So why is the 3570k always reccomended?

[Rafax]

So I've always been under the impression that the i5 3570k is the superior gaming cpu but it seems like it isnt according to these guys and they do know their stuff:



Whats up with all that?

[Ron Burgundy]

the i5-3750k is better all around.

[Rafax]

How is it better all around did you watch the video? If these results are correct its actually only better a few times and at energy comsumption.

[lqid10t]

Did you watch it? It's not better power consumption wise. They were explaining that over the course of 3 years, you only pay a little bit more for using the AMD over the Intel, INCLUDING covering the extra cost of the Intel.

[Deleted]

Sorry for my awful English, I hope you will understand.

I would say that i5-3570k is better. Why ? I have been asking this for a long time, so I brought my PC to the local PC shop. They geared me with both of those CPU´s so I could try them. AMD was slightly faster in things like compressing, decompressing and those things. When we tried games, well. AMD was better in 2 games (MW3 and LoL) and Intel won in BF3, COD:BO2, Planetside 2, Dota 2, World of Warcraft, World of Warplanes, World of Tanks (those were the tested games we had there).

A lot of people says, that Intel is premium CPU, if you have money for it = get it!
Amd is really good, have been using it for 4 years before switching to i5-3570k.

As I said above, AMD is good in some things, usually in those which are heavy-CPU related like WinRar, etc and Intel is slightly behind but still can beat out the AMD.

Also, it really depends on your whole build.

[Ron Burgundy]

the 8350 is an EIGHT CORE chip. most games cant utilize that right now. u'll get better performance in MOST but not all games with an overclocked 3570k.

[yurano]

So I've always been under the impression that the i5 3570k is the superior gaming cpu but it seems like it isnt according to these guys and they do know their stuff.

No they don't. Teksyndicate doesn't have much experience in comparative reviews. Their results go against what many other reputable reviewers have shown.

The flaws of the review are best described by Alatar, moderator at OCN.

Another very much sub par and inconsistent "review"

First of all, they use a bad ITX board for intel (a high chance of throttling due to VRM issues, especially at high clocks)

They OC the AMD chip over 500mhz higher than the intel one and then proceed to say that a 4.5ghz clock for the i5 is excellent, amazing etc.

Then they claim that at normal resolutions there are huge differences between AMD and intel setups in GPU bound games, which doesn't make sense

They constantly say how people should have trusted them, and they're generally acting very smug, not adressing the important complaints about the 1st video

They present results that go against 99% of the reviews on the net

And to top it all of they go on tangents about intel compilers, cinebench etc.

I like the channel but I'm sorry to say, these guys have no idea what they're doing when it comes to OCing and benchmarking (logan's inability to understand some stuff can be seen in his earlier videos as well, how he talks about X79 and so on)

Incompetent review that shouldn't be trusted. Sadly it will be posted every time someone mentions intel being better at gaming (which is the widely accepted fact shown by dozens of review sites). Nonsense results all around (skyrim anyone?)

[Draahl]

the new 3570 and 3770 series both have built in GPU's in their CPU core design. This is the first line that has that, and therefor they are a little better then their predecessors. It will take the load of your stand-alone GPU which will make single player / coop games run alot smoother.

[Llunai]

A lot of people says, that Intel is premium CPU, if you have money for it = get it!

This is meaningless. Keep in mind that people said the very same thing during the years where Intel CPU's were complete shit and AMD was king.

I'm not saying the Intels aren't better (I prefer them over the last couple years); I'm only saying that mass opinion is meaningless in determining superiority.

[Rafax]

Im not saying they are right just inquiring wouldnt be the first time a brand would be overrated, i realy dont care which is better just want to keep up to date.

[Biernot]

To the people complaining about the overclock of i5-3570k vs FX-8350:

The reason, why the i5-3570k was only overclocked to 4.5GHz is simple: Ivy Bridge can't be overclocked as high as Sandy Bridge, because it "hits a thermal wall" around the 4.5 / 4.6 GHz mark. Pushing it past this point requires very high voltages and good cooling.
The FX-8350 on the other hand can be oc'ed to 5GHz very easily. A friend of mine has it running at 4.8GHz with stock voltages and stock cooler.

[DeltrusDisc]

That video is VERY new, you must realize this.

[inux94]

No they don't. Teksyndicate doesn't have much experience in comparative reviews. Their results go against what many other reputable reviewers have shown.

The flaws of the review are best described by Alatar, moderator at OCN.

You can't compare clock speeds between 2 different architectures.

4.5 GHz on a 3570k is a very respetable overclock, just like with the 5GHz overclock on the 8350.

[n0cturnal]

As I said yesterday when someone linked this video the numbers don't add up.

There is something wrong with the benchmarks in that video. Take Far Cry as an example, in their test the AMD destroys the Intel CPU, in all other test I've seen the Intel CPU comes out ahead.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rk,3379-7.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...nchmark,7.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-f...nce/page6.html

That issue makes the whole test flawed in my eyes and I can't take anything in it seriously.

[vesseblah]

Two big problem with that review

1) They got very low scores on some games, so low that it makes people wonder if something throttled the Intel CPU. It's just not plausible that the AMD processor would run any games at 3x the framerate.

2) They're not using the ingame benchmarks but some random dicking around playing the game "doing the same things" is not really accurate comparison.


When it comes to overclocking numbers... AMD starts at 4.0GHz, when you OC it to 5.0GHz it runs 25% faster than original. Intel starts at 3.4GHz and after OC 4.5GHz which is about 32% increase. The Intel processor was actually overclocked much higher than the AMD from stock speed.

[n0cturnal]

2) They're not using the ingame benchmarks but some random dicking around playing the game "doing the same things" is not really accurate comparison.

The method they use for testing the games is questionable, on top of that are they even running the same test several times to filter out any anomaly?

[vesseblah]

The method they use for testing the games is questionable, on top of that are they even running the same test several times to filter out any anomaly?

Probably not, considering the numbers.

[Blackmist]

In a few years, when games are using as many cores as you have by default, the way will be to have a ton of cores. Intel and AMD will both be at 8/16 or more cores by then.

Right now, games aren't doing that. They'll often spawn an extra thread or two for some fixed tasks, but the default approach is still relying on one big fat thread. If your CPU is slow at that, the whole game will be slow. It doesn't matter how many extra cores you have, if the game isn't using them, you picked the wrong CPU for the job. You can cherry pick games that show the AMD as being faster. You can pick them the other way round too. But what's more important is which is better for the games you want to play.

AMD have been playing catch up for some time now. Intel like to design good chips that perform well at low clock speeds. AMD haven't been able to do that so they just force them to run at higher frequency and stuff more cores on the chip. Downside to that is power consumption and there's only so far you can push that approach.

[Majesticii]

I dont understand, how can the numbers on Far Cry 3 vary that much when compared to EVERY other benchmark review.
I call BS on this video. Also, 25fps with a GTX670 on 1080p maxed FC3.... what. I have a 670 icm with a i5-760 (yes old) and i get 45-50fps maxed 1080p...

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Probably not, considering the numbers.

Don't they say they repeated the tests multiple times because they weren't expecting the results they saw, and that the numbers were consistent? They did in the first video.