Intel i5 processor series. Third generation Intel Core i5 and i7 processors
Intel divides its microprocessors into two main groups. On the one hand, its Celeron and Pentium family are for users who do not require high performance, and on the other hand, i3, i5 and i7, for advanced users.
I5 is a processor that can be called an SUV. If ,is sufficient for 80% of users, the i5 processor is suitable for almost anyone.
The differences between an i5 processor and an i7 processor are small and in most cases are not worth the extra cost. Depending on how you plan to use your computer, it may be smarter to invest in SSDs, RAM, or a good graphics card.
Of course, the i7 processor is no worse than the i5, it’s just that the applications for which it is needed are quite narrowly specific.
Cores . Desktop PCs have 4 cores, except i5-6xx models, and 2 cores in laptops. All 2 core i5 processors support HyperThread technology.
Turbo Boost . Fundamental difference from i3. Turbocharging, if necessary, allows the processor to operate at higher speeds. The benefits of this additional technology are especially noticeable in applications that use a single thread. And, by the way, there are a majority of such applications.
Integrated graphics card . Some i5 processor models have an integrated graphics card. A computer with such a processor is of course cheaper, but then you must keep in mind that the processor is discrete, that is, less powerful, and will be used to run the computer.
Memory controller . As with the video card, the memory controller is integrated into the processor. This processor determines the type of RAM that can be installed. That is, only DDR3 can be used with an i5 processor.
PCI Express . A PCI Express controller is also integrated into the i5 processor. Thus, if you are using a discrete graphics card, the connection to the processor will be direct.
i5 processor versions.
First generation i5 processors. It has several types of processors. I5-7xx, 7xxS - on Lynnfield core. i5-6xx – on the Clarkdale core. i5-5xxM, 4xxM, 5xxUM, 4xxUM – on the Arrandale core for portable devices. The first processor models have 4 cores, the other 2 cores with Hyperthread technology.
Manufacturing technology allows the creation of transistors of 45 nanometers in Lynnfield, versus 32 nanometers in Arrandale and Clarkdale.
As an instruction set they support SSE 4.1/4.2 and MMX. The i5 processor 6xx series and Arrandale already have an integrated video card.
Second generation i5 processors. Also known by its proper name Sandy Bridge. The processor has added support for AVX instructions, which allows you to speed up scientific, financial calculations, signal processing, etc.
In desktop versions of the computer, all i5 processors have 4 cores, except for the 2390T, which has 2 cores and Hyperthread technology. The laptop has everything as in the last version.
Another distinctive feature of these i5 processors is the inclusion of Quicksync, which increases the speed of video processing and encoding.
Third generation i5 processors. Also known as Ivy Bridge. In these processors, Intel has improved the production technology itself. The corporation managed to create 22 nanometer transistors. Thus, in the same area, they were able to place twice as many. This added energy efficiency and increased data processing speed.
Like Sandy Bridge, desktop PCs have i5 processors with four cores. In addition to the i5 processor 3470T series, which has 2 cores and Hyperthread technology. Everything in the laptop is like the i5 processor of the 3470T series.
Who is the i5 processor for?
As already written above, the i5 processor will suit almost any user. If your budget is still limited, this processor is the best choice for you. Add to this that the actual applications that benefit from the i7 processor are quite specific, and you have a nearly perfect processor.
When choosing a processor from Intel, the question arises: which chip from this corporation to choose? Processors have many characteristics and parameters that affect their performance. And in accordance with it and some features of the microarchitecture, the manufacturer gives the appropriate name. Our task is to highlight this issue. In this article, you will learn what exactly the names of Intel processors mean, and also learn about the microarchitecture of chips from this company.
Note
It should be noted in advance that solutions before 2012 will not be considered here, since technology is moving at a fast pace and these chips have too little performance with high power consumption, and are also difficult to buy in new condition. Also, server solutions will not be considered here, since they have a specific scope and are not intended for the consumer market.
Attention, the nomenclature set out below may not be valid for processors older than the period indicated above.
And if you encounter any difficulties, you can visit the website. And read this article, which talks about. And if you want to know about integrated graphics from Intel, then you should.
Tick-Tock
Intel has a special strategy for releasing its “stones”, called Tick-Tock. It consists of annual consistent improvements.
- A tick means a change in microarchitecture, which leads to a change in socket, improved performance and optimized power consumption.
- This means that it leads to a reduction in power consumption, the possibility of placing a larger number of transistors on a chip, a possible increase in frequencies and an increase in cost.
This is what this strategy looks like for desktop and laptop models:
| MICROARCHITECTURE | STAGE | EXIT | TECHNICAL PROCESS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nehalem | So | 2009 | 45 nm |
| Westmere | Teak | 2010 | 32 nm |
| Sandy Bridge | So | 2011 | 32 nm |
| Ivy Bridge | Teak | 2012 | 22 nm |
| Haswell | So | 2013 | 22 nm |
| Broadwell | Teak | 2014 | 14 nm |
| Skylake | So | 2015 | 14 nm |
| Kaby Lake | So+ | 2016 | 14 nm |
But for low-power solutions (smartphones, tablets, netbooks, nettops), the platforms look like this:
| CATEGORY | PLATFORM | CORE | TECHNICAL PROCESS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netbooks/Nettops/Notebooks | Braswell | Airmont | 14 nm |
| Bay Trail-D/M | Silvermont | 22 nm | |
| Top tablets | Willow Trail | Goldmont | 14 nm |
| Cherry Trail | Airmont | 14 nm | |
| Bay Tral-T | Silvermont | 22 nm | |
| Clower Trail | Satwell | 32 nm | |
| Top/mid-range smartphones/tablets | Morganfield | Goldmont | 14 nm |
| Moorefield | Silvermont | 22 nm | |
| Merrifield | Silvermont | 22 nm | |
| Clower Trail+ | Satwell | 32 nm | |
| Medfield | Satwell | 32 nm | |
| Mid-range/budget smartphones/tablets | Binghamton | Airmont | 14 nm |
| Riverton | Airmont | 14 nm | |
| Slayton | Silvermont | 22 nm |
It should be noted that Bay Trail-D is made for desktops: Pentium and Celeron with the index J. And Bay Trail-M for is a mobile solution and will also be designated among Pentium and Celeron by its letter - N.
Judging by the latest trends of the company, performance itself is progressing quite slowly, while energy efficiency (performance per unit of energy consumed) is growing year by year, and soon laptops will have the same powerful processors as large PCs (although such representatives still exists).
