Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I3-2100 or I5-3570K

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 6, 2012 7:27:44 PM

I've been debating the I3-2100 and I5-3570K CPUs. Most of the information I have seen is pretty old across the internet. I want something that will do really well with gaming. This will be paired with GTX 460 video card regardless. I just don't know if the I5-3570K ( I may overclock in the future) justifies paying the extra $225 USD (better quality motherboard e.g. P8Z77, GA-Z77X-UD3H). I can't find an absolute answer as far as how much faster/better the I5-3570K performs than the I3-2100. Maybe 30%? Any help would be great, since I've read for too many hours....

Thanks,

Mike

More about : 2100 3570k

a c 78 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 8:01:02 PM

With the graphical capabilities of a GTX 460, you don't need anything more powerful than an i3, as a stronger CPU cannot make a weaker video card perform better. You can overclock an i5 as much as you want. Its not going to change a thing. The GTX 460 is a decent graphics card, but it is a couple years old. For gaming, the graphics card is the biggest limitation.

As far as how well the setup will do, really this depends on your expectations. If you're expecting to play BF3 @ 1080p at Ultra with full anti-aliasing, its not happening. But 1280x1024 might not be out of the question.
m
0
l
a c 188 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 8:35:35 PM

Video card makes up around 80% of the performance in most games. But the biggest value for the Intel® Core™ i5-3570K has to do with the future and the ability to overclock it and much better performance from it. Also the fact that you have more room to upgrade the video without bottlenecking plays in the value of the Intel Core i5-3570K.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 6, 2012 8:40:03 PM

^^^^^^intelenthusias said it the best i would deff go with the i5-3570k just for the fact that you will be able to upgrade your GPU with no problem with the i5..but if you get the i3 there is no headroom for upgrading.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 8:47:11 PM

Don't be silly ninety-nine. There is plenty of room for "upgrade". An i3-2100 will keep up with higher level video cards no problem. Although I'd say higher than 7870/GTX 660 TI level would be the point I'd start thinking about an i5 for the sake of a balanced system.

The question that needs to be asked, is what games is the OP looking to play and at what resolution?
m
0
l
September 6, 2012 10:41:10 PM

Thanks for the valuable input. I might just settle for i3-2100 and HTx 460 for now and build on a I5 3570k and a better video cars around Christmas time. This will be a major leap coming from an amd 64 3700+ lol
m
0
l
September 6, 2012 10:58:52 PM

No point in getting the i3-2100 with the i3-3220 out now!
m
0
l
a c 102 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:00:56 PM

If you only want it until christmas get a Pentium G series they are still good and much cheaper.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:04:52 PM

mikerump said:
Thanks for the valuable input. I might just settle for i3-2100 and HTx 460 for now and build on a I5 3570k and a better video cars around Christmas time. This will be a major leap coming from an amd 64 3700+ lol

My advice would be to save up longer and get the system that meets your standards in the first place. Settling for an i3-2100 now, means basically when you get the CPU you wanted in the first place (the i5) at christmas times, that means you will have dropped $130 on a CPU only to replace it in a few months with the CPU you wanted all along. Unless you have another use in mind for the i3, its going to be a $130 paperweight. I woudlnt do that. And, I'm assuming you already have the GTX 460. If you do, thats fine. But I wouldn't buy a new one only to replace it in a few months with a GPU you wanted in the first place.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:16:32 PM

Get a core i3-3220, that'll still keep up when you upgrade your graphics card. Unless you're getting a 7970 or something.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:17:51 PM

If the money isn't everything get the i5 3570k for overclocking but if not ocing 3550 will be the same thing.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:18:51 PM

nekulturny said:
My advice would be to save up longer and get the system that meets your standards in the first place. Settling for an i3-2100 now, means basically when you get the CPU you wanted in the first place (the i5) at christmas times, that means you will have dropped $130 on a CPU only to replace it in a few months with the CPU you wanted all along. Unless you have another use in mind for the i3, its going to be a $130 paperweight. I woudlnt do that. And, I'm assuming you already have the GTX 460. If you do, thats fine. But I wouldn't buy a new one only to replace it in a few months with a GPU you wanted in the first place.

^ +1

Either keep saving until Christmas or get the i5 now. Otherwise, if you go with the i3 (which is not a bad idea especially with the i3 Ivy Bridges out now) just hang onto it and upgrade your GPU at Christmas instead.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:26:14 PM

spat55 said:
If the money isn't everything get the i5 3570k for overclocking but if not ocing 3550 will be the same thing.

Well, the 3570 is the exact same thing as a 3570k without overclocking. The 3550 is 100 MHz slower.

