INTRODUCTION This summer, Intel did a strange thing: it managed to replace two whole generations of processors focused on mainstream personal computers. At first, Haswell was replaced by processors with the Broadwell microarchitecture, but then within just a couple of months they lost their status as a novelty and gave way to Skylake processors, which will remain the most progressive CPUs for at least another year and a half. This leapfrog with a change of generations occurred mainly due to problems Intel, which arose when introducing a new 14-nm technical process, which is used in the production of both Broadwell and Skylake. Productive carriers of the Broadwell microarchitecture on their way to desktop systems were greatly delayed, and their followers came out according to a pre-planned schedule, which led to the crumpled announcement of the fifth generation Core processors and a serious reduction in their life cycle. As a result of all these perturbations, in the desktop segment Broadwell have occupied a very narrow niche of economical processors with a powerful graphics core and are now content with only a small level of sales inherent in highly specialized products. The attention of the advanced part of the users turned to the followers of Broadwell - the Skylake processors.
It should be noted that over the past few years, Intel has not at all please its fans with the performance increase of the offered products. Each new generation of processors adds only a few percent to the specific speed, which ultimately leads to a lack of explicit incentives for users to upgrade old systems. But the release of Skylake - a generation of CPUs that Intel actually jumped a notch on the way to - inspired some hope that we would get a really worthwhile update to the most common computing platform. However, nothing of the kind happened: Intel performed in its usual repertoire. Broadwell was presented to the public as a kind of offshoot from the main line of desktop processors, and Skylake was only slightly faster than Haswell in most applications.
Therefore, despite all expectations, the appearance of Skylake on sale caused skepticism among many. After reviewing the results of real-life tests, many buyers simply did not see the real point in switching to sixth-generation Core processors. Indeed, the main trump card of fresh CPUs is primarily a new platform with accelerated internal interfaces, but not a new processor microarchitecture. And this means that Skylake offers few real incentives to update based systems of past generations.
However, we still would not dissuade all users without exception from switching to Skylake. The fact is that although Intel is increasing the performance of its processors at a very restrained pace, since the advent of Sandy Bridge, which still work in many systems, four generations of microarchitecture have already changed. Each step along the path of progress has contributed to an increase in productivity, and by now Skylake is able to offer quite significant performance gains over its earlier predecessors. Only to see this, it is necessary to compare it not with Haswell, but with the earlier representatives of the Core family that appeared before it.
Actually, this is exactly the kind of comparison we are going to do today. With all that said, we decided to see how much the performance of Core i7 processors has grown since 2011, and collected in a single test the older Core i7s belonging to the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake generations. Having received the results of such testing, we will try to understand which processors' owners should start upgrading old systems, and which of them can wait until the next generations of CPUs appear. Along the way, we will look at the performance level of the new Core i7-5775C and Core i7-6700K processors of the Broadwell and Skylake generations, which have not yet been tested in our laboratory.
Comparative characteristics of the tested CPUs
From Sandy Bridge to Skylake: Specific Performance Comparison
In order to remember how the specific performance of Intel processors has changed over the last five years, we decided to start with a simple test in which we compared the speed of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake brought to the same frequency 4 , 0 GHz. In this comparison, we used Core i7 processors, that is, quad-core processors with Hyper-Threading technology.The SYSmark 2014 1.5 complex test was taken as the main test tool, which is good because it reproduces typical user activity in common office applications, when creating and processing multimedia content, and when solving computational problems. The following graphs show the results obtained. For ease of perception, they are normalized, the performance of Sandy Bridge is taken as 100 percent.
The SYSmark 2014 1.5 integral indicator allows making the following observations. Moving from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge increased specific productivity only marginally - by about 3-4 percent. The next step towards Haswell turned out to be much more productive, resulting in a 12 percent improvement in performance. And this is the maximum gain that can be observed in the given graph. After all, further Broadwell overtakes Haswell by only 7 percent, and the transition from Broadwell to Skylake does increase the specific productivity by only 1-2 percent. All the progress from Sandy Bridge to Skylake translates into a 26% increase in performance with constant clock speeds.
A more detailed interpretation of the obtained SYSmark 2014 1.5 indicators can be viewed on the following three graphs, where the integral performance index is decomposed into components by application type.
Pay attention, most noticeably with the introduction of new versions of microarchitectures, multimedia applications add to the speed of execution. In these, the Skylake microarchitecture outperforms Sandy Bridge by a whopping 33 percent. But in calculating tasks, on the contrary, progress is manifested least of all. Moreover, at such a load, the step from Broadwell to Skylake even turns into a slight decrease in specific performance.
Now that we have an idea of what has happened to the specific performance of Intel processors over the past few years, let's try to figure out what caused the observed changes.
From Sandy Bridge to Skylake: What Has Changed in Intel Processors
We decided to make a representative of the Sandy Bridge generation a reference point in comparing different Core i7s for a reason. It was this design that laid a solid foundation for all further improvement of productive Intel processors up to today's Skylake. Thus, representatives of the Sandy Bridge family became the first highly integrated CPUs in which both computing and graphics cores, as well as a north bridge with an L3 cache and a memory controller, were collected in a single semiconductor crystal. In addition, for the first time, they began to use an internal ring bus, through which the problem of highly efficient interaction of all structural units that make up such a complex processor was solved. All subsequent CPU generations continue to follow these universal principles of construction, embedded in the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, without any serious adjustments.The internal microarchitecture of computing cores has undergone significant changes in Sandy Bridge. It not only brought support for the new AES-NI and AVX instruction sets, but also found numerous major improvements in the depths of the executive pipeline. It was in Sandy Bridge that a separate level zero cache was added for decoded instructions; a completely new command reordering block has appeared, based on the use of a physical register file; branch prediction algorithms have been noticeably improved; and in addition, two of the three execution ports for working with data have become unified. Such heterogeneous reforms, carried out at once at all stages of the pipeline, allowed to significantly increase the specific performance of Sandy Bridge, which, in comparison with the previous generation Nehalem processors, immediately increased by almost 15 percent. Added to this is a 15% increase in nominal clock speeds and excellent overclocking potential, resulting in a family of processors that Intel still cites as an exemplary embodiment of the "so" phase in the company's pendulum design concept.
Indeed, we have not seen such improvements in microarchitecture after Sandy Bridge in terms of mass scale and efficiency. All subsequent generations of processor designs have made much smaller improvements in computing cores. Perhaps this is a reflection of the lack of real competition in the processor market, perhaps the reason for the slowdown in progress lies in Intel's desire to focus on improving the graphics cores, or maybe Sandy Bridge just turned out to be such a successful project that its further development requires too much labor.
