Five generations of Core i7: from Sandy Bridge to Skylake. Comparative testing. What is the difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors

Technology of the late 2000s in a modern environment

Today we will continue testing “historical” platforms, which is interesting for the reasons already mentioned earlier (and repeatedly): when their owners are no longer satisfied with the existing level of performance, it is still interesting to compare it with that demonstrated by new computers - at least in order to understand what is worth switching to (and whether it is worth it). It is unrealistic to test absolutely everything, but some “iconic” processor models are worth it if possible. Last time we dealt with the first “integrated” AMD platform - FM1, representatives of which also allow us to evaluate the level of performance and processors of the Athlon II line for AM3 with fairly high accuracy. And with a little less - Intel processors for the LGA775 platform: somewhere from Pentium E5x00 to Core 2 Quad Q9500. Today we will clarify a little the “limits of what is possible” for the latter by examining processor models for the LGA1156 platform.

Why is it interesting in itself? If FM1 was AMD's first integrated offering, then Intel's earlier LGA1156 generally formed this market. In fact, this was the first two-chip solution (where only the south bridge remained from the chipset, and everything else moved under the processor cover) and the first platform with graphics integrated into the processors. The graphics of that time were very weak (not far removed from the “chipset” IGP Intel), found only in some processors (only in dual-core models), and in today’s systems it is not applicable: the last OS supported by Intel is Windows 7. But do not forget that it was not even 2011 (when AMD “rolled out” FM1, and Intel upgraded to LGA1155), but 2009-2010. The principles of building mass computer systems have not changed since then. Since then, Intel has completely retained not only the cooler mounting system (it has been identical for the entire 115x line for the eighth year now), but also the name of the processors. Core i7, however, was announced a year earlier (within LGA1366), but it was in 2009 that quad-core Core i5 first appeared on the market, and since 2010, dual-core Pentium, Core i3 and Core i5. And the basic principles by which processors fall into one of the listed families also do not change every year. Hearing the name “Core 2 Quad”, almost everyone understands that we are talking about something outdated... But what is “Core i5”? Yes, the first generation Core processors are old, but they still work for some users. And technologically, from the point of view of the architecture of processor cores, they, in general, differ little from Core 2. Expansion of the instruction set, ring bus, etc., etc. - all this debuted in Sandy Bridge. Accordingly, if initially the Core i5-750 was approximately equivalent to the older Core 2 Quad models (being slightly faster than the Q9650, but lagging behind the extreme Q9770), then no change in this ratio could occur with a software update. In general, Core i5 also shows what can be expected from LGA775. And Core i7 is what you can expect from quad-core processors for LGA1366, since the differences between the 800 and 900 lines are even smaller. So testing these processors is all the more useful, although they are of interest in themselves.

Test bench configuration

Everything is clear with the Core i5-760 and i7-880 - these are the fastest processors on a 45-nanometer Lynnfield crystal, at one time one of the fastest on the market in their classes. With dual-core models for this platform, things are more complicated. Its start was not so easy, so we never saw the initially planned “monolithic” Havendale at 45 nm - with some delay (relative to older models), “hybrid” 32/45 nm Clarkdale entered the market. The most popular models based on this chip were the Core i3 - inexpensive models positioned as a replacement for the Core 2 Duo and coping with this task perfectly. But buyers somehow didn’t like the dual-core Core i5 right away - after the quad-core ones! And they differed from the significantly cheaper Core i3 only in clock speeds and Turbo Boost support. However, we were currently unable to find a Core i3, but we did manage to find the top-end (in its line) Core i5-680. Note that this particular model was generally very expensive - in fact, it even left the market at a recommended price of $305, i.e. higher than the younger Core i7 models! But if this family did not enjoy the love of end buyers who profess the DIY principle, then computer equipment manufacturers reacted to it very quickly. The reason for this was the presence of some kind of graphics core and a relatively low TDP level of 73 W. Nowadays you won’t surprise anyone with a “liter” computer with support for desktop socket processors - and in those years, even a Mini-ITX board with a socket, and not with a soldered surrogate solution, was a fresh and original product. However, we repeat, buyers were looking more closely at the Core i3, but the older i5 would also be useful for us - to evaluate the upper limit of Clarkdale performance.

