Intel core i5 processor specifications. Which Intel processor to choose - Core i3, i5 or i7

Examining models of the mass segment in comparison with processors three years ago

Quad-core processors of the Ivy Bridge family are densely registered on the shelves of all computer stores, so it is time to expand our knowledge about them, hitherto limited to only two top-end overclocking models, the Core i5 and i7. Moreover, the younger models are of greater practical interest for two reasons. Firstly, they are cheaper, and sometimes noticeable: the savings can be 1000-1500 rubles, which is quite comparable, for example, with the difference in price between the Radeon HD 6670 and HD 7750 or HD 7770 and HD 6930, that is, this difference is very relevant for the thrifty gamer (for now, let's digress from the question of the need to buy in this case, Core i5 and higher - a person may have interests other than games in parallel). Secondly, the usefulness of buying a representative of the 3x70K line is greatly reduced by the increased heat flux (due to a decrease in the crystal area). Thus, overclockers, quite possibly, will continue to look more closely at the "oldies" Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K, the "air" overclocking of which is somewhat easier, and everyone else does not need to pay extra for unlocked multipliers. But to buy "regular" Sandy Bridge incentives are no longer observed: the younger Ivy Bridges cost about the same, but in the normal mode they consume less power and at the same frequencies formally work a little faster due to improvements in the Turbo Boost technology. Even if a slight overclocking is planned (and the purchase of a motherboard based on a chipset that allows this), do not forget that the so-called. “Limited Unlocked Core” in the third generation Core has not gone anywhere, that is, you can “throw” +400 MHz on lower-end processor models, and getting ≈5 GHz due to a deteriorated heat dissipation is difficult even on older ones.

In general, to summarize, the younger Core i5 and i7 models do not pretend to be the most popular processors, since they are somewhat expensive from the point of view of an “ordinary” user (usually limited to processors under $ 200), however, of course, they are doomed to become more popular. than their top cousins. Therefore, the need to test them is obvious, and this is what we are going to do today.

Testbed configuration

CPU	Core i5-3450	Core i5-3550	Core i5-3570K	Core i7-3770	Core i7-3770K
Kernel name	Ivy Bridge QC	Ivy Bridge QC	Ivy Bridge QC	Ivy Bridge QC	Ivy Bridge QC
Prospect technology	22 nm	22 nm	22 nm	22 nm	22 nm
Core frequency (std / max), GHz	3,1/3,5	3,3/3,7	3,4/3,8	3,4/3,9	3,5/3,9
	31	33	34	34	35
Turbo Boost workflow	4-4-3-2	4-4-3-2	4-4-3-2	5-5-4-3	4-4-3-2
	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/8	4/8
L1 cache, I / D, KB	32/32	32/32	32/32	32/32	32/32
L2 cache, KB	4 × 256	4 × 256	4 × 256	4 × 256	4 × 256
L3 cache, MiB	6	6	6	8	8
UnCore frequency, GHz	3,1	3,3	3,4	3,4	3,5
RAM	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600
Video core	GMA HD 2500	GMA HD 2500	GMA HD 4000	GMA HD 4000	GMA HD 4000
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1155
TDP	77 watts	77 watts	77 watts	77 watts	77 watts
Price	N / A ()	$250()	$284()	$368()	$431()

This is how the entire Ivy Bridge line looks today, with the exception of energy-efficient models. There are more of the latter than before, but the number of conventional processors has slightly decreased: at the start of the Core i5-2000 there were four such processors, and there are three left in the 3000 line. Over time, their number is likely to grow, but it is unlikely to equal the range of Sandy Bridge. There, we recall, over the past year and a half since the start, 9 Core i5 and 3 Core i7 have already accumulated, to which the new line responds with three and two models, respectively. But S- and T-modifications have increased a little from the very beginning, that is, the trend can be traced clearly: since Intel now manages to "cram" even Core i7 into 45 W, it would be strange not to take advantage of this. Moreover, the S-variants are now distinguished from the "regular" models not by 30, but by only 12 watts. In general, the stake is on economy.

The most curious, perhaps, will be the results of 3770 and 3770K. As you can see, the leadership of the second processor in terms of the nominal clock frequency does not mean anything - in reality, these devices are likely to operate at the same frequencies at the same time. If this assumption is confirmed, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of ​​buying a 3770K for normal operation. In the last generation, things were a little different: Core i7-2700K had the highest clock speeds in the family. Another argument against the older "regular" Core i7-2600 was the GMA HD 2000 video core, not 3000 (as in 2600K and 2700K). And now, in the normal mode, there should be no differences between the 3770 and 3770K, and absolutely all desktop Core i7s received the GMA HD 4000. That is, the formal additional 100 MHz of the nominal frequency is just a nice bow (to make the buyers of the top model more pleasant), and it is not without reason that both processors have the same number. But on the floor below - everything is the same: the Core i5-3570K really has a slightly higher frequency than the 3550, and even the GMA HD 4000 is the only one (at the moment) among all desktop Core i5s, so a little is justified here. different numbers.

CPU	Core 2 Duo E8600	Core 2 Quad Q9650	Core i5-750	Core i7-860	Core i7-920
Kernel name	Wolfdale	Yorkfield	Lynnfield	Lynnfield	Bloomfield
Prospect technology	45 nm	45 nm	45 nm	45 nm	45 nm
Core frequency (std / max), GHz	3,33	3,0	2,66/3,2	2,8/3,46	2,66/2,93
Start multiplication factor	10	9	20	21	20
Turbo Boost workflow	-	-	4-4-1-1	5-4-1-1	2-1-1-1
Number of cores / threads	2/2	4/4	4/4	4/8	4/8
L1 cache, I / D, KB	32/32	32/32	32/32	32/32	32/32
L2 cache, KB	6144	2 × 6144	4 × 256	4 × 256	4 × 256
L3 cache, MiB	-	-	8	8	8
UnCore frequency, GHz	-	-	2,66	2,8	2,13
RAM	-	-	2 × DDR3-1333	2 × DDR3-1333	3 × DDR3-1066
Socket	LGA775	LGA775	LGA1156	LGA1156	LGA1366
TDP	65 watts	95 watts	95 watts	95 watts	130 watts
Price	N / A ()	N / A ()	N / A ()	N / A ()	N / A ()

With whom to compare processors? For simplicity, we decided to arrange a kind of express testing, since the K-family was compared with other competitors of a similar level last time. But we will go a little beyond the Ivy Bridge family, taking five "oldies" for comparison. Core 2 Duo E8600 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 are the best processors for the LGA775 platform (not counting extreme models), which remained the most popular until 2009-2010. Core i5-750 and Core i7-860 are the two most interesting models for LGA1156 in the second half of 2009 (in 2010 they were actually replaced by 760 and 870, but the difference in performance between them and their predecessors is small). And the "popular" solution for the early LGA1366, as well as the first massively (relatively) affordable Core i7 - 920. Again, later, Intel offered faster solutions for the same money, but this began in 2010. And we are more interested in just the period 2008-2009 for one simple reason: about three years have passed since then, so the "then" computers may already be tempted to change. Naturally, the most impatient enthusiasts may have done this some time ago, but they are in the minority among the users. And those who were in no hurry to replace the old Core 2 Quad with Sandy Bridge may very well now consider the transition to Ivy Bridge as a potentially useful event. So let's estimate - how useful it is in practice. For those who fundamentally disagree with our approach, we traditionally recommend using a pivot table and comparing anything with anything :)

	Motherboard	RAM
LGA1155	Biostar TH67XE (H67)
LGA1366	Intel DX58SO2 (X58)	12 GB 3 × 1066; 8-8-8-19
LGA775	ASUS Maximus Extreme (X38)	Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2 × 1333; 9-9-9-24)
LGA1156	ASUS P7H55-M Pro (H55)	Corsair Vengeance CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B (2 × 1333; 9-9-9-24)

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a certain number of groups and show on the diagrams the average result for the group of tests / applications (you can learn more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, for 100 points the performance of the reference test system, the site of the sample of 2011, is taken. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, and the memory capacity (8 GB) and the video card () are standard for all tests of the "main line" and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information, again, are traditionally offered to download a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are given both converted into points and in “natural” form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

As you can see, the efficiency of all 45nm Intel processors is approximately equal, so some differences may arise only due to extensive improvements, such as frequency or cache capacity. But Sandy Bridge raised the bar by 20-25 percent, and Ivy Bridge did not lose this advantage - with the result ensuing from this. However, according to the results, it is obvious that it is for interactive work that it may very well make sense to purchase one of the dual-core Core i3 for LGA1155 (or wait a little for similar models on Ivy Bridge), since additional computation threads are unnecessary here - a pair is definitely enough. But money is never superfluous :)

Final rendering of 3D scenes

What is most interesting here? The fact that the younger modern Core i5-3450 turned out to be slightly faster than the Core i7 from three to four years ago. Yes, old processors are already, but generally speaking, they are of a higher class (and more expensive, in particular). And this is despite a significant increase from Hyper-Threading technology, which allows Core i7 to always outperform Core i5 of the same generation! Progress since Core2 is also quite indicative - 3770 / 3770K is almost twice as fast as Q9650. At the time of the announcement in August 2008, the latter, by the way, cost $ 530 in bulk, that is, much more expensive than any current processor for LGA1155 (and in general, six-core Core i7 has been registered in a similar price range for almost a year and a half). There is no point in commenting on the results of the E8600 - it seems to us that those who really need high performance in multi-threaded applications have parted ways with the Core 2 Duo for a long time.

Packing and unpacking

But in archiving tests, the benefits of multithreading are not very great, the reason for which has already been announced more than once: only one test out of four can use it fully, and two - just one thread is enough. Therefore, the entire gain can be obtained only through improved architecture and extensive methods. Of course, it is, but not nearly as impressive as in the previous or subsequent cases.

Audio encoding

The situation is similar to rendering, with one small exception: the Core i5-3450 managed to overtake only the Core i7-920, but not the faster models. However, given the love of this test for increasing multithreading in any way, this should be regarded as a very good result. The first (albeit modernized) quad-cores from Intel, naturally, are not competitors to modern ones, even if the latest ones lack NT. And if there is - again, almost a twofold difference.

Compilation

As we said before, Intel's decision to reduce the cache capacity of the second-gen Core i5 severely cut its wings in compiler tests. This also applies to the third generation, so that only the best of the modern Core i5 was able to only catch up with the worst of the Core i7 of all time. But at least he caught up with him. But the Core i7 retained their 8 MiB of cache memory, so they easily went ahead, and they again bypassed one of the best Core 2 Quad by almost two times.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

And again, the low-flow group, although for the second year in a row architectural improvements of both "bridges" have affected it. Accordingly, even the Core i5-3450 significantly outperformed all the oldies, which is good. And the bad thing is that no two-fold gains under such a load are discussed in any pair of "old-new" processor.

Raster graphics

Again, a mixed group, where there is an increase both from an increase in the number of nuclei and from NT, but in both cases it is not fundamental. The architecture has a stronger influence, so again, on the one hand, the new processors are noticeably faster than the old ones, and on the other hand, the advantage nowhere reaches twofold.

Vector graphics

Here, half a dose of Core 2 Duo is enough, and something can only be improved architecturally - or with higher frequencies. Ivy Bridge has both that allow them to be the fastest. But not as fast as in multi-threaded tests - here, at best, one and a half times superiority is observed.