The transition from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge illustrates the recent decline in innovation intensity. Despite the fact that the next generation of processors after Sandy Bridge was transferred to a new production technology with 22nm norms, its clock frequencies did not increase at all. The improvements made in the design mainly concerned the more flexible memory controller and the PCI Express bus controller, which received compatibility with the third version of this standard. As for the microarchitecture of computational cores itself, some cosmetic alterations made it possible to accelerate the execution of division operations and slightly increase the efficiency of Hyper-Threading technology, and that's all. As a result, the growth in specific productivity was no more than 5 percent.
At the same time, the introduction of Ivy Bridge brought something that the overclocking army of millions now bitterly regrets. Starting with processors of this generation, Intel refused to interface the semiconductor chip of the CPU and the lid covering it by means of flux-free soldering and switched to filling the space between them with a polymer thermal interface material with very dubious heat-conducting properties. This artificially worsened the frequency potential and made the Ivy Bridge processors, like all their successors, noticeably less overclocked compared to Sandy Bridge, which is very vigorous in this regard.
However, Ivy Bridge is just a "tick", and therefore no one promised any special breakthroughs in these processors. However, the next generation, Haswell, which, unlike Ivy Bridge, is already in the "so" phase, did not bring any encouraging performance gains either. And this is actually a little strange, since a lot of various improvements in the Haswell microarchitecture have been made, and they are scattered across different parts of the execution pipeline, which, in total, could well increase the overall pace of command execution.
For example, in the input part of the pipeline, the performance of branch prediction was improved, and the queue of decoded instructions was dynamically divided between parallel threads coexisting within the Hyper-Threading technology. Along the way, there was an increase in the window of out-of-order execution of commands, which in total should have raised the share of code executed in parallel by the processor. Directly in the execution unit, two additional functional ports were added, aimed at processing integer instructions, servicing branches and saving data. Thanks to this, Haswell is able to process up to eight micro-ops per clock - a third more than its predecessors. Moreover, the new microarchitecture has doubled the bandwidth of the cache memory of the first and second levels.
Thus, improvements in the Haswell microarchitecture did not affect only the speed of the decoder, which seems to be the bottleneck in modern Core processors at the moment. Indeed, despite the impressive list of improvements, Haswell's performance gain compared to Ivy Bridge was only about 5-10 percent. But in fairness, it should be noted that the acceleration on vector operations is much stronger. And the greatest gain can be seen in applications using the new AVX2 and FMA commands, which support has also appeared in this microarchitecture.
The Haswell processors, like the Ivy Bridge, were not particularly popular with enthusiasts at first either. Especially considering the fact that they did not offer any increase in clock frequencies in the original version. However, a year after their debut, Haswell began to seem noticeably more attractive. First, there has been an increase in the number of applications that appeal to the strongest points of this architecture and use vector instructions. Secondly, Intel was able to fix the frequency situation. Later modifications of Haswell, which received their own codename Devil's Canyon, were able to increase the advantage over their predecessors thanks to the increase in clock frequency, which finally broke through the 4 GHz ceiling. Besides, following the lead of overclockers, Intel has improved the polymer thermal interface under the processor cover, which made Devil's Canyon more suitable objects for overclocking. Certainly not as malleable as Sandy Bridge, but nonetheless.
And with this baggage, Intel approached Broadwell. Since the main key feature of these processors was to be a new production technology with 14nm norms, no significant innovations in their microarchitecture were planned - it should have been almost the most commonplace "tick". Everything necessary for the success of new products could well be provided by only one thin technical process with second generation FinFET transistors, which in theory allows to reduce power consumption and raise frequencies. However, the practical implementation of the new technology turned into a series of failures, as a result of which Broadwell got only economy, but not high frequencies. As a result, those processors of this generation, which Intel introduced for desktop systems, came out more like mobile CPUs than the successors of the Devil's Canyon cause. Moreover, in addition to reduced thermal packets and reduced frequencies, they differ from their predecessors and have a smaller L3 cache, which, however, is somewhat compensated by the appearance of a fourth level cache located on a separate crystal.
At the same frequency as Haswell, Broadwell processors demonstrate an approximately 7% advantage, provided both by the addition of an additional level of data caching, and by another improvement in the branch prediction algorithm along with an increase in the main internal buffers. In addition, Broadwell introduces new and faster execution schemes for multiply and divide instructions. However, all these small improvements are canceled out by a fiasco with clock speeds dating back to the era before Sandy Bridge. So, for example, the senior overclocking Core i7-5775C of the Broadwell generation is inferior in frequency to the Core i7-4790K by as much as 700 MHz. It is clear that it is pointless to expect any kind of productivity growth against this background, if only it would do without a serious drop.
Largely because of this, Broadwell turned out to be unattractive for the bulk of users. Yes, the processors of this family are highly economical and even fit into a thermal package with a 65-watt frame, but who, by and large, cares about this? The overclocking potential of the first generation 14nm CPU turned out to be rather restrained. We are not talking about any work at frequencies approaching the 5 GHz bar. The maximum that can be achieved from Broadwell when using air cooling lies in the vicinity of 4.2 GHz. In other words, the fifth generation Core came out from Intel, at least weird. What, by the way, the microprocessor giant ultimately regretted: Intel representatives note that the late release of Broadwell for desktop computers, its shortened life cycle and atypical characteristics negatively affected the level of sales, and the company does not plan to start such experiments anymore.
The newest Skylake against this background is not so much a further development of Intel's microarchitecture as a kind of work on errors. Despite the fact that the production of this generation of CPUs uses the same 14nm process technology as in the case of Broadwell, Skylake has no problems with working at high frequencies. The nominal frequencies of the sixth generation Core processors returned to those indicators that were characteristic of their 22nm predecessors, and the overclocking potential even increased slightly. Overclockers have played into the hands of the fact that in Skylake the processor power converter has again migrated to the motherboard and thereby reduced the total heat dissipation of the CPU during overclocking. It's a pity that Intel hasn't returned to using an efficient thermal interface between the die and the processor cover.
But as for the basic microarchitecture of computing cores, despite the fact that Skylake, like Haswell, is the embodiment of the "so" phase, there are very few innovations in it. Moreover, most of them are aimed at expanding the input part of the executive conveyor, while the rest of the conveyor remained without any significant changes. The changes relate to improving the performance of branch prediction and increasing the efficiency of the prefetcher, and nothing else. At the same time, some of the optimizations serve not so much to improve performance as to improve energy efficiency again. Therefore, one should not be surprised that Skylake hardly differs from Broadwell in its specific performance.
However, there are exceptions: in some cases, Skylake can surpass its predecessors in performance and more noticeably. The fact is that the memory subsystem has been improved in this microarchitecture. The on-chip ring bus got faster, and this ultimately increased the bandwidth of the L3 cache. Plus, the memory controller received support for high-frequency DDR4 SDRAM memory.
