Processor intel core i7 2nd generation. System blocks with intel core i7. Data protection technology

2017 was a real test for Intel, something that has not been seen for many years after the debut of the Intel Core line on the market. First of all, this is due to the release of a very successful line, which required Intel to hastily prepare the third generation of 14nm processors in order to strengthen its positions.

Under other circumstances, Intel could have ditched Intel's 14nm Coffee Lake and Intel Kaby Lake R lines entirely ( mobile intel Core 8th generation), directing its resources to accelerate the release of the 10nm series of Intel Ice Lake and Intel Cannon Lake, respectively. Moreover, the computing power of Intel Kaby Lake processors is quite enough for a wide range of home, educational or office computers. But the competitor left no choice.

The first 8th generation Intel Core models were introduced at the end of August. They are aimed at the mobile market, and many laptop manufacturers have already announced new or updated products based on them. At the end of September, a presentation of the desktop line took place along with the Intel Z370 chipset, which we will talk about in a separate article.

The first on sale will be six models of processors, each of which is a landmark for its series. So, Intel Core i3-8100 and Intel Core i3-8350K are the first full-fledged 4-core CPUs in this series, which previously had only 2-core, 4-thread solutions. The line of Intel Core i5 for the first time replenished with 6-core, 6-thread representatives - Intel Core i5-8400 and Intel Core i5-8600K. And the Intel Core i7 series is now dominated by the 6-core, 12-thread Intel Core i7-8700 and Intel Core i7-8700K models, which have replaced the 4-core, 8-thread models. In the first half of 2018, the list of available processors in each series will be expanded. Other Intel 300-series chipsets and motherboards based on them will also appear.

8th generation Intel Core solutions are positioned primarily for gamers, content creators and overclockers. They will be especially useful in cases where the software is optimized for multithreading. In addition, Intel processors are traditionally characterized by excellent performance in single-threaded mode, so even in outdated applications and games they look decent.

Gamers are promised a performance boost of up to 25% (recorded in Gears of War 4 when comparing systems on Intel-based Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i7-7700K) and a comfortable frame rate in multitasking mode, when you need to not only play, but simultaneously record a game session and broadcast it on the Internet.

There's also mouth-watering facts for content creators: Up to 32% faster 4K video editing (Intel Core i7-8700K vs. Intel Core i7-7700K). And if we compare the performance of Intel Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i7-4790K (Intel Devil`s Canyon), then we can count on 4.5 times acceleration when creating HEVC video in PowerDirector, 65% when editing files in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and 7.8x when transcoded to Handbrake Transcode.

In turn, overclockers are bribed with new features: overclocking a single core, increasing the memory multiplier to 8400 MT / s, monitoring memory delays in real time, and others. If you are afraid of a possible processor failure as a result of overclocking experiments, then you can optionally buy Performance Tuning Protection Plan. It allows you to replace the CPU once in case of damage during freelance operation. The cost of such a plan depends on the specific model. For example, for Intel Core i7-7700K it is set at $30, and owners of Intel Core i9-7980XE will need to pay $150.

There is no mention of any microarchitectural changes in the presentation, although you can admire the wonders of engineering thought embodied in the crystals themselves.

The main emphasis in the press materials is on the increase in the number of physical cores and cache memory, advanced overclocking capabilities and the use of an improved 14-nm process technology. More specifically, Intel Skylake is manufactured using 14 nm, Intel Kaby Lake is 14+ nm, and Intel Coffee Lake is 14 ++ nm.

In turn, the use of the new chipset is explained by increased requirements for the power subsystem due to the increased number of cores, support for new overclocking capabilities and faster DDR4-2666 memory.

At the hardware level, the incompatibility of new and old processors manifests itself in a different number of VCC pads of the Socket LGA1151 connector: Intel Coffee Lake has 146 of them, while Intel Kaby Lake and Intel Skylake have 128. An additional 18 were obtained by activating reserve pads, without making any or physical changes. That is, you can install a new processor on old motherboards or old processors on new motherboards, but such bundles will not work. Therefore, for Intel Coffee Lake it is mandatory to buy motherboard on the base Intel chipsets 300 series.

Intel did not forget to remind about a companion product - Intel Optane Memory, which can significantly increase system responsiveness and speed up application launch. Although with the current volume (16 / 32 GB) and price level, it is difficult for him to compete in the market with the same M.2 or conventional 2.5-inch SSDs.

We got acquainted with the presentation, now it's time to move on to a more detailed study of the capabilities of the hero of this review - IntelCorei7-8700 K, which is also the flagship of the 8th generation of the Intel Core line.