Since the research is largely theoretical (if someone still uses processors of that time, then, in general, everything suits him - he will go to the store only when the computer “closes” physically), in choosing benchmarks for comparison we a little more than completely free :) That's why we took this trio: the fastest Athlon X4 (ideologically similar to the dual-core Core i5), the younger Pentium and the older (at the moment) Core i3 of the modern line, fortunately all of them have already been tested earlier together with a discrete graphics card based on Radeon R9 380 and 16 GB of RAM. The three subjects also worked under similar conditions: it is no longer possible to fully use the integrated graphics of Clarkdale/Arrandale, and Lynnfield did not have such a thing yet.

Testing methodology

The technique is described in detail in a separate article. Let us briefly recall here that it is based on the following four pillars:

• Methodology for measuring power consumption when testing processors
• Methodology for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing

And detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with results (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). In our articles, we use already processed data. This especially applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (like last year, a laptop based on a Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD) and grouped by areas of application of the computer.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2016

Considering that the Pentium G4400 often outperforms the Core i3 based on Sandy Bridge, we were not surprised by its superiority over the i5-680, and the fact that modern Athlon X4 are able to keep up with the quad-core Core i5 under LGA1156 were also prepared based on slightly earlier testing. However, they also led to the fact that the lag of one of the once best Core i7 (by the way - only six-core models have had such recommended prices for a long time) from the banal (albeit the best in the line) Core i3 did not shock us too much either :) But this a group of applications is the very case when the number of supported computation threads is comparable in importance to their quality - it will only get worse.

For example, when processing photographs, some filters in Photoshop already support AVX, which affects not only modern Pentiums, but also processors for older platforms. And in general, so many architectural improvements have accumulated over such a period of time that even in the “core-hungry” Lightroom, the i7-880 is already at least a little behind the i3-6320. But a little. But it’s already falling behind. In general, over time, any carriage definitely becomes a pumpkin - if it doesn’t break first :)

“Quantity” here, as we know, is useless, but the “quality” of the first generation Core cores (almost identical, remember, Core2) is such that this is already somewhere at the level of the Athlon X4. It's not tall in itself, but it can be worse.

The program is more or less capable of utilizing “additional” code streams, but does not do it very actively - as a result, from being an “antique”, the i5-680 turned out (thanks to the clock frequency) to be at least a little faster than the i5-760. And when comparing processors of different generations, this only allowed the Core i7-880 to overtake the youngest modern Pentium, which does not require any comment.

However, with the old integer code, the “oldies” can still “give some heat.” Relative, of course - to be on par with modern processors, they need to have approximately twice as many cores. This does not in any way lead to victory, but it tactfully hints that the older (ideologically, of course) the software used, the less incentive there is to replace the old computer with a new one. Or you won’t be able to get by with “little blood” - even the best of the modern Core i5s in this task are still, at best, only equal to the very ancient Core i7. Which is faster? Modern Core i7 or so.

The above also applies to data packaging, but this program (and many other similar ones) “unfolds” the archives into one stream, which greatly affects the final result. But, in general, the best Core i7 of that time still managed to slightly outperform the best modern Core i3.

Let us remember that chipsets for LGA1156 only support SATA300, which naturally affects the speed of disk operations - especially when copying data. But let us also recall that 100 points of the reference system were obtained precisely on the SATA600 and the corresponding SSD. But slower than what we use in our main line of tests. And here, despite the limitations of the interface, it turned out faster. Conclusion? Don’t be afraid of the lack of support for new versions of SATA by the system - if you want to “spur it up” by installing a solid-state drive, it’s a worthwhile endeavor. In any case, there is no comparison with hard drives.

