Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge

Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5

Here, the -3770K ties its predecessor, making for a wholly unimpressive finish.

Not surprisingly, both six-core Intel CPUs turn in the fastest times. But it actually is quite a shock to see AMD’s FX-8150 slotting in ahead of the Bridges, particularly after finishing so far behind in the previous tests. It just goes to show that Bulldozer isn’t beyond the point of redemption.

Officially, Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 680 is too new to be supported by Adobe’s Mercury Playback Engine. Off the record, it’d still be pretty easy to add the card to Premiere Pro’s text document-based list of compatible cards.

At any rate, the current lack of support makes it really easy for us to stack CPUs up against each other without interference from a graphics card. And from that experiment, we again see the six-core Sandy Bridge-E parts tearing through our Paladin workload. Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge take third and fourth place, separated by 36 seconds.

The gap between the rest of the field is far more substantial. Curiously, AMD’s FX falls to the bottom of the stack, unable to overcome its six-core predecessor, Phenom II X6 1100T.

Separation between the Intel-based contenders is narrow. But the gap between the slowest Intel chip, Core i7-3930K, and the fastest AMD processor, Phenom II X6 1100T, is larger.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
  • tecmo34
    Nice Review Chris...

    Looking forward to the further information coming out this week on Ivy Bridge, as I was initially planning on buying Ivy Bridge, but now I might turn to Sandy Bridge-E
  • Maziar
    Great review as always Chris! looks like I'm staying with my 2500k for a while!
  • jaquith
    Great and long waited review - Thanks Chris!

    Temps as expected are high on the IB, but better than early ES which is very good.

    Those with their SB or SB-E (K/X) should be feeling good about now ;)
  • xtremexx
    saw this just pop up on google, posted 1 min ago, anyway im probably going to update i have a core i3 2100 so this is pretty good.
  • ojas
    it's heeearrree!!!!! lol i though intel wan't launching it, been scouring the web for an hour for some mention.

    Now, time to read the review. :D
  • zanny
    It gets higher temps at lower frequencies? What the hell did Intel break?

    I really wish they would introduce a gaming platform between their stupidly overpriced x79esque server platform and the integrated graphics chips they are pushing mainstream. 50% more transistors should be 30% or so more performance or a much smaller chip, but gamers get nothing out of Ivy Bridge.
    It makes sense Intel is making this its quickest ramp ever, as they see ARM on the horizon in today's changing market.
    They're using their process to get to places they'll need to get to in the future
  • verbalizer
    OK after reading most of the review and definitely studying the charts;
    I have a few things on my mind.

    1.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...2.) imagine if Intel made an i7-2660K or something like the i5-2550K they have now.
    3.) SB-E is not for gaming (too highly priced...) compared to i7 or i5 Sandy Bridge
    4.) Ivy Bridge runs hot.......
    5.) IB average 3.7% faster than i7 SB and only 16% over i5 SB = not worth it
    6.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
    (moderator edit..)
  • Pezcore27
    Good review.

    To me it shows 2 main things. 1) that Ivy didn't improve on Sandy Bridge as much as Intel was hoping it would, and 2) just how far behind AMD actually is...
  • tmk221
    It's a shame that this chip is marginally faster than 2700k. I guess it's all AMD fault. there is simply no pressure on Intel. Otherwise they would already moved to 8, 6, and 4 cores processors. Especially now when they have 4 cores under 77W.

    Yea yea I know most apps won't use 8 cores, but that's only because there was no 8 cores processors in past, not the other way around