CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3570K vs 198 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 3570K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 3570K  based on its performance and overclocking.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 3570K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3570K

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 2.5 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better PassMark score 7,152 vs 1,413 More than 5x better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.59 GHz vs 2.5 GHz Around 85% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.71 GHz vs 2.5 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD Sempron X2 198

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron X2 198

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 107.5W 2x lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 38.81 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
Higher Maximum operating temperature 70.1 °C vs 67.4 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 106 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 3570K vs Sempron X2 198

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 3570K  vs
Sempron X2 198 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 2.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz None
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1155
FM1

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 77W 65W
Annual home energy cost 38.81 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 106 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 4.69 pt/W 1.18 pt/W
Typical power consumption 107.5W 52.81W

details

Core i5 3570K  vs
Sempron X2 198 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,400,000,000 1,178,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.4°C Unknown - 70.1°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.59 GHz 2.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.71 GHz 2.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.59 GHz 2.5 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4000 N/A
Latest DirectX 10.x N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 650 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A
3DMark06 5,339.9 N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Intel Core i5 3570K
Report a correction
AMD Sempron X2 198
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus