62 processors and 80 different configurations
The next year has changed on the calendar, we have prepared new testing methods computer systems, which means that the time has come to summarize the results of processor testing (which is a special case of system testing) in 2015. Last year's results were rather short - they included the results of a total of 36 systems, differing only in processors and obtained exclusively using the GPU built into them. This approach, for obvious reasons, left a considerable number of platforms without integrated graphics "overboard", so we decided to modify it a little, sometimes starting to use a discrete video card, at least where it is needed. However, the tests of 2015 have become to some extent "educational and training" - in 2016 we plan to refine the approach to testing a little more in order to further approximate it to real life. But be that as it may, today we will present the results of 62 processors (more precisely, there are 61 different here, but thanks to cTDP, one of them goes for two). And that's not all: 14 of them were tested with two "video cards" - an integrated GPU (all different) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X. Also four processors for the latest platform LGA1151 was tested by us with two types of memory: DDR4-2133 and DDR3-1600. In this way, total number configurations amounted to 80 - this is much less than 149 in the results before last, but for those we collected information for two and a half years, and the "lifespan" of the current test method was about eight months, that is, almost three times less. In addition, the unification of tests for different systems allows you to compare the results with those obtained when testing laptops, all-in-one and other complete systems.
But in this particular article, as mentioned above, we will restrict ourselves to processors. More precisely, in systems that differ mainly only in processors - it is clear that there is no other sense in "testing processors" (especially for different platforms) has not had it for a long time, although for some it is still a revelation :)
Testbed configuration
Since there are many subjects, it is not possible to describe in detail their characteristics. After thinking a little, we decided to abandon the usual concise table: all the same, it becomes too immense, and at the request of the workers, we nevertheless brought some parameters directly to the diagrams. In particular, since some are asking to indicate right there the number of cores / modules and threads of computations executed simultaneously, as well as the ranges of operating clock frequencies, we tried to do just that. If the readers like the result, we will save it for other tests in the coming year. The format is simple: “cores / threads; minimum / maximum clock frequency of cores in GHz ".
Well, all other characteristics will have to be looked at in other places - the easiest way is from manufacturers, and prices are in stores. Moreover, prices for some devices are still undetermined, since these processors themselves are not available in retail (all BGA models, for example). However, all this information is, of course, in review articles devoted to these models, and today we are engaged in a slightly different task than actually studying processors: we collect all the data obtained together and look at the resulting patterns. Including, paying attention to the relative position not of processors, but of entire platforms, including them. Because of this, the grouping of data in charts is precisely by platform.
Therefore, it remains only to say a few words about the environment. As far as memory is concerned, almost always the fastest supported by the specification was used. There are two exceptions: what we called “Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)” and Core i5-3427U. For the second, there were simply no suitable DDR3-1600 modules, so it had to be tested with DDR3-1333, and the first - processors for LGA1151, but paired with DDR3-1600, and not faster (and "main" according to specifications) DDR4-2133 ... The amount of memory in most cases is the same - 8 GB, with the exception of two versions of LGA2011 - there were 16 GB of DDR3 or DDR4, respectively, since the four-channel controller directly provokes the use of more RAM. System drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT 256 GB) - the same for all test subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: a discrete Radeon R7 260X and an integrated video core. The video core was always used when the processor had it (the exception is Core i5-655K, since the first version of Intel HD Graphics is no longer supported by modern operating systems), while a discrete video card was used where there is no integrated video. And in some cases - where there is an embedded video: to compare the results.
Testing technique
We used our benchmarking methodology to measure performance. We normalized all test results in relation to the results of the reference system, which in the past year was the same for laptops and for all other computers, in order to facilitate the readers' hard work of comparison and selection.
Thus, these normalized results can be compared with those obtained in the same version of the benchmark for other systems (for example, we take and compare it with desktop platforms). For those who are interested in absolute results, we offer them as a file in Microsoft Excel format.
Video converting and video processing
As we have already noted more than once, in this group, a discrete video card allows you to increase performance, but this effect is clearly visible only on older platforms (such as LGA1155), where the power of integrated GPUs was in itself small. Actually, here he is the answer - why did they increase it in new generations: so that there was no incentive to buy a video card too :)
Also, the dependence of performance on the number of threads of the code being executed is clearly visible here. As a result, we come to a very wide range results - they differ by more than an order of magnitude, since junior dual- and quad-core CULV solutions (such as the old Celeron 1037U or a slightly newer, but also outdated Pentium J2900) give out only ≈55 points, and the top-end eight-core Core i7-5960X - all 577. But the main "crush" unfolds in the mass segment (up to $ 200): modern Core i5s can increase performance (relative to the "floor level") five times, but further investments raise it only twice. Actually, there is nothing surprising in this: the higher - the more expensive.
As for the comparison of platforms, then ... they do not need to be compared. Indeed: the desktop AMD FM2 + roughly corresponds only to the ultrabook Intel processors, and formally the top-end AM3 + is only the outdated LGA1155. However, Intel's gain from generation to generation is small - even in such well-optimized tasks, one can speak of only 15-20% at each step. (This, however, sometimes leads to qualitative changes - for example, the Core i7-6700K actually caught up with the once-top six-core i7-4960X, despite a significantly lower price and a simpler device.) In general, it is clear that manufacturers are dealing with completely different issues rather than trying to dramatically increase desktop performance.