Specification

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

Packaging, scope of delivery and appearance

Intel kindly provided us with an engineering sample of the Intel Core i7-8700K for testing without the appropriate packaging and delivery kit. Therefore, we will use the official press materials to evaluate appearance boxes. Its front side unmistakably indicates that the processor belongs to the 8th generation of the Intel Core line and the corresponding series, and key advantages are listed on one of the sidewalls. It also indicated the need to use new products exclusively with motherboards based on Intel 300 series chipsets. The packages themselves also differ in thickness, that is, there will be options for sale with and without a complete cooler.

andIntel Core i7-7700K

Externally, the Intel Core i7-8700K does not differ from its predecessor, of course, if you do not take into account the markings and other designations on the heat distribution cover. The very designation of the retail sample of the novelty will be different. First, instead of the inscription "Intel Confidential" the name of the model (Intel Core i7-8700K) will be indicated. Secondly, there will be a different Spec code instead of "QNMK". And, of course, the FPO code will change. In this case, it tells us that the processor was manufactured in Malaysia on the 19th week of 2017 (from 08.05 to 14.05).

andIntel Core i7-7700K

On the reverse side, there are contact pads for the Socket LGA1151 connector. As we already know, their physical location has not changed, but the functional purpose of some legs has changed, which requires the use of new motherboards with Intel Coffee Lake processors.

Analysis of technical characteristics

To test the Intel Core i7-8700K, we used the ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming motherboard and our stock Scythe Mugen 3 cooling system. First, we deactivated Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology and got the processor frequency at 3.7 GHz at 1.12 V .

The maximum frequency under load (AIDA64) with Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology enabled reached the declared 4.7 GHz in the specification. The temperature rose to 96°C, but there was no throttling.

When the system was idle, the processor frequency remained at 4.7 GHz, although the temperature dropped below 50°C.

If you put the system into power saving mode, then the speed of the Intel Core i7-8700K drops to 800 MHz.

Cache structure of Intel Core i7-8700 processorsKand Intel Core i7-77 00K

The cache structure of the novelty is as follows:

• 32 KB of L1 cache per core with 8 associativity channels is reserved for instructions and the same amount for data;
• 256 KB L2 cache with 4 associativity channels per core;
• 12MB shared L3 cache with 16 associativity channels.

Compared to its predecessor, the cache memory of each level has increased in proportion to the increased number of cores: L1 - by 64 KB for data and instructions, L2 - by 512 KB, and L3 - by 4 MB.

Integrated controller random access memory guaranteed to support the work in 2-channel mode of modules of the DDR4-2666 MHz standard. Of course, you can try to overclock the RAM to higher frequencies at your own peril and risk, but there are no guarantees anymore and it all depends on the quality of the bars themselves, the capabilities of the motherboard and the user's skills. The maximum available RAM is 64 GB.

The maximum temperature on the official website is stated at 100 ° C. A similar indicator is also reported by AIDA64.

The Intel Core i7-8700K processor has an integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 graphics core, which at the time of writing was poorly detected by the GPU-Z and AIDA64 utilities. According to official information, it includes 24 execution units and can use all available 64 GB of RAM for its needs. The base frequency of its operation is 350 MHz, and the dynamic frequency can be increased up to 1200 MHz.

While simultaneously loading the CPU and iGPU cores using the AIDA64 and MSI Kombustor benchmarks, the frequency of the processor cores remained at 4.7 GHz. But at the same time, the temperature rose to 99 ° C and throttling was observed.

Testing

When testing, we used the Stand for testing Processors No. 2

Motherboards (AMD)	ASUS F1A75-V PRO (AMD A75, Socket FM1, DDR3, ATX), GIGABYTE GA-F2A75-D3H (AMD A75, Socket FM2, DDR3, ATX), ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX (AMD 990FX, Socket AM3+, DDR3, ATX)
Motherboards (AMD)	ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 (AMD 990FX, Socket AM3+, DDR3, ATX), ASRock Fatal1ty FM2A88X+ Killer (AMD A88X, Socket FM2+, DDR3, ATX)
Motherboards (Intel)	ASUS P8Z77-V PRO/THUNDERBOLT (Intel Z77, Socket LGA1155, DDR3, ATX), ASUS P9X79 PRO (Intel X79, Socket LGA2011, DDR3, ATX), ASRock Z87M OC Formula (Intel Z87, Socket LGA1150, DDR3, mATX)
Motherboards (Intel)	ASUS MAXIMUS VIII RANGER (Intel Z170, Socket LGA1151, DDR4, ATX) / ASRock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer (Intel Z97, Socket LGA1150, DDR3, mATX), ASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME (Intel X99, Socket LGA2011-v3, DDR4, E-ATX )
Coolers	Scythe Mugen 3 (Socket LGA1150/1155/1366, AMD Socket AM3+/FM1/ FM2/FM2+), ZALMAN CNPS12X (Socket LGA2011), Noctua NH-U14S (LGA2011-3)
RAM	2 x 4 GB DDR3-2400 TwinMOS TwiSTER 9DHCGN4B-HAWP, 4 x 4 GB DDR4-3000 Kingston HyperX Predator HX430C15PBK4/16 (Socket LGA2011-v3)
video card	AMD Radeon HD 7970 3 GB GDDR5, ASUS GeForce GTX 980 STRIX OC 4 GB GDDR5 (GPU-1178 MHz / RAM-1279 MHz)
HDD	Western Digital Caviar Blue WD10EALX (1TB, SATA 6Gb/s, NCQ), Seagate Enterprise Capacity 3.5 HDD v4 (ST6000NM0024, 6TB, SATA 6Gb/s)
Power Supply	Seasonic X-660, 660 W, Active PFC, 80 PLUS Gold, 120 mm fan
Operating system	Microsoft Windows 8.1 64-bit

Choose what you want to compare Intel Core i7-8700K Turbo Boost ON Enhanced Performance to

We were in a hurry to prepare the material for the release of new products on sale, so we did not have time to test the Intel Core i7-8700K with Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology disabled. Usually, dynamic overclocking allows you to increase the performance level by a few percent, so it's best not to disable it yourself.

