31 of 38 people found the following review helpful
Overclocked it to 4.8Ghz rock solid,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Intel Core i5-3570K Quad-Core Processor 3.4 GHz 4 Core LGA 1155 - BX80637I53570K (Personal Computers)
Using a Corsair H80 cooler and an ASUS P8Z77-V DELUXE motherboard, I was able to overclock this to a rock solid 4.8ghz and keep the temps under 75 degrees celsius at full load.
The built in graphics is also pretty good for being integrated. I was able to play starcraft 2 an nearly maximum settings at 1680x1050 resolution with it.
If you really want to know how the processor does when it comes to graphics, you can compare roughly to a $100 graphics card. Better than a Geforce GT 440 for sure.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 9, 2012 7:54:47 AM PDT
Unfortunately you are FAR from correct here. See Anandtech's review here of a FASTER chip (I7-3770K, 100mhz faster, 8 threads (has hyperthreading your chip DOESN'T, has only 4 threads), has 8mb cache (vs. your chip at 6mb), but uses the exact Intel 4000 graphics. In other words looking at this benchmark set at Anandtech will be FASTER than what you can expect to get from the chip you're saying beats a GT 440 "for sure"...LOL. So you got that so far, there is no way in hell your chip (made by Intel also, just slower) is faster than what is tested in Anandtech's review (which is the top of the line Intel quad temporarily).
Crysis Warhead - I7-3770K is a roughly 20% slower in puny 1366x768 at CRAP QUALITY (31.9fps vs 38.9 for GT440). The lead of the GT 440 GROWS to above 30% when you bump up the res to 1680x1050 (common 19in-22in monitor res) . Oh an note it's above 50% faster at 1366x768 when upped to PERFORMANCE QUAL (GT440 94.5fps vs. 3770K 61.9fps, a stunning defeat for a chip faster than yours vs. GT440!).
Metro 2033 brings it within 10% of the GT440 (note your chip is slower than this, so GT440 over 10% lead NOTE this is a cpu bound game, so graphics doesn't mean much - pay attention to games that separate the gpu's).
Dirt 3 (a GPU game) where the GT440 flexes it's muscles again and gets a good 50% faster no matter the res (1366v768 medium qual GT440 64.5fps vs. 46.2fps for 3770K).
Total War Shogun 2 GT440 40.8fps vs I7-3770K 21.1fps...OUCH not even playable at 1366x768. Umm, that's over 100% faster for the GT440 eh? Oh and the 3770K is even beaten by the lowly GT520 (note this people, a larger number is NOT always faster, do your homework! GT520 is 1/2 speed of the GT440 here). LOL, AMD's Lano 3870K is beating Intel's gpu by 100+% here...ROFL. AMD's chip is $120 at newegg...YOUR chip is $229. Umm...Bad decision?
"Ivy Bridge greatly improves on Sandy Bridge, but it still has quite some distance to go to catch Llano in shader-bound scenarios." So in shader bound games expect to get trounced by EVERYTHING over $50 (gpu) or a cpu that's $120 gets you double perf.
PORTAL 2 (uh oh, another gpu game...LOL) GT440 57fps vs 25.3fps for 3770K. OUT over 120% faster than Intel. This GT 440 can be had for $80 anywhere (even on amazon...LOL). Note the GT520 can be had here for under $50 and scores 30+fps. Again trounced by a $50 card, and DESTROYED by a $80 Gt440. OMG, that $120 AMD 3870 is 100% faster also scoring over 50fps!...OUCH. OH, and note Intel's drivers suck still. They encountered what they believe to be "RENDERING ERRORS" in this test. OUCH.
Battlefield 3 - Same story GT440 60% or so faster...Lano 3870k 25% faster.
Starcraft 2 - GT440 61fps vs 35fps for 3770K. INTEL TROUNCED BY GT440 in the very game you site. A good 85% faster in this game. That's high qual, drop it down to medium and GT440 almost hits 100% faster (101fps vs. 52fps).
For anyone who hasn't figured it out yet I'll yell it :)
THE GT 440 FROM NVIDIA (pick a brand) is 60%-100%+ FASTER THAN INTEL'S I7-3770K on chip GPU (that's Intel 4000 gpu to you), which is FASTER than the 3570K you're saying beats a GT440...ROFL.
Skyrim, and Civ5 area also tested by I think you get the point. Any game where it is GPU dependant will be a LOSER for Intel's on chip gpu's (any of them) vs a GT 440. You'd be better off knocking some off the price of the cpu and getting a GT440 which is FOR SURE smoking the intel gpu.