Video content creation
As we have written more than once, in this group a decent pig was put on us by a multithreaded test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1. For his normal work it is recommended to have at least 2 GB for each computation thread - otherwise the test may "fall out" in single-threaded mode and start working even slower than without using Multiprocessing technology (as Adobe calls it). In general, for full-fledged work in eight threads, 16 GB of RAM is desirable, and an eight-core processor with NT will require at least 32 GB of memory. We use 8 GB of memory on most systems, which is enough for "eight streams" when using integrated video (if they have it: for desktop Core i7 this is done, but the FX-8000, for example, is worse), but not discrete. Another pebble in the garden of those who still believe in "testing processors" as something independent - in isolation from the platform and other environment: as we can see, sometimes attempts to make it equal lead to extremely interesting effects. A "clean" comparison is possible, perhaps, only within the framework of one platform, and even then not always: the amount of memory required for some programs may depend on, in fact, the processor and not only it. Which just hits the top models a lot, because they need more, and "more" in in this case means more expensive.
However, in any case, in this group of applications "processor dependence" is less pronounced than in the previous one - there older Core i5s outperformed low-voltage surrogates five times, and here only a little more than four. In addition, a more powerful video card is able to increase the results significantly weaker, although it should not be neglected (if possible) either.
Digital photo processing
This group is interesting in that it is absolutely not similar to the previous ones - in particular, the degree of "utilization of multithreading" is much lower here, which significantly reduces the range of results obtained, but here are the differences between Core i5 (we will continue to be tied to this family as to upper level mass segment - sales of systems based on more expensive processors are incomparably less) and devices entry level exceeds six times. What is the reason for this? First, there is a noticeable dependence of performance on the GPU. First of all - integrated: discrete cannot deploy in full force due to the need for frequent data transfer. But the power of the integrated graphics in the lower and higher processors differs significantly! And do not forget that not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences between junior and senior processors are still preserved - for example, in the supported instruction sets. This greatly "hits" both the younger Intel families (recall that Pentiums, for example, still do not support AVX), and the outdated processors of both companies.
Vector graphics
But here's a good example of how modern software is different. Even if we are talking about, to put it mildly, not the cheapest programs, and not "home-use". In fact, as we have already noted more than once, any serious Illustrator optimizations were last made 10 years ago, so the program for fast work you need processors that are as close to Core 2 Duo as possible: a maximum of a couple of cores with maximum single-threaded performance and no support for new instruction sets. As a result, the most advantageous (taking into account the price) look modern Pentium, and processors are more high class may be faster than them only because of the higher clock frequency. Processors of other architectures are getting really bad under such conditions. Actually, even in the Intel line, such intensive methods of increasing performance as adding a fourth level cache, in this case only hinder, not help. However, in any case, trying to greatly speed up the work in this program (and similar ones) is not very promising: only a fourfold difference between the best Core i5 and surrogate platforms speaks for itself.
Audio processing
Before us is an example of a situation where, it seems, the computational cores are not superfluous, and even the GPU matters, etc., but the difference between the Celeron N3150 (the slowest in this test) and the Core i7 for mass platforms is only about five times ... Moreover, a considerable part of it can be attributed to the surrogateness of lower-end architectures - the very old Celeron 1037U (albeit a very limited, but full-fledged Core) is almost 1.5 times faster than the N3150, and the younger desktop Pentiums are three times faster. But further on ... the more expensive, the less effective the size of the "surcharge for the processor". Even within the same architecture - " construction machinery"AMD with its" budget multithreading "in this case is able to compete only with the same Pentiums: six threads are faster than four from the same manufacturer, but do not look convincing against the background of only two cores of a competing design.
Text recognising
Not at all like in the previous case - here the FX-8000 still easily outperform any Core i5. Note that AMD positioned them this way at the time of release: between the i5 and i7. Including the price. Which later, unfortunately, had to be drastically reduced, since the number of such "convenient" tasks was not too large. However, if the user is interested in exactly them, this makes it possible to save a lot. Considering, of course, that this family has not been updated for more than three years (in a serious way, anyway), and Intel processors are slowly growing.
And the scalability problem is also clearly visible - no matter how good the additional cores and threads are, the more there are, the less effect an increase in the number gives. Actually, in the end, one should not be surprised that this process stopped long ago in mainstream processors - even more convincing arguments for multicore are needed than have been found so far. Here are four modern kernels - good. Four dual-threaded cores are even better. And then - everything.
Archiving and unarchiving data
If archiving involves all the cores (and additional computational threads) of the processors, then the reverse process is single-threaded. Given the fact that they have to be used more often, this could be considered a nuisance, if the process itself were not significantly faster. Yes, in fact, packaging has become a simple enough operation to pay close attention to when choosing a processor. In any case, this is true for mainstream desktop models - low-power specialized platforms can still “tinker” with such tasks for a long time.
Application installation and uninstallation speed
In principle, this problem was introduced by us in test method mainly due to the need to test ready-made systems: and on the same processor in different environments, as we already know, performance can differ by one and a half to two times. But when a fast storage device is used in the system and there is enough memory, the processors themselves do not fundamentally differ from each other. However, surrogate platforms may well turn out to be exactly the same two or three times slower than "normal" desktop ones. But the latter are already slightly different from each other - be it Pentium or Core i7. In fact, all that may be needed from the processor is one thread of calculations with maximum performance. But mobile systems aside, this is almost always done to about the same extent.