As we have already said, this program is not too fond of SMT technology - the seemingly opposite effect is more related to the difference in frequency. Therefore, the battle of “clean” nuclei. And it is clearly noticeable that in high-quality optimized modern programs one the 2015 core is fully compliant two 2009. If we also remember what was said above about the technological parity of the first generation Core with Core2, this also gives a good answer to the place of, for example, Core 2 Quad in the modern world: approximately a Pentium of the same frequency. Alas, this is the fate of any high-tech products - over time they are guaranteed to lose the “high” prefix.

In general and on average, the result is also similar - Core i5 (and Core 2 Quad) are at the Pentium level, and Core i7 is at the current Core i3 level. Six-core models for LGA1366 are, at best, like older modern Core i5s. But, of course, the situation can be different - for example, in old multi-threaded applications, the “oldies” look better than in new ones. When the load falls on one or two threads, everything is bad, regardless of the age of the program. But all the same - the newer, the worse :) Actually, at the same time, the answer to whether you need to suffer from “version mania”: in order to use the capabilities of new platforms, you will have to. But for a person who continues to use, for example, Windows XP and software from the beginning of the decade, the new system will not give much. It may even, on the contrary, cause problems when trying to “screw” that same XP to yourself.

Note that these results were obtained in the normal operating mode of all processors, while the ease of overclocking on outdated platforms by some users (a small but very vocal group of such) is often considered as an advantage of the latter. From the point of view of pure performance, it’s hard to argue with this - indeed: increasing the clock frequency also increases the speed of operation. True and energy consumption too. What's wrong with it at least in normal mode?

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

The Clarkdale/Arrandale processors were two-chip, and the actual “processor” crystal in them was manufactured according to 32 nm standards - as a result, the Core i5-680 does not show us anything that terrible. In fact, power consumption differs from a system with a Core i3-2120 (with the same video card and memory) by only about 10 W, and from modern dual-core Intel models - by 20 W. And this is better than AMD’s achievements at the moment - if, of course, we evaluate only power consumption without reference to performance (more on that below). But the “old” quads, also manufactured according to 45 nm standards, do not differ in any kind of efficiency - rather, the opposite. Although, again, the situation is comparable to processors for FM2+, this is a “both worse” comparison compared to modern Intel platforms. And it is clear that overclocking can only make matters worse. Although anyone who is not concerned about this level of energy consumption is unlikely to be very upset by its increase.

Adjusted for performance, it all looks something like this. It is clearly noticeable that in terms of efficiency, even Clarkdale was already a step forward. Especially if you remember that in some cases these processors made it possible to do without discrete video. So, despite the initially not very amazing speed of operation, there was a point in releasing such processors in 2010. Now they look almost as pale as the 45 nm models. And it’s not even that all the processors of that time were too slow or consumed too much energy - that’s half the story. What’s worse is that, taken together, all this leads to the fact that they spend this energy extremely inefficiently. Which, of course, is not a reason to rush out and throw away the old computer for which you paid money, but you shouldn’t ignore this state of affairs either.

iXBT Game Benchmark 2016

The almost complete coincidence of results in both resolutions clearly shows that performance is tightly limited by processors - as expected. However, in practice this does not cause any particular problems: you can play comfortably.

In the case of “ships” everything is even more fun - the result is approximately equal to the maximum possible (remember that in this game the frame rate is limited from above).

The bottleneck is once again in the processors, but you can play. Which is not surprising - after all, the game was also originally from almost those times.

But even with a significantly more modern racing simulator, all test participants cope well - first of all, the requirements for the video system have increased (as is usually the case).

In FHD, in general, everything is determined by the R9 380; in HD, there is a difference between the participants, but from a practical point of view it is insignificant.

Which also applies to this game. However, as we have already noted, it is generally more demanding of the video card in any conditions.

It's funny that the old dual-core (even with NT) processor is losing to the modern Pentium, although the game as a whole already has a “bad attitude” toward representatives of this family. But not unexpectedly: quantity flows must be assessed in conjunction with quality. And not in isolation.

