Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency

After recommending Sandy Bridge last year, we weren't particularly impressed by the new Ivy Bridge-based Core i7-3770K as an upgrade. But are Intel's more mainstream third-gen Core i5 processors any more attractive? We grab four models to find out.

Intel made low-power processors really interesting a few years back by launching a couple of 65 W Core 2 Quads that offered the same performance as its 95 W models. Sure, you had to pay quite a bit more for the privilege of owning one. But the idea of slipping an extra-cool chip into a diminutive desktop or home theater machine made the premium a worthwhile consideration.

Once the company introduced its Nehalem architecture, it was able to more easily exploit available thermal headroom using Turbo Boost. By increasing clock rate according to workload, Intel didn’t leave as much performance on the table. A 3 GHz CPU, for example, could be made to run at 3.4 or 3.5 GHz when only one of its cores was active, operating faster (and hotter) with the ultimate goal of dropping back to idle sooner.

It then debuted power-optimized versions of its CPUs based on the Lynnfield design. But instead of dropping TDP and maintaining performance, the company was forced to cut its base clocks and scale back Turbo Boosted frequencies in an effort to keep power down. Even as Intel gave you less performance, it continued charging more for those S-family models in a double-blow to value. We quickly called the company out in Intel Core i5-750S: Since When Does The S Mean Slow?

The company countered our criticism by claiming the “power-optimized” models were conceptualized as complements to the dual-core Clarkdale-based CPUs. Core i5-750S was supposed to be the first quad-core Nehalem-based model able to fit within an 82 W TDP. That didn’t justify charging more for it, we answered back.

And apparently, Intel heard us. Its new Ivy Bridge-based desktop line-up consists of 14 models. Seven of those are low-power SKUs, and none of them cost more than the standard versions. Instead, Intel charges the same price, asking only that you choose between more speed and lower power.

That’s a decision we can live with because, for most of us, the vanilla 77 W models already represent a significant savings over last generation’s 95 W Sandy Bridge flagships. Choosing higher-performing third-gen Core chips becomes almost universal.

What if you’re a system builder and you need a guarantee that your Ivy Bridge-based processor won’t exceed 65 or even 45 W, though? That’s an entirely legitimate concern, particularly as the all-in-one form factor picks up steam. In that case, you simply have to give up a little speed and go with the –S- or –T-class parts.

We got our hands on a number of Core i5s to complement our coverage of Ivy Bridge in Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge, including two 77 W samples, one 65 W Core i5-3550S and a 45 W Core i5-3570T. The plan is to run all four i5s through our benchmark suite to gauge the impact of scaling down power on performance, and then to determine if the slower “optimized” chips are any more efficient.

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • FinneousPJ
    What about overclocking the i5?
  • Steveymoo
    Could you add one or two AMD CPUs to the efficiency chart? Just to compare... We know what the result would be, but not by how much..
  • l1nks
    ehh i'll wait till the next generation
  • asfy1960
    Good article
  • damian86
    So what about the i5 3570k, is it not good for gaming or what? why was it not included in the gaming page?
  • Anonymous
    I checked power consumption with the i5-3570k on a Gigabyte motherboard, 8Gb DDR3 (one stick), one 250gB SATA HD, two DVD RW, a standard PSU, using the onboard 4000 graphics, windows 7 64 bit. Normal use (Word, excel and browser in use) was 69 Watt for the PC (excludes monitor, printer, router). Just the desktop in use gave 56 Watt, the maximum I saw (using Photoshop) was 96Watt. All a little less than the article. I used this set up with Microsoft flight sim, It was excellent, high speed and all settings for resolution etc were at 'extreme high', very smooth, responsive. I also noticed the stock cooling fan rarely turns on during 'normal use'(I have one other fan in the chassis running silent). Overall I'm very impressed in terms value for money and performance for power consumed. Could get even less power consumed with an efficient PSU.