File operations
And this is all the more "platform-cumulative" tests than processor tests. As part of this line of tests, we use the same drive - with all that it implies. But the "platform" may matter - some surprise, for example, were the results of LGA1156: seems to be not the worst desktop solution, which until recently could have been considered even fast (the LGA775 still found among users is even worse), but it turned out that it can only be compared with Bay Trail or Braswell under such loads. And even then - the comparison will not be in favor of the once close to top level"Old women". But modern budget systems practically do not differ from non-budget ones - simply because the former are already enough for the performance to be determined by other system components, without "resting" on the processor or even the chipset.
Total
In principle, we made the main conclusions on processor families directly in the reviews, so they are not required in this article - this is, first of all, a generalization of all the information obtained earlier, nothing more. And generalizations, as we see, can sometimes turn out to be interesting. First, it is easy to see that the effect of discrete video cards on performance in mass-use programs can be generally considered absent. More precisely, in some applications it is present, but being "smeared" in all tests, it quietly evaporates. In any case, this is true for more or less modern platforms - it is easy to see that the weak integrated graphics of the times of LGA1155, even in the overall standings, can reduce the results by five percent, which is more or less noticeable, although not critical. The same should apply to old discrete video cards, which will also lose slightly to newer ones, but in this case the border between “good” and “bad” solutions has been pushed back not by three, but by five or more years from the current moment. In a word, modern platforms are devoid of such problems. So, for a qualitative comparison, it is not at all necessary to require the same video part, which means that if you need, for example, to compare a laptop with a desktop system, we find a suitable article about a laptop (not necessarily even about the same - another on a similar platform will do) and compare. The data storage system is even more important, so if there is no parity in the articles, you will have to limit yourself to the results of test groups that do not depend on the drive. As for the video ... Let us repeat: among the mass applications, there are not so much tied to it, and the game application is a completely different story.
Now let's try (as usual) to look at the performance range that we managed to cover this year. Celeron N3150 has the smallest overall result: 54.6 points. The maximum - for the Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. "Professional" platforms such as LGA2011 / 2011-3 did not manage to get to the first place, although in terms of tests its "multi-core" representatives were confidently leading. The reasons for this have been voiced more than once: manufacturers of mass software are mainly guided by the fleet of equipment available to users, and not at all by some "sparkling peaks". There are (and always have been and always will be) such problems for the solution of which the computing resources are "always small", and it is for them that top-end systems are required (sometimes far beyond the scope of our tests), but the bulk of the problems can be easily solved by mainstream computer... Often even outdated.
In this regard, it is interesting to compare the current "Results" not with the past, but with the ones before last. Then testing was done according to a completely different scheme - always using a powerful discrete graphics card... And there were more professional applications, so the top-end six-core processors, in general, still turned out to be faster than the best solutions for mainstream platforms. However, at the same time, the Core i7-4770K scored 242 points - which is just comparable to 258.4 for the Core i7-6700K (in terms of positioning adjusted for time, these processors are the same: one was the most quick fix for the mass LGA1150 in 2013, and the second is the same in 2016 for the LGA1151). At the same time, both then and now, various Pentium / Core i3 / Core i5 pushed in the range of 100-200 points - nothing has changed. Unless the scores have changed: it was said about the software above, but the standard has changed too. Previously, this was the AMD Athlon II X4 620 (budget, but desktop and quad-core processor) with a discrete graphics card based on Nvidia GeForce GTX 570. And now this is the (ultrabook) Intel Core i5-3317U without any discrete. Everything seems to be different. But in practice - the same thing: a budget desktop gives a hundred points, any investment in it in best case can increase performance (on average across task classes) by two and a half times, and a compact nettop on a surrogate platform will work two to three times slower. This state of affairs in the segment of desktop computers is well established and continues for a long time, which is well shown by our summary results. In general, when going to the store for a new computer, you do not need to read any articles - it is enough to analyze the amount of money in your wallet :)
When do you need tests? Basically - when the task arises to change old computer on new. Especially when it is planned to "move to another class": changing the desktop to a nettop or laptop, for example. Buying a new solution of the same class, you don't have to twitch: the new Core i5, for example, will always be faster than the old one of the same class, so there is no great need for accurate estimates "by how much". But the fact that the performance of processors for different purposes is slowly but surely growing can lead to pleasant surprises - when, for example, it turns out that the old desktop can easily replace the ultrabook, and without any negative consequences. Well, as we can see, this is quite possible, since everyone “grows”.
Computers have entered our lives so tightly that we already consider them to be something elementary. But their structure cannot be called simple in any way. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drives: these are all integral parts of a computer. You cannot throw out this or that detail, because they are all important. But the most important role is played by the processor. It is not for nothing that it is called “central”.
The role of the CPU is enormous. He is responsible for all calculations, which means that it depends on him how quickly you will complete your tasks. It can be surfing the web, drafting a document in text editor, photo editing, moving files and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main burden falls on the shoulders graphics accelerator, the central processor plays a huge role, and with an incorrectly selected "stone", the performance of even the most powerful video card will not be revealed to its fullest.
At the moment, there are only two in the consumer market. large manufacturers processors: AMD and Intel. We will talk about them in the traditional rating.
The best inexpensive processors: budget up to 5000 rubles.