Video encoding

But in video processing, it again begins to strive for twofold (if we discard the Core 2 Duo, however, as it seems to us, no one has been feeding any illusions about dual-core processors under such a load for five years). Another thing is more curious - the already noted tendency to decrease in Hyper-Threading efficiency as the Core architecture improves: if in the first generation i7 outperformed similar i5s by about 10%, now the difference has halved. Which, in general, is understandable: the "denser" the available resources are loaded by one thread, the more difficult it is to allocate them for the second.

Office software

What's curious is that the seemingly very conservative office group has accelerated just as fast as others (and even better compared to some programs). As we have already said, there is not much sense in this when comparing processors of this class, but it is still a trifle, but nice.

Java

Again a multithreaded group, and again, the new Core i7 has almost a twofold advantage over the old Core 2 Quad. Well, the fact that the new Core i5 is able to overtake the old Core i7 is also no longer a secret. In general, progress has not gone anywhere - the whole question is in assessing its pace.

Games

But in games, as has already been said a hundred times, processor performance is not the determining factor, since the video system is in the first place. But you shouldn't neglect the processor either - even the cheapest modern Core i5 is almost one and a half times faster than the best Core 2 Duo and 25% higher than the best Core 2 Quad. In general, it makes sense for a gamer to think about switching from LGA775 simultaneously with acquiring a new card - it is far from the worst idea. The main thing is not to spoil it with the desire to buy the fastest processor for LGA1155 - this is no longer very justified. And for those who over the past years managed to migrate to LGA1366 or LGA1156, it seems to us, there is no need to fuss, because it will not pay off.

Total

The first thing to pay attention to: except for overclocking, the Core i7-3770K is no longer needed for anything. The difference in the nominal frequency, however, somehow affects, but + 0.5% of performance is not at all something worth paying more than 10% of the price for. Whether it is worth paying extra for Core i7 at all is also an interesting question. As you can see, the difference between the i7 and i5 families is indeed gradually narrowing (following the decrease in the relative efficiency of Hyper-Threading), which could not be prevented even by the caches of the latter last year. But here everyone chooses according to their capabilities and needs: in some classes of problems the difference between these families is still great, in some (also - as before) it is not worth paying attention to it.

Is it worth switching to a new platform from one of the old ones? No less complex and subject to many factors. It is clear that those for whom the computer has enough power, it does not affect - they will use it until it burns out. Or - until there is an irresistible desire to buy something new, but here calculations and calculations do not make sense :) In other cases, options are possible. As you can see, in general, even the slowest processor of the new Core i5 family is about one and a half times faster than the best one for the LGA775. Together with other advantages of the new motherboards, this leads us to the unequivocal conclusion that the upgrade within the LGA775 is less justified than the transition to a new platform. For LGA1156 and LGA1366, everything is not so simple - after all, we considered the lower-end processors for these platforms, which still lag behind the quad-core Ivy Bridge only one and a half times maximum, and there are also older ones. So if you have such a processor, then you can take your time until the next cardinal update of the Intel microarchitecture (or some miracle from AMD). If not, then it will most likely be possible to purchase the old platform for a reasonable price only in the secondary market - to buy a new Core i7-960 at the price of a set of Core i5-3550 and a good motherboard (and somewhere this ratio is observed in those stores, where the "oldies" are still on the shelves) is certainly not worth it. Well, or, of course, you can always indulge in overclocking, since old platforms are more loyal to new ones.

In general, in this case it all depends on what point of view the potential buyer (if, we repeat, he is a potential buyer) adheres to. Optimistic - the new processors are slightly faster and more economical than the old ones. Pessimistic - they are too much Little faster, and money is never superfluous. The final choice, as usual, will depend on what outweighs :)

For the first time desktop 6-core processors appeared eight years ago at a price of $ 600. But the Socket LGA1366 platform itself was quite expensive, and only wealthy enthusiasts could afford it. Although, perhaps, the main reason why such solutions could not become popular can be considered the lack of widespread distribution of software capable of taking full advantage of the new opportunities at that time. Of course, there was specialized software, but only in certain narrow niches. For multi-core processors to go mainstream, it was necessary to set the stage, which Intel did.

For this, starting with the mainstream platform Socket LGA1156 and subsequent ones, a hierarchy was introduced, which remained practically unchanged until the seventh generation Intel Core. So, at the very bottom there are 2-core chips Intel Celeron and Intel Pentium (the 4-thread "hyperpen" and the like are knocked out of the general row). The Intel Core i3 series models go a step higher, which also have 2 cores, but thanks to the support of Intel Hyper-Threading logical multithreading technology, they are able to process 4 threads. At the very top are the Intel Core i5 / i7 processors: they have 4 full cores (the exception is the 2-core 4-thread models of the Intel Core i5-6xx family), and in the latter case, the number of threads is doubled. This approach allowed the microprocessor giant to cover all the needs for building a wide range of home, school or office computers. And all subsequent years, engineers from Santa Clara were engaged in quality improvement of their products and expansion of their functionality.

At the same time, HEDT platforms were also taking shape, which, in their composition, offer multi-core "stones" for creating uncompromising gaming or workstations. It is noteworthy that with the release of Socket LGA2011-v3, the recommended price tag for 6-core processors dropped below $ 400, and for the first time 8-core 16-thread models, and then 10-core 20-thread models, leaked into the desktop segment.

What about AMD? I must say that after the appearance on the scene of Intel Core 2 Duo, the "red" were in the role of catching up. The company tried to take on quantity, offering more cores than the competitor. We are talking about 6-core AMD Phenom II X6 and newer 8-core AMD FX. But at the dawn of their appearance, game engines used only 1-2 threads, and due to faster cores, Intel solutions looked preferable. However, this does not mean that these processors turned out to be unsuccessful, it was just that their time had not come yet. As a proof, we can recall a lot of modern tests of "fufiks", which even now look very good, especially after correct overclocking. Separately, it is worth mentioning that AMD managed to firmly register in consoles thanks to its 8-core Jaguar CPU, which pushed game developers to parallelize the code.

It would seem that nothing can violate this hegemony, and everyone has already come to terms with the insignificant (5-10%) increase in computing power during the transition of the CPU from generation to generation, which was confirmed by the release of the line , which in fact is just a slightly modified version . But with the debut of the long-awaited processors, the Sunnyvale-based company managed to impose an active struggle on Intel in price segments of $ 100 and above. Moreover, AMD remained true to its principles - "more features for less money." As a result, in every price range, the Reisens outnumber the competitor in the number of cores or threads. In fairness, it should be noted that this does not always translate into an unconditional performance advantage, but from a purely psychological and marketing point of view, the blow was tangible. Naturally, the “blues” had to quickly respond to such a daring attack from their eternal rival. First of all, the plans for the release of the platform were adjusted and the line of Intel Core X chips was significantly expanded, including a real monster - the 18-core 36-thread Intel Core i9-7980XE.

But the debut of the 8th Gen Intel Core processors was much more hype. This is due to the fact that the new Intel Coffee Lake family for the first time in many years received a proportional increase in the number of cores / threads and the amount of cache memory. That is, now in the series of Intel Core i5 / i7 CPUs, solutions are offered with six processing cores, which are characterized by the presence / absence of support for Intel Hyper-Threading technology and L3 cache 9/12 MB, and Intel Core i3 acquired four full cores, without HT, but with the L3 cache increased to 6 MB. In practice, this resulted in a significant increase in productivity, which was confirmed by our practical acquaintances with and. By the way, a couple of our experiments showed that it bypasses not only its 2-core predecessor, the Core i3-7100, but also the younger 4-core Core i5s of previous generations. Curiously, it can also compete on an equal footing with a more expensive one. And this suggests that the new Core i5 look very attractive options for building a modern gaming computer.

Now Intel has the most affordable 6-core in the lineup. For a minute, according to the official price list price Intel Core i5-8400 is $ 187 in lots of 1000 pieces, which makes it a very tasty purchase. But the real picture is slightly different. At the time of this writing, its average cost reached $ 250 in the domestic market, while a direct competitor in the face can be found for $ 220. Taking into account the temporary lack of available motherboards for Kofi Lake, when assembling real systems on Socket AM4, you can additionally save about $ 60 or even more. But what should you choose in this case? And you will find out by reading this material.

Specification

CPU socket
Base / dynamic clock frequency, GHz
Base multiplier
The base frequency of the system bus, MHz
Number of cores / threads
L1 cache size, KB	6 x 32 (data memory) 6 x 32 (instruction memory)
L2 cache, KB
L3 cache size, MB
Microarchitecture	Intel Coffee Lake
Codename	Intel Coffee Lake-S
Maximum design power (TDP), W
Process technology, nm
Critical temperature (T junction), ° C
Support for instructions and technologies	Intel Turbo Boost 2.0, Intel Optane Memory, Intel vPro, Intel VT-x, Intel VT-d, Intel VT-x EPT, Intel TSX-NI, Intel 64, Execute Disable Bit, Intel AEX-NI, MMX, SSE, SSE2 , SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T, AES, AVX, AVX 2.0, FMA3, Enhanced Intel SpeedStep, Thermal Monitoring, Intel Identity Protection, Intel Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP)
Built-in memory controller
Memory type
Supported frequency, MHz
Number of channels
Maximum memory size, GB
Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630
Number of executive units (EU)
Base / dynamic frequency, MHz
Maximum video memory (allocated from RAM), GB
Maximum screen resolution at 60 Hz
Maximum number of displays supported
Supported technologies and APIs	DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.5, Intel Quick Sync Video, Intel InTru 3D, Intel Clear Video HD, Intel Clear Video
Products webpage
Processor page
Buy page

Packaging, delivery set and appearance

The processor was kindly provided for testing by the company BRAIN Computers... In the company store it is available in the BOX version (BX80684I58400) with a simple cooler. He came to us in the OEM version (CM8068403358811) without a cooling system. The difference in price is about $ 15-20, which will allow the user to choose a more efficient cooler, but instead of a three-year warranty, he will have to limit himself to only one.

The markings on the Intel Core i5-8400 heat spreader cover indicate that our sample was manufactured in Malaysia during week 37 of 2017, that is, between September 11 and 17. Considering the use of the same Socket LGA1151, there are practically no visual differences from their predecessors.

But it's worth remembering that any Intel Coffee Lake processor will need a motherboard based on Intel 300 series chipsets to work. Although at your own peril and risk, you can use and either endow a model based on Intel 100- / 200-series chipsets with the ability to work with new CPUs, or, at best, waste time (and at worst, turn it into a museum exhibit).

At the moment, only models based on the overclocking chipset are available for the updated platform. Naturally, if you are the owner of a chip with an unlocked multiplier, then this is a completely justified choice, but the owners of models without the “K” index will have to overpay for the functionality they do not need. The cheapest motherboards based on it will cost around $ 120-130, which is approximately 2.5 times more expensive than budget solutions based on Intel H110 for Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake. The debut of available options on low-end chipsets (Intel H310, H370 and B360) is expected in January, but so far they have not appeared on the public sale.

Analysis of technical characteristics

As mentioned, the Intel Core i5-8400 is a 6-core processor that is manufactured using a 14nm process technology. At the microarchitectural level, Intel Coffee Lake has a minimum of differences from, that is, with a single-threaded load and at the same frequency, they are equal. But the new chips use a modified manufacturing process, which the manufacturer himself refers to as 14 ++ nm (recall that Intel began to use 14 nm back in 2015 in Intel Broadwell processors). This technology makes it possible to produce multicore solutions with relatively low heat emission, increases the yield of suitable crystals and reduces their cost. As an example, our test subject has a TDP of 65 W. Of course, its base frequency is quite modest and is only 2.8 GHz, but thanks to Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology, this value can rise to 4 GHz.

