Intel CPU. Games like Crysis 3 and BF4 in 64 man campaign mode benefit from HT. I suspect this trend to continue as the next gen console ports are released. The i5 is a nice chip, but Xeon 1230v2 will outlast a locked i5 in the long run. I wouldn't consider any i5 unless it is a k series chip.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:36:05 AM

230 dollars here for the 1230v2 3.3Ghz and 8 threads

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

sorry but if your playing something like bf4 online yes you would be better off with the xeon AND since the OP doesn't intend to overclock, he would be far better suited with 4core/8thread over 4 cores 100mhz faster. I actually considered grabbing the Xeon but got the fx8320 instead.

edit: lets not also forget the lower TDP of the xeon....less heat is always a plus
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:47:59 AM

Glad at least a few people know what they are talking about... In multiplayer situations such as the often mentioned battlefield 4 32-64 player maps the hyperthreading will make a difference. The lower 69w tdp is also good. And its just 230 for it making the hyperthreading cost at most $30 which is well worth it IMO especially if you do anything outside of gaming. If all you do is offline gaming i doubt you'll see a difference but hyperthreading never hurts and it tends to drop CPU usage down some even in not highly threaded games. Less stress on the CPU is something good. I would buy the Xeon over the i5 and that's probably what I will do at some point to upgrade my system
Share
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:53:42 AM

logainofhades said:
The i5 is a nice chip, but Xeon 1230v2 will outlast a locked i5 in the long run.

That's why it is more expensive. :) 

logainofhades said:
I wouldn't consider any i5 unless it is a k series chip.

That's how preferences differ. I would never consider a K-series chip because it means ditching the most valuable new features of Haswell, the power-saving features. They do not seem to mean much to a desktop CPU, but I have sat in a room before in summer with an AMD CPU blowing its additional heat into an already hot room. I don't care whether the hardware can handle it - I do not want to handle it with my human body! I do not want to pay the higher electricity bill either. And finally, I do not want to mess with expensive or noisy cooling solutions that come as another consequence - both for the CPU and for the case into which the additional heat is being blown.

Part of the virtualization features are disabled in the K variants, too.

Also remember that the additional clock speed from overclocking does not come for free. The K variant of the same CPU is more expensive, and you need the Z87 chipset that can easily make the mainboard 40-50% more expensive. The illusion that overclocking means additional speed at no cost originates from the good old times. At first Intel reacted by doing their best to prevent it, introducing locked clock speeds. Now they are smarter and let people have it, tricking them into the illusion that the gain is still free while actually charging them for it.

No, K processors are no option for me. With that money I would rather go a full step upwards and get a Xeon at same clock speed, full power-saving features, full virtualization and guaranteed stability. Way more value for the added money IMHO.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 7:55:57 AM

thdarkshadow said:
Glad at least a few people know what they are talking about... [snip]... The lower 69w tdp is also good.

If you belonged to them, you would know that the 69W TDP is bs and that Haswell Xeons have a TDP of 80-84W (except a few low-power-Xeons for cramped cases that operate at considerably lower clock speeds).
m
0
l
a c 900 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:01:52 AM

DeathAndPain said:
thdarkshadow said:
Glad at least a few people know what they are talking about... [snip]... The lower 69w tdp is also good.

If you belonged to them, you would know that the 69W TDP is bs and that Haswell Xeons have a TDP of 80-84W (except a few low-power-Xeons for cramped cases that operate at considerably lower clock speeds).


It is the IB Xeon under discussion here http://ark.intel.com/products/65732/
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:15:51 AM

Well going back one CPU generation sure is no good approach to make the system more future-proof. I am being puzzled again and again how people keep recommending the obsolete stuff. Ivy production ended half a year ago, and still people keep recommending them for new systems.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:15:54 AM

Quote:

DeathAndPain said:
I do not know where your numbers are coming from. The Haswell-based Xeon CPUs have a TDP of 80-84W. Your 69W are simply wrong (unless you got those from some sort of outdated Xeon from an earlier chip generation, which you hopefully do not plan on buying).