In this case, all models for LGA1156 turned out to be worse than the Pentium G4400, although they are still not inferior to even the newest Athlon X4. There is no particular reason for joy in this, but in practical terms this means that they are still suitable for a gaming computer (even if we are talking about the entry-level one).

And two where the difference between the processors is already very noticeable. But this happens at such absolute values ​​that they can be ignored. Thus, from the point of view of gaming use, such systems (if they are already available) can still be considered acceptable. Of course, unlike 2009-2010, Core i5-750/760 can’t even be called a stretch best processors for games, however, if you have a good video card, the range of gaming applications available to the user will be very wide and representative. What is typical is that video cards of that era (even the best) can already be considered completely outdated, but processors can still work. Not only these, but also earlier ones - with the exception, perhaps, of dual-core Core 2 Duo (especially the first series), which do not have a head start in the number of cores, and the quality of the latter is already too low. But Core 2 Quad or the first representatives of the Core i5 and i7 families can do at least something.

Total

As we already noted in the previous “historical” article, the use of computer systems released after 2006 does not present any great difficulties today. We easily equipped the boards with 16 GB of memory and a modern video card, installed Windows 10 and gained access to any modern software. Yes, of course, the platform already lacks support for modern interfaces, and “adding” something is not always convenient due to the chipsets only supporting PCIe 1.1. However, for a discrete USB 3.0 controller, for example, this is enough, and you can ignore the limited speed of disk operations - after all, computers are still sold (and even more so, used) only with mechanical drives, and this is definition of a lower level of performance.

In a word, if such a computer is already available, it is not surprising that it will be used until it breaks: after all, it has already been “paid for” a long time ago, and any replacement of equipment requires money. Against this background, it is not even so critically perceived that each core of the late “zero” sample has only half the performance of a modern one, and at the same time eats for three - it will still not be possible to quickly “recoup” a new purchase on your electricity bills. Another question is if the provided level of performance is no longer enough and/or you are tired of the “big” computer - there are, at first glance, a lot of replacement options. True, if you look closely, it turns out that, for example, even the best of modern mini-PCs are still somewhat slower - even if you do not consider gaming applications, where using only integrated graphics will still greatly interfere with achieving gaming comfort. Top-end laptops are faster, but also quite expensive. Thus, the economic sense of continuing to operate the old PC (no matter how pale it may look compared to modern ones) still remains - and will continue to exist as long as the old computer continues to work. Of course, the owner’s performance requirements may increase over time, but it seems to us that those who have such requirements have already resolved the issue of modernization, and a long time ago.

Hello dear audience. In this article we will look at how the i5 processor differs from the i7. This is the second article in a series of comparisons. You can see the differences between i3 and i5 in. Here we will try to explain whether it makes sense to overpay for the top-of-the-line chip, although it is damn good in all respects. Interesting? Then let's go.

As in the previous article, tables, comparisons, a search for shortcomings (at least prices for the i7 for the average consumer), as well as other technological nuances will be used. The information is purely for informational purposes, but it will be very useful for beginners.

I would also like to note that we will consider chips of different generations. The most relevant at the moment are Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake, and they are interesting not only for their architecture, but also for their completely different characteristics. Wondering what the difference is between Core i5 and Core i7? Let's get started.

Comparison with Coffee Lake

The debut of Intel's 8th generation of chips caused a stir among the public as the company finally gave users what they had long been asking for - more cores, higher frequencies and lower temperatures. However, we had to pay the price due to the complete incompatibility of the 1151v2 socket with the first generation 1151 platform.
The comparison table looks like this:

The number of cores increased by 1.5 times in both cases, while the i7 also received 12 virtual threads instead of the usual 8, as was the case in Kaby Lake. Did this make the chip a better choice for PC gaming? Definitely.

Let's add to this the high power density per core, support for overclocking most chips in the series, up to 5 GHz, as well as an impressive amount of cache memory (2 MB for each core). But the i5 will give a light to everyone who does not expect outstanding results from the stone.