Long-awaited models for the mass platform, but different
Just 15 years ago, the question of the number of cores in the central processors of typical personal computers simply did not arise - of course, there was only one core. True, there could have been two processors themselves, although in those (and earlier) years this could not be called a cheap pleasure, and for most users it was not at all useful. In essence, there was a standard chicken and egg problem: programmers did not take into account the possibility of having a second processor, since users rarely bought dual-processor computers, and they rarely bought them precisely because there were practically no programs capable of realizing the potential of multiple computing devices. In certain areas, SMP configurations were quite appropriate, but they remained niche solutions - in fact, the most popular operating systems of the Windows 9x line at that time did not support such “perversions” in principle.
Things started to change in 2005, when both AMD and Intel began shipping dual-core processors, but the change was slow because there was still too little mainstream software to take full advantage of the new capabilities. Of course, there was specialized software, and there were programs that could utilize a larger number of cores, but only in certain niches. However, the transition from one core to two was not even quantitative, but qualitative, and when using predominantly single-threaded software: the “extra” core remained free to ensure the normal functioning of the OS, so it became more difficult to “freeze” the computer even with “crooked” programs, which many I liked it. The beauty of the concept was spoiled by the fact that the first dual-core processor models were “glued together” from a pair of single-core processors, so that, other things being equal, they were more expensive or, at comparable prices, were not quite equal in technical characteristics (clock frequency, for example). This led to lower performance in mainstream software and, accordingly, low popularity of dual-core processors in general. In general, it turned out to be a kind of vicious circle.
It was possible to “unlock” it in the second half of 2006, when Intel introduced processors of the Core 2 Duo family. Firstly, they initially had a dual-core design, so the release of single-core models based on it was very limited and affected only the lowest segment (in other words, Celeron). Secondly, they themselves turned out to be very successful - both in desktop and mobile versions. At the same time, this led to a price war between AMD and Intel, as a result of which processor prices fell to the level we are accustomed to today. In general, two cores have become the “norm of life,” which programmers have begun to take into account, albeit with a slight delay. But four cores could not become widespread for a long time, although the company introduced Core 2 Quad in the same year: they were spinning in the same vicious circle “no software, they don’t take it, and if they don’t take it, no software.” Only a few users had such software, and they greeted these quad-core processors warmly, thinking about more cores. Sometimes they even bought dual-processor systems for old times' sake :)
But in order for such products to become widespread, it was necessary to prepare the market, which is what Intel did. In particular, the first Core processors at the end of 2008 added Hyper-Threading support to the four cores, which allowed them to execute eight threads of code. In 2010, the first six-core processors appeared, quickly falling in price from $1000 (which is not so much - the price of extreme Core 2 Quad reached one and a half thousand) to about $600. But all this preparation became especially noticeable in 2011 - with the release of Sandy Bridge for LGA1155. Then the company clearly limited the price niche of dual-core processors to $150, i.e. they definitely no longer found their way into expensive computers. And in general, the mass platform was “sandwiched” by the bar around $300 - quad-core Core i7 with HT were sold at these prices. In top-end systems, one could rather find six-core processors, which a little later (after the release of LGA2011-3) dropped in price to almost $400, i.e. the difference became minimal. Well, eight-core processors began to be prescribed in the most powerful systems - with a recommended price of “a buck,” but not long before that, models with only four cores were sold at the same (and even higher) prices.
In general, all these measures gradually led to the fact that the potential base for software capable of using eight or more computational threads became large. The efforts of AMD also made their contribution - the company tried to “show off its cores” in the competition more than once or twice (not very successfully, but largely due to the problems mentioned at the beginning). In addition, eight-core processors were firmly established in game consoles, albeit with weak cores - and as a result, game engine developers were simply forced to parallelize the code to the maximum extent: it was impossible to “run” on one or two fast threads due to the complete absence of them. As a result, they began to expect the next logical step from Intel - the introduction of at least six-core processors into the mass segment. Moreover, this event was expected along with the advent of Skylake and the LGA1151 platform, i.e. a couple of years ago, but it did not happen...
In fact, already at the beginning of 2015, the company made it clear that on the new platform the distribution of roles and prices would be exactly the same as on the previous LGA1150 and even LGA1155. Of course, this was a disappointment to many desktop users who had acquired a quad-core processor in previous years and were starting to think about more. But “more” was available only on a more expensive platform, to which some were forced to migrate. The others saw no way out of the impasse. Moreover, it was not traced later, when a few months after Skylake appeared on the market it became known that the next generation Core (Kaby Lake) would differ slightly from Skylake: no obvious changes should be expected either in terms of performance characteristics or in the technical process. At the end of 2017, deliveries of 10-nanometer Cannonlake with unknown characteristics were planned.
Several months passed, and plans changed again: it turned out that there would be another version of processors, still using the 14 nm process technology - once again improved, but still quite old, since the first Broadwells based on it were released for another three years ago (naturally, these were mobile processors - less mass markets, including desktop ones, usually receive new models with some delay). And most importantly, the older Coffee Lake models should have received exactly the required six cores and the LGA1151 design that was already familiar by that time - what was expected from Skylake the fall before last. At the same time, prices had to remain unchanged, i.e., for the first time since 2011, all families had to “move down” one step. In any case, according to the first assumptions, Core i5 should have received Hyper-Threading, and Core i3 - four cores (the “2+HT” configuration remained only for Pentium, i.e., it “went” to the segment below $100, and this is it already did, starting with Broadwell laptops and Kaby Lake desktops). Then it turned out that the Core i5 will also have six cores. This is where the information Intel has about AMD Ryzen may have had an impact: both on the level of performance and the number of cores. Moreover, let us remind you (and we will tell someone for the first time), AMD Ryzen is not only a maximum of eight cores, but also models for the mass (including mobile) market with four cores paired with a video core. True, these processors never came out on time (they were expected back in the summer of this year), but these are minor technical details. In fact, Coffee Lake is aimed at the same niches and has a similar configuration (i.e. with an integrated GPU), so giving all models six cores is very convenient for competition. Moreover, Intel managed to cram four cores with support for Hyper-Threading into a 15 W thermal package - such are Kaby Lake-R, which also belongs to the eighth generation and uses similar optimizations, not only Core i7, but also Core i5. It is clear that AMD’s video core will (most likely) be more productive, but the processor component is of interest to many users no less, if not more. In the end, for those who are interested specifically in graphics, there are discrete video cards - IGP will always lag behind them anyway. So from this side everything is logical.