Honestly though, if you're looking at i5s I'd recommend the 3350P. Cheaper and barely any slower. Or 3470 if you need the IGP.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
September 6, 2012 11:43:24 PM

I'll add this to the discussion, There is no video card on the market today that will require an i5-2400 or above to be overclocked in order to keep up with it. This means, as mentioned by others you could look at non overclockable i5s such as the i5-3450.

Overclocking can net you some performance gains in the handful of games out there that are CPU bound, its still largely an added bonus mixed in with bragging rights, not really a necessity for any game, even in CPU bound games like Skyrim for example.
m
0
l
September 7, 2012 12:26:23 AM

nekulturny said:
I'll add this to the discussion, There is no video card on the market today that will require an i5-2400 or above to be overclocked in order to keep up with it. This means, as mentioned by others you could look at non overclockable i5s such as the i5-3450.

Overclocking can net you some performance gains in the handful of games out there that are CPU bound, its still largely an added bonus mixed in with bragging rights, not really a necessity for any game, even in CPU bound games like Skyrim for example.


Note that overclocking greatly helps with multiplayer games, especially World of Warcraft or Guild Wars 2 where heavy amounts of players stress the cpu very much and bring my rig (i5-3570k @ 4.5ghz / HD 7970) to 45 fps or as low as 30 fps in rare cases.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
September 7, 2012 12:26:53 AM

Then I'll add this:

The i3-3220 will be enough for most games within the next couple of years, especially if you only have a midrange graphics card.

An i5 that doesn't overclock will be fine in the same period with just about any graphics card. After that, it'll still last a while longer being decent.

An i5 that does overclock will last even longer, because when it starts lagging behind your GTX 860 Ti or Radeon HD 9870, you can just overclock it and be back on track. For a little while anyway - it won't last forever.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
September 7, 2012 12:31:09 AM

nacos said:
Note that overclocking greatly helps with multiplayer games, especially World of Warcraft or Guild Wars 2 where heavy amounts of players stress the cpu very much and bring my rig (i5-3570k @ 4.5ghz / HD 7970) to 45 fps or as low as 30 fps in rare cases.

Guild Wars 2 I don't know anything about, WoW, I find hard to believe an overclocked i5 is necessary, although I've never done the huge raids, but I'd honestly from my knowledge say the low FPS rates are more from server-side lag more than from your own machine.
m
0
l
September 7, 2012 7:00:49 AM

having owned the i3-2100 gtx 460 combo for a few months,

i would like to add that the performance of the i3 was alot better than i expected

and on the 460, mine was able to overclock to an 800 core which added about 10 fps to games and OCCT

m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
September 7, 2012 7:57:59 PM

phyco126 said:
i3 2100 vs 2500K (just add 5% to 2500K performance for 3570Kish performance)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=288

Game comparison's towards the bottom.

Again, stronger CPUs cannot make weaker video cards perform better. While those quick links to benches AnandTech has is pretty darn nice, its problematic because it doesn't mention what video card they're using in their test setup. Probably something on the GTX 580, 7970 level however would be my educated guess. They're way beyond the capabilities of a GTX 460.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 2:52:26 PM

True, but some games may still benefit in a performance increase with a better CPU. Case in point - my 8800 GT performed an average of 20 FPS better with my C2D than my friend with the same GPU and a P4
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 12:56:48 AM

I want to thank ALL who replied and provided useful information. I went ahead and put together:

Asus P8H61-M LE
Intel I3-3220 CPU
8GB PC1333 RAM
eVGA GTX 460

It loads everything
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 1:15:03 AM

the evga 460 should easily overclock to 800/1600/2000 with no voltage change
about a 15~18fps jump in OCCT
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 1:29:54 AM

While the 460 was good for it's time it's kind of old nd weak now. I would get the I3 then take the money you save by not getting the I5 and put it towards a better, more modern video card like a GTX 650TI, GTX 660 TI or something like that.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 2:39:46 AM

rds1220 said:
While the 460 was good for it's time it's kind of old nd weak now. I would get the I3 then take the money you save by not getting the I5 and put it towards a better, more modern video card like a GTX 650TI, GTX 660 TI or something like that.

He's already got the parts together. Besides, the first post suggests the GTX 460 was one he had lying around or something. The 460 is still decent enough if you don't want the best of the best 1080p 8xMSAA Ultra settings etc. in every game.

