|
|
| Page 4 of 4 |
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14393
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Stige wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | People don't take the i3 as serious as they should be taking it. It is a serious performer given it's cheap price.
I see people all the time trying to do budget builds and giving the I3 the stink eye just because it has 'I3' in it's name. They refuse to accept the reality of just how fast it is.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/26/intel-core-i3-3220-review/1
I speak from personal experiance. I have an overclocked 2600K rig on Z68 w/ a GTX 680.
The system I built for my girlfriend which is an I3 3220, Z77, and GTX 660Ti would be just as fast for gaming if I dropped a GTX 680 in there. Mine might be maybe 5-8 FPS better in most games due to the CPU alone, but was it worth all the cash I spent?
No, not really. I'd be just fine with the I3 since all I do is game. |
But when you do even the slightest overclocking the price difference more than makes up for itself, 2500K is twice as fast as the i3 if you can get it to 4.8GHz or 5GHz.
i3 will be stuck on however much you can increase the BCLK on it which isn't a lot.
But I think I said it earlier, if you are never going to overclock then the best choice would propably be the Ivy i5 instead of Sandy i5.
If you overclock then there is no better alternative than 2500K unless you can afford extreme cooling that is needed to push the 3570K beyond the clocks of 2500K. |
You keep saying it is twice as fast.
It isn't. I assume the OP wants a gaming rig. He will not get anywhere near twice the FPS, or even 20% more FPS with an overclocked 2500k or whatever.
Again, if his primary goal is gaming he should save the money on the CPU and dump it on the GPU / SSD/ Other things.
Last edited by Mchart on Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | Yes, the extreme 4-M uses the basic power phases, the Normal extreme 4 uses more phases so it's normally going to be more stable at higher clocks. And you'll be ok with it and an 3570K on air-cooling. 4.4Ghz is going to be an easy overclock on the 3570K.
I cant speak for the overall quality of ASROCK though, I have never used them. But it is a popular brand, even on this board. |
Thanks mate, you've been of immense assistance=) Guess I got my shopping list set
| Paintface wrote: | | Badrien wrote: | not downgrading to an i3, and find it hard to believe they outperform the quad cores, got any links?
Budget is not a whole lot of an issue its just that if I dont get an sli board I dont want it to cost as much as one that is.
Couleur, its just the extreme 4-m that has the bad power phasing? the normal atx version is fine?
I can still head the sli way with that extreme 4 if thats decent. Just figured the pro4 would the way to go if I went non sli since that was reccomended on page 1 iirc.
so 3570K
z77 Extreme 4
truespirit 140
Unless that extreme 4 has shitty power phasing too?
As for overclocking I dont intend to break any records, but I do want a board that can handle a daily 4.4ghzish overclock(given that the cpu chip batch is any good and even gets that far). Will the extreme 4 suffice? |
extreme 4 is a very good board at a very good price , i got the P67 version and it handles my 4.4ghz 2500k rockstable. |
Thats good to hear, any complaints about it at all?
| Mchart wrote: | People don't take the i3 as serious as they should be taking it. It is a serious performer given it's cheap price.
I see people all the time trying to do budget builds and giving the I3 the stink eye just because it has 'I3' in it's name. They refuse to accept the reality of just how fast it is.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/26/intel-core-i3-3220-review/1
Note the real world usage for video encoding, etc it is just as fast if not faster then the old I7 920. Sure, it doesn't crunch out WPrime as fast as the 920 - But that isn't real world.
I speak from personal experiance. I have an overclocked 2600K rig on Z68 w/ a GTX 680.
The system I built for my girlfriend which is an I3 3220, Z77, and GTX 660Ti would be just as fast for gaming if I dropped a GTX 680 in there. Mine might be maybe 5-8 FPS better in most games due to the CPU alone, but was it worth all the cash I spent?
No, not really. I'd be just fine with the I3 since all I do is game. |
aside from the difference when overclocked its mostly a psychological thing.
it'd be like trading in my 4 boobed chick for a 2 boobed one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | Stige wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | People don't take the i3 as serious as they should be taking it. It is a serious performer given it's cheap price.
I see people all the time trying to do budget builds and giving the I3 the stink eye just because it has 'I3' in it's name. They refuse to accept the reality of just how fast it is.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/26/intel-core-i3-3220-review/1
I speak from personal experiance. I have an overclocked 2600K rig on Z68 w/ a GTX 680.
The system I built for my girlfriend which is an I3 3220, Z77, and GTX 660Ti would be just as fast for gaming if I dropped a GTX 680 in there. Mine might be maybe 5-8 FPS better in most games due to the CPU alone, but was it worth all the cash I spent?
No, not really. I'd be just fine with the I3 since all I do is game. |
But when you do even the slightest overclocking the price difference more than makes up for itself, 2500K is twice as fast as the i3 if you can get it to 4.8GHz or 5GHz.
i3 will be stuck on however much you can increase the BCLK on it which isn't a lot.
But I think I said it earlier, if you are never going to overclock then the best choice would propably be the Ivy i5 instead of Sandy i5.