But with the “usual design of LGA1151” everything turned out to be not so smooth. For obvious reasons, new processors required new chipsets - everyone, in general, has long been accustomed to this situation. But the fact that new chipsets will be incompatible with old processors is something that everyone has become accustomed to since the days of LGA775. And even then, “official incompatibility” often turned into “unofficial compatibility” in practice. Will it work out this time? It is still difficult to reject this possibility, but at the moment old processors are physically installed in new boards, but cannot work. At the same time, there are no completely new 300-series chipsets yet, there is only the Z370, which is completely similar to the previous Z270 - this is a top-end “caliber for an hour”, since next year it should be replaced by the Z390 with support for USB 3.1 Gen2 and other improvements. A little earlier, other models of chipsets of the new family should be released, including the inexpensive B360 or H310, which will be sorely missed for some time for the younger Core i3-8100: the idea of installing an inexpensive non-overclockable processor on a board with an expensive overclocker chipset looks a bit strange. However, the new Core i3 does not fall into the first wave of shipments, but this also applies to the Core i5-8400 to some extent. In general, at first there may be distortions in the market, so a pair of an old “expensive” processor and an old cheap motherboard may cost the buyer less than a new “cheap” processor for which the corresponding motherboards have not yet been released. This will definitely have to be taken into account by those who are planning to buy new Intel solutions as soon as they become available. Well, we’ll check now how they work.
Test bench configuration
| CPU | Intel Core i5-8600K | Intel Core i7-8700K |
| Kernel name | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,6/4,3 | 3,7/4,7 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/12 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 9 | 12 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 |
So far we have got, one might say, the best pair - the Core i5-8600K and i7-8700K, which have unlocked multipliers, so the Z370 chipset may come in handy for them. In principle, these processors differ from each other in the same way as before: i5 have slightly lower official frequencies and lack Hyper-Threading support. That's all. Both models have six physical cores, plus a dual-channel memory controller with support for DDR4-2667 and an old video core, which, although now called UHD Graphics 630, is similar to the HD Graphics 630 in Kaby Lake (and it’s not too different from the HD Graphics 530 of the Skylake era ). However, we won’t touch the video core today - all tests were performed with a discrete video card based on the GTX 1070.
| CPU | Intel Core i5-7600K | Intel Core i7-7700K |
| Kernel name | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,8/4,2 | 4,2/4,5 |
| Number of cores/threads | 4/4 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 128/128 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4×256 | 4×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 6 | 8 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2400 | 2×DDR4-2400 |
| TDP, W | 91 | 91 |
| Price | T-1716356460 | T-1716356308 |
Without fail, we need to compare the new processors with their immediate predecessors of the seventh generation: Core i5-7600K and i7-7700K. It’s easy to see that this is almost the same thing - only there are four cores, not six. A familiar (and even boring) configuration for six years.
| CPU | Intel Core i7-6800K | Intel Core i7-7800X |
| Kernel name | Broadwell-E | Skylake-X |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,4/3,6 | 3,5/4,0 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 6/12 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×1024 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 15 | 8,25 |
| RAM | 4×DDR4-2400 | 4×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 140 | 140 |
| Price | T-13974485 | T-1729322998 |
We took four more processors from recent testing of HEDT platforms: the Core i7-6800K was recently the cheapest six-core Intel processor, and now it is being replaced by the i7-7800X (a direct comparison of it with the i7-8700K, it seems to us, is generally very interesting). Due to the specifics of the platform, these test subjects will now be working with twice the amount of memory compared to other testing participants, which, however, is not so important in practice (but it needs to be mentioned).
| CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X | AMD Ryzen 7 1800X |
| Kernel name | Ryzen | Ryzen |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,6/4,0 | 3,6/4,0 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 8/16 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 384/192 | 512/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×512 | 8×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 16 | 16 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2667 | 2×DDR4-2667 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 |
| Price | T-1723154074 | T-1720383938 |
And a couple of AMD models. The Ryzen 5 1600X, when using a discrete graphics card, was a direct competitor to the Core i5-7600K, and now must fight the i5-8600K. The Ryzen 7 1800X, strictly speaking, does not directly interfere with anyone. But, unfortunately, we never got our hands on the younger Ryzen 7 1700, so it’s enough to evaluate the ends of the range - both it and the 1700X should be somewhere between 1600X and 1800X in terms of performance. 1700X, by the way, as we know, in terms of performance it is practically no different from 1800X, but it consumes more energy - so it’s cheaper for a reason. In general, we can consider that we gave AMD a slight head start by taking the Ryzen 7 1800X, and also testing both processors with slightly overclocked memory - DDR4-2933 instead of the standard 2667 MHz.
Testing methodology
Methodology. 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
- Methodology for measuring performance in games 2017
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 (AMD FX-8350 with 16 GB of memory, GeForce GTX 1070 video card and Corsair Force LE 960 GB SSD) and grouped by computer application.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2017
Eight cores are, of course, eight, but Intel’s new six-core processors are not too far behind the Ryzen 7 1800X, and are cheaper. Particularly good, of course, is the i7-8700K, which works even a little faster than the 7800X. In principle, the i5-8600K did not disappoint us: it easily beat the Core i7-7700K. True, it still lags behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, but this is not the same defeat that was observed in the case of the i5-7600K. By the way, it’s worth paying attention to the fact that the advantage over its predecessor is more than one and a half times, i.e. we’re not just talking about an additional pair of cores. And the Core i7 also “scaled” almost linearly.
The situation is almost the same, only here the Core i7-8700K is not behind the 1800X. Excellent result in the upper segment! And worse - on average: the Ryzen 5 1600X continues to be attractive when used with a discrete graphics card. On the other hand, you can count on the fact that after the appearance of inexpensive motherboards, some Core i5-8400 will be perfect for those who do not need fast graphics - in fact, they will have no one to compete with in this situation :)
As we already know, in this group, increasing the number of cores from six to eight does not have a very big effect, and the benefit of SMT (naturally) in such conditions is minimal. Therefore, today's pair of newcomers can simply be considered winners.
Photoshop continues to do weird things: the program clearly doesn’t like not only the lack of Hyper-Threading, since the performance of the Core i5-8600K here is only at the level of the i5-7400, not even 7600K. The remaining two programs in the group "pull" the beginner higher, but still we get an excellent illustration of how software problems can ruin anything. But the Core i7-8700K does not have such problems, so in the overall standings it lost only to the i7-7800X.
And again flows are everything, so the Core i5-8600K failed to catch up with the Core i7-7700K. On the other hand, it’s cheaper - it’s okay :) But of course, it wasn’t worth it to lag behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, and even so noticeably, but it’s difficult to break the laws of physics. Quality doesn't always outweigh quantity, and the Core i7-8700K only looks like the fastest six-core processor (which it is). No more. But no less.
