Is the 3770K considered ancient now?

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
I guess it is because it's a couple of years old, but what's throwing me off is that the processor is still going for over $300, which is higher than what you can get a Devil's Canyon for. What about it is allowing it to keep its value? Is it because it can be easily overclocked to match or get close to the speeds of the newest processors?
 
Is the 3770K considered ancient now?
Click to expand...
No. Since performance improvements have not been great since Intel switched to their 22nm process the i7 3770K is not far from the top as far as performance goes. Neither is the i7 2600K

but what's throwing me off is that the processor is still going for over $300
Click to expand...

Its on a platform that has been discontinued. The prices are high because Intel does not reduce processor prices anymore they just replace the processor with a new model that may or may not be on a compatible socket. These days its more of the latter. Also there is still a demand since these are on discontinued sockets so vendors can hold on to their inventory and sell the CPUs they have in stock without taking a big loss.

$300, which is higher than what you can get a Devil's Canyon for
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about MC prices. They sell some newer CPUs at a loss to get customers into the store in the hopes you will buy something else.
 
Last edited:
even sandy bridge isn't considered ancient.

There's little reason to upgrade from say a 2500k.

BUT if you are building new then there's little reason no to go with the newest CPUs
 
Okay, good info. I had figured it'd make more sense for me to upgrade my GTX 680 if I did decide to change anything in my current system.
 
Nope. Mine tears through everything I throw at it perfectly fine with zero complaints...except the load temps when OC'd. Just be sure to place some focus on a good cooling solution.
 
For me, no. Mine handles everything I throw at it while barely breaking a sweat.
 
Megalith said:
Okay, good info. I had figured it'd make more sense for me to upgrade my GTX 680 if I did decide to change anything in my current system.
Click to expand...

Upgrade a specific component when that specific component starts to hold you back. Don't upgrade things in preparation of other things or as some sort of "future-proofing" or anything like that.
 
My Xeon L5639 is ancient but it keeps up with my far newer E3 1270 V2 easily and is still faster in many tasks. So no, your 3770K is not obsolete.
 
Meh, Core2Duos would be considered ancient. Even then, that's pushing it a bit. Truly ancient would be like Pentium 4 or older. 3770k is just last gen. A little bit old. Heck, even the 920 isn't all that old.
 
Damn, is anyone in this thread even 10 years old? :p

My first computer was a Vic 20 so that is ancient to me.
 
I wouldn't build a new computer around one, but usage wise this CPU is FAR from obsolete. I don't foresee replacing mine for another three or four years.
 
Lol, technology moves fast, but not THAT fast...Especially in today's stagnant performance market. SandyBridge and above you are still basically at the top. Im still running my Opteron 170 in my HTPC and it works great for that purpose, its approaching ancient id say. First generation Dual-core 64 bit CPU but still good enough for a lot of things these days...
 
I've got a 2500K, and things like emulators that are heavily CPU-dependent can bog down with it, so I have been wanting something faster

Though, really, the newer CPUs still aren't *enough* faster to make an upgrade seem worthwhile. I'm hoping that Intel breaks the streak of miniscule CPU speed increases with Skylake, but that's a ways off.
 
Robstar said:
IMHO ancient starts at pre-64bit cpus
Click to expand...

Nah, at this point I consider even the venerable Q6600 to be "ancient". It definently stood the test of time, but when you consider the processing power versus the heat, it's just not that great anymore.

My garage computer is a Pentium D at 3.0Ghz (dual core, 64 bit) and that thing is absolute dog! If it wasn't for the fact I paid $20 for the whole Dell workstation I would replace it.

But ya I use my 3770 for mostly ripping DVD/Blurays and I can't justify the cost to replace the motherboard and CPU just for 10% or 15% better processing. The jump from the i7-920 to the 3770 was very noticeable though.
 
westrock2000 said:
Nah, at this point I consider even the venerable Q6600 to be "ancient". It definently stood the test of time, but when you consider the processing power versus the heat, it's just not that great anymore.