4 Intel Celeron G3900 Skylake
Most Affordable Intel Processor
Country: USA
Average price: 4 381 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5
An extremely weak processor opens the rating Celeron line... The G3900 model has two cores of the previous generation - Skylake, which, together with the 2.8 GHz frequency, gives the lowest performance result. V synthetic tests the processor shows the result about half that of the Core i3. But the price here is quite budgetary - 4-4.5 thousand rubles. This means that this processor is perfect for assembling, for example, a simple office computer or a multimedia system for the living room. In general, this model cannot be called bad. Still, the 14 nm process technology provides good energy efficiency, and the HD Graphics 510 graphics core is suitable for casual games.
Advantages:
- Lowest price in class
- Perfect for office PC or HTPC
Flaws:
- Does not support Hyper-Threading Technology
3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo
Best price
The country:
Average price: 3 070 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5
Athlon processors belong to the budget class, which is clearly seen from the cost of the bronze medalist. But for a little over three thousand rubles, you will get a very interesting stone. There are 4 cores (2 logical cores for each physical core), made using a 28 nm process technology. Due to this, the power consumption is low, and the heat dissipation is quite low for AMD - only 65 W. True, you don't have to rejoice at this because of the locked multiplier - you won't be able to overclock the processor. Also, the disadvantages include the lack of a built-in graphics core, which means that when assembling an office PC or a multimedia system, you will have to buy a video card separately.
Advantages:
- Lowest price in class
- Excellent performance at this cost
Flaws:
- Lack of built-in graphics core
- Multiplier not unlocked
2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera
The only 6-core processor in its class
The country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 4 160 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6
AMD's FX-6300 is the only processor in the six-core category. Unfortunately, there is no reason to hope for high power in the budget class - the model is based on the 2012 Vishera core. In normal mode, the cores operate at a frequency of 3.5 GHz, but, like many AMD CPUs, it overclocks perfectly. Yes, the performance, judging by user reviews, is sufficient even for games, but there are still enough disadvantages.
One of the main ones is high energy consumption. Due to the inexpensive 32nm process technology, AMD is very hot and consumes a lot of electricity. Also note the lack of support for modern DDR4 RAM. Because of this, the processor can be advised not for assembling a new PC, but for updating an old one without replacing the motherboard and other components.
Advantages:
- 6 cores. Perfect for performing several simple tasks at the same time.
- Good overclocking potential
- Low cost
Flaws:
- Poor energy efficiency
- Obsolete platform
At the moment, there are only two players on the processor market - Intel and AMD. But the choice doesn't get any easier. To facilitate the decision to purchase a CPU from one manufacturer or another, we have highlighted for you several main pros and cons of the products of these companies.
| Company |
pros |
Minuses |
|
Programs and games are better optimized for Intel Lower power consumption Performance tends to be slightly higher More high frequencies kesha |
Work efficiently with no more than two resource-intensive tasks Higher cost When you change the line of processors, the socket also changes, which means the upgrade is more difficult |
|
|
Lower cost Better price-performance ratio Better work with 3-4 resource-intensive tasks (better multitasking) Most processors overclock well |
Higher power consumption and temperatures (not entirely true in relation to latest processors Ryzen) Worse program optimization |
1 Intel Pentium G4600 Kaby Lake
Better performance
Country: USA
Average price: 7 450 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7
It is the good old Pentium that we can recommend for purchase in this category. This processor, like the previous participants, is made using a 14 nm process technology, socket LGA1151. Belongs to one of the last generations - Kaby lake... There are, of course, only 2 cores. They operate at 3.6 GHz, which is about 18-20% behind the Core i3. But this is not much, because the price difference is twofold! In addition to the core frequency, the relatively low power is due to the small size of the L3 cache - 3071 KB.
In addition to the excellent price-performance ratio, the advantages of this CPU include the presence of an integrated graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630, which is more than enough for comfortable use of a PC without a discrete graphics card.
Advantages:
- Great value for this performance
- Generation Kaby Lake
- Good on-board graphics core
The best processors of the middle class: budget up to 20,000 rubles.
5 Intel Core i3-7320 Kaby Lake
Most Affordable Processor with Integrated Graphics
Country: USA
Average price: 12 340 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6
Let's open the rating with the most available processor line i-core. The model is extremely difficult to call excellent in terms of price / quality ratio, because the cheaper ryzen 3 shows even a few top scores in synthetic tests. Nevertheless, the model that opens the TOP-5 can be safely chosen not only for an office system, but also for a gaming computer.
There are only two physical cores, but these are modern 14 nm chips of one of the latest generations - Kaby lake. The frequency is 4100 MHz. This is a very shameful indicator. In addition, there is the possibility of overclocking. Considering the excellent energy efficiency and low heat dissipation - even with a complete cooler in idle, the temperature is kept at 35-40 degrees, under load up to 70 degrees - you can painlessly increase the frequencies. Unlike competitors from AMD, the Core i3 has an integrated graphics core, which allows it to be used in office system without a discrete graphics card. But keep in mind that it officially only works on Windows 10.
Advantages:
- Integrated graphics
- Overclocking capability
- Low temperatures
Flaws:
- Poor performance for a given cost
4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge
Best price
The country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 6 917 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7
Ryzen 3 - the youngest inexpensive new line AMD processors, designed to re-impose the fight on Intel. And the 1200 does the job just fine. For 7 thousand rubles, the buyer gets a 4-core processor. The factory frequencies are low - only 3.1 GHz (in the increased performance mode of 3.4 GHz), but the multiplier is unlocked, which means that enthusiasts can easily make the "stone" a little faster.