There is a feeling that the four-channel memory controller “played” once - in any case, it is difficult to explain such a success of the i7-6800K with anything else. But the i7-8700K lags behind it slightly, but it itself is quite noticeably ahead of the Ryzen 7 1800X, which closes the top three. This program may have room to improve its work with new processors, which will allow the i7-7800X and Ryzen to demonstrate better results. However, the state of affairs with archiving is already favorable for newcomers, although they are not too ahead of their immediate predecessors.
The main thing in this group is a noticeable increase in performance compared to its predecessors, and at the same prices. A very good level, although not a record, but six cores by today’s standards is not the maximum. But with such proximity to the mass price segment, the result is a record one.
In general, a very serious application, especially in the case of the new Core i7, which can perfectly compete with both Ryzen 7 and its namesake for the HEDT platform. The Core i5 is a little less pleasing, but it is already reaching the level of the recent Core i7 and is noticeably ahead of its predecessor. At the same time, the new Core i5 is not supposed to lag behind the Ryzen 5 1600X. And the problem is not only in Photoshop - the situation is similar in many other programs. However, the presence of a built-in video core allows you to build small and energy-efficient (and inexpensive) computers on the new Core i5, but this is more difficult for Ryzen. But if you still need to use a discrete video card, then AMD remains superior in this segment, and you don’t have to buy a 1600X - you can slightly overclock a very inexpensive 1600. But “from above” the situation has been radically corrected in favor of Intel.
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
However, performance and price are not the only characteristics of the processor, and in terms of power consumption, the Core i5-8600K looks great: it is almost identical to its predecessor. The energy consumption of the Core i7-8700K is slightly higher than we would like.
This is especially noticeable if you evaluate only the energy consumption of the processor, without taking into account the platform: after all, a hundred watts is a bit much for mass solutions. Maybe Intel tried to “squeeze” maximum performance out of the top model (it’s no secret that such flagship processor races are carefully studied by those who will only buy a Celeron anyway), or maybe we didn’t get a very successful copy. But in general, we would like more... More precisely, less: the result of the new flagship is only at the level of the Ryzen 5 1600X, which is not bad for AMD, but not for Intel. However, at least the new product cannot be compared with the i7-7800X - and that’s good.
But we would like higher performance from the Core i5-8600K, since now the energy efficiency of the new pair of processors is approximately equal. And yet, the Core i5 has a slightly better performance, which also indirectly hints at certain problems with this Core i7 model (or our sample) - previously, the use of SMT improved it, and not vice versa. However, these are nitpicks - anyway, both of these processors are the absolute leaders among those tested at the moment. And there are no competitors... :)
iXBT Game Benchmark 2017
Today we will once again present all the diagrams first, and then a general commentary for them.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
As you can see, the results of all subjects fall within a very small range - as expected. There are a couple of games where the Core i5-7600K lags behind its competitors (in one it is very noticeable), but it is the only “only” quad-core processor here, and even with a high core frequency this can sometimes not be enough. However, most often the difference, if there is one, is small. It is clear that when using a more powerful video card, such situations may occur more often, but there are not so many more powerful video cards, and compared to their prices, saving on a processor looks strange - unless, of course, it is a faithful overclocked Core i5-2500K, which has been around for many years I coped with any games and with any video card without any questions at all :) And only today a gamer might want to change it - fortunately there is already something for it.
Total
Summing up our testing, we can say: the new processors turned out to be successful, they can be used wherever their predecessors worked, the price has remained virtually unchanged. Among the objective shortcomings, the power consumption of the Core i7-8700K could be lower. But it is clear that this can easily be “treated” by lowering the frequencies, so on the basis of this crystal it is possible to produce laptop processors even tomorrow, applicable not only in bulky “gaming” models. And this is also a plus, and for Intel, perhaps even more significant than the good results of desktop modifications. In fact, nothing fundamentally new has happened to the desktop processor market, because six-core models have been here for a long time. Now they have fallen in price a little more - that’s all. Here is a laptop (a full-fledged one, and not strange DTR modifications based on desktop or server processors) with a six-core processor - a new product that can somewhat change the market.
One of the disadvantages of Coffee Lake is the appearance of two incompatible LGA1151 platforms. And if in one direction compatibility is not really a pity (except for owners of two-year-old motherboards, who were cynically cut off from the possibility of inexpensive upgrading), then in the other... In fact, it turns out that for the new platform at the moment there are not only inexpensive motherboards, but also cheap processors. And the transfer of the same Pentiums to a new version will most likely “hit” hard on shipments of the old one. In general, this is a problem about which large manufacturers, it seems to us, have probably already expressed their dissatisfaction to Intel. No other problems have been identified at this time. These are the processors that many have been waiting for for a long time - and now they finally got it :) It only seems to us that if these processors had come out instead of Kaby Lake, there would have been more satisfied people, even with the same compatibility problems (or rather, lack thereof) between the two versions of the platform . 
On June 2, Intel announced ten new 14-nanometer processors for desktop and mobile PCs from the fifth-generation Intel Core family (codenamed Broadwell-C) and five new 14-nanometer processors from the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family.
Of the ten new fifth-generation Intel Core processors (Broadwell-C) for desktop and mobile PCs, only two processors are desktop-oriented and have an LGA 1150 socket: these are the quad-core Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C models. All other fifth-generation Intel Core processors are BGA-designed and are aimed at laptops. Brief characteristics of the new Broadwell-C processors are presented in the table.
| Connector | Number of cores/threads | L3 cache size, MB | TDP, W | Graphics core | ||
| Core i7-5950HQ | BGA | 4/8 | 6 | 2,9/3,7 | 47 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i7-5850HQ | BGA | 4/8 | 6 | 2,7/3,6 | 47 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i7-5750HQ | BGA | 4/8 | 6 | 2,5/3,4 | 47 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i7-5700HQ | BGA | 4/8 | 6 | 2,7/3,5 | 47 | Intel HD Graphics 5600 |
| Core i5-5350H | BGA | 2/4 | 4 | 3,1/3,5 | 47 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i7-5775R | BGA | 4/8 | 6 | 3,3/3,8 | 65 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i5-5675R | BGA | 4/4 | 4 | 3,1/3,6 | 65 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i5-5575R | BGA | 4/4 | 4 | 2,8/3,3 | 65 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i7-5775C | LGA 1150 | 4/8 | 6 | 3,3/3,7 | 65 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
| Core i5-5675C | LGA 1150 | 4/4 | 4 | 3,1/3,6 | 65 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |
Of the five new processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family, only three models (Xeon E3-1285 v4, Xeon E3-1285L v4, Xeon E3-1265L v4) have an LGA 1150 socket, and two more models are made in a BGA package and are not intended for self-installation on the motherboard. Brief characteristics of the new processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family are presented in the table.