If you overclock then there is no better alternative than 2500K unless you can afford extreme cooling that is needed to push the 3570K beyond the clocks of 2500K. |
You keep saying it is twice as fast.
It isn't. I assume the OP wants a gaming rig. He will not get anywhere near twice the FPS, or even 20% more FPS with an overclocked 2500k or whatever.
Again, if his primary goal is gaming he should save the money on the CPU and dump it on the GPU / SSD/ Other things. |
got ssd, more then enough ram. Cant upgrade gpu unless I get a 2nd 560gtx-ti which would also set me back about 200 or an entirely new one. and really cant get past the i3 part lol. Rig will also be used for video encoding.
I understand the i3 is an awesome chip for its price, but its not what im looking for. Want a chip i can spend time on getting the most out of it.
Last edited by Badrien on Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:55 Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/547?vs=647
I'll just leave this here.
I think your money would be much better spent on the GPU, because you ain't gonna see much difference between that i3 and whatever you want to get instead but you'll be shelling out the cash regardless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 16:56 Post subject: |
|
|
there never was, nor will there be in the coming year. intention to change or upgrade this gpu. I barely got it a year ago.
one of the added reasons of the sli is that i can pick up another 560 when theyre cheap in a year or so instead of having to upgrade gpu altogether.
the link doesnt do much for me, with all the different 560's out there its hardly relevant. my clocks are nowhere near what they reference there. running 1075 core and 2500mhz(5000mhz) memory , Nor does it mention if its the 384 stream processor version or the other one. I've got a texture fill rate of 60 whereas that lists 45.
When the time comes I need it Ill throw in a 2nd 560
Little question about the truespirit(and macho too for that matter) the main fan, although its 120/140 its still connected to the CPUFAN on mobo right?
RTX ON
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stige
Posts: 3546
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 18:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | Well, the Ivy i5 is generally about 10% (edit: nah, more like 6% but still) faster than the Sandy i5, so you dont need to clock so high to get the same performance.  |
Not true when it comes to games though, it is faster in synthetic benchmarks though.
In games they are both pretty much equal clock-per-clock, that is why 2500K is superior for gaming under same cooling solution, it can overclock much higher because it doesn't have to overheating flaws of 3570K.
| Badrien wrote: | there never was, nor will there be in the coming year. intention to change or upgrade this gpu. I barely got it a year ago.
one of the added reasons of the sli is that i can pick up another 560 when theyre cheap in a year or so instead of having to upgrade gpu altogether.
the link doesnt do much for me, with all the different 560's out there its hardly relevant. my clocks are nowhere near what they reference there. running 1075 core and 2500mhz(5000mhz) memory , Nor does it mention if its the 384 stream processor version or the other one. I've got a texture fill rate of 60 whereas that lists 45.
When the time comes I need it Ill throw in a 2nd 560
Little question about the truespirit(and macho too for that matter) the main fan, although its 120/140 its still connected to the CPUFAN on mobo right? |
My motherboard seems to have a 3-pin and 4-pin CPUFAN connector on it, the fan that comes with the TrueSpirit is 4-pin for me atleast, not sure which one you are after.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
whichever is the standard cpu fan one that regulats the rpm automatically , the 4 pin pwm one i think that is. so that should be fine =)
RTX ON
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14393
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 18:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | | Stige wrote: | | couleur wrote: | | Well, the Ivy i5 is generally about 10% (edit: nah, more like 6% but still) faster than the Sandy i5, so you dont need to clock so high to get the same performance. |
Not true when it comes to games though, it is faster in synthetic benchmarks though.
In games they are both pretty much equal clock-per-clock, that is why 2500K is superior for gaming under same cooling solution, it can overclock much higher because it doesn't have to overheating flaws of 3570K.
|
It is also faster in Apps and everything that is bottlenecked by the CPU. 3570 overclocks easily to 4.4Ghz, but Games reach the GPU bottleneck way before so it doesnt really matter anyway.
If you look at Games in lower resolutions, you will find that the 3570K is faster than the 2500K by a few %. Which is just normal. |
And as we've said so many times, a lot hotter than the 2500k which could affect overclockability depending on quality of the chip.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14393
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 18:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: |
And as we've said so many times, a lot hotter than the 2500k which could affect overclockability depending on quality of the chip. |
Ok, so you think I didnt know that? I was saying, that it doesnt need to overclock that much because it gives roughly the same performance on slightly lower clocks. It is more expensive and therefor not the best choice if you dont care about the power draw and dont want PCIe 3.0 and the onboard gfx etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 19:25 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see the point of this upgrade in the first place. i5-750 is still a very capable CPU, so if I were you, I would skip the Ivy generation and wait for a more drastic upgrade.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 20:20 Post subject: |
|
|
From personal experience (four including my own), the 3570K does not get "a lot hotter" with proper cooling.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 21:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Arctic Freezer i30. Best cooler I have used untill now. It's small (which is a big plus for me), very silent and it cools very well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 21:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | Arctic Freezer i30. Best cooler I have used untill now. It's small (which is a big plus for me), very silent and it cools very well. |
Arctic Cooling tends to have very silent high performance fans. I have the Accelero Extreme 7970 with 3 fans running at 100% all the time. Barely noticeable.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 21:50 Post subject: |
|
|
It was never about the biggest baddest overclock.