Switching to new chips not only improved performance, but also reduced power consumption, and also allowed temperatures to be reduced to acceptable values. Due to the lack of built-in graphics chip we can only recommend this processor for budget gaming builds. The performance is only slightly higher than that of the previous participant.
Advantages:
- Unlocked multiplier
Flaws:
- No onboard graphics chip
3 Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake
Great processor for gaming
Country: USA
Average price: 19 084 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7
Let's start with the fact that the i5-7600K is by no means an outsider. Yes, in terms of performance, it is slightly worse than the mastodons, which you will see below, but for most gamers it will be enough with a head. The processor has four Kaby Lake cores clocked at 3.8 GHz (in reality up to 4.0 GHz with TurboBoost). There is also a built-in graphics core - HD Graphics 630, which means that you can play even demanding games at the "minimum". With a normal video card (for example, GTX 1060), the processor reveals itself completely. In most games at FullHD resolution (these are the monitors most gamers have) and high graphics settings, the frame rate rarely drops below 60 fps. Do you need something else?
Advantages:
- Best price
- Sufficient power for most gamers
- Excellent graphics core
2 AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Summit Ridge
Best price / performance ratio
The country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 11 970 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8
The second line of the TOP-5 mid-range processors is occupied by one of the best processors in terms of price / performance ratio. With an average cost of only 12,000 rubles, in synthetic tests Ryzen 5 is able to compete with the well-known Intel Core i7-7700K at standard settings (in PassMark 12270 and 12050 points, respectively). This power is due to the presence of six Summit Ridge physical cores, made using a 12 nm process technology. The clock speed is not a record - 3.6 GHz. The possibility of overclocking is present, but in the reviews, users claim that at frequencies above 4.0-4.1 GHz processor behaves unstable and gets very hot. With the factory settings in idle, the temperatures are kept at 42-46 degrees, in games 53-57 when using the standard cooler.
Also high performance due to large amounts of cache at all levels. The CPU supports the modern DDR4-2667 standard, which makes it possible to create excellent computers based on this processor for playing at medium-high settings in FullHD.
Advantages:
- Excellent price / performance ratio
- Heats up a little
Flaws:
- Low overclocking potential
1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge
Most powerful processor in class
The country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China, China)
Average price: 17 100 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8
As expected, the top-of-the-line Ryzen 7 processor has the best performance in its class. Again, we can't help but recall the cost - for 17 thousand rubles we get power at the level of the top-end Core i7 previous years... The processor includes eight cores, split into two clusters. The standard clock speed is only 3.0 GHz, the Ryzen 7 is guaranteed to overclock to 3.7, and with a little luck, up to 4.1 GHz.
Like the previous representatives of the line, the leader is made according to the 12 nm process technology, which allows economical energy consumption. The situation with heat dissipation is good - in stress tests the temperatures are kept at the level of 70-75 degrees.
Advantages:
- High performance
- There is a possibility of overclocking
- Fresh platform that will be supported for at least 4 years
The best top processors
3 Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake
Most popular top processor
Average price: 29 060 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6
Most recently, the i7-7700K was the top processor in the Intel lineup. But technologies are developing extremely quickly, and in 2018 it is difficult to recommend this particular chip for purchase. In synthetic tests, the model clearly lags behind its competitors - in PassMark the CPU gains only 12 thousand points, which is comparable to modern mid-range processors. But these indicators are achieved at standard settings, when 4 physical cores operate at 4.2 GHz, and the CPU can be easily overclocked to even higher frequencies, thereby increasing performance.
Yes, the bronze medalist lags behind the competitors, but it costs at least half the price, and given the popularity it is quite possible to find a good used processor. Also, the high prevalence and long-standing presence on the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with an LGA1151 socket. In general, we have before us an excellent base for a powerful gaming system at a relatively low cost.
Advantages:
- Good price for this class
- High performance
- Great overclocking capabilities
- High popularity
Flaws:
- Not quite relevant in 2018
2 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake
The most powerful processor in the Intel line
Country: USA
Average price: 77 370 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7
Until recently, Intel's top lineup was the Core i7 series. But modern realities demand everything more power... If you are not familiar with solutions, take a look at the Core i9-7900X. The processor is able to enter the TOP-10 of the most powerful CPUs already at a standard clock frequency. For example, in PassMark, the model scores almost 22 thousand points, which is twice as much as the bronze medalist of the rating. At the same time, in the reviews, users talk about trouble-free overclocking to 4.2-4.5 GHz in the presence of high-quality air cooling. Temperatures do not exceed 70 degrees under load.
This high performance is due to the use of 10 cores, made using a 14 nm process technology. The model supports all the necessary modern standards and commands, which allows it to be used for any task.
Advantages:
- Highest performance
- Excellent overclocking potential
- Acceptable temperatures
Flaws:
- Very high cost
- No solder under the lid.
1 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
The leader of the rating is insane in everything - from the price of 65 thousand rubles to incredible performance. In terms of power in synthetic tests, the model slightly outperforms the previous participant. Internal organization it is significantly different. Threadripper uses 16 (!) Cores. The clock speed is comparable to the Core i9 - 3400 MHz - but the overclocking capabilities are more modest. Stable "stone" operates at a frequency of 3.9 GHz, with an increase in rates, the necessary stability is lost.