But in the end, nevertheless, it turns out, no matter what Intel says about the progressiveness of Skylake, from the point of view of ordinary users this is a rather weak update. The main improvements in Skylake are in the graphics core and in energy efficiency, which opens the way for such CPUs to fanless tablet form factor systems. Desktop representatives of this generation do not differ too much from Haswell. Even if we close our eyes to the existence of the intermediate generation Broadwell, and compare Skylake directly with Haswell, the observed increase in specific productivity will be about 7-8 percent, which can hardly be called an impressive manifestation of technological progress.
Along the way, it is worth noting that the improvement of technological production processes does not meet expectations. From Sandy Bridge to Skylake, Intel changed two semiconductor technologies and more than halved the thickness of the transistor gates. However, the modern 14nm technical process, compared to the 32nm technology of five years ago, did not allow increasing the operating frequencies of the processors. All Core processors of the last five generations have very similar clock speeds, which, if they exceed the 4 GHz mark, are quite insignificant.
For a clear illustration of this fact, you can look at the following graph, which displays the clock speed of older overclocking Core i7 processors of different generations.
Moreover, the clock speed does not even peak at Skylake. Haswell processors belonging to the Devil's Canyon subgroup can boast of the maximum frequency. Their nominal frequency is 4.0 GHz, but thanks to the turbo mode, in real conditions, they are able to accelerate to 4.4 GHz. For modern Skylakes, the maximum frequency is only 4.2 GHz.
All this, naturally, affects the final performance of real representatives of various CPU families. And then we propose to see how all this affects the performance of platforms built on the flagship processors of each of the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake families.
How we tested
Five different generations of Core i7 processors took part in the comparison: Core i7-2700K, Core i7-3770K, Core i7-4790K, Core i7-5775C and Core i7-6700K. Therefore, the list of components involved in testing turned out to be quite extensive:
Processors:
Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores + HT, 3.4-3.8 GHz, 8 MB L3);
Intel Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores + HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8 MB L3);
Intel Core i7-4790K (Haswell Refresh, 4 cores + HT, 4.0-4.4 GHz, 8 MB L3);
Intel Core i7-5775C (Broadwell, 4 cores, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3, 128 MB L4).
Intel Core i7-6700K (Skylake, 4 cores, 4.0-4.2 GHz, 8 MB L3).
CPU cooler: Noctua NH-U14S.
Motherboards:
ASUS Z170 Pro Gaming (LGA 1151, Intel Z170);
ASUS Z97-Pro (LGA 1150, Intel Z97);
ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel Z77).
Memory:
2x8 GB DDR3-2133 SDRAM, 9-11-11-31 (G.Skill F3-2133C9D-16GTX);
2x8 GB DDR4-2666 SDRAM, 15-15-15-35 (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R).
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (6 GB / 384-bit GDDR5, 1000-1076 / 7010 MHz).
Disk subsystem: Kingston HyperX Savage 480 GB (SHSS37A / 480G).
PSU: Corsair RM850i (80 Plus Gold, 850W).
Testing was performed on Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise Build 10240 using the following set of drivers:
Intel Chipset Driver 10.1.1.8;
Intel Management Engine Interface Driver 11.0.0.1157;
NVIDIA GeForce 358.50 Driver.
Performance
Overall performanceTo assess the performance of processors in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark test suite, which simulates the user's work in real 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 during everyday use. After the release of the Windows 10 operating system, this benchmark was once again updated, and now we use the latest version - SYSmark 2014 1.5.
When comparing Core i7 of different generations, when they operate in their nominal modes, the results are not at all the same as when comparing at a single clock frequency. Still, the real frequency and features of the turbo mode have a significant impact on performance. For example, according to the data obtained, the Core i7-6700K is faster than the Core i7-5775C by as much as 11 percent, but its advantage over the Core i7-4790K is quite insignificant - it is only about 3 percent. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that the newest Skylake turns out to be significantly faster than the processors of the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge generations. Its advantage over the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K reaches 33 and 28 percent, respectively.
A deeper understanding of the SYSmark 2014 1.5 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: Adobe Acrobat XI Pro, Google Chrome 32, Microsoft Excel 2013, Microsoft OneNote 2013, Microsoft Outlook 2013, Microsoft PowerPoint 2013, Microsoft Word 2013, WinZip Pro 17.5 Pro.
The Media Creation scenario simulates the creation of a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video. The popular packages Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and Trimble SketchUp Pro 2013 are used for this purpose.
The Data / Financial Analysis scenario is devoted to statistical analysis and investment forecasting based on a certain financial model. The scenario uses large amounts of numerical data and two applications Microsoft Excel 2013 and WinZip Pro 17.5 Pro.
The results obtained by us under various load scenarios are qualitatively similar to the general indicators of SYSmark 2014 1.5. Noteworthy is the fact that the Core i7-4790K processor does not look outdated at all. It is noticeably inferior to the newest Core i7-6700K only in the Data / Financial Analysis calculation scenario, and in other cases it is either inferior to its successor by a completely inconspicuous amount, or generally turns out to be faster. For example, a member of the Haswell family is ahead of the new Skylake in office applications. But older processors like the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K seem to be somewhat outdated offerings. They lose to the new product in different types of tasks from 25 to 40 percent, and this, perhaps, is a sufficient reason for the Core i7-6700K to be considered a worthy replacement for them.
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 select the most processor-dependent games, and we measure the number of frames twice. In the first pass, tests are carried out without enabling anti-aliasing and with setting far from the highest resolutions. Such settings allow us to assess how well processors perform with a gaming load in principle, which means they allow us to make guesses about how the tested computing platforms will behave in the future, when faster options for graphics accelerators appear on the market. The second pass is performed with realistic settings - when choosing FullHD-resolution and the maximum level of full-screen anti-aliasing. In our opinion, such results are no less interesting, since they answer the frequently asked question about what level of gaming performance processors can provide right now - in modern conditions.
However, in this testing we put together a powerful graphics subsystem based on the flagship NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti graphics card. And as a result, in some games, the frame rate showed a dependence on processor performance, even in FullHD resolution.
FullHD results with maximum quality settings
Typically, the impact of processors on gaming performance, especially when it comes to powerful representatives of the Core i7 series, is negligible. However, when comparing five Core i7s from different generations, the results are not at all uniform. Even when set to the maximum graphics quality settings, the Core i7-6700K and Core i7-5775C demonstrate the highest gaming performance, while the older Core i7s lag behind. So, the frame rate obtained in a system with a Core i7-6700K exceeds the performance of a system based on a Core i7-4770K by a subtle one percent, but the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K processors seem to be a noticeably worse basis for a gaming system. Moving from a Core i7-2700K or Core i7-3770K to the latest Core i7-6700K gives a 5-7 percent increase in fps, which can have a very noticeable impact on the quality of the gaming process.