We carried out practical tests on a motherboard with an inexpensive cooler. Vinga CL-2001B which is suitable for 65 watt processors from AMD and Intel. Its design consists of an aluminum radiator and a 120mm FDB fan with blue LED lighting.

In the AIDA64 stress test, the maximum core temperature did not exceed 72 ° C with a critical indicator of 100 ° C, and their clock frequency was at 3.8 GHz. The chip can operate at a frequency of 3.9 GHz in case of a load on 2-4 cores, or accelerate up to 4 GHz in a single-threaded mode. The cooler speed did not exceed 1400 rpm, although the specification states 1600 rpm. The background noise was absolutely comfortable.

For comparison, recall that the predecessor in the face with a smaller number of cores and the same thermal package can operate at maximum load only at 3.3 GHz, and when it decreases, you can see a value of 3.5 GHz. with a load on all cores, it operates at a frequency of 4.1 GHz, when using 2-4 cores, this figure increases to 4.2 GHz, and in a single-stream it should be 4.3 GHz.

We express our gratitude to the companyBRAIN Computers for the processor provided for testing.

Article read 36102 times

Subscribe to our channels

It should be noted right away that the numbers in the names of intel core i3, i5, i7 processors do not indicate the number of cores, but are an identifier (trademark) and indicate their processing power. The rating for this criterion is expressed in stars, when it is compiled using such parameters as the number of physical cores, clock frequency, cache size and the presence of some new technologies that accelerate and optimize the processor. And in this situation, the numbers 3, 5 and 7 indicate the number of stars that the new released model had. Thus, the i7 processors have the highest rating.

By the way, we have already written an article about processors, in which we talked about the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, I advise you to read it.

There is also such a thing as architecture, which also affects differences between processors i3, i5, i7 and to which you should also pay attention. Intel introduces new processors almost every year, each of which surpasses previous versions in terms of performance. So, in the summer of 2013, a new fourth version, codenamed Haswell, was introduced, which preceded Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge (third and second, respectively).

The main parameters of processors that determine their performance

Choosing a computer, the user, first of all, tries to estimate the processor power, it is determined by the following main indicators:

• Clock frequency.
• The number of physical cores.
• Cache size.
• Possibility of multi-stream data transmission.
• Overclocking capabilities to higher clock speeds.

If the core runs at a higher clock speed, then information processing is faster. So, the Core i3-4370 processors have a base frequency of 3.8 GHz, then there are models from the same line with a lower clock frequency, for example, the Core i3-530 - 2.93 GHz. The i7 processors, which, it would seem, with a higher performance rating, should have a frequency no lower than any of the i3 line. However, this is not the case, its processors operate in almost the same frequency range. Thus, clock speed is not the most important parameter in determining performance.

It is no coincidence that developers have recently been betting on an increasing number of cores located on a processor crystal. How many cores, so many streams of information the processor can simultaneously process. But it does not follow from this, as some users think, that the clock frequency increases in multiples of the number of cores. But if we compare two intel processors with the same frequencies, then having two cores will be more productive due to the fact that it can process two streams of information per unit of time, that is, perform twice as many tasks. Thus, the more cores on a die, the better, at least for multitasking applications.

Everything intel core i3 i5 i7 processors are multi-core. Most of the i3 lineup are dual-core; the i5 models are mostly quad-core (the exception is the dual-core i5-661 with a decent 3.33 GHz clock speed). By the way, the frequency of the i3-560 is exactly the same, but it costs much less. Intel Core i7 processors have four or six cores.

So, the processor is more efficient, the higher the clock speed and the greater the number of cores. But, comparing the two processors i5-661 and i3-560, which have the same number of cores and clock speed, the former still has an important advantage - Turbo Boost technology.

Dynamically increasing clock frequency

Some users overclock their processors to higher frequencies on their own. This is easy to do, if the letter "K" is present in the model marking, then you can increase the clock frequency using the settings in the BIOS. Overclocking is fraught with an increase in temperature and equipment failure. Why shouldn't the processor itself increase its clock frequency, but only if necessary?

Intel's Turbo Boost technology is designed to do just that, allowing the processor to dynamically increase the frequency as needed. This controlled overclocking is no longer a nuisance. The rate of increase in clock frequency depends on the number of active cores, current power consumption and processor temperature. The same i5-661 (3.33 GHz) can, thanks to this technology, increase the data transmission frequency to 3.6 GHz. Turbo Boost is only equipped with i5 and i7 processors, given similar intel core i5 characteristics, these processors will outperform i3 models with the same number of cores and frequency.

Hyper-Threading Technology

At a certain period of time, only one stream of information can be supplied to the core. If the processor is dual-core, then it is possible to feed two threads, etc. Hyper-Threading technology allows one core to serve multiple threads at once. For i3, each core can safely handle two threads. Unlike them, i5 processors do not support Hyper-Threading technology, with rare exceptions in this parameter, having four cores, they do not surpass i3, since they are ultimately capable of receiving 4 threads per two cores. Therefore, the i7 series supporting super-streaming technology will be the best. And if the processor of these models has 6 cores, they are able to process 12 threads simultaneously. Considering that there are more and more programs that support multithreading, then the speed of such a computer will be noticeably higher. In this case, the application uses multiple threads to implement the command, which speeds up the appearance of the final result. This is a noticeable advantage when working with photo and video editing programs.

Cache memory

The ability to save data that is constantly in use in a temporary cache significantly speeds up the work. The cache is essentially the same as RAM, but is faster because it is built directly into the processor. Without these temporary stores, the processor would have to access the hard disk every time, which takes significantly longer.

More precisely, RAM speeds up the interaction with the hard drive, and the processor cache minimizes access to RAM. The more cached amount of information, the more temporary data can be stored, the faster the work will be done. Considering intel core i3 characteristics, you can find out that these processors have a cache size of 3 MB, almost all i5 have 6 MB, and Core i7 have 8 MB. This is one more indicator testifying to the performance superiority of the i7 processors over the rest of the described trio.

Choosing i-series processors

For clarity, all these characteristics can be summarized in one table.

The choice of processor should always be justified depending on the tasks that will be performed on the computer. Processing words and tables, surfing the web, using social networks - all this does not require a lot of processor power, in any case, the advantages of more productive models will still not be noticeable on these programs. Therefore, it makes more sense to opt for the cheaper Core i3.

For processing images and photos, working with office programs and the Internet, as well as watching videos, it makes sense to purchase processors with four or more cores. The more powerful i5 processors should satisfy the average user. These models do not work using Hyper-threading technology, but for these tasks it would not play a significant role: Internet browsers do not support multithreading.

Compared to the rest, intel core i7 specifications most attractive for those who are engaged in video editing and for gamers. In this regard, we should also point out the integrated graphics. A good graphics core allows you to watch high-definition videos without problems and show powerful performance in video editors

INTRODUCTION The new Ivy Bridge processors from Intel have been on the market for several months, but in the meantime, it seems that their popularity is not very high. We have repeatedly noted that they do not look like a significant step forward compared to their predecessors: their computing performance has increased insignificantly, and the frequency potential revealed through overclocking has become even worse than that of the previous generation of Sandy Bridge. Intel also notes the lack of rush demand for Ivy Bridge: the life cycle of the previous generation of processors, in the production of which an older technological process with 32 nm standards, is used, is being extended and extended, and not the most optimistic forecasts are made regarding the distribution of new products. More specifically, by the end of this year, Intel intends to bring the share of Ivy Bridge in the supply of desktop processors to only 30 percent, while 60 percent of all supplied CPUs will continue to be based on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture. Does this give us the right not to consider the new Intel processors as another success of the company?

Not at all. The point is that all of the above applies only to desktop processors. The mobile market segment reacted to the release of Ivy Bridge in a completely different way, because most of the new design innovations were made with an eye on laptops. Two main advantages of Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge: significantly reduced heat dissipation and power consumption, as well as an accelerated graphics core with support for DirectX 11 - are in great demand in mobile systems. Thanks to these advantages, Ivy Bridge not only gave impetus to the release of notebooks with a much better combination of consumer characteristics, but also catalyzed the introduction of a new class of ultraportables - ultrabooks. The new technological process with 22-nm norms and three-dimensional transistors made it possible to reduce the size and cost of manufacturing semiconductor crystals, which, of course, serves as another argument in favor of the success of the new design.

As a result, only desktop users can be somewhat averse to Ivy Bridge, and the dissatisfaction is not associated with any serious shortcomings, but rather with the absence of cardinal positive changes, which, however, no one promised. Do not forget that in Intel's classification Ivy Bridge processors belong to the "tick" cycle, that is, they represent a simple transfer of the old microarchitecture to the new semiconductor rails. However, Intel itself is well aware that desktop enthusiasts are less intrigued by new-generation processors than their counterparts - laptop users. Therefore, they are in no hurry to carry out a full-scale update of the model range. At the moment, in the desktop segment, the new microarchitecture is cultivated only in the older quad-core processors of the Core i7 and Core i5 series, and the models based on the Ivy Bridge design are adjacent to the usual Sandy Bridge and are in no hurry to overshadow them. A more aggressive introduction of the new microarchitecture is expected only in late autumn, and until then the question of which quad-core Core processors is preferable - the second (two thousandth series) or third (three thousandth series) generation, buyers are invited to decide on their own.

Actually, to facilitate the search for an answer to this question, we conducted a special test in which we decided to compare Core i5 processors belonging to the same price category and intended for use within the same LGA 1155 platform, but based on different designs: Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge.

Third generation Intel Core i5: a close look

A year and a half ago, with the release of the second generation Core series, Intel introduced a clear classification of processor families, which it adheres to to this day. According to this classification, the fundamental properties of the Core i5 are a quad-core design without Hyper-Threading support and a 6MB L3 cache. These features were inherent in the previous generation Sandy Bridge processors, and they are also observed in the new version of the CPU with the Ivy Bridge design.

This means that all Core i5 series processors using the new microarchitecture are very similar to each other. This, to some extent, allows Intel to unify its product output: all today's Core i5 Ivy Bridge generations use a completely identical 22-nm E1 stepping semiconductor crystal, consisting of 1.4 billion transistors and having an area of ​​about 160 square meters. mm.

Despite the similarity of all LGA 1155 Core i5 processors in a number of formal characteristics, the differences between them are clearly visible. A new 22nm process technology with Tri-Gate transistors has allowed Intel to reduce the typical heat dissipation for the new Core i5. If earlier the Core i5 in the LGA 1155 version had a thermal package of 95 W, then for Ivy Bridge this value was reduced to 77 W. However, following the decrease in typical heat dissipation, the clock speeds of the Ivy Bridge processors belonging to the Core i5 family did not increase. Older Core i5s of the last generation, as well as their today's successors, have nominal clock frequencies not exceeding 3.4 GHz. This means that, in general, the performance advantage of the new Core i5 over the old is provided only by improvements in the microarchitecture, which, in relation to the computing resources of the CPU, are insignificant even according to the Intel developers themselves.

