Name: Intel Core i5 3570S
Brand: Intel

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5 3570S

4.2

Hide

Platform

7.2

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Performance

3.6

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Cache & Architecture

4.1

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Memory & PCIe

3.9

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Integrated Graphics

6.6

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Power & Thermal

7.7

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Intel Core i5 3570S vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i5 3570S better than the average processor?

Hide

Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
30.9 °C lower CPU temperature
CPU temperature
69.1 °C
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (69.1 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
69.1 °C vs 100 °C
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C
24.9% smaller die size
Die size
133 mm²
▲ Better than 69% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (133 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
133 mm² vs 177 mm²
27.78x cheaper
Intel Core i5 3570S is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
£9 vs £250
85.7% higher GPU clock speed
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
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

27.78x cheaper
Intel Core i5 3570S is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
£9 vs £250

24.9% smaller die size
Die size
133 mm²
▲ Better than 69% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (133 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
133 mm² vs 177 mm²

85.7% higher GPU clock speed
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
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 stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
30.9 °C lower CPU temperature
CPU temperature
69.1 °C
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (69.1 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
69.1 °C vs 100 °C
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C

Why is Intel Core i5 3570S worse than the average processor?

Hide

56.8% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
636
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (636 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
636 vs 1,471
55.6% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
4,694
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,694 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
4,694 vs 10,572.5
62.6% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
1,806
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,806 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
1,806 vs 4,829
83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
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
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
4 vs 6
No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
20.2% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1995
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1995 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,995 vs 2,500
11.6% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz

10.3% worse value for money
Intel Core i5 3570S has worse value for money than the average processor (5.95 vs 6.6).
5.95 vs 6.56

8 years older release date
Release date
2012
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
June 2012
2012 vs 2020
Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C, AES
▼ Worse than 69% of models
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).
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
No crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES vs AES, SHA

56.8% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
636
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (636 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
636 vs 1,471
55.6% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
4,694
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,694 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
4,694 vs 10,572.5
62.6% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
1,806
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,806 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
1,806 vs 4,829
2 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
4 vs 6
20.2% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1995
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1995 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,995 vs 2,500
11.6% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
4 vs 8
No multithreading support
Multithreading
no
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
1 fewer threads per core
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
1 vs 2
37.5% lower bus speed
Bus speed
5 GT/s
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
37.5% lower bus transfer rate
Bus transfer rate
5 GT/s
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
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
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
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
Microarchitecture codename
Ivy Bridge
▼ Worse than 75% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
50% less L2 per core
L2 per core
0.25 MB/core
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
60% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
1 MB
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
1 MB vs 2.5 MB
12.5% less L3 per core
L3 per core
1.5 MB/core
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
33.3% smaller L1 cache
L1 cache
256 KB
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
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
N. of transistors
1.4 billion
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
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
Less advanced foundry
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
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
25% smaller L3 cache
L3 cache
6 MB
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
6 MB vs 8 MB

Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3
▼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
DDR3 vs DDR4
44.1% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
25.6 GB/s
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
45.4% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
▼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
50% less memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
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
Limited PCIe bifurcation
PCIe bifurcation modes
x16, x8/x8
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4

Narrower media codec support
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
▲ Better than 51% of models
This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
75% fewer GPU execution units
Integrated GPU execution units
6
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
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
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 2500
▼ Worse than 73% of models
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
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
44.4% higher base power
Base power (PL1)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
44.4% higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
27 seconds shorter turbo duration
Tau (power duration limit)
1 seconds
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (1 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
1 seconds vs 28 seconds

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

tomshardware.com

21/05/2012

Summary of the review

Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency [Conclusion]

Tom’s Hardware evaluates Intel’s Ivy Bridge 3rd Gen Core i5 lineup, finding that standard 77W processors like the 3570K offer superior energy efficiency over low-power (S/T) variants because they complete tasks faster and return to idle. While Ivy Bridge provides a 10% performance increase over Sandy Bridge with improved integrated graphics and native PCIe 3.0 support, the 45W 3570T is restricted to niche, thermally constrained environments. The primary drawback is that low-power models sacrifice speed for minor power savings at similar price points, making the 3570K the better choice for most users. For full details, read the Tom’s Hardware review.

tomshardware.com

21/05/2012

Summary of the review

Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency

This Tom's Hardware review analyzes the performance and power efficiency of Intel’s Ivy Bridge Core i5-3570S (65W) and i5-3570T (45W) processors compared to standard 77W models. While the S and T variants successfully reduce thermal output for small-form-factor PCs and HTPCs without a price premium, they achieve this by sacrificing base and turbo clock speeds, resulting in lower multi-threaded performance. Ultimately, the, review finds that because standard chips complete tasks faster and return to idle sooner, they often provide better overall efficiency, making the low-power versions recommended only for strictly thermally constrained environments.