You can see all this much more clearly if you look at the gaming performance of processors with reduced image quality, when the frame rate is not limited by the power of the graphics subsystem.
Results at reduced resolution
The latest Core i7-6700K processor once again manages to show the highest performance among all the latest generations of Core i7. Its superiority over the Core i7-5775C is about 5 percent, and over the Core i7-4690K - about 10 percent. There is nothing strange in this: games are quite sensitive to the speed of the memory subsystem, and it is in this direction that serious improvements have been made in Skylake. But the superiority of the Core i7-6700K over the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K is much more noticeable. Senior Sandy Bridge lags behind the new product by 30-35 percent, and Ivy Bridge loses to it in the region of 20-30 percent. In other words, no matter how much Intel was criticized for improving its own processors too slowly, the company was able to increase the speed of its CPUs by a third over the past five years, and this is a very tangible result.
Testing in real games is completed by the results of the popular synthetic benchmark Futuremark 3DMark.
They echo the gaming performance and those results that are given by Futuremark 3DMark. With the transfer of the microarchitecture of the Core i7 processors from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge, the 3DMark scores increased by 2 to 7 percent. The introduction of Haswell's design and the release of Devil's Canyon processors added an additional 7-14 percent to the performance of older Core i7s. However, then the appearance of the Core i7-5775C, which has a relatively low clock frequency, somewhat rolled back the performance. And the newest Core i7-6700K, in fact, had to take the rap for two generations of microarchitecture. The increase in the final 3DMark rating for the new processor of the Skylake family in comparison with the Core i7-4790K was up to 7 percent. And in fact, this is not so much: after all, the most noticeable performance improvement over the past five years has been brought by Haswell processors. The latest generations of desktop processors are, indeed, somewhat disappointing.
In-app tests
In Autodesk 3ds max 2016 we are testing the final rendering speed. This measures the time it takes to render at 1920x1080 using the mental ray renderer for one frame of a standard Hummer scene.
Another test of the final rendering is carried out by us using the popular free 3D graphics package Blender 2.75a. In it we measure the duration of building the final model from Blender Cycles Benchmark rev4.
We used the Cinebench R15 benchmark to measure the speed of photorealistic 3D rendering. Maxon recently updated its benchmark, and now it again allows you to evaluate the performance of various platforms when rendering in the latest versions of the animation package Cinema 4D.
We measure the performance of websites and web applications built with modern technologies using the new Microsoft Edge 20.10240.16384.0 browser. For this, a specialized test WebXPRT 2015 is used, which implements algorithms that are actually used in Internet applications in HTML5 and JavaScript.
Performance testing for graphics processing takes place in Adobe Photoshop CC 2015. The average execution time of the test script, which is a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test, which includes typical processing of four 24-megapixel images captured by a digital camera, is measured.
At the numerous requests of amateur photographers, we have conducted performance testing in the graphics program Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1. The test scenario includes post-processing and export to JPEG with a resolution of 1920x1080 and a maximum quality of two hundred 12MP RAW images taken with a Nikon D300 digital camera.
Non-linear video editing performance is tested in Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015. This measures the rendering time to H.264 of a Blu-Ray project containing HDV 1080p25 footage with various effects overlay.
To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use the WinRAR 5.3 archiver, with which we archive a folder with various files with a total volume of 1.7 GB with the maximum compression ratio.
To evaluate the speed of video transcoding into H.264 format, the x264 FHD Benchmark 1.0.1 (64bit) test is used, based on measuring the encoding time by the x264 encoder of the source video into MPEG-4 / AVC format with a resolution [email protected] and default settings. It should be noted that the results of this benchmark are of great practical importance, since the x264 encoder is at the heart of numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc. We periodically update the encoder used for performance measurements, and version r2538 took part in this testing, which implements support for all modern instruction sets, including AVX2.
In addition, we have added to the list of test applications a new x265 encoder designed for transcoding video into the promising H.265 / HEVC format, which is a logical continuation of H.264 and is characterized by more efficient compression algorithms. To evaluate performance, the original [email protected] Y4M video file that is transcoded to H.265 with medium profile. The release of the coder version 1.7 took part in this testing.
The advantage of the Core i7-6700K over its earlier predecessors in various applications is beyond question. However, two types of tasks have benefited most from the evolution that has taken place. Firstly, related to the processing of multimedia content, be it video or images. Secondly, the final rendering in 3D modeling and design packages. In general, in such cases, the Core i7-6700K outperforms the Core i7-2700K by no less than 40-50 percent. And sometimes a much more dramatic improvement in speed can be seen. So, when transcoding video with the x265 codec, the newest Core i7-6700K produces exactly twice the performance than the old Core i7-2700K.
If we talk about the increase in the speed of execution of resource-intensive tasks that the Core i7-6700K can provide in comparison with the Core i7-4790K, then here it is impossible to bring such impressive illustrations to the results of the work of Intel engineers. The maximum advantage of the novelty is observed in Lightroom, here Skylake is one and a half times better. But this is rather an exception to the rule. In most multimedia tasks, the Core i7-6700K offers only a 10% improvement in performance over the Core i7-4790K. And with a load of a different nature, the difference in performance is even less or even absent.
Separately, a few words must be said about the result shown by the Core i7-5775C. Due to its low clock speed, this processor is slower than the Core i7-4790K and Core i7-6700K. But do not forget that its key characteristic is economy. And it is quite capable of becoming one of the best options in terms of specific performance per watt of electricity consumed. We will easily verify this in the next section.
Energy consumption
Skylake processors are manufactured using a modern 14nm process technology with second-generation 3D transistors, however, despite this, their thermal package has increased to 91 watts. In other words, the new CPUs are not only "hotter" than 65-watt Broadwells, but also surpass Haswell's calculated heat dissipation, manufactured using 22-nm technology and getting along within the 88-watt thermal package. The reason, obviously, is that initially the Skylake architecture was optimized not for high frequencies, but for energy efficiency and the possibility of using it in mobile devices. Therefore, in order for the desktop Skylake to get acceptable clock frequencies lying in the vicinity of the 4 GHz mark, the supply voltage had to be raised, which inevitably affected power consumption and heat dissipation.However, Broadwell processors did not differ in low operating voltages either, so there is a hope that the 91-watt Skylake thermal package was received for some formal reason and, in fact, they will not be more voracious than their predecessors. Check it out!
The new Corsair RM850i digital power supply we used in the test system allows us to monitor the consumed and output electrical power, which we use for measurements. The following graph shows the total system consumption (without monitor) measured "after" the power supply, which is the sum of the power consumption of all components involved in the system. The efficiency of the power supply itself is not taken into account in this case. We have activated turbo mode and all available energy-saving technologies to correctly estimate energy consumption.
