Sure, but the SB throttles at a lower temp is all.
Ivy bridge's main problem is that its cores are just so damn small. Take the graph below. At 5Ghz a 3570K uses 44w less then a 5ghz 2500K.
What do you think is going to happen with haswell? You think its magically going to go back to how sandy bridge overclocked?
Cpu coolers need to be radically redesigned.
I don't buy this smaller die = hotter crap.
I just think people need to lower their expectations. Either they need to understand that the new CPUs, being more efficient don't need as much clock speed (or just stop trying to hit 5Ghz for 24/7), and/or that if you overclock past a certain level you have to expect the temps to rise higher than old CPU designs. Unless you're on custom water. Too many people are expecting 4.8Ghz at 75c which is unrealistic.
That's what I think.
interesting^
did anyone check the thermal compound?
I thought Ivy ran hot from thermal paste being used instead of solder. What happened to that bit of info or was it total BS? I don't buy this smaller die = hotter crap.
Don, that's a 3770k which I know clocks a little better than most 3570k chips. I see people on lower voltage than I had were getting higher clocks. I wonder if there is some binning going on for the i7s?
Do you guys think Haswell will be better in terms of heat and OC? I'm hoping 5GHz at 1.25V without too much of a hassle.
I just think people need to lower their expectations. Either they need to understand that the new CPUs, being more efficient don't need as much clock speed (or just stop trying to hit 5Ghz for 24/7), and/or that if you overclock past a certain level you have to expect the temps to rise higher than old CPU designs. Unless you're on custom water. Too many people are expecting 4.8Ghz at 75c which is unrealistic.
That's what I think.
If you play modern games (Battlefield 3), then a quad-core is highly preferable.Hey guys/gals,
Quick question here, is your rig is used almost purely for gaming, is it better go go with a dual core vs. quad core?
Thanks!!
I think people need to read more. Ivy offers almost zero clock for clock gains in well over half the tests it was subjected to in contrast to Sandy and douche nozzles around here were dumb enough to scream " OH YEAH ITS GOT TEH 200 MHZ ADVANTAGE DERP ", total idiots. Its a poorly engineered chip from a cooling standpoint so if you want a better overclocker you go sandy, if you want better integrated video you go Ivy. If you already have sandy and you've made the switch you're not someone anybody should listen to on technical advice.
Don, IPC difference is very negligible. If it hadn't been for lower power consumption, PCI-E 3.0 support and HD 4000, it would have been a very tough recommendation. But for the similar price, today... newer tech is preferable.
Best stop yourself from thinking too much, or you're gonna get an upgrade bug.. .. am I too late to warn? D:
Nah, I'm alright with this. I came from a Q9550 I built back late 08 early 09.
If I were to upgrade again and I could actually afford to do so, I'd skip Z77 and go to X79.
Ivy is a die shrink. Not sure why everyone was expecting the world from it. Was westmere a lot different then nehalem?
They charge $50 more ~25% more than sandy, so I'd expect 25% improvement. That's not what you get. You get between 0-15% , and overclocking hassle.
Let's say you pay even more money for better cooling. that's +$100 easily for the amount of heat ivy is generating.
So, if I were to buy an IVY and get to the 4.8-5 ghz promised land and fully attain my 0-15% boost, It'd actually cost me $150 more than Sandy.
THAT is why Sandy is a better buy.