Which chip to choose for the motherboard?

I would like to say right away that the performance of systems on i5 and i7 will be very high. But I would still like to recommend the younger option, since most simply will not notice much of a difference in computing power when working with routine tasks. The top series available for socket 1151v2 is still chosen by enthusiasts and people who professionally work in multi-threaded applications.

Difference in kernels

Since the number of computational units for the i5 and i7 was always the same (if we do not consider the laptop assortment of CPUs), the comparison always fell short of listing the number of virtual threads. In the “middle” class, this indicator is equal to the size of the physical cores, while in the “flagship” their number is exactly 2 times higher.

Turbo Boost

And here again there is complete parity, since the technology is available to both the former and the latter. This is essentially a lazy overclocking mode, but the beauty of it is that the processor does not consume more than it needs, and only accelerates when performing complex computing tasks that require all its processing power.

This takes into account the cooling system, the maximum permissible heat package, voltage and other “limiters” that can be neglected during manual overclocking. The second advantage of the technology is the fact that some cores can be run separately if the application cannot use more than 1 thread at a time.

Hello, dear subscribers of our blog. Today I will try to explain how the i3 processor differs from the i5. Surely many people are interested in why one Intel Core costs so much more than another, although you won’t immediately understand what the point is. In this article we will analyze which stone is best suited for PC games and work tasks.

The comparison will be multi-stage and contain summary tables. By the way, in the second part we will look at and also advise which one for certain tasks.

Separately, I would like to say that we do not specifically mention mobile processors - everything is much more complicated there, and besides, special attention is paid to labeling rather than to the numerical value of chips and characteristics.

Difference between Coffee Lake and previous generations

The release of the 8th generation of Intel Core literally put the entire computer hardware market on edge. The difference between previous generations is colossal, and is expressed in the following figures:

As you can see, the usual concept has changed radically, as well as the technical characteristics. This was facilitated by the release of AMD Ryzen, which included 4 computing cores (Ryzen 3 1200) in the minimum configuration.

I'm glad that the built-in video remains, as do most proprietary technologies and instructions. Another thing is that the quality of graphics has not changed compared to Kaby Lake - still the same Intel UHD 630.

Difference between i3 and i5

First, let's look at the classic confrontation between processors, and then switch to the more recent Coffee Lake. The confrontation scheme will include several points.

• Number of Cores

The more physical cores, the more operations the chip performs per clock cycle. For i3 this indicator is 2, for i5 – 4, respectively.

For Coffee Lake the situation is as follows: both chips added 2 physical cores, but i5 is still the leader in this area.

• Turbo Boost

This technology allows you to significantly increase the CPU frequency in automatic mode only in cases where it is really necessary. In essence, this is a “lazy” version of overclocking by a multiplier, which is limited by the limitations of the platform, heat package and cooling. Only i5 has this mode, when i3 has fixed frequencies.

• Hyper-Threading

In processors, one physical core usually receives one stream of data, which is processed by this core. This function (i.e. HT) allows you to use 2 threads per core at once.

Many people mistakenly believe that virtual cores are almost identical to physical ones, but in fact the processor performs one operation not with one, but with two hands, to put it as simply and intelligibly as possible.

i3 processors of the second, third, fourth and even seventh generations supported this function, but with the advent of Coffee Lake the number of physical computing units increased from 2 to 4, and the need for the technology disappeared. Core i5s do not support the mode natively.

• Cache size

In the process of assembling or purchasing a new computer, users are always faced with a question. In this article we will look at Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors, and also tell you the difference between these chips and what is better to choose for your computer.

Difference No. 1. Number of cores and support for Hyper-threading.

Perhaps, The main difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the number of physical cores and support for Hyper-threading technology, which creates two threads of computation for each actually existing physical core. Creating two computation threads per core allows for more efficient use of the processing power of the processor core. Therefore, processors with Hyper-threading support have some performance benefits.

The number of cores and support for Hyper-threading technology for most Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors can be summarized in the following table.

