is i5 3570k still good?
is i5 3570k still good?
You can choose xeon v1 or v2 depending on your motherboard model. For X79 (LGA 2011), v3 requires x99. I think v2 works well, while x99 is a bit pricier and may not be necessary for older systems.
For comparison, the i3 10100/Ryzen 3 3100 and 9100F are similar to the i7 920 and 3770K in terms of 4C/8T and 4C/4T designs. The 4C/8T model shares traits with the 3570K, while the 4C/4T version resembles the 3570K as well. The visual above highlights the typical performance gap, showing how smooth operation contrasts with less favorable results.
Core and thread numbers are only meaningful when they belong to the same design. Both the 9th and 10th gen models are essentially identical in this aspect, which is acceptable. Yet the i7 920 and i5 3570K represent completely different processors. If you locate comparison charts, I’d guess the i5 would perform better overall, with stronger average results and lower 1% failures. Ivy Bridge outperforms Bloomfield significantly, offering much higher instruction per cycle and the ability to run faster than HyperThreading can compensate. The 3770K versus 3570K comparison makes sense—clearly the 3770K will excel. The gap you’re highlighting reflects real differences.
The i5 3570K is a reliable CPU – it tends to get warm and can have trouble with some newer multi-threaded games, but it still performs well overall. I haven’t tested this exact model, but I prefer ASUS boards and a B75 would be a solid option: it only includes two SATA ports, unless ASUS expanded them (they often do), but it does support native PCIe 3.0 x16 and USB3, keeping it fairly modern. As for the processor, several benchmarks suggest it could be 30-50% faster than the A8 6600K – though I think those numbers were a bit harsh. On CPU-heavy tasks like gaming, the difference might be even more noticeable. My experience with the A8 left me quite disappointed, while I still have multiple 3rd generation Intel systems (at least four currently). The key is knowing what GPU you’re using. If you rely on built-in graphics, expect disappointment. An A8 6600K would match up against an Intel HD 4000, but the AMD version would be about 30-50% faster – though it would cost around $100 more for a GT1030 and only about $25 for an HD4870 due to age, lack of drivers, and minimal mining potential.
The outcome depends on what you’re expecting. In GTA it’s what you expected, yet in Shadow of the Tomb Raider the i7 performs slightly better. There aren’t many test results, but I think titles like Call of Duty, Battlefield, R6S and similar would still show stronger 1% lows. Such games really hit CPUs with few threads hard. I know it’s tough to compare core counts across different systems, but my idea was that CPUs lacking HT would degrade significantly, especially at low frequencies. I realize comparing cores isn’t straightforward, but the main point is the lack of threads hurts performance, mainly in those small percentages. Now I see it makes more sense to compare the i7 920 with the 3570K, and I forgot to include the i5 750—my goal was to see how CPUs with and without HT deliver similar performance in modern titles.
I'm looking to purchase a discrete GPU soon, so there shouldn't be any issues. I plan to buy the GTX 460 for about $35. The prices in the Philippines are much higher than elsewhere—like a YouTuber buying an RX 480 last year for $40, which is roughly $100 here—but he got it locally, so it must be cheaper.
Don't stress about missing out on the RX480... it might be a bit more expensive, but a GT1030 could be worth it. It offers 2Gb GDDR5 with half the speed, yet is significantly more advanced and runs five times faster overall. It uses only 30W compared to 160W, producing less heat and requiring less air conditioning or room warming. Driver support remains strong and should last another 2-3 years, possibly up to five years. This isn't about targeting AMD specifically—I've used many AMD graphics over the years, from ATI to Radeon models, and still appreciate their memory and performance. Now I seriously think about a 6800XT for my next build. However, I'm cautious with legacy setups since driver support has been reduced. Even the 3Gb HD7970 isn't fully supported (with four digital displays), yet it offers triple the memory, speed, and performance compared to the RX480—though it's nearly three times more power-hungry!
It looks like you're comparing CPU models and their suitability for different gaming needs. The i7 920 is a 4C/8T processor, while the 3570K offers 4C/4T and can still handle many modern games well. For competitive eSports, the 3570K might be adequate, but if higher thread counts are needed, it could struggle. Your i7 3960X (6C/12T) remains a solid choice even today, offering better performance than older models for most titles.
It was a 3770K that worked well with your X5690 at comparable times, using significantly less energy.
Similar clocks on both models would perform better in single-core but lag in multi-core configurations. Key findings show that at 4.22GHz, all cores match a stock X5675 (3.33GHz) with around 765 cb. At 4.2GHz, the X5675 reaches about 995 cb, while the 3770K struggles to keep up. In single-core testing, the 3770K at 4.43GHz scores 157, whereas the X5675 hits 134. For multi-core, the X5675 outperforms the 3770 by 30%, and the 3770 wins by 17% in single-core at 4.4GHz. When comparing 4C/8T versus 6C/12T CPUs, it's different from comparing 4C/4T or 4C/8T. Overall, the recommendation leans toward an i7-3770K, especially with a Z77 motherboard and 16GB RAM, which are typically priced under 100€. If the 3570K is significantly cheaper, it could also be a good option.