Oc i7 3770k: How to overclock i7-3770k? First timer. Help : overclocking

IntroductionThe Lineup: Quad-Core Only for NowDie Size and Transistor CountOverclocking and 22nmThe 7 Series Chipset & USB 3. 0The Test & CPU PerformanceDiscrete GPU Gaming PerformanceIntel’s HD 4000 ExploredIntel HD 4000 Performance: Crysis WarheadIntel HD 4000 Performance: Metro 2033Intel HD 4000 Performance: DiRT 3Intel HD 4000 Performance: Total War — Shogun 2Intel HD 4000 Performance: Portal 2Intel HD 4000 Performance: Battlefield 3Intel HD 4000 Performance: Starcraft IIIntel HD 4000 Performance: SkyrimIntel HD 4000 Performance: MinecraftIntel HD 4000 Performance: Civilization VIntel HD 4000 Performance: Compute & SyntheticsPower ConsumptionQuick Sync Image Quality & PerformanceFinal Words

In the old days, whenever Intel transitioned to a new manufacturing process it was accompanied by increased overclocking headroom thanks to the reduction in power consumption and increase in switching speed afforded by the new transistors. To be honest, it’s surprising the ride has even lasted this long.

Intel’s 22nm process (P1270) is the most ambitious yet. The non-planar «3D» transistors promise to bring a tremendous increase in power efficiency by increasing the surface area of the transistor’s inversion layer. It’s the vehicle that will bring Intel into new form factors in mobile, but we’re around a year away from Haswell’s introduction. Rather than 22nm being a delivery platform for Ivy Bridge, it feels like Ivy Bridge is being used to deliver 22nm.

The process is still young and likely biased a bit towards the lower leakage characteristics of lower voltage/lower wattage CPUs, such as those that would be used in Ultrabooks. These two factors combined with some architectural decisions focused on increasing power efficiency result in what many of you may have heard by now: Ivy Bridge won’t typically overclock as high as Sandy Bridge on air.

The frequency delta isn’t huge. You’ll still be able to hit 4.4—4.6GHz without resorting to exotic cooling, but success in the 4.8—5.0GHz range will be limited to water alone for most. Ivy Bridge is also far more sensitive to voltage than Sandy Bridge. Heat dissipation can increase significantly as a function of voltage, so you’ll want to stay below 1.3V in your overclocking attempts.

Dr. Ian Cutress, our own Senior Motherboard Editor, put Ivy Bridge through a pretty exhaustive investigation if you want more details on exactly how the chip behaves when overclocking and how best to overclock it.

For the past few years I’ve been focused on power efficient overclocking. I’m looking for the best gains I can get without significant increases in core voltage. With my 3770K I was able to reliably hit 4.5GHz with only a 140mV increase in core voltage:

The end result is a 15—28% overclock, accompanied by a 32% increase in power consumption. The relationship between overclock speed and power consumption actually hasn’t changed since Ivy Bridge, at least based on this datapoint.

Ivy Bridge Overclocking
Intel Core i7 3770K	Stock	4. 6GHz Overclock	% Increase
Load Power Consumption	146.4W	204W	39.3%
x264—2nd Pass	41.8 fps	49.5 fps	18.4%

As always, your mileage may vary depending on the particular characteristics of your chip. Ivy Bridge can be overclocked, but at least initially it’s not going to be as good of an overclocker as Sandy Bridge. Over time I expect this to improve somewhat as Intel’s 22nm process matures, but by how much remains a question to me. It’s unclear just how much of these limits are by design vs. a simple matter of process maturity.

