People good with CPU'sFollow

Intel 3570k Vs. 3770?

Look at Tom's Hardware for comparisons and then decide how much you want to spend.

Are they both K variants? If not they should be. You're talking about a couple of quid difference between K and non-K, and the K as mentioned above denotes an unlocked multiplier meaning you can overclock it. Don't buy a non-K variant. You're wasting money.

In a nutshell: personally, I say go for the 3570K over the 3770K.

The 3770K is the superior CPU, but not by much and, depending on what you're using it for, potentially not even humanly perceptibly so. It also has Hyper Threading which the 3570K does not. Barely any games support HT and in some cases it is actually detrimental (BF3 comes to mind, before they fixed the issue with a patch). If you're into CPU intensive multimedia area such as 3D modelling and animation it'll be a big boon, but barely anything "real world" will make real use of it. CPU's now a days are powerful enough to handle tasks thrown at them without needing to resort to HT to increase performance. HT might become useful in the future, though as it looks at the moment (and this is with a degree of crystal balling) we will probably be within the next generation or two of CPU's by then, and you can weigh up the need for HT then.

The 3770K also costs ~30-50% more than the 3570K (at least in the UK).

So really it depends on what you're looking for from a tech and financial point of view. Want the best, no questions? The 3770K fits that bill. Best value for money? The 3570K gives more "bang for your buck" to coin a phrase from the colonies.

These are my recommendations as someone who works in IT (sysadmin dirty end, not lofty management :>) and as someone who does rather enjoy playing games on a PC!

I dunno how to OC either but that means I don't have to worry about accidently OCing, I just happen to know that the 'k' at the end means it can be OC'ed from my own research when I went comp shopping back in August. xD

My 2600k still does quite well.

This is what I've got in my gaming rig, and I love it! Wint actually makes a good point that the second-generation i5 processor is still the sweet spot for gaming in terms of price and performance.

The i7 Ivy Bridge (3rd gen) is definitely the better processor, but not by much. I haven't seen any benchmark testing for any game indicating a noticeable improvement in gaming between the i5 and i7, partially because the vast majority of games don't take full advantage of the i7's power. The i5 processor, whether you go second or third generation, gives you almost as much "bang" for a much better price.

If you're a computer components enthusiast, and your primary goal is simply to build a computer with the best components, then get the i7. If your main concern is getting awesome gaming performance without spending more money than needed, then get the i5.

One more thing... if you plan on overclocking, but you've never overclocked before, then you may want to consider getting the second-generation i5 processor (either the 2500k or the 2600k). You can overclock the third-generation i5, but the Ivy Bridge processors (although they run much cooler at stock settings) heat up rather quickly when overclocked and require aftermarket fans. The Sandy Bridge processors (second generation) can supposedly be overclocked really well with far less concerns of cooking your CPU.

I bought the Ivy Bridge i5 processor because I have no desire to overclock. My video card is a 560ti, and I'm very, very happy with my machine's performance.

Oh, one more thing... the Ivy Bridge processors are equipped with Intel HD 4000 graphics, which are probably good enough to run most games on low settings in the event that you're ever without a video card for any extended period of time. This is an improvement from the Sandy Bridge processors.

Edited, Jan 1st 2013 2:06am by Thayos

Oops, that's what I get for not checking my work!

So, in regards to my post, the 2500k is the ultimate i5 sweet spot! I was confusing the 2600k with the 2550 i5.

I would still say the third-gen i5 would be an all-around better buy than the second-round i7 for just gaming, unless you want to over clock and you don't have a lot of aftermarket cooling gear.

Seeing as how CPUs are generally not the limiting factor in game performance (usually a video card or memory), you'd be better served putting the difference between the 3570 and the 3770 (k or not) and putting it into your video card budget. A $750 machine (excluding HD) will easily run this in 1080P. I excluded the HD, because you can put a 240ish GB SSD in the machine bringing it up to $1Kish and have an amazing rig.

It'd be nice if people who were in the Alpha could talk about their specs and their framerate experiences so these theorycrafting threads would be less theory and more fact.

I remember the day I upgraded my desktop to a SSD. I'll never have spinny drives for my OS drive ever again

Edited, Jan 1st 2013 8:45pm by Wint

I kept the 1TB platter, but all it does is house all my installation files, movies, and music. All programs that play, download, or store any media are mapped directly to the appropriate partition on the 1TB.

Ah, well, I don't play that many games. Although I did realize it was silly to have FFXIV 1.0 installed on my SSD when I'll never be playing that client again.

Most MMO's that I've tested are CPU bound, FF14 in particular is a great example
FF14 in particular on the v1.0 engine scales very well from 2 cores to 2 cores with HT or from 2 cores to 4 cores, past that core count wise the scaling is only good with additional Ghz.

While CPUs may scale great when you're in crowded areas, your video card is still going to do the heavy lifting and grant you your minimum framerate and playable settings. Assuming a $1000 budget (for even percentages), i'd split my $$ this way. Keep in mind, if you know what you want and what you're willing to pay, your valuation/price for specific items will differ.

300 - Video
100 - Power Supply / MOBO
200 - Processor / Motherboard
200 - SSD
50 - Memory (4-8 GB)
150 - Case/Fans/OS/Optical Drives/Everything else

If you were absolutely convinced that SSD wasn't worth the upgrade, I'd still move that $100 over to video over processor. At a $200 processor (i5 or top tier AMD) you are not going to get a better boost by allocating that to a processor.

I only ever used the SSD for the OS, a huge difference it is but the difference between performance during gameplay for a SSD and standard HDD shouldn't be all the noticeable. loading times a bit faster but doesn't it also depend on the SSD? Aren't some still a bit dodgy?

I have a plextor for my OS drive (has a 6 year warranty) and an Intel 520 series for my Users folder. They're both rock solid so far, I've had them both for over a year now.

Actually, if you guys have questions about any kind of components let me know. I work for Newegg :)

For SSD, i would recommend Intel or Kingston HyperX.

For CPU, go with i5 2500k. Anything more than that is overkill at this point. If you want to future proof yourself then go for 3770k i7.

If you want help with a budget build, let me know

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 5:40pm by balishag

reminder: non-k series cpu's cannot be overclocked, so if u want best performance and have knowledge about overclocking, go for 3770k

I won't need another major upgrade for at least two years - my Christmas present was a Radeon HD 7770 and I just upgraded to Windows 8 free courtesy of my business school. About the only thing holding me back is an older processor (Athlon II X4), so once I get funds again (that business school sucked away $6000 on Monday) I'll be upgrading to a Phenom II X6 .

I'm a PC hobbyist so much of the fun for me is putting it together from the kit and making the magic myself. But'll keeps those systems in mind for my less tech-savvy friends.