To begin with, let's analyze the situation in the internal model range. In synthetic tests, the Intel Core i7-8700K outperformed the previous flagship by an average of 39%. In games, the performance bonus was only 2%, since since the testing of the 4-core model, many gaming benchmarks have been replaced. In turn, the integrated graphics core Intel UHD Graphics 630 turned out to be on average 11% better than its counterpart, however, its gaming capabilities are still limited to undemanding projects with low quality settings in Full HD.

The comparison with the recently tested 8-core (16-thread) processor of the Intel Core X line turned out to be more interesting and intense. In synthetic tests, it came out ahead by an average of 1%, and parity was recorded in gaming tests. The difference between them in the recommended price tags is $240 ($359 vs. $599). That is, the Intel Core i7-8700K strikes not only at the positions of AMD's opponents, but also at Intel's own HEDT lineup.

And now, actually, about competitors. These include the 8-core AMD Ryzen 7 1700 ($349) and the 6-core AMD Ryzen 5 1600X ($249). But they haven't been tested by us yet, so we compared the results of the novelty with (nominally $440, but now the average price has dropped to $389) and (nominally $219, but now $240). In synthetics, the Intel Core i7-8700K outperformed the Ryzen 7 1700X by 17% and the Ryzen 5 1600 by 43%. But in games, the situation turned out to be interesting. The superiority of the novelty over the 8-core opponent was almost 5%, but the Ryzen 5 1600 is already pulling ahead by the same 5%. And all thanks to the low minimum Intel Core i7-8700K in the Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege test. If you ignore it, the new flagship in games is 3% ahead of the Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i7-7820X. The results of the comparison with Ryzen 7 1700X do not change because given processor has not been tested on it.

The situation with energy consumption is also very curious. A test system with an Intel Core i7-8700K and a discrete graphics card required a maximum of 276 watts. This is even more than a bunch of 8-core Intel Core i7-7820X (242W) and AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (182W). Perhaps this applies only to our engineering sample and the versions on sale have a more balanced power consumption and heat dissipation.

Overclocking

Already when analyzing the technical characteristics of the Intel Core i7-8700K processor, we fixed the processor throttling under a significant load in the nominal mode. That is, our test cooling system could not cope with its cooling. Again, this may be solely due to the test engineering sample, and in regular retail versions, the temperature will be much better.

Nevertheless, we failed to manually overclock the test instance: raising even up to 4.8 GHz led to active throttling and frequency reset. And only thanks to automatic overclocking on the ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming motherboard in the “TPU II” mode, it was possible to increase the core frequency to 5.0 GHz with a multiplier of “x50” and reduce the frequency by 300 MHz when executing AVX instructions. At the same time, the RAM speed was increased to 3200 MHz, and the maximum temperature during testing did not exceed 94 ° C, which allowed the system to work stably.

You can evaluate the impact of overclocking on performance using the following table:

		Nominal	Overclocked
Fritz Chess Benchmark 4.3
	Heavy Multitasking
	1920x1080, DX12, Very High
Tom Clancy's The Division	1920x1080, DX11
	1920x1080, DX11
Mean

The average increase was 4.49%. Synthetic tests responded best to the increase in frequency, providing a bonus from 4% to 7%. But in games, the maximum recorded increase was 3%.

Results

What did we end up with? First, we should commend Intel for adding more cores and threads to Intel's Coffee Lake desktop processor lineup, regardless of the reasons that prompted it to do so. Secondly, the additional cores come with their own cache memory of all three levels, which also contributes to an increase in the overall performance level. This is especially noticeable in synthetic tests, where the 6-core is on average 39% ahead of the 4-core flagship of the previous generation and practically does not lag behind the more expensive 8-core Intel Core X series. In turn, overclockers will certainly like additional overclocking options.

Now to the weaknesses of the tested engineering sample. The first is the high heat dissipation: even under nominal load with a fairly powerful Scythe Mugen 3 tower cooler, the temperature rose to 96°C. For this reason, we were unable to carry out manual overclocking, and automatic overclocking allowed us to increase the speed to 5 GHz with a decrease to 4.7 GHz under load in the benchmark. Secondly, the power consumption of the test bench was higher than that of the compared 8-core processors from Intel and AMD. Thirdly, in games there is no noticeable preponderance of new items over competitors.

, Kingston , Noctua , Sea Sonic , Seagate , Scythe andTwinMOS Technologies for the equipment provided for the test bench.

Article read 37079 times

Subscribe to our channels

The first processors under the Intel Core i7 brand appeared nine years ago, but the LGA1366 platform did not claim mass distribution outside the server segment. Actually, all the "consumer" processors for it fell into the price range from ≈$300 to full-fledged "piecebucks", so there is nothing surprising in this. However, modern i7s also live in it, so they are devices of limited demand: for the most demanding customers (the appearance of the Core i9 this year has changed the disposition a little, but just a little). And already the first models of the family received the formula "four cores - eight threads - 8 MiB of cache memory of the third level."