Why would the thread have to be closed, is discussing hardware not the point of the hardware zone?
Parts are ordered though, safe for the cpu cooler. will go on a quest for that locally when the parts arrive.
Used to have a Accelero gtx on my old gtx 280. could barely hear that too with all the fans running, might even be the same fan array
RTX ON
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 22:18 Post subject: |
|
|
It should be noted that Ivy Bridge would also be worth it if you are doing encoding / transcoding / whatever video stuff as you can use Virtu to harness the power of the iGPU via Quick Sync which greatly enhances encode performance. Thus, because the iGPU in Ivy is noticeably faster then Sandy it makes a HUGE difference if you encode videos. Even top of the line dGPU's come nowhere near to QuickSync performance.
Point of this is that the little i3 3220 would stomp the floor of what you currently have when it comes to encoding at least.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badrien
Posts: 2118
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 23:16 Post subject: |
|
|
oeh that sounds very interesting.is the quick sync some extra software or built in?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stige
Posts: 3546
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Jan 2013 23:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I like how you can guarantee a high overclock. Tell that to the people who can't get their 3570/2500 over 4Ghz. It's always a gamble.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stige
Posts: 3546
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2013 11:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| Badrien wrote: | | oeh that sounds very interesting.is the quick sync some extra software or built in? |
It's something built in to almost every Sandy and Ivy chipset. You then need to use Virtu if you are using a dGPU so encoding/decoding software like ffdshow can still access the iGPU for QuickSync.
Obviously, since it uses the iGPU the better iGPU in the particular CPU means faster encode times using quicksync. Even better is that since it is using the iGPU, and not the CPU or dGPU you can be encoding and still do other stuff since only the iGPU is being used.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,review-32090-5.html
There's an old review of QuickSync on Sandy. You can see just how huge of a thing Quick Sync is if you do a lot of encoding.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2013 12:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Wasn't there some tech which did the same with games (using teh iGPU in tandem with the GPU)? Or am I remembering wrong?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2013 12:32 Post subject: |
|
|
There's a lot of work going on with opencl encoders, esp. now that Handbrake supports OpenCL encoding.
http://www.mainconcept.com/products/sdks/gpu-acceleration/opencltm-h264avc.html
http://techreport.com/review/23324/a-look-at-hardware-video-transcoding-on-the-pc/3
| Quote: | QuickSync wins this race, pulling off the lowest encoding time by a few seconds and the lowest power consumption. Strangely, though, the output file of our QuickSync config also had the lowest actual bitrate of the bunch: only 3828Kbps, a fair bit below our 4000Kbps target. NVENC, which had the second-lowest encoding time, also missed the mark, but by a smaller margin. In both cases, the resulting file sizes were lower than with our other two configs. (The unassisted CPU and the VCE-enabled Radeon both stuck more closely to our prescribed bitrate setting, so it's no wonder that they produced bigger files.)
Predictably, the QuickSync and NVENC output files look the worst in our action scene. Blocky compression artifacts obscure detail, make smooth lines appear lumpy, and create a sort of shimmering around moving objects. VCE doesn't fare much better; while it produces fewer artifacts, it jacks up the gamma and makes the picture look washed-out. The software encoder does the best job here by far. That said, color saturation is off across the board. Our source video has brighter reds and more vivid yellows than all of the output files.
The still scene shows more subtle differences, and it highlights another issue with the QuickSync output. Look at the frame of the actor's glasses against the wall on the right. The frame should appear as a smooth line, but it's oddly jagged in the QuickSync screenshot. We noticed similar pixelation in other scenes and on text throughout the trailer. In motion, the jaggies appeared to dance around objects. Clearly, there's something wrong here. Perhaps the scaling from 1080p to 720p isn't being done using the right interpolation method.
Meanwhile, NVENC continues to display more artifacting—you can see a big green smudge above the intersection of the characters' shoulders—and the VCE output remains washed out. The software encoder once again produces the best output of the bunch.
Conclusions
The unfortunate truth is that, right now, hardware-accelerated video transcoding on the PC is a mess. |
I'd say hardware accelerated encoding is still in it's infancy and need a lot of work to be viable (unless you want blurry pixellated, washed out encodes that differ every time you to an encode. Sure, it significantly improve the speed of the encode but the quality suffers from it.
And regarding quicksync, it uses BOTH iGPU and CPU since the iGPU can only perform certain kinds of calculations. The same goes for CUDA/Stream/OpenCL based encoders.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
Last edited by Frant on Sat, 5th Jan 2013 12:34; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stige
Posts: 3546
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat, 5th Jan 2013 12:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | Wasn't there some tech which did the same with games (using teh iGPU in tandem with the GPU)? Or am I remembering wrong? |
VirtuMVP, unfortunately that only seems to work for Z77 boards QQ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
. There's a 60 euros price difference though.