| Connector | Number of cores/threads | L3 cache size, MB | Nominal/maximum frequency, GHz | TDP, W | Graphics core | |
| Xeon E3-1285 v4 | LGA 1150 | 4/8 | 6 | 3,5/3,8 | 95 | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
| Xeon E3-1285L v4 | LGA 1150 | 4/8 | 6 | 3,4/3,8 | 65 | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
| Xeon E3-1265L v4 | LGA 1150 | 4/8 | 6 | 2,3/3,3 | 35 | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
| Xeon E3-1278L v4 | BGA | 4/8 | 6 | 2,0/3,3 | 47 | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
| Xeon E3-1258L v4 | BGA | 2/4 | 6 | 1,8/3,2 | 47 | Intel HD Graphics P5700 |
Thus, out of 15 new Intel processors, only five models have an LGA 1150 socket and are aimed at desktop systems. For users, of course, the choice is small, especially considering that the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family of processors is aimed at servers, and not at consumer PCs.
Moving forward, we'll focus on reviewing the new 14nm LGA 1150 processors.
So, the main features of the new fifth-generation Intel Core processors and the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family of processors are the new 14-nanometer core microarchitecture, codenamed Broadwell. In principle, there is no fundamental difference between the processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family and the fifth generation Intel Core processors for desktop systems, so in the future we will refer to all these processors as Broadwell.
In general, it should be noted that the Broadwell microarchitecture is not just Haswell in 14-nanometer design. Rather, it is a slightly improved Haswell microarchitecture. However, Intel always does this: when switching to a new production process, changes are made to the microarchitecture itself. In the case of Broadwell, we are talking about cosmetic improvements. In particular, the volumes of internal buffers have been increased, there are changes in the execution units of the processor core (the scheme for performing multiplication and division operations on floating point numbers has been changed).
We will not consider in detail all the features of the Broadwell microarchitecture (this is a topic for a separate article), but we will once again emphasize that we are only talking about cosmetic changes to the Haswell microarchitecture, and therefore you should not expect that Broadwell processors will be more productive than Haswell processors. Of course, the transition to a new technological process has made it possible to reduce the power consumption of processors (at the same clock frequency), but no significant performance gains should be expected.
Perhaps the most significant difference between the new Broadwell and Haswell processors is the Crystalwell fourth-level cache (L4 cache). Let us clarify that such an L4 cache was present in Haswell processors, but only in top models of mobile processors, and in Haswell desktop processors with an LGA 1150 socket it was not present.
Let us recall that some top models of Haswell mobile processors implemented the Iris Pro graphics core with additional eDRAM memory (embedded DRAM), which solved the problem of insufficient memory bandwidth used for the GPU. eDRAM memory was a separate crystal, which was located on the same substrate with the processor crystal. This crystal was codenamed Crystalwell.
The eDRAM memory had a size of 128 MB and was manufactured using a 22-nanometer process technology. But the most important thing is that this eDRAM memory was used not only for the needs of the GPU, but also for the computing cores of the processor itself. That is, in fact, Crystalwell was an L4 cache shared between the GPU and the processor cores.
All new Broadwell processors also include a separate 128 MB eDRAM memory die, which acts as an L4 cache and can be used by the graphics core and the processor's compute cores. Moreover, we note that the eDRAM memory in 14-nanometer Broadwell processors is exactly the same as in top-end Haswell mobile processors, that is, it is made using a 22-nanometer technical process.
The next feature of the new Broadwell processors is the new graphics core, codenamed Broadwell GT3e. In the version of processors for desktop and mobile PCs (Intel Core i5/i7) it is Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and in processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family it is Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (with the exception of the Xeon E3-1258L v4 model). We will not delve into the features of the Broadwell GT3e graphics core architecture (this is a topic for a separate article) and will only briefly consider its main features.
Let us recall that the Iris Pro graphics core was previously present only in Haswell mobile processors (Iris Pro Graphics 5100 and 5200). Moreover, the Iris Pro Graphics 5100 and 5200 graphics cores have 40 execution units (EU). The new graphics cores Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300 are already equipped with 48 EUs, and the EU organization system has also changed. Each individual GPU unit contains 8 EUs, and the graphics module combines three graphics units. That is, one graphics module contains 24 EU, and the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 or Iris Pro Graphics P6300 graphics processor itself combines two modules, that is, a total of 48 EU.
As for the difference between the graphics cores of Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300, at the hardware level they are the same (Broadwell GT3e), but their drivers are different. In the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 version, the drivers are optimized for tasks specific to servers and graphics stations.
Before moving on to a detailed review of the Broadwell testing results, we’ll tell you about a few more features of the new processors.
First of all, the new Broadwell processors (including the Xeon E3-1200 v4) are compatible with motherboards based on Intel 9-series chipsets. We can't say that every board based on the Intel 9-series chipset will support these new Broadwell processors, but most boards do support them. True, for this you will have to update the BIOS on the board, and the BIOS must support new processors. For example, for testing we used the ASRock Z97 OC Formula board and without updating the BIOS, the system only worked with a discrete video card, and image output through the graphics core of Broadwell processors was impossible.
The next feature of the new Broadwell processors is that the Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C models have an unlocked multiplier, that is, they are focused on overclocking. In the Haswell family of processors, such processors with unlocked multipliers made up the K-series, and in the Broadwell family, the letter “C” is used instead of the letter “K”. But the Xeon E3-1200 v4 processors do not support overclocking (it is impossible to increase the multiplication factor for them).
Now let's take a closer look at the processors that came to us for testing. These are models , and . In fact, of the five new models with the LGA 1150 socket, the only thing missing is the Xeon E3-1285L v4 processor, which differs from the Xeon E3-1285 v4 only in lower power consumption (65 W instead of 95 W) and the fact that its nominal core clock speed slightly lower (3.4 GHz instead of 3.5 GHz). Additionally, for comparison, we also added the Intel Core i7-4790K, which is the top processor in the Haswell family.