Later, it was also inherited by models for the mass market LGA1156. Later, without changes, migrated to LGA1155. Even later, it was "noted" in LGA1150 and even LGA1151, although many users initially expected six-core processor models from the latter. But this did not happen in the first version of the platform - the corresponding Core i7 and i5 appeared only this year as part of the "eighth" generation, with the "sixth" and "seventh" incompatible. According to some of our readers (which we partly share) - a bit late: could have been earlier. However, the “good, but not enough” claim applies not only to processor performance, but in general to any evolutionary changes in any market. The reason for this lies not in the technical, but in the psychological plane, which is far beyond the scope of our site's interests. Here we can arrange testing of computer systems of different generations to determine their performance and power consumption (even if only on a limited sample of tasks). What are we going to do today.

Test stand configuration

CPU	Intel Core i7-880	Intel Core i7-2700K	Intel Core i7-3770K
Kernel name	Lynnfield	Sandy Bridge	Ivy Bridge
Production technology	45 nm	32 nm	22 nm
Core frequency, GHz	3,06/3,73	3,5/3,9	3,5/3,9
Number of cores/threads	4/8	4/8	4/8
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	128/128	128/128
L2 cache, KB	4×256	4×256	4×256
L3 cache, MiB	8	8	8
RAM	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1600
TDP, W	95	95	77

Our parade-alle opens with three of the oldest processors - one for LGA1156 and two for LGA1155. Note that the first two models are unique in their own way. For example, the Core i7-880 (appeared in 2010 - in the second wave of devices for this platform) was the most expensive processor of all participants in today's test: its recommended price was $562. In the future, no desktop quad-core Core i7 cost so much. And the quad-core processors of the Sandy Bridge family (as in the previous case, we have a representative of the second wave here, and not the "starter" i7-2600K) are the only ones of all models for LGA115x that use solder as a thermal interface. In principle, no one noticed its introduction then, as well as the earlier transitions from solder to paste and back too: it was later that the thermal interface in narrow but noisy circles began to be endowed with truly magical properties. Somewhere starting from the Core i7-3770K just (mid-2012), after which the noise did not subside.

CPU	Intel Core i7-4790K	Intel Core i7-5775C
Kernel name	Haswell	Broadwell
Production technology	22 nm	14 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz	4,0/4,4	3,3/3,7
Number of cores/threads	4/8	4/8
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	128/128
L2 cache, KB	4×256	4×256
Cache L3 (L4), MiB	8	6 (128)
RAM	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600
TDP, W	88	65

The one we're missing today is the original Haswell in the form of the i7-4770K. As a result, we skip 2013 and go straight to 2014: formally, the 4790K is Haswell Refresh. Some were already waiting for Broadwell, but the company released processors of this family exclusively to the tablet and laptop market: where they were most in demand. And with the desktop, the plans changed several times, but in 2015 a couple of processors (plus three Xeons) appeared on the market. Very specific: like Haswell and Haswell Refresh, they were installed in the LGA1150 socket, but they were only compatible with a couple of 2014 chipsets, and most importantly, they turned out to be the only “socket” models with a four-level cache. Formally - for the needs of the graphics core, although in practice L4 can be used by all programs. There were similar processors earlier and later - but only in the BGA version (that is, they were soldered directly to system board). These are unique in their own way. Enthusiasts, of course, were not inspired due to low clock speeds and limited "overclocking", but we will check how this "side escape" correlates with the main line in modern software.

CPU	Intel Core i7-6700K	Intel Core i7-7700K	Intel Core i7-8700K
Kernel name	skylake	Kaby Lake	coffee lake
Production technology	14 nm	14 nm	14 nm
Core frequency, GHz	4,0/4,2	4,2/4,5	3,7/4,7
Number of cores/threads	4/8	4/8	6/12
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	128/128	192/192
L2 cache, KB	4×256	4×256	6×256
L3 cache, MiB	8	8	12
RAM	2×DDR3-1600 / 2×DDR4-2133	2×DDR3-1600 / 2×DDR4-2400	2×DDR4-2666
TDP, W	91	91	95

And the most "fresh" trio of processors, formally using the same LGA1151 socket, but in two of its incompatible versions. However, we wrote about the difficult path of mass-produced six-core processors to the market quite recently: when they were tested for the first time. So we won't repeat ourselves. We only note that we tested the i7-8700K again: using not a preliminary, but a “release” copy, and even installing it on an already “normal” board with debugged firmware. The results have changed slightly, but in several programs have become somewhat more adequate.

CPU	Intel Core i3-7350K	Intel Core i5-7600K	Intel Core i5-8400
Kernel name	Kaby Lake	Kaby Lake	coffee lake
Production technology	14 nm	14 nm	14 nm
Core frequency, GHz	4,2	3,8/4,2	2,8/4,0
Number of cores/threads	2/4	4/4	6/6
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	64/64	128/128	192/192
L2 cache, KB	2×256	4×256	6×256
L3 cache, MiB	4	6	9
RAM	2×DDR4-2400	2×DDR4-2400	2×DDR4-2666
TDP, W	60	91	65

With whom to compare the results? It seems to us that it is imperative to take a couple of the fastest modern dual- and quad-core processors of the Core i3 and Core i5 lines, since they have already been tested, and it’s interesting to see which of the old people they will catch up with and where (and whether they will catch up). We also managed to get our hands on a brand new six-core Core i5-8400, so we took the opportunity to test that as well.

