if the 3770k a good deal?

i was looking at it on new egg, and i was wondering if this has turned out to just be a 2700k with 4000 series internal graphics... i notice it uses a lower voltage, between the voltage and the graphics, are those the only differences? i was looking at benchmarks for it... there arent many out yet, but from what i saw there wasent a HUGE upgrade, but the perportions where only compared to an AMD FX so the difference could be higher than it seems.

just curious to see what you all thought before i buy. i want opinions solely on facts. i honestly dont care if this a "there isnt anything that needs that much power" moment, and if i can keep bias opinions to a limit, i dont want to say none, because on some level i am in fact ask for them.

the reasoning for your answer would be nice also, i dont like comments like "you wont see a huge upgrade, joe shmo..." why wont i see a huge upgrade?! if you get what i am saying.

thank you for your help.

Here is a review of it at Tom's Hardware:

Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge : Ivy Bridge: Was It Worth The Wait?

The overall conclusion is that it is about 4 percent faster than the 2700k overall---for some tasks more, for some tasks less.

No one was expecting it to be a huge difference from 2600k or 2700k, so there are no big surprises.

The 4000 graphics is noticeably better than earlier versions, but a serious game player would still want a discrete video card.

It's probably not a "good deal" if you now have a Sandy Bridge CPU, but if your PC is several years old, it is certainly price-competitive with the 2700k. In that case, why not?

ignatzatsonic said:

Here is a review of it at Tom's Hardware:

Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up For Ivy Bridge : Ivy Bridge: Was It Worth The Wait?

The overall conclusion is that it is about 4 percent faster than the 2700k overall---for some tasks more, for some tasks less.

No one was expecting it to be a huge difference from 2600k or 2700k, so there are no big surprises.

The 4000 graphics is noticeably better than earlier versions, but a serious game player would still want a discrete video card.

It's probably not a "good deal" if you now have a Sandy Bridge CPU, but if your PC is several years old, it is certainly price-competitive with the 2700k. In that case, why not?

thank you very much, do you know ay all about OCAbility? i guess the lower voltages reduced heat, increasin the ability for higher overclocks than the 2700k, but this was said before the 3770k came out. do you know if this is true? if so i want the 3770k hands down.

Regarding overclocking the 3770k---did you look at part 9 of that review at Tom's Hardware?

And part 23 for power consumption?

And part 24 for speed?

Whether any of that makes it a "good deal" is your decision.

You will be the big dog on your block for a little while.

For most tasks, you won't be able to tell the difference from a 2700k without a stopwatch.

But that may not matter to you. I have no idea.

ignatzatsonic said:

Regarding overclocking the 3770k---did you look at part 9 of that review at Tom's Hardware?

And part 23 for power consumption?

And part 24 for speed?

Whether any of that makes it a "good deal" is your decision.

You will be the big dog on your block for a little while.

For most tasks, you won't be able to tell the difference from a 2700k without a stopwatch.

But that may not matter to you. I have no idea.

i did notice when i was skimming trough, however i was dissapointed at the fact that he did not compare speeds of overclocked an non overclocked, just overclocked to superclocked.

still, thank you for finding this for me, im sure i would have seen it, im just bad at finding trust worthy reviews.

ill look at the review a little more. beyond that i think its worth tthe extra 30 bucks for overclockings sake.

if you know how to clarify on one thing he said for me though. he explains an inconsistency in the clock in part 9, but i dont know how to enterperate what he means, over all, is he saying its a good overclocker? or a bad lol.

to be honest im finding my self in an odd situation. i want to spend more money for the best product i can get in my poor budget. on the other hand people are telling me its not a huge step up from this or that, but what im finding from that predicament is that, people say 2700k isnt worth the money for a 2600k, but then they say a 2500k is not much worse than the 2600k, if i apply this same change between the 3770k, the 2700k, the 2600k, and the 2500k, the difference between the 3770k and the 2500k is now HUGE! i have now slowly widdled my way down an inch at a time to make something remarkably slower than what i started with, because everything is "not much slower" than the last thing.

keeping this in mind, i might just go with this because of the extra 4% boost alone. whether its worth the extra 25 bucks or not, i really dont know, i might go with the 2700k because its more affordable, but its worth questioning how far i will widdle down for a better price if im going to endup with a large gap in proportion.

Thornton said:

he explains an inconsistency in the clock in part 9, but i dont know how to enterperate what he means

I do not see the word "inconsistency" used in part 9.

What, specifically, are you referring to in part 9?

You should probably wait for more reviews and more detail if you are highly interested in overclocking.

As a general suggestion, how about this:

Buy an SSD.

Then upgrade the rest of your PC to the strongest CPU your budget will allow.

The SSD will make more of a difference in most operations than the last few percent of overclocking.

If that matters to you. It may not.

Beta said:

Get a x79 MB and the 3820 I7. Its a little cheaper and you get quad channel memory support. The middle to low end x79 are the same price as a 1155 socket MB. You won't regret it.

i was looking into that actually as another possability, but i am curios. some people say it is not as good for gaming because x79 is more powerful, but slower. i am using this for 3d development, but am a prety seriouse gamer on top of that. in the end i want to run bf3 full 60fps, and see a performance increase in maya, 3ds, inventor, and blender. i am OCing both my graphics card and my current processor, and see a greater performace increase in bf3 from the cpu than the graphics card. i can only assume a higher clock will help speed.

if you can give me a little more info on the chipset and mobos, and edumicate me on the situation id appreciate it. i like reviews, but it always sounds better coming from people who use the stuff.

ignatzatsonic said:

Thornton said:

he explains an inconsistency in the clock in part 9, but i dont know how to enterperate what he means

I do not see the word "inconsistency" used in part 9.

What, specifically, are you referring to in part 9?

You should probably wait for more reviews and more detail if you are highly interested in overclocking.

As a general suggestion, how about this:

Buy an SSD.

Then upgrade the rest of your PC to the strongest CPU your budget will allow.

The SSD will make more of a difference in most operations than the last few percent of overclocking.

If that matters to you. It may not.

i might do that, but im SERIOUSLY due for an upgrade, im running 4 years old on my processor, 5 on my mobo, and am only 2 on my graphics, but am going to upgrade that soon also.