The characteristics of all tested processors are presented in the table:
| Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i7-5775C | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-4790K | |
| Technical process, nm | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 22 |
| Connector | LGA 1150 | LGA 1150 | LGA 1150 | LGA 1150 | LGA 1150 |
| Number of Cores | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Number of threads | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 8 |
| L3 cache, MB | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 8 |
| L4 cache (eDRAM), MB | 128 | 128 | 128 | 128 | N/A |
| Rated frequency, GHz | 3,5 | 2,3 | 3,3 | 3,1 | 4,0 |
| Maximum frequency, GHz | 3,8 | 3,3 | 3,7 | 3,6 | 4,4 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 35 | 65 | 65 | 88 |
| Memory type | DDR3-1333/1600/1866 | DDR3-1333/1600 | |||
| Graphics core | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | HD Graphics 4600 |
| Number of GPU execution units | 48 (Broadwell GT3e) | 48 (Broadwell GT3e) | 48 (Broadwell GT3e) | 48 (Broadwell GT3e) | 20 (Haswell GT2) |
| Nominal GPU frequency, MHz | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 350 |
| Maximum GPU frequency, GHz | 1,15 | 1,05 | 1,15 | 1,1 | 1,25 |
| vPro technology | + | + | − | − | − |
| VT-x technology | + | + | + | + | + |
| VT-d technology | + | + | + | + | + |
| Cost, $ | 556 | 417 | 366 | 276 | 339 |
And now, after our express review of the new Broadwell processors, let's move on directly to testing the new products.
Test bench
To test processors, we used a bench with the following configuration:
Testing methodology
Processor testing was carried out using our scripted benchmarks, and. More precisely, we took the methodology for testing workstations as a basis, but expanded it by adding tests from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 package and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 game tests.
Thus, the following applications and benchmarks were used to test processors:
- MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680
- SVPmark 3.0
- Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 (Build 8.1.0)
- Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (Version 13.1.1.3)
- Photodex ProShow Producer 6.0.3410
- Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1
- ACDSee Pro 8
- Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1
- Adobe Audition CC 2014.2
- Abbyy FineReader 12
- WinRAR 5.11
- Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 (Flow Simulation package)
- SPECapc for 3ds max 2015
- SPECapc for Maya 2012
- POV-Ray 3.7
- Maxon Cinebench R15
- SPECviewperf v.12.0.2
- SPECwpc 1.2
In addition, games and gaming benchmarks from the iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 package were used for testing. Testing in games was carried out at a resolution of 1920x1080.
Additionally, we measured the power consumption of processors in idle mode and under stress. For this purpose, a specialized software and hardware complex was used, which was connected to the gap in the power supply circuits of the system board, that is, between the power supply and the system board.
To create CPU stress, we used the AIDA64 utility (Stress FPU and Stress GPU tests).
Test results
Processor power consumption
So, let's start with the results of testing processors for energy consumption. The test results are presented in the diagram.
The most voracious in terms of energy consumption, as one might expect, turned out to be the Intel Core i7-4790K processor with a declared TDP of 88 W. Its real power consumption in stress load mode was 119 W. At the same time, the temperature of the processor cores was 95°C and throttling was observed.
The next most power-consuming processor was the Intel Core i7-5775C processor with a stated TDP of 65 W. For this processor, power consumption in stress mode was 72.5 W. The temperature of the processor cores reached 90 °C, but throttling was not observed.
The third place in terms of energy consumption was taken by the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor with a TDP of 95 W. Its power consumption in stress mode was 71 W, and the temperature of the processor cores was 78 °C
And the most economical in terms of energy consumption was the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 processor with a TDP of 35 W. In stress load mode, the power consumption of this processor did not exceed 39 W, and the temperature of the processor cores was only 56 °C.
Well, if we focus on the power consumption of processors, we must state that Broadwell has significantly lower power consumption compared to Haswell.
Tests from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 package
Let's start with the tests included in the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015. Note that we calculated the integral performance result as the geometric mean of the results in logical groups of tests (video conversion and video processing, video content creation, etc.). To calculate results in logical groups of tests, the same reference system was used as in the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015.
Full test results are shown in the table. In addition, we present the test results for logical groups of tests on diagrams in a normalized form. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.
| Logical test group | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| Video conversion and video processing, points | 364,3 | 316,7 | 272,6 | 280,5 | 314,0 |
| MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680, seconds | 125,4 | 144,8 | 170,7 | 155,4 | 132,3 |
| SVPmark 3.0, points | 3349,6 | 2924,6 | 2552,7 | 2462,2 | 2627,3 |
| Video content creation, points | 302,6 | 264,4 | 273,3 | 264,5 | 290,9 |
| Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1, seconds | 503,0 | 579,0 | 634,6 | 612,0 | 556,9 |
| Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (Test #1), seconds | 666,8 | 768,0 | 802,0 | 758,8 | 695,3 |
| Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (Test #2), seconds | 330,0 | 372,2 | 327,3 | 372,4 | 342,0 |
| Photodex ProShow Producer 6.0.3410, seconds | 436,2 | 500,4 | 435,1 | 477,7 | 426,7 |
| Digital photo processing, points | 295,2 | 258,5 | 254,1 | 288,1 | 287.0 |
| Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1, seconds | 677,5 | 770,9 | 789,4 | 695,4 | 765,0 |
| ACDSee Pro 8, seconds | 289,1 | 331,4 | 334,8 | 295,8 | 271,0 |
| Vector graphics, points | 150,6 | 130,7 | 140,6 | 147,2 | 177,7 |
| Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1, seconds | 341,9 | 394,0 | 366,3 | 349,9 | 289,8 |
| Audio processing, points | 231,3 | 203,7 | 202,3 | 228,2 | 260,9 |
| Adobe Audition CC 2014.2, seconds | 452,6 | 514,0 | 517,6 | 458,8 | 401,3 |
| Text recognition, points | 302,4 | 263,6 | 205,8 | 269,9 | 310,6 |
| Abbyy FineReader 12, seconds | 181,4 | 208,1 | 266,6 | 203,3 | 176,6 |
| Archiving and unarchiving data, points | 228,4 | 203,0 | 178,6 | 220,7 | 228,9 |
| WinRAR 5.11 archiving, seconds | 105,6 | 120,7 | 154,8 | 112,6 | 110,5 |
| WinRAR 5.11 unzipping, seconds | 7,3 | 8,1 | 8,29 | 7,4 | 7,0 |
| Integral performance result, points | 259,1 | 226,8 | 212,8 | 237,6 | 262,7 |
So, as can be seen from the testing results, in terms of integrated performance, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor is practically no different from the Intel Core i7-4790K processor. However, this is an integral result based on the totality of all applications used in the benchmark.
However, there are a number of applications that benefit from the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor. These are applications such as MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680 and SVPmark 3.0 (video conversion and video processing), Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 and Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (video content creation), Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1 and ACDSee Pro 8 (digital processing photographs). In these applications, the higher clock speed of the Intel Core i7-4790K processor does not give it an advantage over the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor.