CPU	AMD FX-8350	AMD Ryzen 5 1400	AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Kernel name	Vishera	Ryzen	Ryzen
Production technology	32 nm	14 nm	14 nm
Core frequency, GHz	4,0/4,2	3,2/3,4	3,2/3,6
Number of cores/threads	4/8	4/8	6/12
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	256/128	256/128	384/192
L2 cache, KB	4×2048	4×512	6×512
L3 cache, MiB	8	8	16
RAM	2×DDR3-1866	2×DDR4-2666	2×DDR4-2666
TDP, W	125	65	65

It is impossible to do without AMD processors, and there is no need to. Including the "historical" FX-8350, which is the same age as the Core i7-3770K. Fans of this line have always argued that it is not only cheaper, but generally better - just few people know how to cook it. But if you use the "right programs", then you will immediately overtake everyone. Since this year we have at the request of workers reworked the testing methodology in the direction of "harsh multi-threading", so there is a reason to test this hypothesis - all the same, testing is historical. And modern models will require at least two. We would love a Ryzen 5 1500X, very similar to the old Core i7s, but we haven't tested it. Ryzen 5 1400 formally also fits ... but in fact, this model (and modern Ryzen 3) along with the halving of the cache memory "suffered" and the links between the CCX. Therefore, I also had to take the Ryzen 5 1600, where this problem is not present - as a result, it often overtakes the 1400 by more than one and a half times. Yes, and a couple of six-core Intel processors are also present in today's testing. Others are obviously too slow to compare with this inexpensive processor, but oh well - let him dominate.

Test Methodology

Methodology. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:

• Methodology for measuring power consumption when testing processors
• Methodology for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing
• Methodology for measuring performance in 2017 games

Detailed results for all tests are available as a complete results spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format) . Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. This is especially true for application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (AMD FX-8350 with 16 GB of memory, GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card and Corsair Force LE 960 GB SSD) and grouped by computer application areas.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2017

In principle, the assertions of AMD fans that FX were not so bad in "harsh multithreading", if we consider only performance, are justified: as we can see, the 8350, in principle, could compete on equal terms with the Core i7 of the same year of release. However, here it also looks good against the background of the younger Ryzen, but between these two families, almost nothing was produced by the company for this market segment. Intel, on the other hand, has such a uniform lineup, which made it possible to double the performance within the framework of the “quad-core” concept. Although the cores are of great importance here - the best dual-core processor of 2017 still did not catch up with the quad-core Core of the "previous" generation (recall that it is still officially called so in the company's materials, clearly separated from the numbered ones starting from the second). And six-core models are good - and that's all. So Intel's reproaches that the company delayed their entry to the market too much can be considered fair to some extent.

All the difference from the previous group is that the code here is not so primitive, so, in addition to cores, threads and gigahertz, the architectural features of the processors executing it are also important. Although the overall result for Intel products is quite comparable: the difference between the 880 and 7700K is still twofold, the i5-8400 is still second only to the latter, the i3-7350K still has not caught up with anyone. And it happened in the same seven years. We can assume that eight - after all, LGA1156 entered the market in the fall of 2009, and the Core i7-880 differed from the 860 and 870 that appeared in the first wave only in frequencies, and even then only slightly.

One has only to “weaken” the utilization of multithreading a little, and the position of newer processors immediately improves - albeit quantitatively weaker ones. However, the traditional "two ends" with other (relatively) equal comparison of the "previous" and "seventh" generations of Core gives us. Although it is easy to see that the “second” and ... “eighth” are drawn to the maximum extent for the “revolutionary”. But this is more than understandable: the latter increased the number of cores, and in the "second" the microarchitecture and process technology changed radically, and at the same time.

As we already know, Adobe Photoshop is a little “weird” (bad news - the problem has not been fixed in the latest version of the package at the moment; very bad news - now it will also be relevant for the new Core i3), so we do not consider processors without HT. But our main heroes have support for this technology, so no one bothers them all to work normally. As a result, in general, the state of affairs is similar to other groups, but there is a nuance: the fastest processor for the LGA1150 turned out to be the i7-4790K, which does not have a high frequency, but the i7-5775C. Well - in some places, intensive methods of increasing productivity are very effective. It’s a pity that not always: it’s easier to “work” with frequency. And it's cheaper: you don't need an additional eDRAM crystal, which also needs to be somehow placed on the same substrate as the "main" one.

The number of cores as a "driver" for increasing performance is also suitable - more than even the frequency. Although the Core i7-8700K looked worse in our first test, this was due to the results of the same Adobe Photoshop: they turned out to be almost the same as for the i7-7700K. Switching to a "release" processor and board solved the problem in this case: the performance turned out to be similar to other six-core Intel processors. With a corresponding improvement in the overall result in the group. The behavior of other programs has not changed - they have previously been positive about increasing the number of supported computation threads while maintaining a similar level of such frequency.

