[grandmaster]

Im buying everything new from scratch. Therefore, I would like to know which CPU i should get?

I have a few questions first though -

1. Should i overclock?
2. If i overclock, will it consume ALOT more power?
3. I will mostly be gaming. FPS MP and C&C RTS
4. Intel have said IB runs hotter than SB when overclocked.
5. IB draws less power and provides a good increase in graphics over SB.
6. Should i get an IB and not overclock?

My GPU will be 560Ti Twin Frozr. I will possibly SLi this later.

Im so confused because theyre at the same price point but...

7. IB chips use some stupid glue instead of solder and i think that their longetivity and reliability will be incredibly poor as opposed to SB.

I think Intel know this hence the similar price point.

8. Oh i'll also be watching Blu Ray movies and stuff and maybe some video converting.

Just need a push in one direction really. The one where my money will take me a long way kinda road.

[LJx]

The reason I don't overclock anymore is the power usage but then again if you are buying a K series CPU it might seem like a waste. A CPU like that is so blisteringly fast regardless and if you are buying IVYbridge because of the lower wattage, it's kind of irrelevant if you overclock it

[grandmaster]

Yea fair enough im not gonna clock it - Should i still for the IB or shall i go for a SB

[mocca]

If your a gamer 90% of the time then would'nt you want a 3570k with 4cores/threads?
And save a pretty packet.

I've just done the 3770k upgrade from a 2500k, 2500k with 4 cores gives more fps in gaming benchmarks than the 3770k with it's 8 threads, knock off HT and you see it is now faster than the 2500k by a small margin but at lower volts.

I was just about to sell my 3770k but as it cost loads i'd of lost money, i may aswell of turned ht off which i have done now, so my expensive i7 is running as a i5 and i get to keep my epeen lol

Obviously apps with Ht will show the i7 with ht on beeting the 2500k.

But as a gamer running dirt3 on max/max settings and vsync off shows ht to hurt fps.

[ChileanLlama]

You shouldn't need to overclock with your proposed graphics card. A "k" chip gives you the option to do so later, particularly if your CPU becomes a bottleneck if you go SLI.

Definitely go Ivy Bridge if you're not overclocking though.

One question why are you looking at i7's though. Given your main use and the games listed aren't the most taxing out there, why wouldn't you look at an i5, save some money, or put the savings towards a better graphics card as the 560ti is mediocre at best.

[avman45]

Originally Posted by ChileanLlama

why wouldn't you look at an i5, save some money, or put the savings towards a better graphics card as the 560ti is mediocre at best.

Exactly, lot of gaming guys go for cpu when its not the most needed part of their system..

[Bugbait]

I agree, as a gamer I moved from an old i7 to the new i5 3570 IB. The HT was arguably useful when I got it 2.5+ years ago but as my usaged moved more and more towards gaming there was little use for the HT overhead.

Most games only need a 3GHz dual or quad core CPU before they plateau and the rest is up to the graphics card(s).

[grandmaster]

Hi guys

Im confused with some of the technology lol

Ok anyway -

1. The 560Ti is not no more. Im going 570. That'll do me for gaming to be honest.
2. Eventually i'll move onto software that uses alot of resources like Oracle, MS Server, Plus other software like Adobe and some more programming stuff.

3. Is the 3570K like the i5?
4. Is HT hyper threading?

Its odd because ive asked this question on a few forums and everyones like going opposite ways lol

[ChileanLlama]

1. 570 is better than the 560ti, also consider a Radeon 7850. Or maybe wait to see what nVidia have in the lower end 6xx series within your budget.
2. That could make a big difference to your original requirements around the CPU, and if you're going to have intensive use then a HT CPU (i.e. i7 may be beneficial then, but you should also consider hdd speed as well, particularly if you're going to have a lot of reads/writes in databases.
3. The 3570K is an i5, it's the IvyBridge replacement for the 2500K. Both quad cores without HT.
4. Yes.