But in applications such as Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1 (vector graphics), Adobe Audition CC 2014.2 (audio processing), Abbyy FineReader 12 (text recognition), the advantage is on the side of the higher-frequency Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor. It is interesting to note that tests based on the Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1 and Adobe Audition CC 2014.2 applications load the processor cores to a lesser extent (compared to other applications).
And of course, there are tests in which the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Intel Core i7-4790K processors demonstrate the same performance. For example, this is a test based on the WinRAR 5.11 application.
In general, it should be noted that the Intel Core i7-4790K processor demonstrates higher performance (compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor) precisely in those applications in which not all processor cores are used or the cores are not fully loaded. At the same time, in tests where all processor cores are loaded at 100%, the leadership is on the side of the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor.
Calculations using Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 (Flow Simulation)
We presented the test based on the Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 application with the additional Flow Simulation package separately, since this test does not use a reference system, as in the tests of the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015.
Let us remind you that in this test we are talking about hydro/aerodynamic and thermal calculations. A total of six different models are calculated, and the results of each subtest are the calculation time in seconds.
Detailed test results are presented in the table.
| Test | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| conjugate heat transfer, seconds | 353.7 | 402.0 | 382.3 | 328.7 | 415.7 |
| textile machine, seconds | 399.3 | 449.3 | 441.0 | 415.0 | 510.0 |
| rotating impeller, seconds | 247.0 | 278.7 | 271.3 | 246.3 | 318.7 |
| CPU cooler, seconds | 710.3 | 795.3 | 784.7 | 678.7 | 814.3 |
| halogen floodlight, seconds | 322.3 | 373.3 | 352.7 | 331.3 | 366.3 |
| electronic components, seconds | 510.0 | 583.7 | 559.3 | 448.7 | 602.0 |
| Total calculation time, seconds | 2542,7 | 2882,3 | 2791,3 | 2448,7 | 3027,0 |
In addition, we also present the normalized result of the calculation speed (the reciprocal of the total calculation time). The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.
As can be seen from the testing results, in these specific calculations the leadership is on the side of Broadwell processors. All four Broadwell processors demonstrate faster calculation speeds compared to the Core i7-4790K processor. Apparently, these specific calculations are affected by the improvements in the execution units that were implemented in the Broadwell microarchitecture.
SPECapc for 3ds max 2015
Next, let's look at the results of the SPECapc for 3ds max 2015 test for the Autodesk 3ds max 2015 SP1 application. The detailed results of this test are presented in the table, and the normalized results for the CPU Composite Score and GPU Composite Score are presented in the charts. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.
| Test | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| CPU Composite Score | 4,52 | 3,97 | 4,09 | 4,51 | 4,54 |
| GPU Composite Score | 2,36 | 2,16 | 2,35 | 2,37 | 1,39 |
| Large Model Composite Score | 1,75 | 1,59 | 1,68 | 1,73 | 1,21 |
| Large Model CPU | 2,62 | 2,32 | 2,50 | 2,56 | 2,79 |
| Large Model GPU | 1,17 | 1,08 | 1,13 | 1,17 | 0,52 |
| Interactive Graphics | 2,45 | 2,22 | 2,49 | 2,46 | 1,61 |
| Advanced Visual Styles | 2,29 | 2,08 | 2,23 | 2,25 | 1,19 |
| Modeling | 1,96 | 1,80 | 1,94 | 1,98 | 1,12 |
| CPU Computing | 3,38 | 3,04 | 3,15 | 3,37 | 3,35 |
| CPU Rendering | 5,99 | 5,18 | 5,29 | 6,01 | 5,99 |
| GPU Rendering | 3,13 | 2,86 | 3,07 | 3,16 | 1,74 |
Broadwell processors take the lead in the SPECapc 3ds for max 2015 test. Moreover, if in subtests depending on CPU performance (CPU Composite Score), Core i7-4790K and Xeon E3-1285 v4 processors demonstrate equal performance, then in subtests depending on graphics core performance (GPU Composite Score), all Broadwell processors significantly ahead of the Core i7-4790K processor.
SPECapc for Maya 2012
Now let's look at the result of another 3D modeling test - SPECapc for Maya 2012. Let us recall that this benchmark was run in conjunction with the Autodesk Maya 2015 package.
The results of this test are presented in a table, and the normalized results are presented in diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.
| Test | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| GFX Score | 1,96 | 1,75 | 1,87 | 1,91 | 1,67 |
| CPU Score | 5,47 | 4,79 | 4,76 | 5,41 | 5,35 |
In this test, the Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor demonstrates slightly higher performance compared to the Core i7-4790K processor, however, the difference is not as significant as in SPECapc 3ds for max 2015.
POV-Ray 3.7
In the POV-Ray 3.7 test (3D model rendering), the leader is the Core i7-4790K processor. In this case, a higher clock speed (with an equal number of cores) gives an advantage to the processor.
| Test | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| Render average, PPS | 1568,18 | 1348,81 | 1396,3 | 1560.6 | 1754,48 |
Cinebench R15
In the Cinebench R15 benchmark, the result was mixed. In the OpenGL test, all Broadwell processors significantly outperform the Core i7-4790K processor, which is natural since they integrate a more powerful graphics core. But in the processor test, on the contrary, the Core i7-4790K processor turns out to be more productive.
| Test | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| OpenGL, fps | 71,88 | 66,4 | 72,57 | 73 | 33,5 |
| CPU, cb | 774 | 667 | 572 | 771 | 850 |
SPECviewperf v.12.0.2
In the tests of the SPECviewperf v.12.0.2 package, the results are determined primarily by the performance of the processor's graphics core and, in addition, by the optimization of the video driver for certain applications. Therefore, in these tests, the Core i7-4790K processor lags significantly behind the Broadwell processors.
The test results are presented in the table, as well as in normalized form in diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.
| Test | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| catia-04 | 20,55 | 18,94 | 20,10 | 20,91 | 12,75 |
| creo-01 | 16,56 | 15,52 | 15,33 | 15,55 | 9,53 |
| energy-01 | 0,11 | 0,10 | 0,10 | 0,10 | 0,08 |
| maya-04 | 19,47 | 18,31 | 19,87 | 20,32 | 2,83 |
| medical-01 | 2,16 | 1,98 | 2,06 | 2,15 | 1,60 |
| showcase-01 | 10,46 | 9,96 | 10,17 | 10,39 | 5,64 |
| snx-02 | 12,72 | 11,92 | 3,51 | 3,55 | 3,71 |
| sw-03 | 31,32 | 28,47 | 28,93 | 29,60 | 22,63 |
This is not to say that everything in this test is clear. In some scenarios (Media and Entertainment, Product Development, Life Sciences), Broadwell processors demonstrate better results. There are scenarios (Financial Services, Energy, General Operation) where the advantage is on the side of the Core i7-4790K processor or the results are approximately the same.