@OP: Enjoy yourself with your new computer. It may not have cost a lot, but it's still a nice system. :) 
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 4:21:33 PM

Well, I didn't have it laying around, it was just a graphics card that I had in mind and bought along with the other components.
m
0
l
September 21, 2012 4:35:22 PM

Just want to add about the CPU bottleneck and such. I had a Core 2 Duo paired with a Radeon HD 4770 and I was getting about 33/32 FPS. When I upgraded to my Core i5 I got like 45 FPS. So yes a weak CPU could be a serious issue. Just wanted to mention that it could be an issue and its a very frustrating issue.
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 4:54:24 PM

nekulturny said:
Guild Wars 2 I don't know anything about, WoW, I find hard to believe an overclocked i5 is necessary, although I've never done the huge raids

I have done most 25-man raids on my C2D-E8400 and HD5770 in 1200p from BC to Cataclysm and never had any significant performance problems.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 5:17:30 PM

InvalidError said:
I have done most 25-man raids on my C2D-E8400 and HD5770 in 1200p from BC to Cataclysm and never had any significant performance problems.

Yea, thats what I figured. WoW is notoriously easy to play at max settings on pretty much anything. I was never into it heavily myself, my ex played it like nobody's business with his i5-2300 and GTX 460. No issues whatsoever when he got his raid on.

I've seen a couple benches of GW2, it does seem like its not liking AMD's weaker individual core performance a bit, but its also a fairly new game I think. I'll wait to see what happens when some bugs get ironed out over time.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 5:51:29 PM

nekulturny said:
Yea, thats what I figured. WoW is notoriously easy to play at max settings on pretty much anything. I was never into it heavily myself, my ex played it like nobody's business with his i5-2300 and GTX 460. No issues whatsoever when he got his raid on.

A core 2 duo definitely can hold you back in WoW. But a core i3 from 2012 is a lot better, so there's little need to step up to a core i5. I'm not sure WoW can even really take advantage of the extra cores - I know they've fiddled with the code A LOT over the years, but it's still a game from 2004. Heck, they announced it before 9/11. I don't think they were really thinking about taking advantage of quad cores back then...
m
0
l
a c 116 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 6:40:33 PM

Sakkura said:
A core 2 duo definitely can hold you back in WoW.

Last time I looked, WoW only used 60-70% of my C2D-8400 and I certainly wasn't feeling like I was being "held back" with my FPS usually staying close to 60FPS (vsync) during raids.

Sakkura said:
I'm not sure WoW can even really take advantage of the extra cores - I know they've fiddled with the code A LOT over the years, but it's still a game from 2004.

And for years, Blizzard was saying there would never be flying mounts in the old continents because this would require a complete rewrite of the code handling those zones and related map data. I'm guessing a lot of the legacy code got chucked out with Cataclysm.

In any case, most games make little use of a 2nd core (how many games register anywhere close to 50% overall CPU usage on a quad-core CPU?) and rarely any significant use of 3+ regardless of being old or new.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
September 21, 2012 7:36:19 PM

InvalidError said:
Last time I looked, WoW only used 60-70% of my C2D-8400 and I certainly wasn't feeling like I was being "held back" with my FPS usually staying close to 60FPS (vsync) during raids.


And for years, Blizzard was saying there would never be flying mounts in the old continents because this would require a complete rewrite of the code handling those zones and related map data. I'm guessing a lot of the legacy code got chucked out with Cataclysm.

In any case, most games make little use of a 2nd core (how many games register anywhere close to 50% overall CPU usage on a quad-core CPU?) and rarely any significant use of 3+ regardless of being old or new.

There are other core 2 duos than the 8400.

And yes, they've replaced and updated a lot of stuff. But it's still an old game. They've never rebuilt it from the ground up. Flying mounts in old zones was mostly about the design and layout - lots of places were meant to be seen from only the sides accessible on foot.
m
0
l
January 19, 2013 6:16:42 AM

bigbasedrum said:
I had a Core 2 Duo paired with a Radeon HD 4770 and I was getting about 33/32 FPS. When I upgraded to my Core i5 I got like 45 FPS. So yes a weak CPU could be a serious issue.


I'm pretty sure you didn't just pop out your Core 2 Duo and insert a Core i5. You probably got a new, faster motherboard, new, faster memory, new faster processor and a fresh Windows install. Then to make a comparison of said processors with actual FPS benchmarks. Spouting about that which you know little about could be a serious issue.
m
0
l
January 19, 2013 8:42:07 PM

Scott586 said:
I'm pretty sure you didn't just pop out your Core 2 Duo and insert a Core i5. You probably got a new, faster motherboard, new, faster memory, new faster processor and a fresh Windows install. Then to make a comparison of said processors with actual FPS benchmarks. Spouting about that which you know little about could be a serious issue.

Necro isn't cool
m
0
l
!