[grandmaster]

Originally Posted by ChileanLlama

1. 570 is better than the 560ti, also consider a Radeon 7850. Or maybe wait to see what nVidia have in the lower end 6xx series within your budget.
2. That could make a big difference to your original requirements around the CPU, and if you're going to have intensive use then a HT CPU (i.e. i7 may be beneficial then, but you should also consider hdd speed as well, particularly if you're going to have a lot of reads/writes in databases.
3. The 3570K is an i5, it's the IvyBridge replacement for the 2500K. Both quad cores without HT.
4. Yes.

Thanks for the quick and to the point reply.

Forgot to ask, in your opinion which CPU to go for?

More and more people are saying that Ivybridge is a farce and that the chip will expire within two years because of the way theyve glued the chips together rather than solder them. What you think?

Ive got a couple of SSD's. a raptor and some spinpoint F3's that ive still gotta put to use.

[Bugbait]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

More and more people are saying that Ivybridge is a farce and that the chip will expire within two years because of the way theyve glued the chips together rather than solder them. What you think?

There are just as many responses out there that detail why Intel had to change the way they construct the final CPU package and it wasn't to save money. If Intel got it wrong, which has happened before the CPU's are covered by a three year warranty anyway.

It's up to you but even if the shortened lifespan rumours are true (which I don't believe they are), I personally never buy a CPU expecting to use it for more than 2 years anyway. Any overclocking technically voids the warranty as well.

The i5 2500K and 3570K are both capable CPU's. You won't go wrong with either but grab the previous generation 2500K (i5) or 2600k (i7) if you're doubtful over the reliability of Ivy Bridge. The performance difference without extensive overclocking will be negligible.

[grandmaster]

Yea i've decided not to overclock, but the lowered power consumption of the IB chips is tempting.

Ive had my dualcore now E6300 since it came out. No problems with it at all whatsoever. Even though ive put it through so much heat and stress it is absolutely rock solid. Sure ive had some PSU's go and a mobo go, but the CPU is awesome.

If you dont expect it to last atleast two years thats no good! lol!

[ChileanLlama]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

Thanks for the quick and to the point reply.

Forgot to ask, in your opinion which CPU to go for?

More and more people are saying that Ivybridge is a farce and that the chip will expire within two years because of the way theyve glued the chips together rather than solder them. What you think?

Ive got a couple of SSD's. a raptor and some spinpoint F3's that ive still gotta put to use.

Originally Posted by grandmaster

Yea i've decided not to overclock, but the lowered power consumption of the IB chips is tempting.

Ive had my dualcore now E6300 since it came out. No problems with it at all whatsoever. Even though ive put it through so much heat and stress it is absolutely rock solid. Sure ive had some PSU's go and a mobo go, but the CPU is awesome.

If you dont expect it to last atleast two years thats no good! lol!

I'd go for Ivybridge then. Clock for clock it's marginally faster than Sandybridge.

I think the whole furore over Ivybridge has stemmed from the results on overclocking. With the previous CPUs they've had exceptionally good overclocks for free. Ivybridge simply doesn't have as much as headroom as it's predecessor and people's expectations aren't met, meaning they feel disappointed. Not sure how that makes them a farce when at stock, as Intel intended, they perform better.

As for the thermal compound or glue, it's not a new technology and Intel offer the same warranty (3 years on retail) so maybe they expect similar lifespans? Who knows? Unless they start dying early, in which case they'll fall under warranty, we won't really know for several years, by which time they'll be obsolete.

[Bugbait]

Originally Posted by grandmaster

If you dont expect it to last atleast two years thats no good! lol!

I do expect it last (far) more than 2 years, I just personally don't care if it does or doesn't . The longest I've had a CPU without changing it is a bit over 2.5 years which was my previous i7 920. All other CPU's have been in use 18 months at most before being upgraded. They didn't fail, I just felt like upgrades.