Speaking about the strengths of the fresh processor design, first of all, you should pay attention to the changes in the graphics core. The third generation Core i5 processors use a new version of Intel's video accelerator - HD Graphics 2500/4000. It has support for DirectX 11, OpenGL 4.0 and OpenCL 1.1 APIs and in some cases can offer better 3D performance and faster high definition video encoding to H.264 using Quick Sync technology.

In addition, the processor design of Ivy Bridge contains a number of improvements made in the "binding" - memory and PCI Express controllers. As a result, systems based on the new third generation Core i5 processors can fully support video cards using the PCI Express 3.0 graphics bus, and are also capable of clocking DDR3 memory at higher frequencies than their predecessors.

From its first public debut to the present, the third-generation Core i5 desktop processor family (i.e., Core i5-3000 processors) has remained largely unchanged. Only a couple of intermediate models were added to it, as a result of which, if you do not take into account the economical options with a cut-down thermal package, it now consists of five representatives. If we add a couple of microarchitecture-based Ivy Bridge Core i7 to these five, we get a full desktop line of 22nm processors in LGA 1155:

The above table, obviously, needs to be supplemented, describing in more detail the operation of the Turbo Boost technology, which allows processors to independently increase their clock frequency, if energy and temperature conditions allow it. In Ivy Bridge, this technology has undergone certain changes, and the new Core i5 processors are capable of auto-overclocking somewhat more aggressively than their predecessors belonging to the Sandy Bridge family. Against the background of minimal improvements in the microarchitecture of computing cores and the lack of progress in frequencies, this is often able to provide a certain superiority of new products over their predecessors.

The maximum frequency that Core i5 processors can reach when loading one or two cores exceeds the nominal 400 MHz. If the load is multi-threaded, then the Core i5 Ivy Bridge generation, provided they are in favorable temperature conditions, can raise their frequency by 200 MHz above the nominal value. At the same time, the efficiency of Turbo Boost for all processors under consideration is exactly the same, and the differences from the previous generation CPU are in a greater increase in frequency when loading two, three and four cores: in the Core i5 of the Sandy Bridge generation, the auto-overclocking limit in such conditions was 100 MHz lower.

Using the indications of the CPU-Z diagnostic program, let's get acquainted with the representatives of the Core i5 lineup with the Ivy Bridge design in more detail.

Intel Core i5-3570K

The Core i5-3570K processor is the pinnacle of the entire third-generation Core i5 lineup. It boasts not only the highest clock speed in the series, but also, unlike all other modifications, has an important feature, underlined by the letter “K” at the end of the model number - an unlocked multiplier. This allows Intel to classify the Core i5-3570K as a dedicated overclocking offering with good reason. Moreover, against the background of an older overclocking processor for the LGA 1155 platform, Core i7-3770K, Core i5-3570K looks very tempting due to a much more acceptable price for many, which can make this CPU almost the best market offer for enthusiasts.

At the same time, the Core i5-3570K is interesting not only for its predisposition to overclocking. For other users, this model may also be interesting due to the fact that it has a built-in older variation of the graphics core - Intel HD Graphics 4000, which has a significantly higher performance than the graphics cores of other representatives of the Core i5 lineup.

Intel Core i5-3570

The same name as the Core i5-3570K, but without the final letter, as it hints that we are dealing with a non-overclocker version of the previous processor. So it is: Core i5-3570 operates at exactly the same clock speeds as its more advanced counterpart, but does not allow the unlimited multiplier change that is in demand among enthusiasts and advanced users.

However, there is one more "but". The Core i5-3570 did not get the fast version of the graphics core, so this processor is content with the lower version of Intel HD Graphics 2500, which, as we will show later, is significantly worse in all aspects of performance.

As a result, the Core i5-3570 is more like the Core i5-3550 than the Core i5-3570K. For which he has very good reasons. Having appeared a little later than the first group of representatives of Ivy Bridge, this processor symbolizes a certain development of the family. With the same MSRP as the one on the table below, it kind of replaces the Core i5-3550.

Intel Core i5-3550

A decrease in the model number again indicates a decrease in computing performance. In this case, the Core i5-3550 is slower than the Core i5-3570 due to the slightly lower clock speed. However, the difference is only 100 MHz, or about 3 percent, so it shouldn't be surprising that both the Core i5-3570 and the Core i5-3550 are rated by Intel the same. The manufacturer's logic is that the Core i5-3570 should gradually oust the Core i5-3550 from the store shelves. Therefore, in all other characteristics, except for the clock frequency, both these CPUs are completely identical.

Intel Core i5-3470

The youngest pair of Core i5 processors, based on the new 22nm Ivy Bridge core, have a MSRP below the $ 200 mark. These processors can be found in the store for a similar price. At the same time, the Core i5-3470 is not much inferior to the older Core i5: all four computing cores are in place, a 6-megabyte third-level cache and a clock frequency over the 3-gigahertz mark. Intel chose a 100 MHz clock speed step to differentiate the modifications in the updated Core i5 series, so there is simply nowhere to expect a significant difference between the models in performance in real tasks.

However, the Core i5-3470 also differs from its older brothers in graphics performance. The HD Graphics 2500 video core operates at a slightly lower frequency: 1.1 GHz versus 1.15 GHz for more expensive processor modifications.

Intel Core i5-3450

The youngest variation of the third generation Core i5 processor in the Intel hierarchy, the Core i5-3450, like the Core i5-3550, is gradually leaving the market. The Core i5-3450 processor is smoothly replaced by the Core i5-3470 described above, which operates at a slightly higher frequency. There are no other differences between these CPUs.

How we tested

To get a full alignment of the performance of modern Core i5, we have thoroughly tested all five of the three thousandth series Core i5 described above. The main rivals for these new products were the earlier LGA 1155 processors of a similar class belonging to the Sandy Bridge generation: Core i5-2400 and Core i5-2500K. Their cost allows these CPUs to be opposed to the new Core i5 of the three thousandth series: Core i5-2400 has the same recommended price as the Core i5-3470 and Core i5-3450; and the Core i5-2500K is sold a little cheaper than the Core i5-3570K.

In addition, we have included the benchmark results of the higher-end Core i7-3770K and Core i7-2700K processors in the diagrams, as well as the processor offered by the competitor AMD FX-8150. By the way, it is quite indicative that after the next price cuts, this senior representative of the Bulldozer family stands as the cheapest Core i5 of the three thousandth series. That is, AMD no longer harbors any illusions about the possibility of opposing its own eight-core processor to Intel's Core i7-class CPUs.

As a result, the composition of the test systems included the following software and hardware components:

Processors:

AMD FX-8150 (Zambezi, 8 cores, 3.6-4.2 GHz, 8 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.1-3.4 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-3450 (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.1-3.5 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-3470 (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.2-3.6 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-3550 (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-3570 (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.4-3.8 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-3570K (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.4-3.8 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i7-2700K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores + HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8 MB L3);
Intel Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores + HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8 MB L3).

CPU cooler: NZXT Havik 140;
Motherboards:

ASUS Crosshair V Formula (Socket AM3 +, AMD 990FX + SB950);
ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel Z77 Express).

Memory: 2 x 4 GB, DDR3-1866 SDRAM, 9-11-9-27 (Kingston KHX1866C9D3K2 / 8GX).
Graphic cards:

AMD Radeon HD 6570 (1 GB / 128-bit GDDR5, 650/4000 MHz);
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (2 GB / 256-bit GDDR5, 1006/6008 MHz).

Hard disk: Intel SSD 520 240 GB (SSDSC2CW240A3K5).
PSU: Corsair AX1200i (80 Plus Platinum, 1200W).
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate x64.
Drivers:

AMD Catalyst 12.8 Driver;
AMD Chipset Driver 12.8;
Intel Chipset Driver 9.3.0.1019;
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver 15.26.12.2761;
Intel Management Engine Driver 8.1.0.1248;
Intel Rapid Storage Technology 11.2.0.1006;
NVIDIA GeForce 301.42 Driver.

When testing a system based on an AMD FX-8150 processor, the operating system patches KB2645594 and KB2646060 were installed.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 was used to test the speed of processors in a system with discrete graphics, while AMD Radeon HD 6570 was used as a benchmark in the study of integrated graphics performance.

The Intel Core i5-3570 processor did not take part in testing systems equipped with discrete graphics, since in terms of computing performance it is completely identical to the Intel Core i5-3570K operating at the same clock frequencies.

Computing performance

Overall performance

To assess the performance of processors in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark 2012 test, which simulates the user's work in common modern office programs and applications for creating and processing digital content. The idea of ​​the test is very simple: it produces a single metric that characterizes the weighted average speed of a computer.

In general, the Core i5 processors belonging to the three thousandth series demonstrate the expected performance. They are faster than the previous generation Core i5, and the Core i5-2500K processor, which is almost the fastest Core i5 with a Sandy Bridge design, is inferior in performance even to the youngest of the new products, the Core i5-3450. However, at the same time, fresh Core i5s cannot reach the Core i7, due to the lack of Hyper-Threading technology in them.

A deeper understanding of the SYSmark 2012 results can provide insight into the performance scores obtained in various system use cases. The Office Productivity script simulates typical office work: preparing word, processing spreadsheets, working with e-mail, and surfing the Internet. The script uses the following set of applications: ABBYY FineReader Pro 10.0, Adobe Acrobat Pro 9, Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Outlook 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010, Microsoft Word 2010, and WinZip Pro 14.5.

The Media Creation scenario simulates the creation of a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video. For this purpose, popular packages from Adobe are used: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5 and After Effects CS5.

Web Development is a scenario within which the creation of a website is modeled. Applications used: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.

Data / Financial Analysis Scenario is dedicated to statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends that are performed in Microsoft Excel 2010.

3D Modeling Script is all about creating 3D objects and rendering static and dynamic scenes using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Autodesk 3ds Max 2011, Autodesk AutoCAD 2011 and Google SketchUp Pro 8.

The last scenario, System Management, is used to create backups and install software and updates. Several different versions of Mozilla Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5 are involved here.

In most scenarios, we are faced with a typical picture, when the Core i5 of the three thousandth series is faster than its predecessors, but inferior to any Core i7, both based on the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture and on Sandy Bridge. However, there are also cases of not quite typical processor behavior. So, in the Media Creation scenario, the Core i5-3570K processor manages to outperform the Core i7-2700K; when using 3D modeling packages, the eight-core AMD FX-8150 is surprisingly good; and in the System Management scenario, which generates mainly a single-threaded load, the previous generation Core i5-2500K processor almost catches up with the fresh Core i5-3470 in terms of speed.

Gaming performance

As you know, the performance of platforms equipped with high-performance processors in the vast majority of modern games is determined by the power of the graphics subsystem. That is why, when testing processors, we try to conduct tests in such a way as to remove the load from the video card, if possible: the most processor-dependent games are selected, and the tests are carried out without enabling anti-aliasing and with setting far from the highest resolutions. That is, the results obtained make it possible to assess not so much the level of fps achievable in systems with modern video cards, but how well processors perform with a game load in principle. Therefore, based on the above results, it is quite possible to speculate about how the processors will behave in the future, when faster versions of graphics accelerators appear on the market.