At idle, a quantum leap in the economy of desktop platforms came with the release of Broadwell. The Core i7-5775C and Core i7-6700K have noticeably lower idle consumption.
But under load in the form of video transcoding, the most economical CPU options are Core i7-5775C and Core i7-3770K. The newest Core i7-6700K consumes more. His energetic appetites are on par with the senior Sandy Bridge. True, the new product, unlike Sandy Bridge, has support for AVX2 instructions, which require quite serious energy costs.
The following diagram shows the maximum load under load created by the 64-bit version of LinX 0.6.5 with support for the AVX2 instruction set, which is based on the Linpack package, which has an exorbitant appetite for energy.
Once again, the Broadwell generation processor shows miracles in energy efficiency. However, if you look at how much electricity the Core i7-6700K consumes, it becomes clear that progress in microarchitectures has bypassed the energy efficiency of desktop CPUs. Yes, Skylake has introduced new offerings with an extremely tempting performance-to-power ratio in the mobile segment, but the latest desktop processors continue to consume roughly the same amount as their predecessors did in the five years prior.
conclusions
After testing the latest Core i7-6700K and comparing it with several generations of previous CPUs, we again come to the disappointing conclusion that Intel continues to follow its unspoken principles and is not too eager to increase the speed of desktop processors focused on high-performance systems. And if, in comparison with the older Broadwell, the new product offers about a 15% improvement in performance due to significantly better clock speeds, then in comparison with the older, but faster Haswell, it no longer seems as progressive. The difference in performance between Core i7-6700K and Core i7-4790K, despite the fact that these processors are shared by two generations of microarchitecture, does not exceed 5-10 percent. And this is very little for the senior desktop Skylake to be unambiguously recommended for updating existing LGA 1150 systems.However, it would take a long time to get used to such insignificant steps by Intel in increasing the speed of processors for desktop systems. The increase in the performance of new solutions, which lies approximately within such limits, is a long-established tradition. Intel's desktop-centric CPUs have not revolutionized the computing performance for a very long time. And the reasons for this are quite understandable: the company's engineers are busy optimizing the developed microarchitectures for mobile applications and, first of all, think about energy efficiency. Intel's success in adapting its own architectures for use in thin and light devices is undeniable, but the adherents of classic desktops can only be content with small performance gains, which, fortunately, have not yet completely disappeared.
However, this does not mean at all that the Core i7-6700K can be recommended only for new systems. Owners of configurations based on the LGA 1155 platform with processors of the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge generations may well think about upgrading their computers. In comparison with the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K, the new Core i7-6700K looks very good - its weighted average superiority over such predecessors is estimated at 30-40 percent. In addition, processors with the Skylake microarchitecture can boast of support for the AVX2 instruction set, which has now found widespread use in multimedia applications, and thanks to this, in some cases, the Core i7-6700K is much faster. So, during video transcoding, we even saw cases when the Core i7-6700K was more than twice as fast as the Core i7-2700K!
Skylake processors also have a number of other advantages associated with the introduction of the accompanying new LGA 1151 platform. And the point is not so much in the support of DDR4 memory that has appeared in it, but in the fact that the new logic sets of the hundredth series have finally received really high-speed connection to the processor and support for a large number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes. As a result, the leading LGA 1151 systems boast numerous fast interfaces for connecting storage devices and external devices that are free of any artificial bandwidth limitations.
Plus, when assessing the prospects of the LGA 1151 platform and Skylake processors, one more point should be kept in mind. Intel will be in no rush to bring the next generation processors known as Kaby Lake to market. According to the available information, representatives of this series of processors in desktop versions will not appear on the market until 2017. So Skylake will be with us for a long time, and the system built on it will be able to remain relevant for a very long period of time.
This article will take a closer look at the latest generations of Intel processors based on the Cor architecture. This company occupies a leading position in the computer systems market, and most PCs are currently assembled on its semiconductor chips.
Intel development strategy
All previous generations of Intel processors were subject to a two-year cycle. A similar strategy for releasing updates from this company was called "Tik-Tak". The first stage, called "Tick", was the transfer of the CPU to a new technological process. For example, in terms of architecture, the Sandy Bridge (2nd generation) and Eevee Bridge (3rd generation) generations were virtually identical. But the production technology of the former was based on 32 nm, and the latter - 22 nm. The same can be said about Haswell (4th generation, 22 nm) and Broadwell (5th generation, 14 nm). In turn, the "So" stage means a radical change in the architecture of semiconductor crystals and a significant increase in performance. An example is the following transitions:
1st generation Westmere and 2nd generation Sandy Bridge. The technological process in this case was identical - 32 nm, but the changes in terms of the chip architecture are significant - the north bridge of the motherboard and the integrated graphics accelerator were transferred to the CPU.
3rd generation Ivy Bridge and 4th generation Haswell. The power consumption of the computer system has been optimized, the clock frequencies of the chips have been increased.
5th generation Broadwell and 6th generation SkyLike. The frequency has been increased again, the power consumption has been further improved, and several new instructions have been added to improve performance.
Segmentation of processor solutions based on the Cor architecture
Intel central processing units are positioned as follows:
The most affordable solutions are Celeron chips. They are suitable for assembling office computers that are designed to solve the most simple tasks.
The CPU of the Pentium series is one step higher. In architectural terms, they are almost completely identical to the junior models of "Celeron". But the increased cache of the 3rd level and higher frequencies give them a certain advantage in terms of performance. The niche of this CPU is entry-level gaming PCs.
The middle segment of Intel CPUs is occupied by solutions based on Cor I3. The previous two types of processors, as a rule, have only 2 computing units. The same can be said about Kor Ay3. But the first two families of chips lack support for the HyperTrading technology, while Cor Ay3 does. As a result, at the software level, 2 physical modules are converted into 4 program processing threads. This provides a significant increase in performance. On the basis of such products, it is already possible to assemble a mid-level gaming PC, or even an entry-level server.
The niche of solutions above the average level, but below the premium segment is filled with chips, occupied by solutions based on "Kor Ay5". This semiconductor crystal boasts 4 physical cores at once. It is this architectural nuance that provides an advantage in terms of performance over Kor Ay3. More recent generations of Intel i5 processors have higher clock speeds and this allows for continuous performance gains.
The niche of the premium segment is occupied by products based on Kor Ay7. The number of computing units they have is exactly the same as that of "Kor Ay5". But they, just like Cor Ay3, have support for the technology code-named Hyper Trading. Therefore, at the software level, 4 cores are converted into 8 processed threads. It is precisely this nuance that provides a phenomenal level of performance that any one can boast of. The price of these chips is appropriate.