So a large number of kernels are excellent in all tasks. But using a monster for games is not entirely reasonable - not all projects can reveal its potential. AMD is useful for professional video editors, 3D designers, and more. - in professional software, an increase in cores gives a tangible increase in render speed.
Advantages:
- Relatively low price tag
- High power
- Excellent performance in professional programs
The holidays and vacations are in full swing, but the weather outside the window is not very good. What to do like that? I propose to spend time with pleasure: play computer games... Does your "old man" can't handle modern toys? Maybe, . But which one?
Today's article is intended to help you decide on the choice of "gem" for a gaming PC. The ranking of the best processors for mid-summer 2017 includes models that have shown the optimal balance in terms of performance and price. For your convenience, we have divided them into 3 groups: costing approximately $ 100, approximately $ 200 and approximately $ 300. So that no one feels left out, each group consists of a pair of processors - one Intel and one AMD.
About $ 100: Intel Core i3-7100 and AMD FX-8320
Intel Core i3-7100
Yes, it has only 2 cores, but this drawback is compensated by the high clock frequency (3900 Mhz), support for DDR4-2400 memory and, to some extent, the technology Hyper threading which allows the operating system to use each physical core as 2 logical cores. In addition, the "pebble" has good built-in graphics with support for 4k resolution at 60 Hz. Due to it, you can do without a discrete video card if for some reason postponed its purchase.
Specifications
- Microarchitecture: Kaby Lake (7th generation).
- Number of cores: 2.
- Clock frequency: 3900 Mhz.
- Socket: LGA1151.
- Process technology: 14 nm.
- Multiplier: 34, unlocked.
- L1 cache: 64 Kb (instructions + data).
- L2 cache: 512 Kb.
- L3 cache: 3072 Kb.
- PCI Express controller: yes.
- Technologies: Hyper Threading (hyper-threading), EM64T (x64 support), Virtualization Technology (virtualization), Enhanced SpeedStep (power saving), hardware encryption, XD Bit, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3, VT-x, MMX.
- Thermal Power (TDP): 51 W.
- : 100 ° C
The most attractive features of the Core i3-7100: high performance, reasonable price, integrated graphics and low TDP - the included small cooler is enough to cool the processor even at maximum load.
Disadvantage - only works on Windows 10 (as well as Linux and Mac OS). Those who cannot part with the G7 and G8 will have to choose - either a system or a new processor. By the way, this drawback applies not only to Intel Core i3-7100, but to the entire Kaby Lake and AMD Ryzen line.
AMD FX-8320
8 cores, 4000 Mhz frequency with the possibility of increasing up to 4600 Mhz and more due to overclocking by a multiplier (here it is, in contrast to competitor Intel, free), as well as support for DDR3-1866 memory, perform well in multi-threaded games like Battlefield.
Specifications
- Microarchitecture: Vishera.
- Number of cores: 8.
- Clock frequency: 3500-4000
- Socket: AM3 +.
- Process technology: 32 nm.
- Multiplier: 17.5, free.
- Integrated graphics: no.
- L1 cache: 96 Kb.
- L2 cache: 2048 Kb.
- L3 cache: 8192 Kb.
- PCI Express controller: no.
- Maximum supported memory capacity: 128 Gb.
- Supported memory standards: DDR3-800 / 1066/1333/1600/1866. There is ECC support.
- Technologies: AMD64 (x64 support), Virtualization Technology, AMD PowerNow (noise reduction), Turbo Core 3.0 (overclocking at peak loads), NX Bit, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE1, SSE4.2, SSSE3, MMX, VT, XOP, TBM.
- Thermal power (TDP): 125 W.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320: high performance, nice price ($ 115-120), multiplier makes it possible to assemble an inexpensive gaming computer that will remain relevant for the next 3-4 years.
Disadvantages: very hot - requires a powerful cooling system, consumes a lot of power, does not have a graphics core.
Around $ 200: Intel Core i5-7500 and AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Core i5-7500
The clock speed of this processor reaches 3800 Mhz (or a little more) during dynamic overclocking, there is an integrated video - the same as in the i3-7100, and support for DDR4-2400 memory.
Specifications
- Microarchitecture: Kaby Lake.
- Number of cores: 4.
- Clock frequency: 3400-3800
- Socket: LGA1151.
- Process technology: 14 nm.
- Multiplier: 39, unlocked.
- Integrated graphics: HD Graphics 630.
- Graphics core frequency: 1100 Mhz.
- L2 cache: 1024 Kb.
- L3 cache: 6144 Kb.
- PCI Express controller: yes.
- The number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 16.
- Maximum supported memory capacity: 64 Gb.
- Supported memory standards: DDR3L-1333/1600, DDR4-2133 / 2400.
- Technologies: Turbo Boost0 (frequency increase during peak loads), EM64T, Virtualization Technology, Enhanced SpeedStep, Intel vPro (remote control computer outside the OS), hardware encryption, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, SSSE3, MMX, TBT 2.0, VT-x, XD Bit.
- Maximum temperature: 80 ° C
Intel Core i5-7500 advantages: fast, cold (TDP 65 W), supports dynamic overclocking (Turbo Boost 2.0), integrated graphics, Intel vPro function is implemented. The latter allows you to remotely edit the BIOS and run diagnostic tests outside the operating system by connecting to a computer over a network.
Disadvantages - no popular support beloved Windows 7, no hyperthreading, locked multiplier (for this price, as many believe, they could implement Hyper Threading and make multiplication free).