But there are exceptions to this table. Firstly, these are Intel Core i7 processors from their “Extreme” line. These processors can have 6 or 8 physical computing cores. Moreover, they, like all Core i7 processors, have support for Hyper-threading technology, which means the number of threads is twice the number of cores. Secondly, some mobile processors (laptop processors) are exempt. So, some Intel Core i5 mobile processors have only 2 physical cores, but at the same time have support for Hyper-threading.

It should also be noted that Intel has already planned to increase the number of cores in its processors. According to the latest news, Intel Core i5 and i7 processors with Coffee Lake architecture, scheduled for release in 2018, will each have 6 physical cores and 12 threads.

Therefore, you should not completely trust the table provided. If you are interested in the number of cores in a particular Intel processor, then it is better to check the official information on the website.

Difference No. 2. Cache memory size.

Also, Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors differ in cache memory size. The higher the processor class, the larger the cache memory it receives. Intel Core i7 processors get the most cache, Intel Core i5 slightly less, and Intel Core i3 processors even less. Specific values ​​should be looked at in the characteristics of the processors. But as an example, you can compare several processors from the 6th generation.

You need to understand that a decrease in cache memory is associated with a decrease in the number of cores and threads. But, nevertheless, there is such a difference.

Difference number 3. Clock frequencies.

Typically, higher-end processors come with higher clock speeds. But, not everything is so simple here. It is not uncommon for Intel Core i3 to have higher frequencies than Intel Core i7. For example, let's take 3 processors from the 6th generation line.

In this way, Intel is trying to maintain the performance of Intel Core i3 processors at the desired level.

Difference No. 4. Heat dissipation.

Another important difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the level of heat dissipation. The characteristic known as TDP or thermal design power is responsible for this. This characteristic tells you how much heat the processor cooling system should remove. For example, let's take the TDP of three 6th generation Intel processors. As can be seen from the table, the higher the processor class, the more heat it produces and the more powerful the cooling system is needed.

It should be noted that TDP tends to decrease. With each generation of processors, the TDP becomes lower. For example, the TDP of the 2nd generation Intel Core i5 processor was 95 W. Now, as we see, only 65 W.

Which is better Intel Core i3, i5 or i7?

The answer to this question depends on what kind of performance you need. The difference in the number of cores, threads, cache and clock speeds creates a noticeable difference in performance between the Core i3, i5 and i7.

• The Intel Core i3 processor is an excellent option for an office or budget home computer. If you have a video card of the appropriate level, you can play computer games on a computer with an Intel Core i3 processor.
• Intel Core i5 processor – suitable for a powerful work or gaming computer. A modern Intel Core i5 can handle any video card without any problems, so on a computer with such a processor you can play any games even at maximum settings.
• The Intel Core i7 processor is an option for those who know exactly why they need such performance. A computer with such a processor is suitable, for example, for editing videos or conducting game streams.

Intel Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors have been on the market for over a year now, but some buyers are still stumped when choosing between these three processors. Now new processors with Sandy Bridge architecture have appeared in stores, and buyers again have the question of which processor is best for them? Let's do a comparison of i3 vs i5 vs i7.

If you want to answer this question simply and clearly, then the Core i7 is better than the i5, which in turn is better than the i3. The Core i7 does not have seven cores, and the Core i3 does not have three cores. These numbers simply indicate their relative processing power.

Their relative level of processing power is calculated from their stars in the Intel Processor Rating, which is based on a combination of criteria: number of cores, clock speed (in GHz), cache size, and some of Intel's new Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technologies.

The i3 has three stars, the i5 has four stars and the i7 has five stars. If you are wondering why the rating starts with three stars, then the entry-level ones are Intel Celeron and Pentium processors - they received one and two stars, respectively.

Note: Core processors can be grouped in terms of their target device, i.e. for laptops and desktop computers. Each of them has its own specific features/characteristics. Note also that we will focus on 2nd generation processors (Sandy Bridge). Now in more detail how i5 differs from i7 and i3.