In our extensive prior testing, we have repeatedly characterized the Core i5 processor family as being well suited for gamers. We do not intend to give up this position even now. In gaming applications, the Core i5s are strong thanks to their efficient microarchitecture, quad-core design and high clock speeds. Their lack of support for Hyper-Threading technology can play a good service in games that are poorly optimized for multithreading. However, the number of such games from among the actual ones is decreasing every day, which we can see from the above results. The Core i7, based on the Ivy Bridge design, sits above the internally similar Core i5 in all the diagrams. As a result, the gaming performance of the three thousandth Core i5 series turns out to be at a quite expected level: these processors are definitely better than the Core i5 two thousandth series, and sometimes they are even able to compete with the Core i7-2700K. In parallel, we note that the senior processor from AMD cannot withstand any competition with modern Intel offers: its lag in gaming performance can be called catastrophic without any exaggeration.

In addition to the gaming tests, we will also present the results of the synthetic benchmark Futuremark 3DMark 11, launched with the Performance profile.

The synthetic test of Futuremark 3DMark 11 does not show anything fundamentally new. The performance of the third generation Core i5 falls exactly between the Core i5 with the previous design and any Core i7 processors with support for Hyper-Threading technology and slightly higher clock speeds.

In-app tests

To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use the WinRAR archiver, with which we archive a folder with various files with a maximum compression ratio of 1.1 GB in total.

In the latest versions of the WinRAR archiver, support for multithreading has been significantly improved, so that now the archiving speed has become seriously dependent on the number of computational cores available to the CPU. Consequently, the Hyper-Threading-enhanced Core i7 processors and the AMD FX-8150 eight-core processor offer the best performance here. As for the Core i5 series, everything is as usual with it. Core i5 with Ivy Bridge design is definitely better than the old ones, and the advantage of the new products over the old ones is about 7 percent for models with an identical nominal frequency.

The cryptographic performance of the processors is measured by the built-in benchmark of the popular TrueCrypt utility, which uses AES-Twofish-Serpent triple encryption. It should be noted that this program is not only able to efficiently load any number of cores with work, but also supports a specialized set of AES instructions.

Everything is as usual, only the FX-8150 processor is again at the top of the diagram. In this he is helped by the ability to execute eight computational threads simultaneously and a good speed of execution of integer and bit operations. As for the Core i5 of the three thousandth series, they again unconditionally surpass their predecessors. Moreover, the difference in CPU performance with the same declared nominal frequency is quite significant and amounts to about 15 percent in favor of new products with the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture.

With the release of the eighth version of the popular package for scientific computing Wolfram Mathematica, we decided to return it to the number of used tests. To assess the performance of systems, it uses the MathematicaMark8 benchmark built into this system.

Wolfram Mathematica is traditionally one of the applications that does not "digest" Hyper-Threading technology well. That is why the Core i5-3570K occupies the first position in the above diagram. And the results of other Core i5 3000 series are quite good. All these processors not only outrun their predecessors, but also leave behind the older Core i7 with the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture.

We measure performance in Adobe Photoshop CS6 using our own benchmark, a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed ​​Test that typically processes four 24-megapixel digital camera images.

The new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture provides approximately 6 percent superiority to the similarly clocked third-generation Core i5s over their earlier siblings. If we compare processors with the same cost, then the carriers of the new microarchitecture find themselves in an even more advantageous position, winning over 10 percent of the speed from the Core i5 two thousandth series.

Performance in Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 is tested by measuring the render time to H.264 of a Blu-Ray project containing HDV 1080p25 footage with various effects overlay.

Non-linear video editing is a well-parallelized task, so the new Core i5 with Ivy Bridge design cannot reach the Core i7-2700K. But their predecessors, classmates, using the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, they outperform in speed by about 10 percent (when comparing models with the same clock frequency).

To measure the speed of video transcoding into H.264 format, x264 HD Benchmark 5.0 is used, based on measuring the processing time of the original video in MPEG-2 format, recorded in 1080p resolution with a 20 Mbps stream. It should be noted that the results of this test are of great practical importance, since the x264 codec used in it underlies numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc.

The picture when transcoding high-definition video content is quite familiar. The advantages of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture translate into an approximately 8-10 percent superiority of the new Core i5 over the old ones. The high result of the eight-core FX-8150 looks unusual, which even outperforms the Core i5-3570K in the second pass of encoding.

At the request of our readers, the used set of applications was replenished with another benchmark showing the speed of work with high-resolution video content - SVPmark3. This is a specialized test of system performance when working with the SmoothVideo Project package, aimed at improving the smoothness of video by adding new frames to the video sequence containing intermediate positions of objects. The numbers shown in the diagram are the result of a benchmark on real FullHD video clips without involving the graphics card in the calculations.

The diagram is very similar to the results of the second transcoding pass with the x264 codec. This clearly hints that most of the tasks associated with the processing of high-definition video content create approximately the same computational load.

We measure computational performance and rendering speed in Autodesk 3ds max 2011 using the specialized benchmark SPECapc for 3ds Max 2011.

To be honest, nothing new can be said about the performance seen in the final rendering. The distribution of results can be called standard.

Testing the final rendering speed in Maxon Cinema 4D is performed using the specialized benchmark Cinebench 11.5.

The Cinebench results chart also shows nothing new. The new Core i5 of the three thousandth series once again turns out to be noticeably better than their predecessors. Even the youngest of them, the Core i5-3450, confidently bypasses the Core i5-2500K.

Energy consumption

One of the main advantages of the 22-nm process technology used for the release of Ivy Bridge generation processors, Intel calls the reduced heat generation and power consumption of semiconductor crystals. This is reflected in the official specifications of the third generation Core i5: they have not a 95-watt thermal package installed for them, as before, but a 77-watt thermal package. So the superiority of the new Core i5 over its predecessors in terms of efficiency is beyond doubt. But what is the scale of this gain in practice? Should the economy of the three thousandth Core i5 series be considered their serious competitive advantage?

To answer these questions, we conducted special testing. The new Corsair AX1200i digital power supply we used in our test system allows us to monitor the consumed and output electrical power, which we use for our measurements. Unless otherwise specified, the following graphs show the total system consumption (excluding monitor) measured "after" the power supply, which is the sum of the energy consumption of all components involved in the system. The efficiency of the power supply itself is not taken into account in this case. During the measurements, the load on the processors was created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.6.4-AVX utility. In addition, to correctly estimate idle power consumption, we have activated turbo mode and all available energy-saving technologies: C1E, C6 and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep.

In the idle state, systems with all processors participating in the tests show approximately the same power consumption. Of course, it is not completely identical, there are differences at the level of tenths of a watt, but we decided not to transfer them to the diagram, since such an insignificant difference more likely relates to the measurement error than to the observed physical processes. In addition, in conditions of close consumption values ​​of processors, the efficiency and settings of the power converter of the motherboard begin to have a serious impact on the overall power consumption. Therefore, if you are really concerned about the amount of consumption at rest, you should first look for motherboards with the most efficient power converter, and the processor, as our results show, from among the LGA 1155-compatible models, any processor can be suitable.

Single-threaded load, which raises the frequency to the maximum values ​​for turbo-mode processors, leads to noticeable differences in consumption. First of all, the completely immodest appetites of AMD FX-8150 are striking. As for the LGA 1155 CPU models, those based on 22-nm semiconductor crystals are really noticeably more economical. The difference in consumption between the quad-core Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge, operating at the same clock speed, is about 4-5 watts.

The full multi-threaded computational load exacerbates the differences in consumption. The system, equipped with the third generation Core i5 processors, outperforms a similar platform with processors on the previous design of the order of 18 watts. This correlates perfectly with the difference in theoretical design heat dissipation declared for its processors by Intel. Thus, in terms of performance per watt, Ivy Bridge processors are second to none in desktop CPUs.

Graphics core performance

Considering modern processors for the LGA 1155 platform, you should pay attention to the graphics cores built into them, which, with the introduction of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture, have become faster and more advanced in terms of available capabilities. However, at the same time, Intel prefers to install in its processors for the desktop segment a stripped-down version of the video core with the number of executive devices reduced from 16 to 6. In fact, only the Core i7 and Core i5-3570K have full graphics. Most desktop Core i5 3000 series, obviously, will be quite weak in graphics 3D applications. However, it is likely that even the available reduced graphics power will satisfy a certain number of users who are not aiming to view the integrated graphics as a three-dimensional video accelerator.

We decided to start testing the integrated graphics with the 3DMark Vantage test. The results obtained in different versions of 3DMark are a very popular metric for assessing the weighted average gaming performance of video cards. The choice of the Vantage version is due to the fact that it uses DirectX of the tenth version, which is supported by all video accelerators accepting in the tests, including the graphics of the Core processors with the Sandy Bridge design. Note that in addition to the full set of processors of the Core i5 family working with their integrated graphics cores, we included in the tests and performance indicators a system based on a Core i5-3570K with a discrete graphics card Radeon HD 6570. This configuration will serve as a kind of benchmark for us, allowing imagine the place of Intel's HD Graphics 2500 and HD Graphics 4000 graphics cores in the world of discrete video accelerators.

Intel's HD Graphics 2500 graphics core in most of its desktop processors is similar in 3D performance to HD Graphics 3000. But the older version of Intel graphics from Ivy Bridge processors, HD Graphics 4000, looks like a huge step forward, its performance is more than double surpasses the speed of the best embedded kernel of the previous generation. However, any of the available options for Intel HD Graphics still cannot be called acceptable 3D-performance by the standards of desktop systems. For example, the video card Radeon HD 6570, which belongs to the lower price segment and costs about $ 60-70, is able to offer significantly better performance.

In addition to the synthetic 3DMark Vantage, we ran several benchmarks in real gaming applications. In them, we used low graphics quality settings and a resolution of 1650x1080, which at the moment we consider the minimum of interesting desktop users.

In general, the picture is roughly the same in games. The older version of the graphics accelerator built into the Core i5-3570K provides an average number of frames per second at a fairly good (for an integrated solution) level. However, the Core i5-3570K remains the only processor from the third generation Core i5, the video core of which is capable of delivering acceptable graphics performance, which, with some indulgences in the quality of the picture, can be enough for comfortable perception of a significant number of current games. All other CPUs of this class, which use the HD Graphics 2500 accelerator with a reduced number of execution units, deliver almost half the speed, which is clearly not enough by modern standards.

The advantage of the HD Graphics 4000 graphics core over the built-in accelerator of the previous generation HD Graphics 3000 fluctuates quite widely and averages about 90 percent. The previous flagship integrated solution can easily be compared to the younger version of graphics from Ivy Bridge, HD Graphics 2500, which is installed in most 3000 series Core i5 desktop processors. As for the previous version of the commonly used graphics core, HD Graphics 2000, its performance now looks extremely low, in games it lags behind the same HD Graphics 2500 by an average of 50-60 percent.

In other words, the 3D performance of the graphics core of the Core i5 processors has really increased significantly, but compared to the number of frames that the Radeon HD 6570 accelerator is capable of delivering, it all seems like mouse fuss. Even the HD Graphics 4000 accelerator built into the Core i5-3570K is not a very good alternative to lower-level desktop 3D accelerators, but the more common Intel graphics option, one might say, is generally inapplicable for most games.

However, not all users consider the video cores built into processors as 3D gaming accelerators. A significant proportion of consumers are interested in HD Graphics 4000 and HD Graphics 2500 for their media capabilities, which simply do not exist in the lower price bracket. Here, first of all, we mean the Quick Sync technology, designed for fast hardware video encoding in the AVC / H.264 format, the second version of which is implemented in the Ivy Bridge processors. Since Intel promises a significant increase in transcoding speed in the new graphics cores, we separately tested the Quick Sync functionality.