My garage computer is a Pentium D at 3.0Ghz (dual core, 64 bit) and that thing is absolute dog! If it wasn't for the fact I paid $20 for the whole Dell workstation I would replace it.

But ya I use my 3770 for mostly ripping DVD/Blurays and I can't justify the cost to replace the motherboard and CPU just for 10% or 15% better processing. The jump from the i7-920 to the 3770 was very noticeable though.
Click to expand...

Q6600 can run win 8.1, right? Not ancient if it's still usable :)
 
westrock2000 said:
Nah, at this point I consider even the venerable Q6600 to be "ancient". It definently stood the test of time, but when you consider the processing power versus the heat, it's just not that great anymore.

My garage computer is a Pentium D at 3.0Ghz (dual core, 64 bit) and that thing is absolute dog! If it wasn't for the fact I paid $20 for the whole Dell workstation I would replace it.

But ya I use my 3770 for mostly ripping DVD/Blurays and I can't justify the cost to replace the motherboard and CPU just for 10% or 15% better processing. The jump from the i7-920 to the 3770 was very noticeable though.
Click to expand...

Well the heat versus processing power argument with respect to the Q6600 is basically the same as the AMD one. IE if you're running the Q6600 for 24/7 then yeah you'll spend a few dollars more a year, a miniscule amount.

Yeah there are more powerful CPU's that cost less to run at the same time, but the Q6600 thanks to the 4 cores can still kick some ass.
 
Ha.

My wife and daughter still use a Q9450 built on an ASUS Rampage Formula (X48)

I've had this computer for as long as I can recall, even bought the Rampage used.

I can do pretty much anything I want, and it's still pretty snappy.....only really "new" component I put in this was a Corsair Accelerator and a used HD 6950.

It's not a bad gaming box either....uses a 22" screen and can run most anything on high settings.:D
 
gen 1 i7 here and an 1155 at that still going strong
 
I kind of miss the days where you upgraded from a 286 to a 386, and it's like you went from carving pictures on the cave walls to sending a message to the moon. :)

Although it is nice on my wallet not HAVING to upgrade every couple of years. Although it'd be nice to see something that was drool worthy these days.
 
E6600 still feels usable to me...

All the primary machines at the house are quad core though.
 
I currently run a rock stable 3770K + USB3 + SATA3 + PCIE3.0 setup.
Broadwell could be an option, but no hurry for me.
 
I'm running a 3770k and I've never had an issue with it. All the new CPU's are not a great enough improvement to justify the extra cost yet. Stick with the 3770k and put the extra money to other upgrades.
 
i just got a great deal on a 3930k and I have been doing more and more video editing. which is one of the only things where the 3770 shows its age. It performs great with BF4 3x1080p and everything else I throw at it....

I think I will be using my 3770 to replace my older AMD X2 CPU in my HTPC.... great CPU for sure!
 
I underclocked my 3770K to 3 GHz and it's still more than enough for my needs.
 
Amiga 1200 here as well with a yellowing 1084s monitor. I still play Gods, Magic Pockets, Worms, Pinball Illusions and tons of other favorites.
 
I don't anticipate replacing my 3770 until there's a compelling platform replacement, or something dies on me that makes it more cost effective to buy new. SATA express isn't enough for me yet.
 
fantabulous said:
SATA express isn't enough for me yet.
Click to expand...

Especially with most of the motherboards being limited to 10Gbps... Why even bother? Gotta at least double the interface speed to be worth it. They should really be allowing at least 16Gbps. Also these PCI-E 2.0 SSDs can F off. PCI-E 3 has been out for long enough that it's ridiculous to release PCI-E 2.0 SSDs.

I'm not bothering with SATA Express, though. I'll just do it right and get an Intel NVMe PCIe SSD.
 
450 said:
E6600 still feels usable to me...

All the primary machines at the house are quad core though.
Click to expand...

I love Core 2 Duo's. They don't top benchmarks anymore, and encode much slower than modern CPU's, but really for regular day to day browsing / office / light gaming use, core 2's still rock.

I think going from a single core to a dual core back in the day really had an effect on me, being able to actually multi-task was nice. And that all started with the Core 2 Duo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top