Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2500k vs 3570k

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2012 10:39:18 PM

SHORT VERSION: does the increased speed and new technology of the 3570k make it better than the 2500k which can be overclocked further at lower temperatures?

---

I will be building a gaming PC is the next couple of months and I am still undecided between these two CPUs. I made a similar thread a week or two ago however, I now have a better understanding of the pros and cons to each processor and can discuss the topic better. I would be wanting to overclock to the low 4 to mid 4 ghz range in the future. I would be running this processor along side a HD 7850, 8GB RAM, and a ~600w PSU. Also, price is not an issue in picking between these two CPUs as they are only ~£10 apart.

I have gathered that the 2500k has a better overclock potential and generally runs cooler and the 3570k has better IPC and is better clock-for-clock compared to the 2500k. I have also read that it is more future proof (e.g. it is compatible with PCI-e 3.0) and generally has newer technology.

---

Here are my questions:

1) What kind of temperatures would I be expecting if I overclocked to 4 - 4.5ghz with a 3570k compared to a 2500k? I'm not sure what cooling I would use but would a 212 do the job or would I need a more high end air cooler or even a liquid cooler?

2) Just so I know, what are normal idle and load and gaming temps for these two processors non-overclocked and overclocked to ~4ghz+?

3) What does the turbo boost thing do? (e.g. 3570k @3.4ghz stock going to 3.8ghz) Is it basically an auto-overclock?

4) How much faster is the 3570k compared to the 2500k clock-for-clock? I've heard all sorts of numbers from 100mhz to 400mhz faster. Also, does this difference really matter? Would I see an increase in performance in gaming?

5) I know it's hard to say, but generally, what kind of effect would an overclock of say, ~1ghz (e.g. 3.3ghz --> ~4.3ghz) have on fps in a game being played on max settings and a high resolution?

---

If it matters, I will be wanting to play games like BF3 (and other generally graphically demanding games) on max settings with 1920x1080.

Sorry for so many questions, he he. As you can tell, I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to building PCs so all help is appreciated, thanks :) 


More about : 2500k 3570k

a c 109 à CPUs
July 10, 2012 11:34:23 PM

I can't answer every single question here, but I'll just answer the ones I know. I'm sure someone will come along and answer in even more detail, though :lol: 

Turbo boost is basically like an auto-overclock, like you said. It boosts your clock speed if there are cores not being used on your CPU.

Also, Ivy Bridge CPU's (3570k) tend to be 5%-10% faster than Sandy Bridge CPU's (2500k) overall clock for clock. Example of this would be...Ivy Bridge CPU @ 4.5Ghz is roughly equivalent to a Sandy Bridge CPU @ 4.8Ghz.

Personally, I would get the i5 3570k. Not being able to overclock as high as Sandy Bridge personally isn't an issue if the performance is right up there.

I would also like to factor in PCI-E 3.0. It won't really make a difference unless you're going to be using Multi-GPU configurations (for now at least), but it's still some future-proof ness I'd like to think about.
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2012 12:52:45 AM

You are wasting too much time thinking about something that will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Neither is of any practical advantage as the bottleneck is almost always the GPU.

Get either and you won't be disappointed. Pcie 3 is of no benefit and will not be for the foreseeable future as even the most powerful GPU setups aren't even close to saturating Pcie 2.

In answer to your questions:

1. Don't know but recommend a good aftermarket cooler

2. Don't know and it doesn't matter as long as you have set up your system correctly and have decent cooling

3. Yes, it is an auto overclock

4. About 5-10% but it really doesn't matter in a gaming system because you will almost never encounter a situation in which the bottleneck isn't the GPU

Given this, I see no argument for not getting the 3570k. Newer tech, lower power consumption and better resale value. But apart from this it really doesn't matter.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 11, 2012 4:31:05 PM

mocchan said:

4. About 5-10% but it really doesn't matter in a gaming system because you will almost never encounter a situation in which the bottleneck isn't the GPU


What if it's a CPU intensive game? I guess because these are good processors, I'm guessing they can run a CPU intensive game well regardless. Also, would the stock cooler be enough if you wanted to run your processor at turbo?

----

Also, if anyone wants a summarized version of my first post, basically, does the increased speed and new technology of the 3570k make it better than the 2500k which can be overclocked further at lower temperatures?
a c 109 à CPUs
July 11, 2012 4:55:37 PM

aayjaay said:
What if it's a CPU intensive game? I guess because these are good processors, I'm guessing they can run a CPU intensive game well regardless. Also, would the stock cooler be enough if you wanted to run your processor at turbo?

----

Also, if anyone wants a summarized version of my first post, basically, does the increased speed and new technology of the 3570k make it better than the 2500k which can be overclocked further at lower temperatures?