Um,well,I was talking about the older one indeed. that's bcoz I find the i5's and its prices to be similar. That was the reason for me thinking about that.


Well,my bad actually. The reason I was more into Xeon research was bcoz I thought it uses the socket LGA 1150. I mistook the V2 for V3... :p 
Anyway,still the V2 is in the game since it has got the performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:22:14 AM

So you guys are saying the Xeon is better option? But I hear the rumours that a server processor is weak standing alone,and once 2 of them are placed together,they're awesome. Is that true?
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:25:47 AM

dannylivesforher said:
So you guys are saying the Xeon is better option? But I hear the rumours that a server processor is weak standing alone,and once 2 of them are placed together,they're awesome. Is that true?


This xeon isnt a "server processor" like the E5 and E7 Xeons. This is a Desktop/Workstation xeon. Essentially the same chip as a i7 4770 with slight modifications and marketed differently.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:31:53 AM

RobCrezz said:

This xeon isnt a "server processor" like the E5 and E7 Xeons. This is a Desktop/Workstation xeon. Essentially the same chip as a i7 4770 with slight modifications and marketed differently.

Definitely not, seeing that it was just clarified that we are comparing an outdated Ivy Bridge Xeon to a modern Core i5 here. I would never even consider buying an obsolete mainboard and an obsolete CPU with the goal to build myself a kickass modern future-proof high-performance system. That is just silly.
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:33:25 AM

DeathAndPain said:
RobCrezz said:

This xeon isnt a "server processor" like the E5 and E7 Xeons. This is a Desktop/Workstation xeon. Essentially the same chip as a i7 4770 with slight modifications and marketed differently.

Definitely not, seeing that it was just clarified that we are comparing an outdated Ivy Bridge Xeon to a modern Core i5 here. I would never even consider buying an obsolete mainboard and an obsolete CPU with the goal to build myself a kickass modern future-proof high-performance system. That is just silly.



I think you quoted the wrong person there...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:35:16 AM

RobCrezz said:
dannylivesforher said:
So you guys are saying the Xeon is better option? But I hear the rumours that a server processor is weak standing alone,and once 2 of them are placed together,they're awesome. Is that true?


This xeon isnt a "server processor" like the E5 and E7 Xeons. This is a Desktop/Workstation xeon. Essentially the same chip as a i7 4770 with slight modifications and marketed differently.


Oh,I get it now... Well,I've placed an order for the Moterboard, Asus B85M-G,and it'll be soon in my hands. Guess for now,I'll get the i5. A little later,I'll get the Xeon if my mom lets me.. :p 
Anyway,now she won't let me spend that extra bucks,since she's already fed up with me.. :D 
If I can,I'll get myself a Xeon later. Thanks for your help guys...I value every one's opinions and replies. But,I'm sorry I can select only 1 best answer. Please don't feel bad. Thanks again for those help...!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:39:36 AM

RobCrezz said:
DeathAndPain said:
RobCrezz said:

This xeon isnt a "server processor" like the E5 and E7 Xeons. This is a Desktop/Workstation xeon. Essentially the same chip as a i7 4770 with slight modifications and marketed differently.

Definitely not, seeing that it was just clarified that we are comparing an outdated Ivy Bridge Xeon to a modern Core i5 here. I would never even consider buying an obsolete mainboard and an obsolete CPU with the goal to build myself a kickass modern future-proof high-performance system. That is just silly.



I think you quoted the wrong person there...

Nope. You said that "this Xeon" is essentially the same chip as an i7-4770, but the i7-4770 is a Haswell, and "this Xeon", as we now found out, is an obsolete Ivy Bridge, whose architecture is a full chip generation older.
m
0
l
a c 815 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:47:02 AM

Hawell is only 5-10% faster than Ivy. Saying it is obsolete is laughable at best. There is a reason that people called it Hasfail upon release. It is apparent you really have no clue on to what it is you are really talking about.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:48:34 AM

thdarkshadow said:
Glad at least a few people know what they are talking about... In multiplayer situations such as the often mentioned battlefield 4 32-64 player maps the hyperthreading will make a difference. The lower 69w tdp is also good. And its just 230 for it making the hyperthreading cost at most $30 which is well worth it IMO especially if you do anything outside of gaming. If all you do is offline gaming i doubt you'll see a difference but hyperthreading never hurts and it tends to drop CPU usage down some even in not highly threaded games. Less stress on the CPU is something good. I would buy the Xeon over the i5 and that's probably what I will do at some point to upgrade my system


