Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
-
Page 1:Four Ivy Bridge-Based Core i5 CPUs, Compared
-
Page 2:Lining Up The Contenders: Are There 95 W IVBs?
-
Page 3:Test Setup And Benchmarks
-
Page 4:Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: SiSoft Sandra 2012
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5 And Content Creation
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: Productivity
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results: File Compression
-
Page 9:Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
-
Page 10:Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
-
Page 11:Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11, Integrated Vs. Entry-Level Discrete
-
Page 12:Benchmark Results: Real-World Games
-
Page 13:Power Consumption And Max. Temperature
-
Page 14:Efficiency
-
Page 15:Low-Power CPUs: Specific Applications Only
Benchmark Results: Productivity
Both Core i7s stand out yet again, followed by a predictable order of Core i5s organized by thermal design power.
Same story here, though now the advantage attributable to Hyper-Threading appears even more pronounced.
I was reviewing CPUs back when Intel introduced Hyper-Threading on the desktop, and let’s just say that it didn’t always turn into a performance advantage. In Visual Studio, though, it helps shave several minutes off of our Google Chrome compile job. The Core i5s (even the 45 W one) remain closer together.
Up until now, all of our tests have emphasized performance in the context of a threaded test—that is, an application able to take advantage of a multi-core processor. Those are the situations where you really want a quad-core chip able to handle eight threaded concurrently.
When it comes to converting a PowerPoint file to PDF, though, more cores don’t help. That’s why the Core i7-2700K drops to fourth place and the Ivy Bridge-based chips start jumping ahead of it. Although the improvements to Intel’s newest architecture are slight, they’re enough to affect our result by a couple of seconds.
- Four Ivy Bridge-Based Core i5 CPUs, Compared
- Lining Up The Contenders: Are There 95 W IVBs?
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: SiSoft Sandra 2012
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5 And Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: File Compression
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11, Integrated Vs. Entry-Level Discrete
- Benchmark Results: Real-World Games
- Power Consumption And Max. Temperature
- Efficiency
- Low-Power CPUs: Specific Applications Only
Actually a lot of sites have shown just what Chris is talking about. Even a dual core Pentium with a HD6670 beats the top end Llano piece (a quad core) even with CFX of the IGP with a HD6570. Llano is great for some things but overall in DT its only a low end entry level product and is much weaker per core and per clock than Intels CPUs.
What Chris did was pulled the same charts from his first IB review and added in the HD2500 (the new low end Intel IGP) for comparison.
If someone cannot take this information and realize that its just for comparison and that its not to show anything better, then thats their problem. If this was a Llano article, or the Trinity article when it comes out, you better believe Chris will do everything to check ever performance aspect. But its not. Its an article to see if the T and S models are worth it.
Overll, llano is overrate in my book. We have barley sold any at my work place. Just doesn't have the pulling power like a CPU and discrete GPU does.
Because this is a story about the Intel chips. To the contrary, though, the AMD-based platform is more likely to bottleneck a discrete graphics card than the Intel one. AMD's strength is in the integrated graphics right now.
Because this is a story about the Intel chips. To the contrary, though, the AMD-based platform is more likely to bottleneck a discrete graphics card than the Intel one. AMD's strength is in the integrated graphics right now.
Actually a lot of sites have shown just what Chris is talking about. Even a dual core Pentium with a HD6670 beats the top end Llano piece (a quad core) even with CFX of the IGP with a HD6570. Llano is great for some things but overall in DT its only a low end entry level product and is much weaker per core and per clock than Intels CPUs.
What Chris did was pulled the same charts from his first IB review and added in the HD2500 (the new low end Intel IGP) for comparison.
If someone cannot take this information and realize that its just for comparison and that its not to show anything better, then thats their problem. If this was a Llano article, or the Trinity article when it comes out, you better believe Chris will do everything to check ever performance aspect. But its not. Its an article to see if the T and S models are worth it.
Overll, llano is overrate in my book. We have barley sold any at my work place. Just doesn't have the pulling power like a CPU and discrete GPU does.
I'm thinking in terms of a HTPC/"Super-Console". Low power, high gaming+A/V performance, quiet, 'instant'-on.
If you guys get the time to, of course.
I must admit, with a low to mid end card, Llano wouldn't really cause any bottlenecking issues, however it wouldn't be reasonable to expect Llano to perform the same or better than SB or IB i3s and i5s using the same card for most games. SB and IV are just faster even if Llano had a higher clock, period.
In instances where he HD4000 has enough GPU power, but the HD2500 does not, the 3570k will offer a lower total system power option than either of the t/s options once you factor in adding a GPU that meets your needs.
If you jut bought a 3570k and undervoled it, which IB seems very good at, the results wouldn't even be close.
Those processors may be the only ones that you could get into your mini-ITX board. For example, Foxconn H61S mini-ITX will only accept less than 65W CPUs http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-Foxconn/H61S.html
However, seeing that the 77W CPUs top power draw is practically the same as 3550S, I wonder whether they will not fit in those mini-ITX boards.
That was a teaser from the original Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge.
What happened? Was this it?
I'm still very curious!
Thermal paste is only usefull when used to fill in air gaps between heat conductive materials so it can disipate more heat than air can. But replace metal with the paste? Look like someone tried to make more profit here by cutting down production cost. Next Bridge, please!
What I want to know, is take the i5 k series chips. Ivy starts out more efficient, but as you overclock them, due to voltage jumps on ivy - does sandy become more efficient at some point.