Die Size and Transistor Count
The 7 Series Chipset & USB 3.0
IntroductionThe Lineup: Quad-Core Only for NowDie Size and Transistor CountOverclocking and 22nmThe 7 Series Chipset & USB 3.0The Test & CPU PerformanceDiscrete GPU Gaming PerformanceIntel’s HD 4000 ExploredIntel HD 4000 Performance: Crysis WarheadIntel HD 4000 Performance: Metro 2033Intel HD 4000 Performance: DiRT 3Intel HD 4000 Performance: Total War — Shogun 2Intel HD 4000 Performance: Portal 2Intel HD 4000 Performance: Battlefield 3Intel HD 4000 Performance: Starcraft IIIntel HD 4000 Performance: SkyrimIntel HD 4000 Performance: MinecraftIntel HD 4000 Performance: Civilization VIntel HD 4000 Performance: Compute & SyntheticsPower ConsumptionQuick Sync Image Quality & PerformanceFinal Words

Tweet

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Ivy Bridge: Intel Core i7-3770K Review

Starting late last year, Ivy Bridge seemed to be the architecture everyone was waiting for. Although Intel expects only a 10-15% increase in computing performance from it, compared to Sandy Bridge.

However, Ivy Bridge’s big plus point is the improved graphics and improved power efficiency made possible by the 22nm process and the new Tri-Gate transistors.

It’s worth noting that for several years now, Intel has been suffering from the lack of proper performance of its integrated GPUs in its own chipsets. By placing the GPU on a substrate, the company continued to experience the same poor graphics performance, and so far it has been far behind the competition.

But to say that nothing has changed for the better is also impossible. The capabilities and performance of integrated graphics have grown to play HD content, work with more than one screen, multiple inputs, offer support for wireless displays, and more.

By the way, Intel is preparing another major increase in graphics performance, which should take place with the release of the Haswell architecture next year. But in the meantime, for the same money, buyers should look at the increased performance and improved efficiency of the Ivy Bridge architecture.

For some time it was believed that the transition to a new manufacturing process would delay the release of new chips by several months. However, Intel managed to reduce the release delay to a few weeks. Moreover, the plans for the release of chipsets for Ivy Bridge have not changed at all. The new 7-series chipsets are backwards compatible with Sandy Bridge processors, so you can buy a Z77-based motherboard and use it right now.

And while we recently compared several Z77-based motherboards, today we’re going to look at the Core i7-3770K processor.

3rd generation Intel Core line

The Ivy Bridge line consists of several Core i7 and Core i5 desktop and mobile processors that will effectively replace most current offerings under the same series. Ivy Bridge Core i3 chips will hit the market in the second half of this year.

The new Core i7 desktop processors include the Core i7-3770K, i7-3770, i7-3770T, and i7-3770S, all selling for $278 except the i7-3770K. At the same time, the i7-3770K chip costs slightly more — $313. If you like, it’s a bit like an excessive number of editions of Windows Vista/7, but that’s how Intel is approaching its CPUs today.

The Core i7-3770K and i7-3770 chips are mostly identical, with a few exceptions. Version K comes with a unlocked multiplier, so this chip is 100MHz faster. Also, Intel vPro / TXT / VT-d / SIPP technologies were removed from the K series.

The Core i7-3770S and i7-3770T chips are representatives of the low power series (second diagram below), and if so, their TDP is reduced from 77W to 65W and 45W, respectively. The determining factor in achieving such low TDPs is the reduced CPU base frequency, reduced from 3.50GHz to just 3.10GHz for the i7-3770S and to 2.50GHz for the i7-3770T.

All Ivy Bridge Core i7 desktop processors have 4 cores with 8 parallel threads when using Hyper-Threading. The Core i7 3770K runs at 3.50GHz, with Turbo Boost boosting the frequency to 3.90GHz. At the same time, the “non-K” version has the same Turbo Boost frequency, but the base frequency is 3.4GHz. The chips are designed to work with DDR3-1333 memory, and have 8MB of L3 cache.

There’s also the new Core i5 series, which consists of the i5-3570K, i5-3550, i5-3470, and i5-3450 processors ($194 for the K version, and $174 for the others). There are also low-power Core i5-3570T, i5-3550S, i5-3470T, i5-3470S and Core i5-3450S models, but let’s talk about standard processors first.

All standard Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors have 77W TDP, four cores and four parallel threads. The only processor that differs from this “configuration” is the i5-3470T. The latter has a pair of cores with Hyper-Threading for four threads.

