OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i5-3570 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£20PassMark multi-core score:4931N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:LGA1155TDP (Thermal design power):77 W

Intel Core i5-3570 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-3570
5.4/10

Overall score

Score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

4.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 92% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

4.1

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 89%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i5-3570
intel-core-i5-3570
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i5-3570

Based on 0 · 4

Reviewers like its solid overall speed, but are evenly split on how well it handles games.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i5-3570

Based on 137 owners sharing their experience in online comments

66%positive14%mixed20%negative

Owners praise its capable budget gaming and longevity, while aging performance and multitasking limits frustrate some.

What owners dislike

  • Warzone and other demanding games often drop to 30-40 FPS, and stutter when the CPU hits 100% load during gameplay.24
  • Owners say it struggles with Warzone and newer demanding games, and feels dated for modern apps like browsers.16
  • CPU usage often sits at 80-100% in games, which bottlenecks mid-range graphics cards like the GTX 1050 Ti or GTX 1060.8
  • Multitasking is weak: opening Discord or other background apps during Warzone can cause a sharp drop in performance.3
  • Owners report temperatures reaching 80°C under load, and one says delidding would help.3
  • Owners report motherboard failures on older H61 boards, causing random shutdowns and disrupting normal use.3
  • Without a dedicated graphics card the integrated graphics give very low frame rates, around 15-20 FPS in games.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-3570

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

60%

3.5

Performance

18%

4.0

Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
4.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.8
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1155
This processor uses the LGA1155 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 53.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,931
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,931 in PassMark, which is lower than 73.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 2500
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 2500 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 70.7% of processors and equal to that in 1.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
77 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 77 W which is higher than that of 85.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
77 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 77 W which is higher than that of 85.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-3570 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 12.5x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-3570 is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • 20.8% higher sentiment score
    8.7 vs 7.2
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 12.5x cheaper
    Intel Core i5-3570 is cheaper than the average processor (£20 vs £250).
    £20 vs £250
  • 20.8% higher sentiment score
    8.7 vs 7.2
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 87.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (656 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    656 vs 5,209
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 57.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (655 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    655 vs 1,535
  • 57% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,931 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,931 vs 11,469
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 20.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2040 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,040 vs 2,558
  • 38.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    4.1

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.1 vs 6.7
  • 7.6% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-3570 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.77 vs 7.3).
    6.77 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    June 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 87.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (656 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    656 vs 5,209
  • 57.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (655 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    655 vs 1,535
  • 57% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,931 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,931 vs 11,469
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 20.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2040 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,040 vs 2,558
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 18.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (326 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    326 vs 398.015
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 2500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 2,500 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 71.1% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (77 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    77 W vs 45 W
  • 71.1% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (77 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    77 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
DigitalJon
≈ estimated
26/08/2023
Retro test · 12 games at 1080p
Verdict
Intel Core i5-3570 runs games surprisingly well, but it's not worth buying in 2023 over a Xeon E3-1230.
8.0
Scretch Tech
≈ estimated
12/11/2022
Unboxing and review · editing and gaming notes
Verdict
Intel Core i5-3570 is a decent budget option for gaming and editing, best paired with a good graphics card later.
8.0
brandon coin
≈ estimated
08/04/2019
Build and test · benchmarks, mining and gaming
Verdict
Intel Core i5-3570 held up well in benchmarks and runs Apex Legends at 60+ FPS, though it is an older generation.
6.0
JimsJunk
≈ estimated
04/08/2024
Comparison · i5-3570 vs i5-6500 benchmarks and integrated graphics
Verdict
Intel Core i5-3570 is still fine for CPU work, but its integrated graphics fall far behind newer Intel chips for light gaming.
8.0
TechOMan
≈ estimated
28/07/2019
Week-long use · daily tasks and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i5-3570 is still capable for gaming and makes a good cheap upgrade from second-generation Core chips.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-3570

  • Excellent value for budget or entry-level gaming builds
  • Highly reliable with a long lifespan, often outlasting several system upgrades
  • Remains capable of handling many older and esports titles (e.g., Minecraft, Overwatch) at 1080p
  • Relatively energy-efficient with a TDP of 77W, especially compared to earlier generations
  • Strong per-core performance for its age, making it smooth for general office and home use

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-3570

  • Severe performance bottlenecks when paired with modern, high-end GPUs
  • Lacks hyper-threading (4 cores, 4 threads), which limits multitasking and heavy video editing capabilities
  • Struggles with modern, CPU-intensive AAA games, often hitting 100% utilisation
  • Outdated architecture that does not officially support Windows 11 without workarounds
  • Noticeably slower photo and video rendering times compared to newer generations or the i7-3770

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-3570 is a 3rd-generation Ivy Bridge desktop processor built on a 22nm lithography process for the LGA 1155 socket. It features 4 cores and 4 threads with a base clock speed of 3.40 GHz, capable of reaching a max turbo frequency of 3.80 GHz. Equipped with a 6 MB Intel Smart Cache and a 77W TDP, it supports up to 32 GB of dual-channel DDR3-1333/1600 memory and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 2500. Main pros include its reliable quad-core performance for everyday multitasking and legacy gaming, high energy efficiency for its era, and support for PCI Express 3.0. However, significant cons include the lack of Hyper-Threading, an at-date weak integrated GPU unsuitable for modern AAA titles, and a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking.

Compare Intel Core i5-3570 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5-3570 and other processors

No results found