Need more evidence, try hardocp, techreport, ixbtlabs (all end in .com, don't want them stricken here just in case).
Please don't review hardware without reading ample benchmarks first. These are products that can be benchmarked and PROVEN if they are faster or not. People making statements about the performance of hardware on sites like this (amazon et al) can lead a ton of people down the wrong path. Please refrain.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 11:26:29 AM PDT
M. An says:
People game without an actual graphics card? I've never heard that one before. I think most people, especially gamers and enthusiasts, play WITH a graphics card. So there's really no point in arguing a GRAPHICS CARD vs. A CPU in the first place.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 29, 2012 7:12:13 AM PDT
Well, people try to game without a card...LOL. I wouldn't have replied at all but I felt the users post was going to mislead people into thinking this is a great way to game. I'm guessing many following his advice would have been upset after they tried to play MANY games. You may be able to get by on a few that don't tax the gpu much but by and large his statements are completely incorrect. Hopefully more will opt for a cheaper cpu WITH a REAL video card as opposed to taking the advice of the poster and thinking it's going to be a great gamer. It won't be. :) In 90% of the games out there the gpu will be more important, so when in doubt spend on the graphics card and save some on the cpu (if your budget is tight).
This is a great chip, don't get me wrong. Intel is currently smoking AMD in the CPU, but NOT the gpu portion of these chips. The best bet is a cheaper Intel with a decent discrete gpu card. I'd say gaming really starts to get fun with $100+ cards. But that's just based on benchmarks and assuming a 19in+ monitor resolution (1680x1050 or greater). Who games on 17in when a 22in can be had for $110? Good luck to all in your hunting :)
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2012 5:19:58 AM PDT
It might not be a great way to game but you can technically get away with it, maybe not maxed out, but i am pretty sure you can play most DX11 games at at least low. I believe he was just trying to highlight the fact it has integration of a GPU on it. Most PC gamers know you need a discrete card for great results especially if you want play in the 1920x1080+ range. Great CPU, can't wait for haswell =D
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 8, 2012 7:09:19 AM PDT
Jason Pineda Obando says:
Wait.. So basically you are saying using a video card for gaming is better than using integrated graphics ?? Holy Hell stop the news press !!! We got a winner here, we have to tell the world !! What a way to discover hot water.
Ok first of all he said "The built in graphics is also pretty good for being integrated" which nowhere implies it is the way to go for gaming. Second all those beautiful tests you looked up in google are at HIGHER resolutions and, of course, the closer or higher than HD the better a dedicated video card is versus an integrated one.
Any gamer already knows the GPU is the most important part of the PC, but lest say for some reason your video card decided to crap itself. You have no money right now for a new one. Well your core i5 3570 can at least let you game "regularly" until you get a new GPU and that is the power of those integrated graphics.
You buy a CPU for the CPU not for the GPU and nowhere on his review did I think he was misleading people into hardcore gaming (which are the games you listed from the test) with this CPU.
However I do agree with you that for a gamer the correct step is to get a great video card (like the 560TI from Nvidia) and then get a CPU if the money is tight (and when isn't?).
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 9, 2012 1:02:59 PM PDT
"I was able to play starcraft 2 an nearly maximum settings at 1680x1050 resolution with it."
Another from his post:
"If you really want to know how the processor does when it comes to graphics, you can compare roughly to a $100 graphics card. Better than a Geforce GT 440 for sure."
No matter how dumb your rant, these two statements are misleading to the public at large (who don't read reviews at hardware sites or know the difference even between a discreet graphics option or integrated in most cases). Both are NOT TRUE. Which I proved with the numbers. You apparently really didn't read the post before ranting:
"Crysis Warhead - I7-3770K is a roughly 20% slower in puny 1366x768 at CRAP QUALITY (31.9fps vs 38.9 for GT440)"
"(1366v768 medium qual GT440 64.5fps vs. 46.2fps for 3770K)."
"Dirt 3 (a GPU game) where the GT440 flexes it's muscles again and gets a good 50% faster no matter the res (1366x768 medium qual GT440 64.5fps vs. 46.2fps for 3770K)."