Core i5 chips operate at quite aggressive frequencies. So the i5-3570K and i5-3570 run at 3.40GHz, with Turbo Boost up to 3.80GHz. The i5-3550 runs at 3.30GHz with Turbo Boost at 3. 70GHz, while the base i5-3470 runs at 3.20GHz and with Turbo Boost can go up to 3.60GHz.

Finally, the Core i5-3450 runs at 3.10GHz in the base, and with Turbo Boost it can reach 3.50GHz. All Core i5 processors have 6MB L3 cache. The only exception is the i5-3470T, which has only 3MB of L3 cache.

All Core i5 processors use the Intel HD Graphics 2500 graphics engine. The exception is again the i5-3570K, which uses the HD Graphics 4000 engine. The five models released so far differ from each other, although many of them cost the same. The Core i5 3470T chip is essentially a Core i3 processor with Turbo Boost added. This processor runs on 2.90GHz, and with Turbo Boost at 3.50GHz. However, like the Core i3 processors, the i5 3470T only has a couple of Hyper-Threaded cores and a reduced 3MB L3 cache. At the same time, it costs, as reported, $ 174.

Next, there are the Core i5-3570T and i5-3550S chips (both $194). The i5-3570T has a 45W TDP and runs at 2.30GHz and with Turbo Boost can go up to 3. 30GHz. At the same time, the i5-3550S chip is noticeably faster. At base it runs at 3.0GHz and with Turbo Boost at 3.37GHz. As you can probably guess, the i5 3550S has a higher TDP of 65W.

Finally, we have the Core i5-3470S and i5-3450S (both $174), which have 65W TDP. The base Core i5-3470S runs at 2.90GHz and with Turbo Boost at 3.60GHz, while the i5-3450S runs at 2.80GHz and with Turbo Boost at 3.50GHz.

3rd Generation Intel HD Graphics

The first generation of Intel HD Crystal Graphics that came out with the Westmere architecture wasn’t really on the same substrate, it was rather in the same package. The «case» graphics engine was separated from the CPU. Moreover, it was created using a 45nm process technology, while the CPU itself was already created using 32nm.

That all changed with second generation graphics (Sandy Bridge) that put the GPU on a substrate, meaning the graphics engine was also built in the same 32nm process as the CPU. Although these two are not under the same roof, the GPU is still independent of the CPU. It has its own clock domain, meaning that it can be started separately, as well as stopped if necessary.

The same approach is used in the Ivy Bridge architecture. Intel engineers just added power. Again, there are two different versions of Intel HD graphics, and Ivy Bridge processors can use one of the graphics engines — HD 2500 or the faster HD 4000.

The engines can operate at frequencies up to 1350MHz and support resolutions up to 2560×1600. Rendering support includes DirectX 11, OpenGL 3.1 and Shader Model Support 4.1. In comparison, the previous generation supported DirectX 10.1 and OpenGL 3.0.

Shaders, cores, and execution units are what Intel calls an «Execution Unit» or simply EU. The HD Graphics 2500 has six, while the faster HD Graphics 4000 has sixteen. Interestingly, most desktop Core i5 processors use the slower HD Graphics 2500 engine, while all mobile processors get the 4000th engine.

In addition to supporting higher resolutions (up to 2560×1600 vs. 1920×1200 before), the new Intel HD Graphics now supports three monitors. Sandy Bridge processors were limited to only two monitors. However, the new Ivy Bridge graphics can support three monitors at the same time, which is a nice upgrade.

Compared to Sandy Bridge, Intel claims that their 3rd generation GPU provides improved 3D performance and API improvements, such as a 2x performance boost in 3Dmark Vantage. Intel also states that the Ivy Bridge Intel HD 2500 should perform about 10-20% better with 3D graphics than the Intel HD 2000 engine from Sandy Bridge. But we would immediately recommend that you focus more on the features and performance of encoding than on games, which, however, you will see further on.