Processor connectors
Generations are installed on different types of sockets. Therefore, it will not be possible to install the first chips on this architecture into a motherboard for a 6th generation CPU. Or, on the contrary, the chip with the code name "SkyLike" physically cannot be put into the motherboard for the 1st or 2nd generation processors. The first processor socket was called Socket H, or LGA 1156 (1156 is the number of pins). It was released in 2009 for the first CPUs manufactured to 45 nm (2008) and 32 nm (2009) tolerances based on this architecture. Today it is outdated both morally and physically. In 2010, LGA 1155 comes to replace, or "Socket H1". Motherboards of this series support 2nd and 3rd generation Cor chips. Their codenames are, respectively, "Sandy Bridge" and "Ivy Bridge". 2013 was marked by the release of the third socket for chips based on the Cor architecture - LGA 1150, or Socket H2. This socket could accommodate 4th and 5th generation CPUs. Well, in September 2015, the LGA 1150 was replaced by the last actual socket - LGA 1151.
The first generation of chips
The most affordable processor products on this platform were the Celeron G1101 (2.27 GHz), the Pentium G6950 (2.8 GHz) and the Pentium G6990 (2.9 GHz). All of them had only 2 cores. The niche of middle-level solutions was occupied by "Kor Ay3" with the designation 5XX (2 cores / 4 logical flows of information processing). “Kor Ay5” marked 6XX (their parameters are identical to “Kor Ay3”, but the frequencies are higher) and 7XX with 4 real cores were one step higher. The most productive computer systems were assembled on the basis of "Kor Ay7". Their models were designated 8XX. The fastest chip in this case was labeled 875K. Due to the unlocked multiplier, it was possible to overclock the same price, he had a corresponding one. Accordingly, it was possible to get an impressive increase in performance. By the way, the presence of the "K" prefix in the designation of the CPU model meant that the multiplier was unlocked and this model could be overclocked. Well, the prefix "S" was added in the designation of energy efficient chips.
Planned renovation of architecture and "Sandy Bridge"
The first generation of chips based on the Cor architecture was replaced in 2010 by solutions codenamed Sandy Bridge. Their key "chips" were the transfer of the north bridge and the integrated graphics accelerator to the silicon die of the silicon processor. The niche of the most budgetary solutions was occupied by the Celerons of the G4XX and G5XX series. In the first case, the L3 cache was cut and only one core was present. The second series, in turn, could boast of having two computing units at once. The Pentiums of the G6XX and G8XX are one step higher. In this case, the difference in performance was provided by the higher frequencies. It was the G8XX that looked preferable in the eyes of the end user because of this important characteristic. The Kor Ay3 line was represented by the 21XX models (the number 2 indicates that the chip belongs to the second generation of the Kor architecture). Some of them had a "T" at the end - more energy efficient solutions with reduced performance.
In turn, the Kor Ay5 solutions were designated 23XX, 24XX and 25XX. The higher the model mark, the higher the level of CPU performance. The “T” at the end is the most energy efficient solution. If the letter "S" is added at the end of the name - an intermediate version in terms of power consumption between the "T" - the version of the chip and the standard crystal. Index "P" - the graphics accelerator is disabled in the chip. Well, the chips with the letter "K" had an unlocked multiplier. This marking is also relevant for the 3rd generation of this architecture.
The emergence of a new, more progressive technological process
In 2013, the 3rd generation of CPUs based on this architecture was released. Its key innovation is an updated technical process. For the rest, no significant innovations were introduced into them. They were physically compatible with the previous generation of CPUs and could fit into the same motherboards. Their designation structure remained identical. The Celerons were designated G12XX and the Pentiums were designated G22XX. Only at the beginning, instead of "2" was already "3", which indicated belonging to the 3rd generation. The Kor Ay3 line had 32XX indexes. More advanced "Kor Ay5" were designated 33XX, 34XX and 35XX. Well, the flagship solutions "Kor Ay7" were marked 37XX.
The fourth revision of the architecture "Cor"
The next stage was the 4th generation of Intel processors based on the Cor architecture. The marking in this case was as follows:
The Celerons economy class CPUs were designated G18XX.
Pentiums had the G32XX and G34XX indexes.
The following designations were assigned to "Kor Ay3" - 41XX and 43XX.
“Kor Ay5” could be recognized by the abbreviations 44XX, 45XX and 46XX.
Well, for the designation "Kor Ay7" 47XX were allocated.
Fifth generation of chips
based on this architecture, it was mainly focused on use in mobile devices. For desktop PCs, only chips of the Ay 5 and Ay 7 lines were released. And only a very limited number of models. The first of them were designated 56XX, and the second - 57XX.The most recent and promising solutions
The 6th generation of Intel processors debuted in early fall 2015. This is the most current processor architecture at the moment. Entry-level chips are designated in this case G39XX ("Celeron"), G44XX and G45XX (this is how Pentiums are labeled). The Kor Ay3 processors are designated 61XX and 63XX. In turn, "Kor Ay5" is 64XX, 65XX and 66XX. Well, only the 67XX marking is allocated for the designation of flagship solutions. The new generation of Intel processors is only at the beginning of its life cycle, and such chips will be relevant for quite a long time.
Overclocking features
Almost all chips based on this architecture have a locked multiplier. Therefore, overclocking in this case is possible only by increasing the frequency. In the last, 6th generation, even this possibility of increasing the speed will have to be disabled in the BIOS by motherboard manufacturers. The exception in this regard are the Kor Ay5 and Kor Ay7 series processors with the K index. Their multiplier is unlocked and this allows you to significantly increase the performance of computer systems based on such semiconductor products.
Owners opinion
All generations of Intel processors listed in this material have a high degree of energy efficiency and a phenomenal level of performance. Their only drawback is their high cost. But the reason here is that Intel's direct competitor, AMD, cannot oppose it with more or less worthwhile solutions. Therefore, Intel is already proceeding from its own considerations and sets a price tag for its products.
Outcomes
This article took a closer look at Intel desktop-only processor generations. Even this list is enough to get lost in designations and names. Apart from this, there are also options for the computer enthusiast (platform 2011) and various mobile sockets. All this is done only so that the end user can choose the most optimal one for solving his problems. Well, the most relevant now from the considered options are chips of the 6th generation. These are the ones to look out for when buying or assembling a new PC.
However, these two materials, it seems to us, are still insufficient for a full disclosure of the topic. The first "subtle" point is clock frequencies - after all, with the release of Haswell Refresh, the company has already divided rigidly the line of "regular" Core i7 and "overclocking" ones, factory overclocking the latter (which was not so difficult, since such processors generally require a little , so it is not difficult to select the required amount of the required crystals). The appearance of Skylake not only preserved the state of affairs, but also exacerbated it: Core i7-6700 and i7-6700K are generally very different processors, differing in TDP level. Thus, even at the same frequencies, these models could work differently in terms of performance, and the frequencies are not the same at all. In general, it is dangerous to draw conclusions according to the older model, but basically it was studied everywhere and only it. "Younger" (and more in demand) has not been spoiled by the attention of test laboratories until recently.