During practical tests, we measured the transcoding time of one 40-minute episode of a popular TV series, encoded in 1080p H.264 at 10 Mbps for viewing on an Apple iPad2 (H.264, 1280x720, 3Mbps). For the tests, we used the Cyberlink Media Espresso 6.5.2830 utility that supports Quick Sync technology.

The situation here is fundamentally different from what was observed in games. If earlier Intel did not differentiate Quick Sync in processors with different versions of the graphics core, now everything has changed. This technology in HD Graphics 4000 and HD Graphics 2500 runs at about twice the speed. Moreover, conventional Core i5 processors of the three thousandth series, in which the HD Graphics 2500 core is installed, transcode high-resolution video using Quick Sync with approximately the same performance as their predecessors. Progress in performance is visible only in the results of the Core i5-3570K, where there is an "advanced" graphics core HD Graphics 4000.

Overclocking

Overclocking the Ivy Bridge generation Core i5 processors can follow two fundamentally different scenarios. The first of these concerns overclocking the Core i5-3570K processor, which was initially focused on overclocking. This CPU has an unlocked multiplier, and the increase in its frequency above the nominal values ​​is performed according to the algorithm typical for the LGA 1155 platform: by increasing the multiplication factor, we increase the processor frequency and, if necessary, achieve stability by supplying an increased voltage to the CPU and improving its cooling.

Without raising the supply voltage, our instance of the Core i5-3570K processor overclocked to 4.4 GHz. To ensure stability in this mode, it was only required to simply switch the motherboard's Load-Line Calibration function to the High position.

An additional increase in the processor supply voltage to 1.25 V made it possible to achieve stable performance at a higher frequency - 4.6 GHz.

This is a typical result for the Ivy Bridge generation CPUs. Such processors usually overclock a little worse than Sandy Bridge. The reason, it is assumed, lies in the decrease in the area of ​​the semiconductor processor chip that followed the introduction of 22-nm production technology, which raises the question of the need to increase the heat flux density during cooling. At the same time, the thermal interface used by Intel inside the processors, as well as the commonly used methods of removing heat from the surface of the processor cover, do not help to solve this problem.

Anyway, overclocking to 4.6 GHz is a very good result, especially considering the fact that Ivy Bridge processors at the same clock speed as Sandy Bridge give out about 10 percent better performance due to their microarchitectural improvements.

The second overclocking scenario concerns the rest of the Core i5 processors, which have no free multiplier. Although the LGA 1155 platform has an extremely negative attitude to increasing the frequency of the base clock generator, and loses stability even when the shaping frequency is set 5 percent higher than the nominal value, it is still possible to overclock non-K-series Core i5 processors. The fact is that Intel allows you to increase their multiplier to a limited extent, increasing it by no more than 4 units above the nominal.

Considering that the Turbo Boost technology remains operational, which for a Core i5 with an Ivy Bridge design allows 200MHz overclocking even when all processor cores are loaded, the clock speed in the overall result can be “boost” by 600MHz above the nominal value. In other words, the Core i5-3570 can be overclocked to 4.0 GHz, the Core i5-3550 to 3.9 GHz, the Core i5-3470 to 3.8 GHz, and the Core i5-3450 to 3.7 GHz. Which we have successfully confirmed during our practical experiments.

Core i5-3570:

Core i5-3550:

Core i5-3470:

Core i5-3450:

I must say that such limited overclocking is even easier than in the case of the Core i5-3570K processor. A smaller increase in clock frequency does not introduce stability problems even when using the rated supply voltage. Therefore, most likely, the only thing that will be required to overclock non-K-series Ivy Bridge processors from the Core i5 line is to change the multiplier value in the motherboard BIOS. The result achieved in this case, although it cannot be called a record, will most likely be quite satisfied with the vast majority of inexperienced users.

conclusions

We have already said many times that the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture was a successful evolutionary update of Intel processors. Manufacturing semiconductor technology with 22nm norms and numerous microarchitectural improvements have made the new products both faster and more economical. This applies to any Ivy Bridge in general and to the three thousandth series desktop Core i5 processors discussed in this review in particular. Comparing the new line of Core i5 processors with what we had a year ago, it's not hard to see a whole bunch of significant improvements.

First, the new Core i5s, based on the Ivy Bridge design, are more powerful than their predecessors. Despite the fact that Intel has not resorted to increasing clock speeds, the advantage of new products is about 10-15 percent. Even the slowest third-generation Core i5 desktop, the Core i5-3450, outperforms the Core i5-2500K in most benchmarks. And senior representatives of the fresh line can sometimes compete with processors of a higher class, Core i7, based on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture.

Secondly, the new Core i5s have become noticeably more economical. Their thermal package is set at 77 watts, and this is reflected in practice. Under any load, computers using a Core i5 with an Ivy Bridge design consume several watts less than comparable systems using a Sandy Bridge CPU. Moreover, with the ultimate computational load, the gain can reach almost two dozen watts, and this is a very significant savings by modern standards.

Thirdly, a significantly improved graphics core has found a place in the new processors. The younger version of the graphics core of the Ivy Bridge processors performs at least no worse than the HD Graphics 3000 from the older second generation Core processors, and, moreover, supporting DirectX 11, has more modern capabilities. As for the flagship integrated accelerator HD Graphics 4000, which is used in the Core i5-3570K processor, it even allows you to get quite acceptable frame rates in fairly modern games, albeit with significant relaxation in quality settings.

The only controversial point we noticed with the third generation Core i5 is slightly lower overclocking potential than the Sandy Bridge class processors. However, this drawback manifests itself only in the only overclocking model Core i5-3570K, where the change in the multiplication factor is not artificially limited from above, and besides, it is fully compensated by the higher specific performance developed by the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture.

In other words, we do not see any reason why, when choosing a mid-range processor for the LGA 1155 platform, preference should be given to "oldies" using semiconductor crystals of the Sandy Bridge generation. Moreover, the prices set by Intel for more advanced Core i5 modifications are quite humane and close to the cost of outdated processors of the previous generation.

· 16.02.2017

Everyone knows what a processor (CPU) is, as well as its importance. The phrase that it is the "brain" of any computer was imposed in my teeth. However, this is true, and the capabilities of a laptop or desktop PC are largely determined by this component. When planning to buy a new computer, you need to understand that one of the main characteristics is the processor. Each model contains the name of the CPU used, the main characteristics. How to determine at a glance which one is faster and which one is slower, which one to prefer if you often have to work autonomously, and which processor is better for games? This material is a kind of small guide in which I will tell you what markings for Intel processors exist, how to decipher it, determine the generation and series of the processor, and give the main characteristics. Go.

Main characteristics of processors

In addition to the name, each processor has its own set of characteristics, reflecting the possibility of using it for a particular job. Among them, the main ones can be noted:

• Number of Cores... Shows how many physical processors are hidden inside the chip. Most laptops, especially those with U version processors, have 2 cores. More powerful variants have 4 cores.
• Hyper-Threading... A technology that allows you to divide the resources of the physical core into several threads (usually 2), executing simultaneously, in order to increase performance. Thus, a 2-core processor in the system will be seen as a 4-core processor.
• Clock frequency... Measured in gigahertz. In general, we can say that the higher the frequency, the more efficient the processor. Let's make a reservation right away that this is by no means the only criterion that reflects the speed of a CPU.
• Turbo Boost... A technology that allows you to increase the maximum frequency of the processor under high loads. Versions "i3" are deprived of automatic frequency change, but in "i5" and "i7" this technology is present.
• Cache... A small (usually 1 to 4 MB) amount of high-speed memory that is an integral part of the processor. Allows you to speed up the processing of frequently used data.
• TDP (Thermal Design Power)... A value that indicates the maximum amount of heat that must be removed from the processor to maintain its normal operating temperature. Typically, the higher the value, the more efficient the processor and the hotter it is. The cooling system has to cope with this power.

Intel Processor Labels

The first thing that catches your eye is the marking, consisting of letters and numbers.

It's clear what the name is. The manufacturer releases its processors under this trade name. It can be not only "Intel Core", but also "Atom", "Celeron", "Pentium", "Xeon".

The name is followed by the processor series identifier. It can be “i3”, “i5”, “i7”, “i9” for “Intel Core”, or it can be “m5”, “x5”, “E” or “N”.

After the hyphen, the first digit indicates the generation of the processor. At the moment, the newest is the 7th generation Kaby Lake. The previous generation of Skylake was numbered 6.

The next 3 digits are the serial number of the model. In general, the higher the value, the more efficient the processor. So, i3 has a value of 7100, I5 - 7200, i7 is marked as 7500.

The last character (or two) indicates the processor version. It can be symbols "U", "Y", "HQ", "HK" or others.

Processor series

With the exception of budget models of laptops or stationary PCs, the rest use processors of the "Core i3", "Core i5", "Core i7" series. The higher the number, the more powerful the CPU. For most day-to-day use, an i5 processor is optimal. A more productive one is needed if the computer is used as a gaming computer, or if it requires special computing power to work in "heavy" applications.

Generation of processor

Intel updates the generations of its processors approximately every year and a half, although this interval tends to increase to 2-3 years. They switched from the Tik-Tak scheme to the Tik-Tak-Tak production scheme. Let me remind you that this strategy for the release of processors implies that at the "Tick" step there is a transition to a new technical process, and the changes made to the processor architecture are minimal. In the "So" step, a processor with an updated architecture is released on the existing technical process.

№	Name	Supported memory	Technical process	Video card	Year of issue
1	Westmere	DDR3-1333	32nm	—	2008-2010
2	Sandy bridge	DDR3-1600	32nm	HD Graphics 2000 (3000)	2011
3	Ivy bridge	DDR3-1600	22nm	HD Graphics 4000	2012
4	Haswell	DDR3-1600	22nm	HD Graphics 4000 (5200)	2013
5	Broadwell	DDR3L-1600	14nm	HD Graphics 6200	2014
6	Skylake	DDR3L-1600 / DDR4	14nm	HD Graphics 520 - 580	2015
7	Kaby lake	DDR3L-1600 / DDR4	14nm	HD Graphics 610 (620)	2016
8	Coffee lake	DDR4	14nm	UHD Graphics 630	2017

The transition to a finer technical process allows you to reduce power consumption, improve the characteristics of the processor.

Processor version

This indicator may turn out to be almost more important than simply comparing, say, i3 with i5. If we talk about laptops, then in most cases 4 versions of Intel Core processors are used, which have different TDP values ​​(from 4.5 W in the Y version to 45 W for HQ), and, accordingly, different performance and power consumption. Long battery life depends not only on the processor, but also on the battery's own capacity.

I will cite the versions of Intel Core processors, starting with the lowest-powered ones.

"Y" / "Core m" - low performance and passive cooling

Used in portable devices and small laptops. Passive cooling keeps your computer quiet. However, it is not suitable for serious tasks. At the same time, even taking into account the TDP of 4.5 W, the compactness of the devices does not allow for a serious battery, which negates all the advantages of low power consumption.

In general, if the task is not to buy something like Apple MacBook 12 or ASUS ZENBOOK UX305CA, then you should give preference to more powerful processors.