Moreover, sometimes only she “decides” and the number of computation threads. Basically, of course, there are certain nuances here, but “ there is no reception against scrap". The whole revolutionary architecture of Ryzen, for example, only allowed the 1400 to deliver performance on par with the FX-8350 or Core i7-3770K that hit the market in 2012. Given that its frequency is lower than both, and indeed this is a special budget model that actually uses only half of the semiconductor crystal, it's not so bad. But reverence does not cause. Especially against the background of another (and also inexpensive) representative of the Ryzen 5 line, which easily and noticeably overtook any quad-core Core i7 of any year of production :)

Although we abandoned the single-threaded unpacking test, this program still cannot be considered too “greedy” for cores and their frequency. It is clear why - the performance of the memory system is very important here, so the Core i7-5775C managed to overtake only the i7-8700K, and even then by less than 10%. It is a pity that there are no products so far where L4 is combined with six cores and memory with a high memory bandwidth: such a processor "without bottlenecks" in such tasks could show a miracle. Theoretically, at least, it is obvious that in desktop computers we will not see anything like this in the near future for sure.

It is characteristic that this offshoot from the "main line" of desktop processors demonstrates (so far!) high results in this group of programs as well. However, what unites them is mainly the intended purpose, and not the optimization methods chosen by the programmers. But the latter are not ignored either - unlike some more "primitive" tasks, such as video encoding.

What do we end up with? The effect of "evolutionary development" has somewhat decreased: the Core i7-7700K outperforms the i7-880 by less than two times, and its superiority over the i7-2700K is only one and a half times. In general, not bad: it was achieved by intensive means in comparable "quantitative" conditions, i.e., it can be extended to almost any software. However, in relation to the interests of the most demanding users, it is not enough. Especially if we compare the gains at each annual step, adding another Core i7-4770K (which is why we regretted above that this processor was not found).

At the same time, the company has had the opportunity to dramatically increase productivity at least in multi-threaded software (and this has long been a lot among resource-intensive programs) for a long time. Yes, and it was also implemented - but within the framework of completely different platforms with their own characteristics. Not without reason, many have been waiting for six-core models under LGA115x since 2014 ... But many did not expect any breakthroughs from AMD in those years - the first Ryzen tests turned out to be all the more impressive. No wonder - as you can see, even the inexpensive Ryzen 5 1600 can compete in performance with the Core i7-7700K, which was the fastest LGA1151 processor just a couple of months ago. Now a similar performance level is quite available for the Core i5, but it would be better if it happened earlier :) In any case, there would be less reason for complaints.

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

However, this diagram once again demonstrates why the performance of mass CPUs in the second decade of the 21st century, it grew at a much slower pace than in the first: in this case, all development took place against the background of a “non-increase” in energy consumption. If possible, even reduce. It was possible to reduce it by architectural or any other methods - users of mobile and compact systems (which have long been sold much more than “typical desktop ones”) will be satisfied. Yes, and on the desktop market, a small step forward, since you can tweak the frequencies a little more, which was done in the Core i7-4790K at one time, and then entrenched in the “regular” Core i7, and even in the Core i5.

This is especially clearly seen in the evaluation of the power consumption of the processors themselves (unfortunately, for the LGA1155 it is impossible to measure it separately from the platform using simple tools). At the same time, it becomes clear why the company does not need to somehow change the requirements for processor cooling within the LGA115x line. Also, why more and more products in the (formally) desktop assortment begin to fit into the thermal packs traditional for laptop processors: this happens by itself without any effort. In principle, it would be possible to install all quad-core processors under LGA1151 TDP = 65 W and not suffer :) Just for the so-called. overclocking processors, the company considers it necessary to tighten the requirements for the cooling system, since there is a small (but not zero) chance that the buyer of a computer with such will overclock it and use all sorts of "stability tests". And mass products do not cause such concerns, and are initially more economical. Even six-core ones, although the power consumption of the older i7-8700K has grown - but only to the level of processors for the LGA1150. In normal mode, of course - during overclocking, you can inadvertently return to 2010 :)

But, at the same time, modern economical processors are not necessarily slow at all - three to five years ago, the performance of "energy efficient" models against the background of the top ones in the line often left much to be desired, since they had to reduce the frequency too much, or even reduce the number of cores. Therefore, in general, "energy efficiency" increased much faster than pure performance: here, when comparing the Core i7-7700K and i7-880, not twice, but all two and a half. However... the first "big leap" and immediately one and a half times fell on the introduction of LGA1155, so it's not surprising that complaints about the further evolution of the platform were also heard from this direction.

iXBT Game Benchmark 2017

Of course, the results of the oldest processors, such as Core i7-880 and i7-2700K, are of the greatest interest. Unfortunately, nothing good came of the first of them: apparently, none of the GPU manufacturers seriously dealt with the issues of compatibility of new video cards with the platform of the end of the last decade. Yes, and it’s clear why: many LGA1156 missed it altogether, or have already managed to migrate from it to other solutions for so many years. But with the Core i7-2700K there is another problem: its performance (recall - in normal mode) is still often enough to work at the level of the new Core i7. In general, such an indestructible legend: which (together with the older Core i5 for LGA1155) was first made a good gaming processor by high single-threaded performance (in those years, Intel strongly "clamped" Core i3 and Pentium in frequency), and then they started more or less efficiently all eight supported computation threads are utilized. Although the same level of performance in games is often achieved by more “simple” solutions for new platforms, there is sometimes a feeling that this is due not only and not so much to “pure” performance. Therefore, for those who are interested in the results in games to some extent, we recommend that you familiarize yourself with them using the full table, and here we will give only a couple of the most interesting and revealing diagrams.