And what is it for? Just for comparison with the "tops" of the previous families, especially since there usually was not such a large spread of frequencies. Sometimes it didn’t exist at all - for example, the pairs 2600 / 2600K and 4771 / 4770K are identical in terms of the processor part in the normal mode. It is clear that the 6700 is more analogous to the unnamed models, but to the 2600S, 3770S, 4770S and 4790S, but ... This is important only from a technical point of view, which, in general, is of little interest to anyone. In terms of prevalence, ease of acquisition and other significant (as opposed to technical details) characteristics, this is just a "regular" family, which most owners of "old" Core i7 will be looking at. Or potential owners - while the upgrade is still something useful at times, the majority of users of processors of lower processor families, if it is necessary to increase performance, look first of all at devices for the platform already on hand, and only then consider (or do not consider) the idea its replacement. Whether this approach is correct or not, the tests will show.
Testbed configuration
| CPU | Intel Core i7-2700K | Intel Core i7-3770 | Intel Core i7-4770K | Intel Core i7-5775C | Intel Core i7-6700 |
| Kernel name | Sandy bridge | Ivy bridge | Haswell | Broadwell | Skylake |
| Prospect technology | 32 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency std / max, GHz | 3,5/3,9 | 3,4/3,9 | 3,5/3,9 | 3,3/3,7 | 3,4/4,0 |
| # Of cores / threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (sum), I / D, KB | 128/128 | 128/128 | 128/128 | 128/128 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 |
| L3 (L4) cache, MiB | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 (128) | 8 |
| RAM | 2 × DDR3-1333 | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR4-2133 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 77 | 84 | 65 | 65 |
| Graphics | HDG 3000 | HDG 4000 | HDG 4600 | IPG 6200 | HDG 530 |
| Number of EU | 12 | 16 | 20 | 48 | 24 |
| Std / max frequency, MHz | 850/1350 | 650/1150 | 350/1250 | 300/1150 | 350/1150 |
| Price | T-7762352 | T-7959318 | T-10384297 | T-12645073 | T-12874268 |
To make it more academic, it would make sense to test Core i7-2600 and i7-4790, and not 2700K and 4770K at all, but the first one is already difficult to find in our time, while 2700K was found at hand and was tested at one time. As well as 4770K was also studied, and in the "ordinary" family it has full (4771) and close (4770) analogs, and all the mentioned trinity differs insignificantly from 4790, so we decided not to neglect the opportunity to minimize the amount of work. As a result, by the way, the Core processors of the second, third and fourth generations turned out to be as close to each other as possible in the official clock frequency range, and the 6700 differs only slightly from them. Broadwell could also have been "pulled up" to this level by taking the results not from i7-5775C, but from Xeon E3-1285 v4, but only to tighten up, and not completely eliminate the difference. That is why we decided to use a more massive (fortunately, most of the other participants are the same), and not an exotic processor.
As for the other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the operating memory frequency was the maximum supported by the specifications. But its volume (8 GB) and system storage (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects.
Testing technique
To evaluate the performance, we used our methodology for measuring performance using benchmarks and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all the test results in the first benchmark relative to the results of the reference system, which this year will be the same for laptops and for all other computers, which is designed to facilitate the readers' hard work of comparison and selection:
iXBT Application Benchmark 2015
As we have written more than once, the video core is of no small importance in this group. However, not everything is as simple as one might suppose only from the technical characteristics - for example, the i7-5775C is still slower than the i7-6700, although the first has a much more powerful GPU. However, the comparison of 2700K and 3770 is even more revealing here, which differ fundamentally in terms of the execution of the OpenCL code - the former is not capable of using the GPU for this at all. The second is capable. But it does it so slowly that it has no advantages over its predecessor. On the other hand, endowing such capabilities with the "most massive GPU on the market" led to the fact that they began to be gradually used by software manufacturers, which was already apparent by the time the next generations of Core entered the market. And along with minor improvements and processor cores, it can lead to a fairly noticeable effect.
However, not everywhere - this is just the case when the growth from generation to generation is completely invisible. However, he is, but such that it is easier not to pay attention to him. Interesting here is perhaps the fact that the past year made it possible to combine such an increase in performance with significantly less stringent requirements for the cooling system (which opens the segment of compact systems to the usual desktop Core i7), but this is not true in all cases.
And here is an example, when a considerable part of the load has already been transferred to the GPU. The only thing that can "save" in this case the old Core i7 is a discrete video card, but the effect of data transfers over the bus spoils, so the i7-2700K in this case will not necessarily catch up with the i7-6700, but the 3770 is capable of it, but keep up neither for 4790K or 6700K, nor for 5775C with any video can no longer. Actually, the answer to the bewildered question that sometimes arises among some users - why does Intel pay so much attention to integrated graphics, if it is still not enough for games, but for other purposes it has been enough for a long time? As you can see, it is not too "enough" if the fastest is sometimes capable (as here) of a processor with far from the most powerful "processor" part. And already in advance I wonder what we can get from Skylake in the GT4e modification;)
Amazing unanimity, ensured that this program does not require new instruction sets or miracles in the field of increasing multi-threaded performance. There is still a slight difference between processor generations. But you can only look for it with exactly the same clock frequency. And when it differs significantly (what we have in the i7-5775С, which in single-threaded mode lags behind everyone by 10%) - you don't need to look for it :)
Audition "can" more or less everything. Unless he is rather indifferent to additional threads of computation, but he knows how to use them. Moreover, judging by the results, it does it better on Skylake than was characteristic of previous architectures: the advantage of 4770K over 4690K is about 15%, but 6700 bypasses 6600K by 20% (despite the fact that the frequencies are approximately equal for all). In general, most likely, many more discoveries will await us in the new architecture. Small, but sometimes cumulative.
As in the case of text recognition, where exactly the 6700 breaks away from its predecessors most "briskly". Although in absolute terms it is insignificant, it would be a priori too optimistic to wait for such an increase on relatively old and well-polished algorithms, taking into account the fact that, in fact, we have an energy-efficient processor (by the way, the 6700K really copes with this task much faster) ... We didn't expect. And practice turned out to be more interesting than a priori assumptions :)
All top-end processors cope with archivers very well regardless of generation. In many respects, it seems to us, because for them this task is already very simple. Actually, the count is already running for seconds, so it is almost impossible to radically improve something here. If only to speed up the memory system, but DDR4 has higher latencies than DDR3, so the guaranteed result is given only by an increase in caches. Therefore, the fastest was the only processor among the tested with a GPU GT3e - the fourth level cache is used not only by the video core. On the other hand, the gain from the additional die is not that great, so the archivers are just that load, which in the case of obviously fast systems (and not some mini-PCs) can no longer be ignored.