Model	Clock frequency, GHz	Turbo Boost, GHz	Cache, MB	TDP, W	Video card
Core i7-7Y75	1.3	3.6	4	4.5	Intel HD 615
Core m7-6Y75	1.2	3.1	4	4.5	Intel HD 515
Core i5-7Y54	1.2	3.2	4	4.5	Intel HD 615
Core i5-7Y30	1.0	2.6	4	4.5	Intel HD 615
Core m5-6Y57	1.1	2.8	4	4.5	Intel HD 515
Core m3-7Y30	1.0	2.6	4	4.5	Intel HD 615
Core m3-6Y30	0.9	2.2	4	4.5	Intel HD 515

"U" - for everyday use

Processors of the "U" series are the most optimal choice for a laptop for every day. It is the best combination of performance, energy consumption and cost. TDP 15W allows you to achieve both the ability to cope with almost any task and get good battery life.

There are modifications of the 7th generation processors with a TDP of 28W, which use the improved graphics Intel Iris Plus 640 or 650.

Passive cooling cannot be dispensed with, but this is compensated for by performance. The difference from the more powerful versions lies in the presence of only 2 cores, even in the "i7" series.

Examples of processors in the table.

Model	Clock frequency, GHz	Turbo Boost, GHz	Cache, MB	TDP, W	Video card
Core i7-7600U	2.8	3.9	4	15	Intel HD 620
Core i7-7660U	2.5	4.0	4	15	Iris Plus 640
Core i7-7567U	3.5	4.0	4	28	Iris Plus 650
Core i7-7500U	2.7	3.5	4	15	Intel HD 620
Core i7-6600U	2.6	3.4	4	15	Intel HD 520
Core i7-6567U	3.3	3.6	4	15	Iris 550
Core i7-6500U	2.5	3.1	4	15	Intel HD 520
Core i5-7200U	2.5	3.1	3	15	Intel HD 620
Core i5-7267U	3.1	3.5	4	28	Iris Plus 650
Core i5-6287U	3.1	3.5	4	15	Iris 550
Core i5-6200U	2.3	2.8	3	15	Intel HD 520
Core i3-7100U	2.4	—	3	15	Intel HD 620

"HQ" / "HK" - Quad-core, high-performance

The best choice if you are looking for a laptop for gaming or work with resource-intensive applications. The "HQ" version has 4 cores, which in combination with Hyper-Threading technology gives 8 threads. Power consumption (TDP) of 45 W is bad for battery life. In order for the laptop to withstand several hours on battery power, it is advisable to choose batteries with a larger capacity, for example, with 6 cells.

"HK" differs from "HQ" by an unlocked multiplier, which makes it possible to "overclock" by manually increasing the operating frequency of the processor. Similar versions of the 7th generation processors were announced only in January 2017, so at the moment almost all laptop models are based on the "HK" and "HQ" version processors of the previous, 6th generation. Nevertheless, there will obviously not be a long wait for new models.

Examples of processors in the table.

Model	Clock frequency, GHz	Turbo Boost, GHz	Cache, MB	TDP, W	Cores / Threads	Video card
Core i7-7920HQ	3.1	4.1	8	45	4/8	Intel HD 630
Core i7-7820HK	2.9	3.9	8	45	4/8	Intel HD 630
Core i5-7700HQ	2.8	3.8	6	45	4/8	Intel HD 630
Core i5-7440HQ	2.8	3.8	6	45	4/4	Intel HD 630
Core i5-7300HQ	2.5	3.8	6	45	4/4	Intel HD 630
Core i7-6970HQ	2.8	3.7	8	45	4/8	Iris Pro 580
Core i7-6920HQ	2.9	3.8	8	45	4/8	Intel HD 530
Core i7-6870HQ	2.7	3.6	8	45	4/8	Iris Pro 580
Core i7-6820HQ	2.7	3.6	8	45	4/8	Intel HD 530
Core i7-6770HQ	2.6	3.5	6	45	4/8	Iris Pro 580
Core i7-6700HQ	2.6	3.5	6	45	4/8	Intel HD 530
Core i5-6440HQ	2.6	3.5	6	45	4/4	Intel HD 530
Core i5-6300HQ	2.3	3.2	6	45	4/4	Intel HD 530

Xeon E - for high-performance workstations

These processors are used in powerful notebooks that serve as high-performance workstations. This technique is primarily aimed at those who are engaged in 3D modeling, animation, design, perform complex calculations where high power is required. The processors have 4 cores, Hyper-Threading technology is present.

Usually, there is no need to talk about the ability to work from batteries for a long time. Autonomy is not something that laptops using such processors have.

Examples of processors in the table.

Model	Clock frequency, GHz	Turbo Boost, GHz	Cache, MB	TDP, W	Video card	Generation
Xeon E3-1535M v6	3.1	4.2	8	45	Iris Pro P630	7
Xeon E3-1505M v6	3.0	4.0	8	45	Iris Pro P630	7
Xeon E3-1575M v5	3.0	3.9	8	45	Iris Pro P580	6
Xeon E3-1535M v5	2.9	3.8	8	45	HD Graphics P530	6
Xeon E3-1505M v5	2.8	3.7	8	45	HD Graphics P530	6

Now I will list the rest of the processors that can be found in laptops, but which are not part of the "Intel Core" family.

"Celeron" / "Pentium" - for the economical and not in a hurry

	Low cost. Easy tasks (web surfing, office programs).
	Games not for serious work.

You should forget about games (except for very simple ones), heavy tasks. The lot of laptops with such processors is leisurely office work, surfing the Internet. It is possible to give preference to models with a CPU of this level only if the price is one of the main selection criteria, or it is planned to use Linux or OS from Google. Unlike Windows, the hardware requirements are noticeably lower.

Celeron processors have a power consumption of 4 to 15 watts, with models starting with the letter “N” (for example, N3050, N3060, etc.) using 4 to 6 watts. Models with the letter "U" (for example, 2957U, 3855U, etc.) are more productive at the end and their power already reaches 15 watts. There is usually no gain in battery life when using the Celeron Nxxxx, since in budget notebook models they also save on batteries.

Pentium processors are more productive than Celeron, but still belong to the budget segment. Their TDP is at the same level. The battery life can be up to several hours, which, while not as dull as the Celeron, makes for a very decent office laptop.

These processors are available in both dual-core and quad-core versions.

Examples of processors in the table.

Model	Clock frequency, GHz	Turbo Boost, GHz	Cache, MB	Cores / Threads	TDP, W	Video card
Pentium N3560	2.4	—	2	2/2	37	HD Graphics
Pentium 4405U	2.1	—	2	2/4	15	HD 510
Pentium N3700	1.6	2.4	2	4/4	6	HD Graphics
Celeron N2970	2.2	—	2	2/2	37	HD Graphics
Celeron 3765U	1.9	—	2	2/2	15	HD Graphics
Celeron N3060	1.6	2.48	2	2/2	6	HD Graphics

Atom - Long Battery Life and Depressing Performance

Examples of processors in the table.

Model	Clock frequency, GHz	Turbo Boost, GHz	Cache, MB	Video card
Atom x7-Z8700	1.6	2.4	2	HD Graphics
Atom x5-Z8500	1.44	2.24	2	HD Graphics
Atom Z3735F	1.33	1.83	2	HD Graphics

Integrated graphics

All processors have an integrated graphics card that is labeled "Intel HD Graphics". For 7th generation processors, the video core marking starts with "6" (for example, HD Graphics 610), for the 6th generation - with "5" (for example, HD Graphics 520). Some of the top-end processors have a more powerful built-in video card labeled "Iris Plus". Thus, the i7-7600U processor has an Intel HD Graphics 620 on board, and the i7-7660U has an Iris Plus 640.

We are not talking about serious competition with solutions from NVidia or AMD, nevertheless, for everyday work, watching videos, simple games or at low settings, you will still be able to have some fun. For more serious gaming needs, a discrete graphics card is required.

UPD. 2018. It's time to add something to what has been said. Recently, models have appeared in the line of manufactured Intel processors that have the letter "G" in the marking at the end. For example, i5-8305G, i7-8709G and others. What is special about them? to begin with, I will say that these CPUs are focused on use in laptops and netbooks.

Their peculiarity is in the use of an "integrated" graphics video processor released by AMD. Here is such a joint work of two sworn competitors. It was not for nothing that I enclosed the word "inline" in quotation marks. Although it is considered to be one with the processor, physically it is a separate chip, albeit located on the same substrate with the CPU. AMD supplies ready-made graphics solutions, and Intel only installs them on its processors. Friendship is friendship, but the chips are still apart.

"In short, Sklifosovsky!"

"So which processor is the best for me", probably, many will ask. A lot has been written, in varieties, characteristics and so on, you can get confused, but you have to choose something. Well, for the impatient I will put everything in one table, which will arrange the processors according to their applicability for certain purposes.

Laptop class	Recommended CPU	Example	Autonomy, hour
Workstation / powerful gaming	Core i5 / i7 HQ	Core i7-7820HK, Core i5-7440HQ	3-8
	Core i7 U	Core i7-7500U	5-17
Universal	Core i5 U	Core i5-7200U, Core i5-6200U, Core i5-6300U	5-17
Versatile, with enhanced capabilities	Core i7 U	Core i7 8550U	5-17
Universal	Core i5 U	Core i5 8250U,	5-17
Ultrabook Slim Compact	Core m / Core i5 / i7 Y	Core m3, Core i5-7Y54	5-9
Budget	Celeron, Pentium	Celeron N3050, Pentium N4200	4-6
Tablet, cheap compact laptop	Atom	Atom Z3735F, Atom x5	7-12

Upd. 2018. Time does not stand still and after the appearance of a new, 8th generation of processors, it is necessary to significantly revise the applicability of processors for certain tasks. In particular, the most noticeable changes have occurred in the segment of energy efficient "U" processors. In the 8th generation, these are finally full-fledged 4-core "stones" with significantly better performance than their predecessors, while maintaining the same TDP value. Therefore, I don't see any point in choosing something like i7 7500U, i5 7200U, etc.

The only argument that can influence the decision to prefer these particular CPUs is a significant discount on laptops with them on board. In other cases, the old "U" s have no chance against newer processors.

I must say right away that this is an average classification that does not take into account financial costs, the need to choose one or another option. And the overall performance does not only depend on the processor. Even a powerful "stone" may not reveal its potential if a small amount of memory is installed, a budget hard drive is used, and programs that are "greedy" for hardware resources are used.

You may also be interested in ...

189 comments

The next 3 digits are the serial number of the model. In general, the higher the value, the more efficient the processor. So i3 is 7100, I5 is 7200, i7 is labeled 750; what does that mean? why are the 7th generation processors listed?

1. Hello everyone!
   I wanted to know about Intel processors. I noticed a long time ago that when buying a newly released processor, the year is indicated on its cover, but the year does not correspond to the year of purchase, for example, the processor was presented in 2018, but on the Intel '13 processor.
   Is this a year of development?

2. Andrey, hello. Help me choose a laptop for playing Dota 2. The amount is up to 70 thousand. Tomorrow I will go for a laptop, I still have not decided which one I want) I read a lot which one to take and so on. But since I do not rummage in this, it gave me almost nothing)) help with advice, thanks in advance.

3. Hello. And I have this on a stationary PC
   asustek computer inc motherboard M4A785T-M (AM3)
   amd phenom iix4 965 deneb 45nm technology. Is it possible to find a replacement for the motherboard?