The list goes on and on where I show a FASTER cpu than he's claiming is great (the 3570's bigger brother), is SMOKED by the GT440 in everything at 1366x768. While I point out that it is of course even worse at higher resolutions, all of my data was about the CRAPPY resolution these things are meant for 1366x768 or so. His GT440 being slower "for sure" is wrong in every case at ANY resolution. I call that an outright LIE or at best a total misrepresentation of facts as shown. He equates this to being better than a $100 card (GT440 is only $80 by the way, so even worse at $100 comparison). WRONG. He's telling you can play fine nearly maxed out at 1680x1050. Did you really read our posts? He's wrong. So are you. Sorry pal. Look at his quotes. If you believe his post this is faster than $100 video card and runs fine at 1680x1050 nearly maxed out...LOL. Not misleading? So did you register a new account to refute my data regarding ridiculous statements made by you already Mr "unavailable"? Your statements are as ridiculous as his. He has a $100 water cooler for christ's sake, and a QUAD VIDEO CARD motherboad for $265 today! He should have spent it on the graphics card. :) I really hope he has a vid card too :)
"Second all those beautiful tests you looked up in google are at HIGHER resolutions and, of course, the closer or higher than HD the better a dedicated video card is versus an integrated one."
Umm..I pointed out 1366x768...That's high res to you? HD is 1920x1080. I quoted no benchmark at that res. This cpu is NOT playable in any game at that res. I repeated it over and over at 1366x768...See the quotes above, or better yet go read my whole post again, because you clearly didn't read it and soak it up. This is the lowest resolution you can currently buy on a laptop! You can't purchase lower...I'm fairly certain pointing out a GT440 is faster by no less than 50% is relevant when he's claiming the cpu is faster and I'm comparing that GT440 to a FASTER cpu than he's comparing! He's also most likely comparing those #'s at 4.8ghz overclocked as he posted, which would seem a bit faster than 3.x ghz it REALLY runs at...LOL. Get off welfare, and perhaps you won't call $100 an expensive purchase for a video card when you have to game on it for 3yrs (most don't upgrade for years if at all before a new pc purchase). I didn't google the results. I am A+/Network+/ server 2003/xp certified (shortly win7/2008 WIP). I am a IT tech and read hardware sites (far more than used) for my data. Hardocp, techreport, anandtech, tomshardware, guru3d, ixbtlabs, hothardware, etc. I live by this stuff as does my job. I owned a PC business for 8 years so I think I know what I'm talking about. Are we done yet? You can read my "walls of text" in the comments section at Anandtech.com's GT660 TI article as I tore them apart for basing their review on 2560x1600 which that card isn't made for. Rather than arguing with data, they reduced their comments to me being an "Ahole" and "uninformed"...LOL. The best argument they had was some monitor you have to EBAY from korea which is gaining popularity...ROFL. Less than 2% of the population runs at above 1920x1080 as proven. Sorry guy, your comments mean nothing. The "beautiful tests" I looked up are valid at 1366x768 or above (which is used over and over in my comparison while I of course point out it's worse above this). Again, the lowest res laptop you can buy, let alone monitors which pretty much start at 1680x1050. Check newegg who shows the recommended res for all. But thanks for going on about nothing so I could say it all again...ROFL. A 22in monitor can be had for $110 and ALL run above 1366x768, above 1440x900...Get it? You run below native res? Seriously?
I never claimed you couldn't GAME on a tight budget with the chip. I PROVED it isn't faster than GT440 ($75 now - I googled that LOL) at any res much less a $100 card as he's claiming. Sorry he did claim that 1 sentence after you're quote... :)
Most funny quote from me? :
"Total War Shogun 2 GT440 40.8fps vs I7-3770K 21.1fps...OUCH not even playable at 1366x768. Umm, that's over 100% faster for the GT440 eh? Oh and the 3770K is even beaten by the lowly GT520 (note this people, a larger number is NOT always faster, do your homework! GT520 is 1/2 speed of the GT440 here). LOL, AMD's Lano 3870K is beating Intel's gpu by 100+% here...ROFL. AMD's chip is $120 at newegg...YOUR chip is $229. Umm...Bad decision?"