Test System & Memory Performance

Intel LGA2011 Test System Specs:

• Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition (3.30GHz)
• Intel Core i7-3820 (3.60GHz)
• x4 2GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-14900 (CAS 8-9-8-24)
• Gigabyte G1. Assassin2 (Intel X79)
• OCZ ZX Series 1250w
• Crucial m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
• Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)

Software

— Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
— Nvidia Forceware 296.10

AMD AM3+ test system specs:

• AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (3.30GHz)
• AMD Phenom II X4 980 (3.70GHz)
• AMD FX-8150 (3.60GHz)
• AMD FX-8120 (3.10GHz)
• AMD FX-6100 (3.30GHz)
• AMD FX-4170 (4.20GHz)
• x2 4GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-14900 (CAS 8-9-8-24)
• Asrock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional (AMD 990FX)
• OCZ ZX Series 1250w
• Crucial m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
• Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)

Software

• Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
• Nvidia Forceware 296.10

Intel LGA1366 test system specifications:

• Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition (3.33GHz)
• Intel Core i7-920 (2. 66GHz)
• x3 2GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
• Gigabyte G1.Sniper (Intel X58)
• OCZ ZX Series 1250w
• Crucial m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
• Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)

Software

• Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
• Nvidia Forceware 296.10

Intel LGA1155 test system specifications:

• Intel Core i7-3770K
• Intel Core i7-2600K
• Intel Core i5-2500K
• x2 4GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-14900 (CAS 8-9-8-24)
• Asrock Z77 Extreme6 (Intel Z77)
• OCZ ZX Series 1250w
• Crucial m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
• Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)

Software

• Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
• Nvidia Forceware 296.10

Intel LGA1156 test system specifications:

• Intel Core i5-750
• x2 4GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
• Gigabyte P55A-UD7 (Intel P55)
• OCZ ZX Series 1250w
• Crucial m4 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
• Gigabyte GeForce GTX 580 SOC (1536MB)

Software

• Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit
• Nvidia Forceware 296. 10

The memory performance of the Core i7-3770K is similar to that of the i7-2600K. In fact, a small performance gain can easily be attributed to a 100MHz frequency difference.

And although there is not much difference in memory performance between the Core i7-3770K and i7-2600K, in terms of L2 cache it is. In particular, the Core i7-3770K was much faster on the recording.

Synthetic performance

In the SolidWorks test, the new Core i7-3770K is noticeably faster than the i7-2600K. The performance difference was 18%. At the same time, the Core i7-3770K delivered the same performance as the AMD FX chip.

While the SolidWorks benchmark surprised us, the new Core i7-3770K blew us away in the Maya test. Here, at 15.58fps, it was 56% faster than the Core i7-2600K. In fact, the Core i7-3770K was the leader in this test. At the same time, we do not quite understand why the Core i7-3770K performs so well in this test, and how it managed to beat the Core i7-3960X.

The CINEBENCH R11.5 CPU test showed a 17% advantage for the Core i7-3770K over the i7-2600K. In this test, the Core i7-3770K was faster than the i7-3820 and FX-8150.

In the built-in WinRAR test, the new Core i7-3770K was noticeably faster than the i7-2600K. The result for the Core i7-3770K was 3992KB/s versus 3640KB/s for the i7-2600K.

Application Performance

In Excel 2010, the new Core i7-3770K delivered about the same performance as the i7-2600K. That means he was at 9% faster than Core i7-3820 but 24% slower than i7-3960X.

In WinRAR, the Core i7-3770K was only 3% faster than the i7-2600K in the 700MB compression test. At the same time, in the 400MB compression test, the difference between the processors was already 5%.

Once again, we see a slight difference in performance between the Core i7-3770K and i7-2600K processors.

The Fritz Chess 13 test was the first big win for the Core i7-3770K. Here, this chip was about 10% faster than the i7-2600K and slightly faster than the i7-3820.

Encoding performance

In the HandBrake test, the Core i7-3770K showed a 16% performance advantage over the i7-2600K. In addition, the Core i7-3770K was faster than the i7-3820 and FX-8150 chips, although about 13% slower than the mighty i7-3960X.

In the x264 HD Benchmark test, the new Core i7-3770K performed well, showing a 17% advantage over the i7-2600K and 27% over the FX-8150. Moreover, in terms of performance here, it caught up with the i7-3960X.