Take Far Cry Primal for example. We immediately discard the results of the Core i7-880: the incorrect operation of the video card on the GTX 1070 with this platform is obvious. Perhaps, by the way, this is also common for LGA1155, although in general the frame rate cannot be called low here: in practice it is enough. But clearly lower than it could be. And LGA1151 also somehow does not shine, and LGA1150 looks like the best platform. Now we remember that a modified version of the Dunia Engine 2 (it is used here) was developed between 2013 and 2014, so they could just re-optimize. An indirect confirmation of which is the low (relative to expected) frame rate on Ryzen 5: there is a feeling that there should be more and that's it.

But games on the EGO 4.0 engine began to appear in 2015 - and here we don’t see such artifacts anymore. With the exception of the Core i7-880, which once again amused by the "brakes", but this correlates well with other games. And not just multi-core processors look best, but also those released since 2015, i.e. LGA1151 and AM4 platforms. The complete opposite of the previous case, although in general both games were released in 2016. And both within the same family of processors always "vote" for the model in which there are more computing cores. But within one- different (especially, significantly different architecturally) with their help, you need to compare very carefully. If you want to compare, of course: in general, in both (and not only in them) on a system with a five-year-old processor and a “good” video card, you can play with much more comfort than with any processor, but on a budget video card for $ 200 In general, do games have requirements for processors or not, and gaming computer you need to collect "from the video card". However, it would be strange if something changed in this industry - especially considering that the performance of video cards over the past eight years has not doubled at all, and not even tripled;)

Total

Actually, all we wanted to do was compare several processors of different years at once when working with modern software. Moreover, some characteristics of the older Core i7 models have not changed much during this time, especially if we take the interval from the winter of 2011 to the same period in 2017. But productivity grew at the same time - slowly, but slightly more than the oft-discussed "5% per year." And taking into account the fact that every year a normal user does not buy computers, but usually focuses on 3-5 years, during such a period there was an increase in performance, economy, and platform functionality. But could have been better. At the same time, some “weak points” are clearly visible: for example, an increase in clock frequency in 2014 did not allow achieving significantly higher performance either in 2015 or even at the beginning of 2017. We managed to “break away” noticeably from LGA1155 (as the software was optimized for processors, starting with Haswell, the results were more modest at the start), and that’s it. And then (suddenly) +30% performance, which was not there for a long time. In general, from a historical point of view, a smoother implementation this process would look better. But what has been has already been.

Introduction This summer, Intel did something strange: it managed to replace two generations of processors that are aimed at mainstream personal computers. First, Haswell was replaced by processors with the Broadwell microarchitecture, but then within just a couple of months they lost their novelty status and gave way to Skylake processors, which will remain the most progressive CPUs for at least another year and a half. This generational leapfrog occurred mainly due to Intel's problems with the introduction of a new 14nm process technology, which is used in the production of both Broadwell and Skylake. Broadwell microarchitecture performance carriers were greatly delayed on their way to desktop systems, and their successors came out on a predetermined 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 has occupied a very narrow niche of economical processors with a powerful graphics core and is now content with only a small level of sales characteristic of highly specialized products. The attention of the advanced part of users switched to the followers of Broadwell - Skylake processors.

It should be noted that over the past few years, Intel has not pleased its fans at all with an increase in the performance of its products. Each new generation of processors adds only a few percent in specific performance, which ultimately leads to a lack of clear incentives for users to upgrade old systems. But the release of Skylake - the generation of CPUs, on the way to which Intel, in fact, jumped over the step - inspired certain hopes that we would get a really worthwhile update to the most common computing platform. However, nothing like this happened: Intel performed in its usual repertoire. Broadwell was introduced to the public as an offshoot of the mainstream desktop processor line, while Skylake proved marginally faster than Haswell in most applications.

Therefore, despite all expectations, the appearance of Skylake on sale caused many skepticism. After reviewing the results of real tests, many buyers simply did not see the real point in switching to sixth generation Core processors. And 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 little real incentive to upgrade past-generation based systems.

However, we still would not dissuade all users without exception from switching Skylake. The fact is that even though Intel is increasing the performance of its processors at a very restrained pace, since the advent of Sandy Bridge, which are still working in many systems, four generations of microarchitecture have already changed. Each step along the path of progress contributed to the increase in performance, and to this day, Skylake is able to offer a fairly significant increase in performance compared to its earlier predecessors. Just to see this, you need to compare it not with Haswell, but with the earlier representatives of the Core family that appeared before it.