Plus or minus half a bast from the Sun, which, in general, also confirms that all top-end processors cope with such tasks in the same way, the controllers in the chipsets of the three series are approximately identical, so that a significant difference can only be caused by the drive.
But in such a banal scenario as a simple copying of files, also with a thermal package: models with a reduced "overclocking" are rather sluggish (fortunately, formally and for nothing), which leads to slightly lower results than they could. But in general, this is also not the case for the sake of which there may be a desire to change the platform.
What do we get in the end? All processors are roughly identical to each other. Yes, of course, the difference between the best and the worst is more than 10%, but do not forget that these are the differences that have accumulated over more than three years (and if we took the i7-2600, it would have been 15% in almost five). Thus, there is no practical sense in replacing one platform with another while the old one is working. Naturally, if we are talking about LGA1155 and its successors - as we have already seen, the "difference" between LGA1156 and LGA1155 is much more noticeable, and not only in terms of performance. On the latest Intel platforms, something can be squeezed out by using the "steroid" Core i7 (if you are still focusing on this expensive family), but not so much: in terms of integral performance, the i7-6700K outperforms the i7-6700 by 15%, so that its gap from some i7-2700K increases to almost 30%, which is already more significant, but still not important.
Game applications
For obvious reasons, for computer systems of this level, we restrict ourselves to the minimum quality mode, and not only in "full" resolution, but also with its reduction to 1366 × 768: Despite the obvious progress in the field of integrated graphics, it is not yet able to satisfy the demanding the quality of the gamer's picture. And we decided not to test the 2700K at all on a standard gaming set: it is obvious that those owners who use the integrated video core are not interested in games at all. Whoever is interested in any way, they certainly found and installed at least some kind of "plug for the slot" in the bins, since our testing according to the previous version of the methodology showed that HD Graphics 3000 is not better than even the Radeon HD 6450, and both practically not enough for anything. HDG 4000 and newer IGPs are of some interest.
For example, in Aliens vs. Predator can be played on any of the studied processors, but only at a lower resolution. For FHD, only GT3e is suitable, and it doesn't matter which one - it's just that in a socket version, this configuration is currently available only for Broadwell with all that it implies.
But the "dancers" at the minimum salaries already "run" on everything so well that a slender picture only in high resolution and "dances": in a low one it is not even clear - who is better and who is worse.
Grid2, with all its weak demands on the video part, still puts processors strictly in order of magnitude. But this is especially clearly seen again in FHD, where the memory bandwidth is already important. As a result, it is already possible not to lower the resolution on the i7-6700. On the i7-5775C, all the more so, and the absolute results are much higher, so if you are interested in this area of application, and the use of a discrete video card is undesirable for some reason, there are still no alternatives to this line of processors. In which there is nothing new.
Only the older Haswells "draw" the game at least in low resolution, and Skylake does it without any reservations. We do not comment on Broadwell - this is not an architectural, but, let's say, quantitative superiority.
At first glance, the older game in the series is similar, but there are no quantitative differences between Haswell and Skylake.
In Hitman, there are also noticeable ones, but there is still no transition from quantity to quality.
As well as here, where even a low-resolution mode can only "pull out" a processor with a GT3e. The rest have significant, but still insufficient progress even for such "feats".
The minimum settings mode in this game is very gentle with all weak GPUs, although the HDG 4000 was still only "enough" for HD, but not FHD.
And again a difficult case. Less "heavy" than Thief, but sufficient to demonstrate clearly that no integrated graphics can be considered a gaming solution.
Although some games can be played with relative comfort. However, it can only be perceptible if we complicate the IGP and increase quantitatively all functional blocks. Actually, it is in light modes that the progress in the field of Intel GPUs is most noticeable - about twice in three years (there is no point in considering older developments seriously anymore). But this does not mean that over time, integrated graphics will be able to easily and naturally catch up with discrete graphics of comparable age. Most likely, "parity" will be established on the other hand - bearing in mind the huge base of installed solutions of low performance, the manufacturers of the same games will be guided by it. Why haven't you done this before? Generally speaking, they did - if we consider not only 3D games, but the market in general, a huge number of very popular game projects were designed just to work normally on fairly archaic platforms. But there has always been a certain segment of programs that "moved the market", and it was this segment that attracted maximum attention from the press and not only. Now the process is clearly close to the saturation point, since, firstly, the park of various computer equipment is already very large, and there are fewer and fewer people willing to engage in permanent upgrades. And secondly, “multiplatform” now means not only specialized game consoles, but also various smartphones, where, obviously, the performance is even worse than that of “adult” computers, regardless of the degree of integration of the latter's platforms. But in order for this trend to become prevailing, it is necessary, nevertheless, as it seems to us, to achieve a certain level of guaranteed productivity. Which is not yet available. But all manufacturers are working on the problem more than actively and Intel is no exception.
Total
What do we see in the end? In principle, as has been said more than once, the last significant change in the processor cores of the Core family took place almost five years ago. At this stage, it has already been possible to reach such a level that none of the competitors can “attack” directly. Therefore, Intel's main task is to improve the situation in, let's say, related areas, as well as to increase quantitative (but not qualitative) indicators where it makes sense. Moreover, the growing popularity of portable computers, which have long outstripped desktop computers in terms of this indicator and are becoming more portable, has a serious impact on the mass market (a few years ago, for example, a laptop weighing 2 kg was still considered "relatively light", and now sales of transformers are actively growing. , in which case a large mass kills the whole raison d'être of their existence). In general, the development of computer platforms has long gone not along the path of best meeting the needs of buyers of large desktop computers. At best, not to the detriment of them. Therefore, the fact that in general in this segment the performance of systems does not decrease, but even grows a little, is already a reason for joy - it could be worse :) The only bad thing is that due to changes in peripheral functionality you have to constantly change the platforms themselves: this is Such a traditional advantage of modular computers as maintainability greatly undermines, but there is nothing to be done about it - attempts to maintain compatibility at any cost do not bring any good (those who doubt can look at, for example, AMD AM3 +).
· 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
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?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.
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?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 are marked with k.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.
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?
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?
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 thanksHello!
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.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.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?
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?
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)
Hello, could you comment on this unit here:
Dell Vostro 5568 (Intel i5-7200U 2500MHz / 8192MB / SSD 256GB / nVidia GeForce 940MX / gold)
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 BlueKeep 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.
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.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?
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!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!
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?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.
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)
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. FoxlineWhich 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!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.
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?