So his chip is $229, and even without the card, AMD's lowly AMD lano at $120 beats it by 100% at this LOWLY res of 1366x768. Yet you're quoting people on a budget and using it in the same sentence with saving money? The i3570 can be beaten by $109 less chip, which arguably should be bought buy gamers "on a budget". Lano is far better if you're tight on money and have NONE for a card. But in your eyes $229 getting trounced by $120 is a great idea? I submit anyone buying this cpu for gaming should buy a decent lano + $109 video card. Which will trounce the I3570 and even the chip I'm comparing I3770 in all games. PERIOD. Find me a benchmark where the I3770 even comes CLOSE to a $109 video card (let alone the cheaper i3570 he's comparing) and I'll take it all back and say you and him are far wiser than I...LOL. Good luck. You really should have just kept your mouth shut. I don't care what resolution you look for either... You can't win. Nuff said? I used to sell stuff like this all the time, watching people come back asking "how come my shiny new cpu/computer can't play X game without skipping". Umm, you need a vid card for that - despite me always pointing out it won't work for gaming MUCH, BEFORE they completed the purchase. Unfortunately you can't really say to your customer "I pointed this out last week before you bought - remember?". I can't tell you how many upgrades I installed for free just to smooth out a vid card purchase 2 weeks later. :) It happens all the time. They did buy vid cards in their 2nd & 3rd machines though (over 8 years) :)
Moral of the story...IF you have $229 for a cpu and are planning to game, cut the chip and buy a $100 vid card as I said. You will actually be in "playable" territory then where the i3570 won't be above 30fps much of the time (this isn't even counting minimum fps, just highest which most quote these days unfortunately...for minimum spend more time at hardocp for a reality check - Anandtech has mins in some games though). If you're defending this guys statements you either work for Intel, are his best friend or just completely uninformed :)
"Well your core i5 3570 can at least let you game "regularly" until you get a new GPU and that is the power of those integrated graphics."
Not sure what regularly means to you...But ok. I admit that it's nice to have something to fall back on for gaming if you're broke at the time your vid card fails (never said it didn't...You putting words in my mouth?). Are you talking "it can run minecraft" or what? HARDCORE gaming isn't what any of my statements were arguing about. IF it's just HARDCORE gaming, how come a $120 AMD LANO wins by 100% (that's double dude) in a lot of the tests vs this $229 cpu? People really can game on LANO at $120 at 1366x768 and NOT just talking minecraft...LOL. HE QUOTED STARCRAFT 2! You can't have it both ways, either he's recommending this chip for games like starcraft 2 or not. He should have said runs minecraft fine and left it at that by your definition I guess. I would have said nothing then.
But he said:
"If you really want to know how the processor does when it comes to graphics, you can compare roughly to a $100 graphics card. Better than a Geforce GT 440 for sure."
An outright lie or misrepresentation as shown. I submit a $100 video card (the gt440 was going for $80 when I posted, less now) IS FOR GAMING "on a budget". Heck, by your own statements GAMERS buy DISCRETE cards for gaming. Yeah...Kind of my point. Making his statement all the more ludicrous don't you think?
"Ok first of all he said "The built in graphics is also pretty good for being integrated" which nowhere implies it is the way to go for gaming."
I'm pretty sure he said a lot more than that even though it only took him another 2 more sentences to do it :) Just in case you missed it he said:
"I was able to play starcraft 2 an nearly maximum settings at 1680x1050 resolution with it.
If you really want to know how the processor does when it comes to graphics, you can compare roughly to a $100 graphics card. Better than a Geforce GT 440 for sure."
Are you picking up what I'm putting down now? ;) His statements were proven wrong at ANY resolution as noted above many times. I think I just proved YOU are misrepresenting HIS statements. Unless you game "regularly" at below 1366x768 on a $229 cpu (and in his case overclocking with a $100 water cooler)? So he's got $100 (water) + an extra $109 in the cpu over a lano + ASUS P8Z77-V DELUXE (a $265 motherboard built for overclocking & QUAD Video cards - that's 4 vid cards there guy) for (in many cases) 1/2 the game performance as shown. Hmm...Good decisions? Good to listen to his recommendations? Schools out. Class dismissed. Please read i3570 reviews people before thinking you can follow his advice, choose any site I listed and more can be found by "googling" i3570 reviews :) $100(water)+229(cpu)+265(Mboard)=Not a poor guy by usual standards. I don't GOOGLE for my data Mr. Obando. I read the reviews myself - nearly ALL of them. Please accept my apologies people for the "relevant" wall of text :)
I take no credit for the "discovery" of hot water :) Rather that his statement (not data) is woefully incorrect...jeez. Thank god I type 60+wpm :)
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2012 9:40:03 AM PDT
D. Bunker says:
@The Jian - Your info may be useful, but your tone is incredibly arrogant and obnoxious. FAIL
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2012 6:44:08 AM PDT
‹ Previous 1 Next ›