Upgrade from Core i3 to i5, both with HD graphics 4000

[nununu]

Hi There

I have a running system with so far i3-3225 (HD4000), I would like to buy a used i5 processor (also HD4000).

There should not be major problems, right?

The mainboard is for Sandy-bridge, but the Ivy-bridge processor is perfectly running; I want to avoid any problems with changing not only the processor, but also from HD graphics 4000 to anything else like HD2500, HD3000 - and then running through all the problems I originally had do get the HD4000 running.

So far, I only can find two i5 processors with HD4000 (for 1155 socket):
Intel® Core ™ i5-3475S
Intel® Core ™ i5-3570K

Are there any others, should that work without trouble?

Thanks

 

[trs96]

The I7-3770 also has HD4000. They are more expensive. Cost between 180-200 USD on Ebay.com. You could also get the I7-3770S variant that is clocked lower for around $140.

A 3570K is closer to about $120 for a used one. That is probably the best choice. Make sure to buy from a reputable seller.

 

[nununu]

thank you, good point, didn't consider i7 with hd4000 yet, but may look for now. Unfortunately, prices in european ebay-sites seem to be even 30% higher; I am surprised to see even some i5 offered which are not fully working...

 

[nununu]

Thank You, trs96, I really found a used i5-3570K on eBay for a good price and from a reputable seller. Hope it will work and easily replace my working i3-3225, i.e. without any modifications since they both are Ivy bridge processors and have the HD Graphics 4000, and both have been used by others in Hackintosh systems.

 

[pastrychef]

It should be a drop in replacement. The only thing you will need to do is replace the ssdt.aml file if you are using one.

 

[nununu]

thanks, pastrychef, for your point. I will check that, but as far as I remember, I never used a ssdt-file, so I may not need to replace it; maybe I will start using it with the i5 some day.

 

[nununu]

Finally, replacement of the i3-3225 with a used i5-3570K (both HD graphics 4000) works flawlessly - although it was more work than I thought: I didn't remember how I had installed the cooler (and one screw was too tight), so I had to get out the whole mainboard to replace the processor, but I am happy that everything works fine, although the i3-3225 already was a very good processor - for most of my applications not really slow.
Surprisingly, the i5-3570K appears on the Mac as 3,59MHz processor (but it should have 4x 3,40MHz). When I start with Win7 it appears as it should be: 3,40 MHz. How should I interprete this? Did the previous owner of the processor, perhaps, increase the speed - and does the Hackintosh put this on the screen? Or, does the MacOS10.9.5 measure the average speed (that i5 goes up to 3,80 MHz in something called Turbo)?

 

[UtterDisbelief]

Finally, replacement of the i3-3225 with a used i5-3570K (both HD graphics 4000) works flawlessly - although it was more work than I thought: I didn't remember how I had installed the cooler (and one screw was too tight), so I had to get out the whole mainboard to replace the processor, but I am happy that everything works fine, although the i3-3225 already was a very good processor - for most of my applications not really slow.
Surprisingly, the i5-3570K appears on the Mac as 3,59MHz processor (but it should have 4x 3,40MHz). When I start with Win7 it appears as it should be: 3,40 MHz. How should I interprete this? Did the previous owner of the processor, perhaps, increase the speed - and does the Hackintosh put this on the screen? Or, does the MacOS10.9.5 measure the average speed (that i5 goes up to 3,80 MHz in something called Turbo)?

Well done on the upgrade I've been eyeing-up a similar upgrade!

I don't think your CPU has been modified in any way. The incorrect speed indication used to happen quite a lot with earlier motherboards - I had a Z68 too at one point and it happened to me. I never discovered if it was OS X running the chip faster or a reading error. I suspect the latter. Nowadays with newer boards, Sierra and Clover, readings seem to have become more accurate. Using an SSDT might also be a part of the cure!

The only other issue with your new CPU is to check the temperature. The i5 uses more wattage than the i3 so worth making sure it's healthy.

 

[nununu]

Thank You, UtterDisbeleif, for your comment.
I checked the speed with using another startdisk in my hackintosch, i.e. with Win7 and CPU-Z: I can measure a Core Speed between 3591 and 3790 MHz (so again 3.6 GHz to even 3.8 GHz, which should be the automatic Turbo Speed - sorry for mixing up MHzs and GHz in my previous message).

I also checked the temperatures (under MacOS 10.9.5, as well as under Win7 (64bit) - and to my biggest surprise, they are considerably LOWER than with the i3-3225 (both using the HD graphics 4000). This could be due to the chip itself, but also to a different cooling pasture on the chip: for the i3, I used "arctic silver" (which many years ago might have been a gold standard) and now for the i5 I bought a fresh "Cooler Master" "E2IC Essential Thermal Compound" (rather cheap compared to the limeted choice in my local computer and radio store). I also might have applied much less pasture - so there are a few changing variables.

 

[UtterDisbelief]

Thank You, UtterDisbeleif, for your comment.
I checked the speed with using another startdisk in my hackintosch, i.e. with Win7 and CPU-Z: I can measure a Core Speed between 3591 and 3790 MHz (so again 3.6 GHz to even 3.8 GHz, which should be the automatic Turbo Speed - sorry for mixing up MHzs and GHz in my previous message).

I also checked the temperatures (under MacOS 10.9.5, as well as under Win7 (64bit) - and to my biggest surprise, they are considerably LOWER than with the i3-3225 (both using the HD graphics 4000). This could be due to the chip itself, but also to a different cooling pasture on the chip: for the i3, I used "arctic silver" (which many years ago might have been a gold standard) and now for the i5 I bought a fresh "Cooler Master" "E2IC Essential Thermal Compound" (rather cheap compared to the limeted choice in my local computer and radio store). I also might have applied much less pasture - so there are a few changing variables.

Glad everything is looking good.

Yes, I agree, the amount of thermal paste, and how it is applied, can make a surprising difference. I found the contact area of the cooler on the CPU varies considerably with different makes so hitting the right balance is sometimes hard to do.

It sounds as though you have the i5 running well.