Yes, your stock cooler should be able to run turbo with absolutely no problem. They were designed and built for that purpose.
However, if you want to throw in some mild overclocking into that equation..an aftermarket cooler is absolutely necessary.

Both should and will run CPU intensive tasks with zero problems. Both are great processors, and when I say "5%-10%" it's not a very noticeable difference :)  I just personally prefer newer technology since it gives me that little sense of security when it comes to 'futureproofing'.

Both will be able to overclock nicely and taking into consideration the Ivy Bridge part is 5-10% faster clock for clock, about 4.5Ghz will equal a 4.8Ghz Sandy Bridge part. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself). Temperatures should overall be about the same...maybe a few degrees hotter on the Ivy Bridge. But as long as you keep it cooled with a decent aftermarket cooler, you shouldn't have any issues.

July 11, 2012 5:08:07 PM

mocchan said:
Yes, your stock cooler should be able to run turbo with absolutely no problem. They were designed and built for that purpose.
However, if you want to throw in some mild overclocking into that equation..an aftermarket cooler is absolutely necessary.

Both should and will run CPU intensive tasks with zero problems. Both are great processors, and when I say "5%-10%" it's not a very noticeable difference :)  I just personally prefer newer technology since it gives me that little sense of security when it comes to 'futureproofing'.

Both will be able to overclock nicely and taking into consideration the Ivy Bridge part is 5-10% faster clock for clock, about 4.5Ghz will equal a 4.8Ghz Sandy Bridge part. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself). Temperatures should overall be about the same...maybe a few degrees hotter on the Ivy Bridge. But as long as you keep it cooled with a decent aftermarket cooler, you shouldn't have any issues.


Could you recommend some aftermarket coolers that would be suitable for ~low 4 to mid 4 ghz OC? Would a good air cooler do the job or would you need to go liquid? I've read that for Sandy, all you need is air but if you want to go up to 4.5ghz on an Ivy, liquid would be the way to go. this may not be true though. Also, as you said, the Ivy is around 300mhz faster than the Sandy so for a 4.5ghz SB OC, you'd only need a ~4.2ghz OC on the Ivy which I'd be pretty happy with. After all, as has been mentioned in this thread, most graphically intensive games are GPU bound and these CPUs at stock speeds can handle them comfortably. Am I right when I say this?
a c 109 à CPUs
July 11, 2012 5:52:17 PM

aayjaay said:
Could you recommend some aftermarket coolers that would be suitable for ~low 4 to mid 4 ghz OC? Would a good air cooler do the job or would you need to go liquid? I've read that for Sandy, all you need is air but if you want to go up to 4.5ghz on an Ivy, liquid would be the way to go. this may not be true though. Also, as you said, the Ivy is around 300mhz faster than the Sandy so for a 4.5ghz SB OC, you'd only need a ~4.2ghz OC on the Ivy which I'd be pretty happy with. After all, as has been mentioned in this thread, most graphically intensive games are GPU bound and these CPUs at stock speeds can handle them comfortably. Am I right when I say this?


Yes, you are absolutely right. Any Ivy Bridge/Sandy Bridge CPU at stock will smoke games out of the water as long as they're paired with a decent GPU.

Also, I wouldn't really recommend buying pre-filled liquid CPU coolers as their performance/price ratio just isn't justifiable to me. But for your mild overclocking needs, a Hyper 212 Evo would do just fine. It's cheap, and it's one of the best in it's price point. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The only time you would want to go liquid cooling, is if you're going to make a custom loop yourself :)  Some people may argue that the pre-filled units are good, but I just can't come to trust them.
July 11, 2012 6:54:37 PM

mocchan said:
Yes, you are absolutely right. Any Ivy Bridge/Sandy Bridge CPU at stock will smoke games out of the water as long as they're paired with a decent GPU.

Also, I wouldn't really recommend buying pre-filled liquid CPU coolers as their performance/price ratio just isn't justifiable to me. But for your mild overclocking needs, a Hyper 212 Evo would do just fine. It's cheap, and it's one of the best in it's price point. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The only time you would want to go liquid cooling, is if you're going to make a custom loop yourself :)  Some people may argue that the pre-filled units are good, but I just can't come to trust them.


If I went to something along the lines 4.2ghz with a 3570k and Hyper 212+, do you know what kind of temps would I be expecting? How much higher would temps be compared to an SB?
a c 109 à CPUs
July 11, 2012 7:18:12 PM

At 4.2Ghz, I don't think you would need too many volts in your Ivy Bridge chip. That said, I don't really know what your temperatures would be, unfortunately.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if SB and IB temperatures at those frequencies were very similar. Probably 5C within each other.

As much as I know and understand, IB chips tend to heat extremely quickly once you start pumping more voltage in them.
!