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Processors based on the Zen microarchitecture, one of which is the Ryzen 5 1600, are characterized by low power consumption and TDP (which is unusual for the bulk of AMD products). In addition, the boxed model comes with a compact, efficient and quiet cooler, the power of which is sufficient even with some acceleration.
Specifications
- Number of cores: 6.
- Clock frequency: 3200-3600 Mhz.
- Socket: AM4.
- Process technology: 14 nm.
- Multiplier: 32, free.
- Integrated graphics: no.
- L1 cache: 96 Kb.
- L2 cache: 3072 Kb.
- L3 cache: 16384 Kb.
- PCI Express controller: yes.
- The number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 16.
- Maximum supported memory capacity: 64 Gb.
- Supported memory standards: DDR4-1866 / 2666.
- Technology Support: Multithreading, AMD64, Virtualization, Hardware Encryption, Precision Boost, Pure Power, SSE instructions, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, SSSE3, MMX.
- Thermal power (TDP): 65 W.
Pros AMD Ryzen 5 1600: Excellent performance at reasonable price($ 200-210), insignificant heating, low power consumption, multiplier overclocking, the ability to unleash the potential of any modern video card.
Cons: no integrated graphics, no Windows support 7.
Around $ 300: Intel Core i7-7700K and AMD Ryzen 7 1700
Intel Core i7-7700K
Specifications
- Microarchitecture: Kaby Lake.
- Number of cores: 4.
- Clock frequency: 4200-4500
- Socket: LGA1151.
- Process technology: 14 nm.
- Multiplier: 42, free.
- Integrated graphics: HD Graphics 630.
- Graphics core frequency: 1150 Mhz.
- L1 cache: 128 Kb (instructions + data).
- L2 cache: 1024 Kb.
- L3 cache: 8192 Kb.
- PCI Express controller: yes.
- The number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 16.
- Maximum supported memory capacity: 64 Gb.
- Supported memory standards: DDR3L-1333-1600, DDR4-2133-2400.
- Technology support: Hyper-Threading, Turbo Boost0, EM64T, Virtualization Technology, Enhanced SpeedStep, hardware encryption, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3, MMX, XD Bit.
- Thermal Power (TDP): 91 W.
- Maximum temperature: 100 ° C
Strengths of Intel Core i7-7700K: the best ratio of performance in games and cost of purchase ($ 300-315), unlocked multiplier, powerful video core. In a word, a good start for the future.
Weaknesses: in case of overclocking requires a powerful expensive cooling system, does not support Windows 7.
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
"Under the hood" of this processor: 8 physical and 16 virtual cores, free multiplier, 16 Mb L3, DDR4-2933 support, 24 PCI Express lanes (competitors have 16), the frequency of each core in dynamic overclocking is 3700 MHz, in overclocking by a multiplier - up to about 4100 MHz. There is no built-in graphics card, but systems for which the Ryzen 7 1700 is designed do not need one. And besides, it's cold. Even under intense load (by the way, it is extremely difficult to load it to 100%) it does not heat up above 50 ° C.
The cost of the model is comparable to the Core i7-7700K.
Specifications
- Microarchitecture: Summit Ridge (Zen).
- Number of cores: 8.
- Clock frequency: 3000-3700 MHz.
- Socket: AM4.
- Process technology: 14 nm.
- Multiplier: 30, free.
- Integrated graphics: no.
- L1 cache: 256 Kb (instructions + data).
- L2 cache: 4096 Kb.
- L3 cache: 16384 Kb.
- PCI Express controller: yes.
- PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 24.
- Maximum supported memory capacity: 64 Gb.
- Supported memory standards: DDR4-1866 / 2933.
- Technology support: multithreading, AMD64, virtualization, hardware encryption, Precision Boost, Pure Power, SSE instructions, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, SSSE3, MMX.
- Thermal power (TDP): 65 W.
- Maximum temperature: 90 ° C
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Pros: Amazing Power, Multitasking, Versatility, Energy Efficiency. The disadvantage is that there is no support for older versions of Windows.
According to many owners and experts, the Ryzen 7 1700 is a huge leap forward for AMD. The release of this processor showed that the "reds" are not as hopelessly backward as they think they are, and are still able to set the heat on the "blues". As they say, they harness for a long time, but they go fast.
At the end of each year, we summarize the test results of most modern processors, taking into account BIOS updates and changes in performance, after which we distribute the obtained data into three separate categories.
The first part of our ranking focuses on performance in gaming benchmarks, in the second we will touch on performance in CAD applications for workstations (real-time rendering), and finally in the third we will collect general data on performance, rendering and power consumption.
No one can always be a leader: a system that lacks performance today may surpass all others tomorrow. So if you have a good strategy, then you can be confident in your future.
This truth works, but not always. First of all, you need to understand today's PC capabilities, tomorrow's computing needs, and also have a reserve for the future. This is where you need to focus - and plan for a small supply.
Unfortunately, high productivity always costs more, perhaps even not always proportionally, so it is very important to determine the optimal volume of such a stock.
Our requests, desires and financial capabilities do not always coincide. However, in this case, there is the concept of "common sense", allowing you to drop insurmountable obstacles. It is always worth combining environmental aspects, such as energy consumption and durability, with economic - costs and profitability of the purchase. Simply put, it's worth buying exactly what you really need (or need in the near future).
Our testing methodology is described in the article ", so for convenience we will refer to this article. If you are interested in details, we recommend that you refer to it.