Game tests
And finally, let's look at the results of testing processors in gaming tests. Let us remind you that for testing we used the following games and gaming benchmarks:
- Aliens vs Predator
- World of Tanks 0.9.5
- Grid 2
- Metro: LL Redux
- Metro: 2033 Redux
- Hitman: Absolution
- Thief
- Tomb Raider
- Sleeping Dogs
- Sniper Elite V2
Testing was carried out at a screen resolution of 1920×1080 and in two settings modes: maximum and minimum quality. Test results are presented in diagrams. In this case, the results are not standardized.
In gaming tests, the results are as follows: all Broadwell processors show very close results, which is natural since they use the same Broadwell GT3e graphics core. And most importantly, with minimum quality settings, Broadwell processors allow you to comfortably play (at FPS over 40) most games (at a resolution of 1920x1080).
On the other hand, if the system uses a discrete graphics card, then there is simply no point in the new Broadwell processors. That is, there is no point in changing Haswell to Broadwell. And the price of Broadwells is not so attractive. For example, Intel Core i7-5775C is more expensive than Intel Core i7-4790K.
However, Intel does not seem to be betting on Broadwell desktop processors. The range of models is extremely modest, and Skylake processors are on the way, so it’s unlikely that Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C processors will be in particular demand.
Server processors of the Xeon E3-1200 v4 family are a separate market segment. For most ordinary home users, such processors are of no interest, but in the corporate sector of the market these processors may be in demand.
Modern central processors are not easy to understand even for a specialist: many different models are produced, and their names seem to be specifically designed to confuse the buyer.
And if a lot has been written about the Core and Core 2 series in almost five years since their appearance, then there is practically no systematic information about the chips of the three newest families of Core i3, i5 and i7, addressed to the consumer, and not to the expert.
What are the architectural features of the new processors, the differences from their predecessors?
Finally, how are they better than the still quite current Core 2 Duo and Quad?
All processors of the “i” family are built on the latest Nehalem microarchitecture, which replaced Core at the end of 2008.
The architecture, named after one of the Indian tribes, is an evolutionary development of the Core and differs from it in several fundamental innovations: the placement of all cores on one chip, a built-in two- or three-channel DDR3 RAM controller, QPI or DMI system buses that replaced the FSB, cache -third-level memory, common to all cores, as well as the ability to integrate a graphics core into the chip.
Nehalem is the first to implement the SSE 4.2 instruction set; their power consumption is 30% less than their Core counterparts with comparable performance.
In addition, Hyper-Threading technology has returned to the new chips, allowing one physical core to be represented as two virtual ones.
The first Nehalem were produced using 45-nanometer technology, and in 2010 a gradual transition to a 32-nanometer process began.
To install processors, a motherboard with LGA1156 or LGA1366 sockets is required.
Based on the Nehalem architecture, four types of desktop processors are currently produced, known under the code names Bloomfield, Clarkdale, Gulftown and Lynnfield.
Of these, Clarkdale are dual-core and produced using 32 nm technology, Bloomfield and Lynnfield are quad-core and produced using 45 nm technology, and Gulftown are 32 nm six-core chips.
The bulk of dual-core i3 and i5 are Clarkdale, quad-core i5 are Lynnfield, quad-core i7 are Bloomfield and Lynnfield, and the six-core i7 (there is only one so far, this is the 980X) is Gulftown.
Lynnfield processor block diagram
What is the difference between Bloomfield and Lynnfield quad core?
First of all, Bloomfield has a built-in three-channel memory controller, while Lynnfield has a two-channel one, which significantly affects the price.
Bloomfield implements a high-speed QPI system bus (25.6 Gbit/s), which is used to communicate with the northbridge, which provides the PCI Express 2.0 interface to which graphics accelerators are connected.
Lynnfield uses a DMI bus (2 Gbit/s), and the PCI Express 2.0 graphics bus controller is built into the processor itself, which eliminates the fundamental need for a north bridge and allows the use of a single-chip system logic set - this was done in the Intel P55 Express chipset.
Finally, Lynnfield chips are designed to be installed in the “mainstream” LGA1156 socket, and Bloomfield chips are designed for installation in the LGA1366 socket, reserved for high-end systems.
By the way, about the Intel P55 Express chipset: this set of system logic was designed specifically for Lynnfield, and the LGA1156 processor socket also appeared at the same time.
P55 motherboards work without problems with dual-core Core i3/i5 (Clarkdale), but there is one caveat: this chipset does not support the graphics core built into the processor (more on that below), meaning in any case you will have to use a discrete video accelerator.
The H57, H55 and Q57 chipsets, introduced simultaneously with Clarksdale processors, work with the integrated graphics core.
The main characteristics of all four sets of logic can be found in the table.
Nehalem processors have a rather confusing labeling system, and even the name of the family does not say much about a specific chip, since they may have different architectures and capabilities.
Therefore, let's take a closer look at their capabilities and functionality.
Dual-core Core i3 and i5, quad-core and six-core Core i5 and i7 processors differ from their predecessors primarily in that, like AMD chips, they have built-in DDR3 RAM controllers and an external bus operating at a speed of 133 MHz.
For comparison, Core 2 Duo (socket LGA775) is compatible with both DDR3 and DDR2 memory, since the memory controller is implemented at the system logic level.
In addition, dual-core Core i3 and i5 have GMA HD graphics accelerators built into the chip.
Their capabilities can be briefly described as follows: if you just want to watch HD video and are not interested in the latest 3D computer games, then the performance of the graphics core built into the processor will be quite enough.
According to experts, GMA HD is somewhat faster than previous generations of Intel GMA graphics cores built into chipsets.
The GMA HD core allows simultaneous decoding of two HD video streams (for example, for picture-in-picture or picture-and-picture modes) and simultaneous transmission to different digital outputs.
Supports 36-bit color depth and xvYCC extended color space, and provides the ability to transmit Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio audio streams.
Declared support for DirectX 10 (Shader Model 3.0) and Open GL 2.1 software interfaces.
Up to 1.7 GB (!) of system memory can be allocated for the frame buffer.
The graphics are fully compatible with the Universal Digital Interface HDMI 1.3.