4. Good article, informative 🙂
   But there is one remark and, subsequently, a question. The article does not describe the markings T, K, S. And there are also Pentiums G-series, but it doesn't matter)
   And the next one immediately at the expense of marking k. As far as I know, k is an unlocked multiplier, i.e. the processor lends itself to overclocking, is that so?
   Does the k-factor have anything to do with Hyper-Threading Technology?
   I can't understand why the i7-3770k has 4 cores and 8 threads, and the similar in performance i5-3570k has 4 cores and 4 threads, although both have the k mark.

5. Hello. I am looking for a laptop to work with AutoCad 2016. Help advice which one to choose. There is a lot of information, but it is impossible to bring it all together. Thanks in advance.

6. Good afternoon. Super article. I have been interested for a long time and there is a question ... just about the letter M ... I saw what you answered about mobility ... but hlyellsb would like to know if the difference with U and HQ / HK is significant. What is the percentage, say, in terms of games and work with graphic editors?

7. Please tell me which is better lenovo i5-7200U + mx130 8ram ddr4-2133 or acer i3-8130U + mx150 8ram ddr4-2133? Does it make sense to overpay for a more expensive acer?

8. Hello, I have a laptop acer aspire 7750g intel core i5 2450M 2.50GHz + turbo boost I want to put an external video card via EXP GDC
   does it make sense and what is the optimal video card to take for games thanks

9. Hello!
   Are there any other questions…..
   Found three interesting options with an i7 8750H with a GTX 1070 ... and one with an i7 7700HQ with a GTX 1080.
   i7 7700HQ with GTX 1070 many options and lower price.
   In general, it hangs with the choice of Aser, Asus or Del. All very cool (in my opinion) ... ... in the same price range.
   With a cool card, this is ASUS ROG GL702VI ... .. makes sense?
   Plus, I found an option with an i7 7820HK processor (which seemed to be very popular earlier).
   And how much better for this case?
   I take mainly for games .... what do you recommend?
   Until now, I have used a simpler technique. Much a lot.
   Often it is impossible to change, I want to with a margin. Thank you.

10. Good evening, thanks for giving some clarification on this topic, if it's not difficult you can advise several gaming laptops in a budget of up to 45 thousand, looked at the HP 15-bs105ur 2PP24EA, but I would like to hear your options still.
    Thank you in advance.

11. Good day! Please tell me if you need a laptop for programming. We are considering options like Aser swift 5 with 16 Gb of RAM with Intel Core i7 8550U. I know that in ultrabooks there is a limitation of the processor frequency to reduce overheating. Do you think this will greatly affect the operation of the laptop? Or is it better to consider a heavier, air-cooled laptop?

12. Andrey, good evening. Thanks for the article, very informative. I would be grateful if you could clarify one point. Roughly narrowed the circle, taking into account my needs (diagonal 17, not for games, for 3d autocad? Budget up to 65tr) to ACER Aspire A717. But then I got confused in the modifications. There are two similar modifications with a difference only in the series. The first one is cheaper screen: 17.3 ″; screen resolution: 1920 × 1080; processor: Intel Core i5 7300HQ; frequency: 2.5 GHz (3.5 GHz, in Turbo mode); memory: 8192 MB, DDR4; HDD: 1000 GB, 5400 rpm; SSD: 128GB; nVidia GeForce GTX 1050 - 2048 MB the second is more expensive by 6tr (65tr) Intel Core i7 7700HQ; frequency: 2.8 GHz (3.8 GHz, in Turbo mode); memory: 8192 MB, DDR4; HDD: 1000 GB, 5400 rpm; SSD: 128GB; nVidia GeForce GTX 1050 - 2048 MB;
    Is it worth overpaying for the series? and generally normal hardware for my requirements? I am also puzzled by the fact that these prices are relevant, provided that the Linux operating system on Windows will be 7-10 thousand more expensive.

    • Hello.
      Linux is, consider, without an operating system. They don't take money for it. And licensed Windows is at least several thousand.
      AutoCAD loves processors with a higher frequency. In general, the i7 is better, but there is one thing - cooling. it is not a fact that the laptop will cope with the cooling of the i7 under prolonged load. In a sense, he will cope with it, but how much faster the i7 will work in this mode compared to the i5 is a question. And it would be better to have more memory. I would still put 16 GB of memory. More, probably, not really necessary. Although you can upgrade yourself later, if necessary. SSD is a must. Better would be 240-256 GB, 128 is still not enough. I think i5 is enough.
      Why a laptop? Isn't a hospital better for such tasks? And it's easier to upgrade, and there are no problems with cooling.

      • Many thanks. The specifics of the work are such that it is more convenient to use a laptop. with cooling I will buy a stand so as not to steam)) you can buy it cheaper without ssd, but there you have to remove the entire back cover to add ssd? which is fraught with loss of warranty, and modifications with higher capacity come with more expensive components. Separately, there is a window for a regular hard drive, maybe you can shove a hybrid version of hhd + ssd there? It is also very interesting how much worse or better is the 8th generation processor but with the U series (2 cores) than the 7th generation processor but the HQ series?

13. Modification NH.GTVER.006 is indicated on the box. I don't see such an assembly on the website of the manufacturer. The citylink does not say anything about the matrix, but the phone managers say that ips. I looked in other stores, they also write ips there. In any case, I will try to return or exchange, insisting that within 7 days I have the right under the law and contract)

14. Hello, could you comment on this unit here:

    Dell Vostro 5568 (Intel i5-7200U 2500MHz / 8192MB / SSD 256GB / nVidia GeForce 940MX / gold)

15. Good day, Andrey!

    I ask for advice on choosing a laptop.

    The budget is up to 50-55. But if you can meet cheaper, then much better.

    The main goal is to connect to a 4K TV and the ability to view content (video) in this format. Games are not relevant, but the ability to pull them (in 4K, well, or in FullHD) will be a good addition. Working with documents, surfing.

    Nominees:
    1. Acer Aspire A715-71G-51J1 NX.GP8ER.008
    2. ASUS FX553VD-DM1225T 90NB0DW4-M19860
    3. Dell G3-3579 G315-7152 Blue

    Keep in mind that we will increase HDD and SSD on our own, RAM will be installed in the future.

    Thanks in advance!

    PS From your publication and responses to comments, I found out that it is necessary to select a laptop without an OS. This significantly reduces the cost of its final cost.

16. Hello.
    Tell me please. The choice of laptop is in the Asus and MSI models.
    Which model is preferable?
    The main thing is computing power and RAM. For example, to work with given programs.

17. Hello. I am looking for a gaming laptop in the price range up to 70,000:
    The shops advise
    - Asus VivoBook 15 K570UD
    - Lenovo IdeaPad 330 Series 330-15ICH
    Please rate and tell me what other models might fit. The firm is preferable to Asus, but I will not turn up my nose from others. I would like to choose the optimal selection of processor (i5 8300H / i7 8550U / i7 8750H and above) and video card (GeForce® GTX 1050 / GeForce® GTX 1050 Ti and above) + SSD. Screen is preferred 17.
    Thanks in advance.

    P.S. Is it true that the i5 8300H will discharge and overheat the laptop faster? Should I focus on him or on the i7 line in the aisles of my sum?

18. Good afternoon. Please recommend a laptop for: development (for IDE - no problems), photoshop, illustrator. It is desirable that ssd + hdd (but you can just hdd, with the ability to add ssd), 8GB RAM (more is possible). She herself got confused in the options ...
    The previous one was with a 2nd generation i5, 6 GB of RAM and an integrated + discrete graphics card. I want it not worse, the budget is 50k.
    Thanks!

19. Hello Andrei! I understand that the article is about processors, but I see that you are helping with the choice of a laptop. I will make the same request. I've already broken my head - I've read a lot of information, watched the video ... everything got mixed up.)) A laptop is needed for use at home, mainly for my daughter to study, but sometimes my husband and I will also use it - for him to make presentations, for me - to work with photos, watch films ... My daughter has vision problems - we are considering only a 17-inch screen with a good resolution. We are not gambling addicts - we are not planning to play tanks. Maybe if only in easy games, and even then for children. Budget up to $ 1500. Well + \ - $ 200. Consider the firms Asus, Aser and Dell. We give preference to the latter. We do not consider HP, there are no arguments, just intuitively I don’t want to. And I would also like a metal laptop. Weight does not bother - we will use it only at home. Please, advise several models in your opinion suitable for our family. Thank you very much in advance!

20. Hello.
    I am looking for a laptop for work. I do accounting and look at the screen a lot. Budget around $ 850. I wanted to choose a laptop with a good 15.6-inch screen and the ability to play games sometimes (at medium and low settings, but modern games). Of all the models for this money, I liked the Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-513X NH.GXBEU.010 Black Laptop and the Lenovo IdeaPad 330-5ICH 81FK00FMRA Onyx Black laptop (https://ktc.ua/goods/noutbuk_lenovo_ideapad_330_15ichra_81fk00fk /ktc.ua/goods/noutbuk_acer_aspire_7_a715_72g_513x_nh_gxbeu_010_black.html). The filling seems to be the same. I can not decide. Help me make a choice. Maybe I missed something? Maybe the model is more interesting? I'll put the OS myself. Can the SSD be delivered to any laptop, or does there have to be a special connector for this?

21. Hello! Could you recommend a reliable laptop in the region of up to 40,000. Needed for watching movies, listening to music, internet. I don't play games. Previously, I considered the HP 15-bw065ur 2BT82EA Laptop, but it is very embarrassing that this company does not have very good reviews. (cooling problem). Now I am considering the ASUS R542UF-DM536T laptop. But now it is confusing that the Core i3-8130U processor is 2.2 GHz. I understand that if the letter is U, then you should not take it. In general, I am confused about the characteristics and do not know which one to choose. Please advise.

22. Hello from Kyrgyzstan, and I would like to know if I have a choice between an i5 8265U with 8 GB of RAM, a 4GB mx130 video card and an i5 7300HQ with 8 GB of RAM, a GTX 1050 Ti video card. What to choose (the purpose of the purchase is programming and maybe in the future to play toys), despite the fact that the second option is sold used? The price of the first is 43.5k, and the second is paid for 45k soms (at the rate of soms and rubles, almost 1 to 1). I would be grateful for the answer)

23. Good afternoon!
    Please consult on budget RAM.
    I bought a laptop with 4GB RAM soldered on board. I checked the availability of a free slot for an additional bar.
    In terms of volume and frequency, I will buy DDR4 2133 8GB.
    Search found the following brands:
    1. Apacer
    2. Goodram
    3. Foxline

    Which manufacturer. is it better to give preference? The price for everyone is in the region of 3300-3700 rubles. Or maybe there are some other manufacturers?
    Thanks in advance!

24. Hello. Tell me which laptop to choose for work and watching movies. I need not expensive, I have looked after two options so far: ASUS F540BA-GQ193T laptop (AMD A6 2.6GHz / 15.6 "/ 1366x768 / 4GB / 500GB HDD / AMD Radeon R4 / DVD no / Wi-Fi / Bluetooth / Win10 Home x64) and Laptop Lenovo IdeaPad 330-15AST (81D600FQRU) (AMD A4-9125 2.3GHz / 15.6 "/ 1366x768 / 4GB / 500GB HDD / AMD Radeon 530 / No DVD / Wi-Fi / Bluetooth / Win10 Home x64). And yet, what is the difference in two almost identical laptop models, but only different letters: Lenovo IdeaPad 330-15AST (81D6002GRU) and Lenovo IdeaPad 330-15AST laptop (81D600FQRU). The designation in brackets. Info from the sites of two well-known retail chains. I would be very grateful for your answer. Thanks.