Differences from this technique in relation to this testing boil down to the hardware configuration: processor, RAM, motherboard and cooling system, the features of which can be found in the table below.
| Test systems and measuring equipment | |
| Hardware: | AMD Socket AM4 MSI X370 Tomahawk 2x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 RGB AMD Socket SP3 (TR4) AMD Socket AM3 + Intel Socket 1151 (Z370): Intel Socket 1151 (Z270): Intel Socket 2066 Intel Socket 2011v3: All systems: 1x 1 TByte Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, system SSD) |
| Cooling: | Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 Chiller Alphacool Eisblock XPX Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (for cooler replacement) |
| Monitor: | Eizo EV3237-BK |
| Frame: | Lian Li PC-T70 with expansion and modification kit Open test bench, closed housing |
| Energy consumption measurement: | Non-contact current measurement on a PCIe slot (using an adapter card) Non-contact current measurement on the external power supply cable of the PSU Direct voltage measurement on a power supply 2 x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz (4-channel oscilloscope with data logging function) 4 x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 (current clamp) 4 x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10: 1 oscilloscope probe, 500 MHz) 1 x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 (multimeter with data logging function) |
| Temperature measurement: | Infrared camera Optris PI640 PI Connect analysis software with various profiles |
| Measurement of noise level: | NTI Audio M2211 (with calibration file, 50 Hz high pass filter) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for mics) Creative X7, Smart v.7 Our own measurement chamber with blanking surfaces, dimensions 3.5x1.8x2.2 m (LxWxH) Measurements along the axis perpendicular to the center of the sound source at a distance of 50 cm Noise level in dB (A) (slow), analyzer frequency characteristics real time (RTA) Graphical spectrum of noise frequencies |
Let's start with two synthetic benchmarks, dividing them into two categories for DirectX11 and DirectX12 support. In 3DMark Fire Strike test greatest value has a number of cores, which improves the performance of older multicore processors that do not run at high enough clock speeds, such as the Core i7-6950X. AMD Threadripper and Ryzen 7 also demonstrate good results. Simple quad-core processors have little chance here, as well as Intel six-core processors without Hyper-Threading support.
The pattern is repeated in 3DMark Time Spy based on DirectX12. Regardless of the software interface, there is nothing to replace the number of cores. The performance becomes even more convincing with increasing clock speeds.
As in 3DMark, core count plays a major role in Ashes of Singularity: Escalation, followed by clock speed. This is a good example of proper load balancing across multiple threads.
In Civilization VI, the number of threads also matters, but in processors with eight or more possible threads (for example, in Intel Core i7-7700K using Hyper-Threading, clock speeds start to play an important role. So this game needs the right balance between number of cores and clock frequency.
In the game Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War III, the CPU clock speed comes to the fore, while four well-scalable threads will be enough. This lowers Ryzen slightly and boosts the performance of Intel chips.
Grand Theft auto V is also the site that Intel generally dominates. At the same time, all Ryzen do not look too bad in terms of price-performance ratio.
The world of AMD processors looks pretty good in Hitman 2016. At the same time, the basic performance of the chips (for example, in the case of the Intel Core i5-8400) is limited by the power of the video card used. This is a clear example of the fact that if any of the components serve as limiting factors, any increase in performance can be costly. The key to everything is the right balance: the video card must match the processor level, and vice versa.
Project Cars is completely dominated by Intel processors. Even the junior quad-core models without Hyper-Threading are significantly ahead of Ryzen 7 and Threadripper. Ryzen 3 and Pentium fail completely, and Ryzen 7 1700 has problems with too low clock speeds. So overclocking is indispensable here.
Far Cry Primal is the second game in our tests where the graphics card is the limiting factor, but a little clarification is needed here. This game works well with eight threads, and physical cores are not necessary, a quad-core chip with Hyper-Threading will do if the clock speeds are high enough. However, with "purely" quad-core models, this trick will no longer work if their clock frequency does not go beyond certain limits. In other words, frequency is important here, but frequency alone is not enough.
In the VRMark test, we observe a similar picture, and here Threadripper is already ahead of all Ryzen 7 modifications. However, this test is still the domain of Intel chips.
First, the bad news: there is no single best processor among the ones we tested, so to make right choice, you need to consider all factors such as the purpose of use, the required performance, the general concept of your PC and your budget. So that good news is that everyone can find best processor just for yourself.
Games or office applications, workstation packages or HTPCs? The applications and applications are multifaceted, and most of us already know how a new processor will be used before purchasing it. The wrong choice not only causes disappointment in the acquisition, but often leads to significant financial losses, especially if you have to resell, exchange or completely replace components that do not fit together.
There are many options for combining components. Does your CPU match the socket on the motherboard, and if so, does it support it itself? motherboard? Is the cooling system suitable for the power this processor, and if so, does this cooler cover the RAM modules and does it interfere with the installation of a video card in the first PCI Express slot? There are such "experts" who screw a huge cooler onto a mini-ITX board, and only then think about the case ...
Processor prices fluctuate like palm trees during a tropical cyclone, and any budding assembler pays attention to them first. Therefore, we are not going to comment on the price level yet, since both the usual market price adjustments and the relative deficit individual models(for example, Intel's Coffee Lake-S) makes such comments meaningless within days of being spoken. Therefore, we simply present the "clean" results and leave the readers the opportunity to inquire about prices on their own.