Number of Cores

The more cores, the more tasks (threads) can be submitted at the same time. The Core i3 processor has the smallest number of cores; it has only two cores. Currently all i3s are dual core processors.

Now all Core i5 processors, with the exception of the i5-661, are quad-core. Core i5-661 dual-core processor with a clock frequency of 3.33 GHz. Remember that all major i3s are also dual core. Tip: The i3-560 also has a clock speed of 3.33 GHz, but it is much cheaper than the i5-661.

But even if the i5-661 normally operates at the same clock speed as the Core i3-560 and they have the same number of cores, the i5-661 has a huge plus - Turbo Boost technology.

Intel Core i7 processors have 4 or 6 cores.

Intel Turbo Boost

Intel Turbo Boost technology allows the processor to dynamically increase its clock speed whenever the need arises. The maximum amount that Turbo Boost can raise the clock speed at any given time depends on the number of active cores, current power consumption and processor temperature.

For Core i5-661, the maximum permissible processor frequency is 3.6 GHz. Since none of the Core i3 processors have Turbo Boost, the i5-661 can outperform them when needed. Because all Core i5 processors are equipped with the latest version of this technology - Turbo Boost 2.0 - they can all outperform anyone from the Core i3 family.

Cache size

Whenever the processor detects that it is using the same data over and over again, it stores that data in its cache. Cache is the same as RAM, only faster - because it is built into the processor itself. RAM and cache are used in waiting areas for frequently accessed data. Without them, the processor will have to read data from the hard drive, which will take much longer.

Basically, RAM minimizes interaction with the hard drive, while cache minimizes interaction with RAM. Obviously, the larger the cache, the more data can be retrieved quickly. All Core i3 processors have 3 MB cache, all i5 except 661 (4 MB) have 6 MB cache. Finally, all Core i7 processors have 8MB of cache. This is one of the reasons why the i7 is superior to the i5 - and why the i5 is superior to the i3.

Hyper-Threading

Strictly speaking, only one thread can be fed to one core at a time. So if the processor is dual core, then only two threads can be fed at a time. However, Intel has Hyper-Threading technology. It allows one core to serve multiple threads.

For example, a Core i3 is a dual-core processor, but each core can actually handle two threads, meaning four threads can run simultaneously. Core i5 processors have four cores, but unfortunately they do not support Hyper-Threading technology (again, with the exception of the i5-661), so it turns out that the number of threads they can simultaneously service is equal to the number of threads on the Core i3.

This is one of the many reasons why i7 processors are the best. This is because not only do they have four cores, but they also support Hyper-Threading. Thus, a total of eight threads can be processed simultaneously. Combine that with the 8MB of cache and Intel Turbo Boost technology they have, and you can see what sets the Core i7 apart from its peers.

Another factor in this comparison is that more and more programs support multithreading. That is, they can use more than one thread to execute a single command to speed up execution. Some photo editors and video editing programs are multi-threaded. However, Internet browsers do not use multithreading and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.

Who needs a Core i3 processor?

People who use their computer for word processing, email, web surfing, etc., a Core i3 processor is more than enough to handle it all with ease. The Core i3 processor is 100% affordable for the vast majority of users.

Who needs a Core i5 processor?

If you love editing videos and gaming, as well as word processing, surfing the Internet, and reading email, the Core i5 processor is for you. It has enough performance to do this sort of thing for a mid-range price.

Who needs a Core i7 processor?

As mentioned earlier, an i7 processor is not necessary for the vast majority. But if you need crazy speed, then the i7 is your choice. If you are an avid overclocker, then the Core i7 is just for you.

Conclusion

Having compared the processors, we have come to the conclusion that, regardless of your choice of Core i3 or Core i5 or Core i7 processor, rest assured that you will get the best performance and high quality from the processors of this series. All three Intel Core I-series models are valued all over the world and the main differences are the number of cores, multitasking and of course, price. I advise you to buy a computer that suits your needs within your budget.