In the TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress test, the new Core i7-3770K finished 35 seconds faster than the i7-2600K, making it 9% faster. This also placed the Core i7-3770K between the i7-3820 and i7-3960X. Impressive result.

Discrete GPU performance

In Dirt 3, the Core i7-3770K was marginally faster than the i7-2600K. Moreover, it was the fastest processor in this game when using the same graphics card (GeForce GTX 580).

The Core i7-3770K was again the fastest processor tested, this time in Just Cause 2. This processor was just a tad faster than the Phenom II X4 980 and Core i7-2600K.

The last game we looked at while examining the performance of processors with a discrete GPU was The Witcher 2. As you can see, here the Core i7-3770K delivered almost the same performance as the i7-2600K. Although the Core i7-3770K was still a little faster.

Integrated GPU performance

Despite various improvements, the Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics engine is still not at all suitable for gaming purposes. The Core i7-2600K processor could not be used for direct performance comparison in 3Dmark 11, as this requires DirectX 11 support. At 1486pts, our Core i7-3770K was nearly 20% slower than the AMD A8-3850 and 23% slower than the GeForce GT 430 (currently $50).

In Splinter Cell Conviction at 1280×800, our Core i7-3770K was 77% faster than the i7-2600K. Impressive performance boost. Although, on the other hand, the Core i7-3770K was still almost 40% slower than the AMD A8-3850.

In the Crysis Warhead test, the Core i7-3770K was 133% faster than the i7-2600K, although 22% slower than the AMD A8-3850.

In Just Cause 2, the Core i7-3770K was 3fps faster than the Core i7-2600K. At the same time, the AMD A8-3850 chip was about 48% faster than the Core i7-3770K.

In Civilization V, the Core i7-3770K provided a 64% performance advantage over the i7-2600K with an average of 23fps. Although, the AMD A8-3850 at 36fps was 36% faster than the Core i7-3770K.

Overclocking

Using a rather high voltage of 1.520V, we were able to overclock the Core i7-3770K to 4.92GHz, which is not bad at all. That’s 100MHz more than we were able to squeeze out of the Core i7-2600K.

Overclocking the Core i7-3770K to 4.90GHz allowed us to get 21% extra performance in the first test and 26% in the second. This made the Core i7-3770K significantly faster than the i7-3960X.

In the CINEBENCH R11.5 test, we got 27% more performance from the overclocked Core i7-3770K, which, however, was not enough to beat the i7-3960X.

Power Consumption

The power consumption of an Ivy Bridge system is impressive. The Core i7-3770K consumed 11% less power than the i7-2600K, although it ran at a higher frequency and delivered better overall performance. The consumption results in rest mode remained largely similar — the system with the Core i7-3770K consumed 75W, and with the i7-2600K already 76W. Looking at the chips of the previous generation, their shortcomings are immediately noticeable — 98W for the Core i7-3820 and 100W for the FX-8150.

Under load, the Core i7-3770K consumed 14% less power than the i7-3820, 37% less than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and 42% less than the FX-8150.

Closing Thoughts

After testing, we found that Ivy Bridge’s architecture is not very different from Sandy Bridge, although that was to be expected. Many of our real-life application tests, like Excel 2010, WinRAR, and Photoshop CS5, showed little difference in performance between the new Core i7-3770K and the older i7-2600K.

There were times when the Core i7-3770K was about 10% faster (like Fritz Chess 13) and then we saw the biggest performance difference in our encoding scores. There, the Core i7 3770K was 10-17% faster than the i7-2600K.

In games with a discrete graphics card like the GeForce GTX 580, we saw a slight performance advantage for the Core i7-3770K over the i7-2600K, but nothing to brag about. More impressive results were obtained by measuring power consumption, where the Core i7-3770K consumed 11% less power, although it ran 17% faster on average.

Once again, we were disappointed with the performance of the integrated GPU. Without a doubt, the new Intel HD 4000 graphics will bring a significant performance boost to the mobile market, like ultrabooks, where developers should enjoy the added performance and lower power consumption.