browser.geekbench.com

Ongoing

Summary of the review

Intel Core i5-3570S Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser

The Intel Core i5-3570S is a 2012 Ivy Bridge desktop processor (4 cores, 4 threads, 3.1–3.8 GHz) that offers efficient, mid-range performance, featuring a 65W TDP that makes it ideal for low-power or small-form-factor builds. While it provides reliable, budget-friendly performance for office tasks and light gaming, a significant drawback is its lack of AVX2 instruction support and absence of hyper-threading, which limits its capabilities in modern, heavily threaded applications. Benchmarks indicate consistent performance, with Geekbench 6 scores around 636-638 for single-core and 1806-1810 for multi-core, making it suitable for older LGA 1155 systems but not for modern Windows 11 requirements. For the full processor analysis and benchmark results, visit Geekbench. Copy

pcgameshardware.de

22/10/2026

Summary of the review

Core i5-3570S Specials - PCGH (Archived Reviews and Article Overview)

The Intel Core i5-3570S, reviewed by PC Games Hardware, is a 3rd-gen "Ivy Bridge" processor designed for efficiency, featuring four cores with a 3.1 GHz base and 3.8 GHz turbo clock. It is a 65W TDP variant of the standard i5-3570, making it ideal for compact, low-power systems while maintaining similar peak performance. While offering good value for general tasks and older games, it faces limitations in modern, CPU-intensive titles and lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

computerbase.de

23/04/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Ivy Bridge Review: From Core i5-3450 to i7-3770K (Page 3: i5-3570S Technical Details and Benchmarks)

The Intel Ivy Bridge (3rd Generation Core) 22nm architecture offers improved efficiency over Sandy Bridge, featuring lower power consumption (77W TDP for the i7-3770K) and approximately 10% higher clock-for-clock performance. Key advantages include substantial improvements to the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, supporting DirectX 11, alongside native PCI Express 3.0 and faster DDR3-1600 memory support. While providing a strong upgrade path for older systems, Ivy Bridge shows marginal performance gains for existing high-end Sandy Bridge users. A notable disadvantage is higher operating temperatures under load, caused by the smaller die size and the use of thermal paste rather than flux solder under the heatspreader. Ultimately, Ivy Bridge is an efficient, feature-rich update that emphasizes lower power and better graphics rather than massive raw CPU performance jumps. While the "K" series remains capable, the reduced thermal headroom under high voltage limits extreme overclocking potential compared to previous generations.

valid.x86.fr

12/03/2024

Summary of the review

CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i5-3570S (24T)

The CPU-Z validator result for the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D shows a multi-thread score of 6281.5 and a single-thread score of 591.1. These figures highlight the processor's capability as a high-performance option for the AM4 ecosystem, outperforming some older 10th and 11th Gen Intel i9 counterparts. Key pros of this configuration include exceptional gaming performance driven by 3D V-Cache technology and a competitive single-core speed for system responsiveness. Furthermore, it offers a significant, cost-effective upgrade path for users on older AM4 motherboards without requiring a switch to DDR5. CPUIDCons involve lower clock speeds compared to the standard Ryzen 7 5800X, resulting in slightly lower raw synthetic single-threaded scores. Additionally, CPU-Z is considered a limited, "quick and dirty" benchmark that may not reflect complex, real-world workloads, and the 8-core, 16-thread architecture (shown here with 24-thread usage) is reaching its multi-core ceiling compared to modern 16-core alternatives. For more details, visit the validation page at CPU-Z Validator.

valid.x86.fr

15/06/2012

Summary of the review

CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i5-3570S

The provided CPU-Z validation acts as a certified record of system configuration and performance, using the CPU-Z 17.01.64 suite to measure single- and multi-thread capabilities. It offers a fast, low-resource assessment ideal for checking overclock stability across various architectures. However, critics argue it provides limited real-world accuracy, as the short, small-dataset test fails to stress memory controllers or reveal thermal issues. View the validated benchmark data at CPU-Z Validator. Copy

techzine.nl

23/04/2012

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7 3770K (Ivy Bridge) Review - Page 2: Ivy Bridge Models

The Intel Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge) introduced a 22nm manufacturing process using 3D Tri-Gate transistors, offering improved efficiency with a 77W TDP and a 10–15% performance increase over Sandy Bridge. Key advancements include enhanced Intel HD Graphics 4000 with DirectX 11 support, better Quick Sync video encoding, and native PCIe 3.0/USB 3.0 via Z77 chipsets. Despite these improvements, the processor experienced limited overclocking potential due to thermal hot-spotting and, for some users, a lack of advanced business features, according to the review on Techzine.nl.

Intel Core i5 3570S Review | 78 Data compared

Best prices

Best rankings

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5 3570S

Intel Core i5 3570S vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i5 3570S better than the average processor?

Why is Intel Core i5 3570S worse than the average processor?

Expert reviews

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i5 3570S

What we don't like about Intel Core i5 3570S

Verdict

Best alternatives

Compare Intel Core i5 3570S with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5 3570S and other processors