I'd have gone for the Xeon v2. But like they said,it's an Ivy,means not much,but old. And,here in my area(India),the Xeon is not available,and I need to get it from Amazon. That's not a problem actually,but what bothers me is,I can't find a good looking mobo for my budget having an LGA1155 socket. So I thought I'd go Haswell.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 8:57:37 AM

logainofhades said:
Hawell is only 5-10% faster than Ivy.

Still it is faster, and we are talking old code here. Make that 70% in new AVX2-enabled code.

logainofhades said:
Saying it is obsolete is laughable at best.

How would you call a technology production of which ended half a year ago, with an improved successor replacing it?

logainofhades said:
There is a reason that people called it Hasfail upon release.

Yes. They documented their own inability to comprehend its new features that way, creating a rumor about Haswells running hot (which was nonsense) and Haswell's USB 3.0 (or rather that of Haswell C1 chipsets) not working properly and losing data (which was also nonsense).

Haswell was never inferior to Ivy in any way, but it is way superior in it in multiple ways, be it power consumption (-> heat), be it integrated graphics, be it AVX2 performance. I agree that it was not a big leap (Intel no longer needs to make those, seeing how far they have already outclassed their AMD competitor), but still there is no point in buying the old stuff, especially since Intel is not known for lowering prices of former CPU generations when they release new ones.

logainofhades said:

It is apparent you really have no clue on to what it is you are really talking about.

Dito. Sounds as if you are one of those who kept spreading the false rumors I just pointed out.
m
0
l
a c 463 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:00:48 AM

logainofhades said:
Hawell is only 5-10% faster than Ivy. Saying it is obsolete is laughable at best. There is a reason that people called it Hasfail upon release. It is apparent you really have no clue on to what it is you are really talking about.


+1

IB won't be obsolete any faster than Haswell. Intel seem to already be moving onto a new socket anyway.
m
0
l
a c 156 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:07:19 AM

DeathAndPain said:
RobCrezz said:
DeathAndPain said:
RobCrezz said:

This xeon isnt a "server processor" like the E5 and E7 Xeons. This is a Desktop/Workstation xeon. Essentially the same chip as a i7 4770 with slight modifications and marketed differently.

Definitely not, seeing that it was just clarified that we are comparing an outdated Ivy Bridge Xeon to a modern Core i5 here. I would never even consider buying an obsolete mainboard and an obsolete CPU with the goal to build myself a kickass modern future-proof high-performance system. That is just silly.



I think you quoted the wrong person there...

Nope. You said that "this Xeon" is essentially the same chip as an i7-4770, but the i7-4770 is a Haswell, and "this Xeon", as we now found out, is an obsolete Ivy Bridge, whose architecture is a full chip generation older.


Ok Mr Pedantic. I was clearly talking about the v3, as we were earlier in the thread. And the rest of your reply was pointless ramblings. I was just clarifying his question about the Xeon being a "server processor".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:09:50 AM

Quote:
Intel seem to already be moving onto a new socket anyway.

That's not "totally" right. The socket's still the LGA 1150 as far as I'm aware of. It's just the lithography that changes from 22nm to 14nm. Still,I'd need to change the board,should I use the broadwell.
m
0
l
a c 815 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:11:58 AM

1230v2 is 1155 and 1230v3 is 1150. There were some rumblings awhile back from people saying Broadwell would require a new chipset, while still being 1150, therefore a new board would be required as well. It is S775 all over again.....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:15:17 AM

Which one should I choose as best answer???!!!!! :o 
o.O
m
0
l
a c 463 à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:16:24 AM

Whichever helped you the most :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2014 9:20:19 AM

I selected one,and somebody unselected it.... LOL :D  :p 
m
0
l
!