But in the desktop world, Intel’s new integrated graphics are still slower than AMD’s A8-series Llano APUs. What’s more, most of the more affordable Ivy Bridge processors will feature the slower HD 2500 graphics, which we suspect will be comparable to the i7-2600K’s HD 3000. Like its predecessors, HD 4000 graphics are not suitable for gaming. By the way, in the tests we used not low, but medium quality settings and a resolution of 1280×800. But in this case, the results of the HD 4000 were still very mediocre against the background of competitors.

Although Intel’s marketers think differently, the company’s integrated graphics should not be aimed at gamers. For professionals and general users, the Intel HD 4000 is likely to fit. Ivy Bridge adds support for a third monitor output and higher resolution (2560×1600), and on the mobile side we’re excited to see WiDi (wireless screen) usage expand.

For buyers, the arrival of Ivy Bridge chips can only be seen as good news. It’s great if you bought the LGA1155 platform, because you can take advantage of the new 22nm processors on existing motherboards. For beginners, the Ivy Bridge architecture brings an updated platform that provides more performance, improved efficiency, and several new features for the same price as Sandy Bridge.

So, in summary:

Pros: Intel continues to deliver the best desktop processor money can buy. Excellent efficiency and features. Overclocking is well supported by the «K» processor. Backward compatibility is a big plus for buyers.

Cons: The integrated graphics do most things, but not great for gaming. Works worse than AMD A8 APU.

1. 5
2. 4
3. 3
4. 2
5. 1

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)

Previous article: How to get Windows 10 for free after July 29
Next article: How to use parental controls in Windows 7

Intel Core i5-3570 vs Intel Core i7-3770K: What is the difference?

38 points

Intel Core i5-3570

47 points

Intel Core i7-3770K

Comparison winner

vs

64 facts in comparison

Intel Core i5-3570

Intel Core i7-3770K

Why is Intel Core i5-3570 better than Intel Core i7-3770K?

• 8. 21% higher PassMark score?
  6984 vs 6454
• 70.9 higher performance per watt?
  115.0 vs 44.1

Why is Intel Core i7-3770K better than Intel Core i5-3570?

• 4 more CPU threads?
  8 vs 4
• 2MB more L3 cache?
  8MB vs 6MB
• Has an unlocked multiplier?
• 33.98% higher Geekbench 5 multi-core result?
  3395 vs 2534
• 12.03% higher single core Geekbench 5 result?
  866 vs 773
• 0.5MB/core more L3 cache per core?
  2MB/core vs 1.5MB/core
• Uses multithreading?
• 10 more GPU execution units?
  16 vs 6

Which comparisons are the most popular?

Intel Core i5-3570

VS

Intel Core i7-3770

Intel Core i7-3770K

VS

Intel Core i7-3770

Intel Core I5-3570 9000 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 3470

Intel Core i7-3770K

vs

Intel Core i3-10100

Intel Core i5-3570

VS

Intel Core i7-2600

Intel Core i7-3770K

VS

VS

Intel Core I5-35702 INTEL CORE I5-35702 INTEL CORE I5-35702

Intel Core2 Intel Core2 Intel Core 2

Intel Core i5-3570k

Intel Core i7-3770k

VS

Intel Core i5-3470

Intel Core i5-3570

VS

I5-4570

vs

Intel Core i7-3770S

Intel Core i5-3570

VS

Intel Core i5-3570S

Intel Core i7-3770K

VS

Intel Core I5-2500K

Intel Core I5-3570

VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9,000

VS 9000 VS 9000 2400

Intel Core i7-3770k

VS

Intel Core i7-2600K

Intel Core i5-3570

VS

Intel Core I5-6400

Intel Core

VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS 9000 VS -2700K

Intel Core i5-3570

VS

Intel Core i7-2600K

Intel Core i7-3770K

VS

Intel Pentium Silver N5000

I5-3570

VS

INTEL CORE INTEL CORE INTEL CORE INTEL COREE

VS

AMD Ryzen 5 5600g

Comers0605 8.

5 /10

2 Reviews of users

Intel Core i7-3770k

1 Reviews of users

Intel Core i7-37703

10.0606 /10