In fact, that's exactly what we're 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 older Core i7s from the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake generations in a single test. Having received the results of such testing, we will try to understand which processor owners should start upgrading old systems, and which of them can wait until the next generations of CPUs appear. Along the way, we will also 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 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 past 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, reduced to the same frequency 4 .0 GHz. In this comparison, we used the 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 computing 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 integral indicator SYSmark 2014 1.5 allows us to make the following observations. The transition from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge increased the specific productivity very slightly - by about 3-4 percent. The next move to Haswell was far more rewarding, resulting in a 12 percent improvement in performance. And this is the maximum increase that can be observed on the above graph. After all, Broadwell overtakes Haswell by only 7 percent, and the transition from Broadwell to Skylake increases the specific performance by only 1-2 percent. All the progress from Sandy Bridge to Skylake translates into a 26 percent increase in performance at a constant clock speed.

A more detailed interpretation of the obtained SYSmark 2014 1.5 indicators can be seen in 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 are added to the speed of execution. In them, the Skylake microarchitecture outperforms Sandy Bridge by as much as 33 percent. But in counting problems, on the contrary, progress is manifested least of all. Moreover, with 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 happened to the specific performance of Intel processors over the past few years, let's try to figure out what the observed changes were due to.

From Sandy Bridge to Skylake: what has changed in Intel processors

We decided to make the reference point in the comparison of different Core i7 representatives of the Sandy Bridge generation 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 assembled in one semiconductor chip. 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 generations of CPUs continue to follow these universal principles of construction laid down 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 implemented support for the new AES-NI and AVX instruction sets, but also found numerous major improvements in the depths of the execution pipeline. It was in Sandy Bridge that a separate zero-level 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 significantly 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, made it possible to seriously increase the specific performance of Sandy Bridge, which immediately increased by almost 15 percent compared to the previous generation Nehalem processors. To this was added a 15% increase in nominal clock frequencies and excellent overclocking potential, as a result of which, in total, we got a family of processors, which Intel still sets as an example, as an exemplary embodiment of the "so" phase in the company's pendulum development concept.

Indeed, we have not seen improvements in the microarchitecture after Sandy Bridge that are similar in terms of mass and effectiveness. All subsequent generations of processor designs have made much smaller improvements to the 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 graphics cores, or maybe Sandy Bridge just turned out to be such a successful project that its further development requires too much effort.

The transition from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge perfectly illustrates the decline in the intensity of innovation that has occurred. Despite the fact that the next generation of processors after Sandy Bridge was transferred to a new production technology with 22nm standards, its clock speeds did not increase at all. The improvements made in the design mainly affected the more flexible memory controller and controller PCI bus Express, which received compatibility with the third version of this standard. As for the microarchitecture of the computing cores, some cosmetic changes made it possible to speed up the execution of division operations and slightly increase the efficiency of Hyper-Threading technology, and nothing more. As a result, the increase in specific productivity amounted to no more than 5 percent.

At the same time, the introduction of Ivy Bridge brought something that the millionth army of overclockers now bitterly regrets. Starting with processors of this generation, Intel abandoned the pairing of the CPU semiconductor chip and the cover 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, as well as all their followers, noticeably less overclockable compared to the "oldies" Sandy Bridge, which are very peppy 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, did not bring any inspiring performance growth, which, unlike Ivy Bridge, is already in the “so” phase. And this is actually a little strange, since there are a lot of various improvements in the Haswell microarchitecture, and they are dispersed in 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, branch prediction performance has been improved, and the queue of decoded instructions has been dynamically shared between parallel threads coexisting within 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 increased the share of the code executed in parallel by the processor. Directly in the execution unit, two additional functional ports were added, aimed at processing integer commands, servicing branches and saving data. Thanks to this, Haswell was able to process up to eight micro-ops per clock - a third more than its predecessors. What's more, the new microarchitecture also doubled the throughput of the L1 and L2 caches.

Thus, improvements in the Haswell microarchitecture did not affect only the speed of the decoder, which seems to have become the bottleneck in modern Core processors at the moment. After all, despite the impressive list of improvements, the increase in specific performance in Haswell compared to Ivy Bridge was only about 5-10 percent. But for the sake of justice, it should be noted that the acceleration is noticeably much stronger on vector operations. And the greatest benefit can be seen in applications using the new AVX2 and FMA commands, support for which has also appeared in this microarchitecture.

Haswell processors, like Ivy Bridge, were also not particularly liked by enthusiasts at first. Especially when you consider the fact that in the original version they did not offer any increase in clock frequencies. However, a year after their debut, Haswell began to seem noticeably more attractive. First, there has been an increase in applications that capitalize on the strengths of this architecture and use vector instructions. Secondly, Intel was able to correct the situation with frequencies. Later versions of Haswell, which received their own code name Devil's Canyon, were able to increase the advantage over their predecessors by increasing the clock speed, which finally broke through the 4 GHz ceiling. In addition, following the lead of overclockers, Intel improved the polymer thermal interface under the processor cover, which made Devil's Canyon more suitable for overclocking. Of course, not as malleable as Sandy Bridge, but nonetheless.

And with such baggage, Intel approached Broadwell. Since the main key feature these processors were supposed to be a new production technology with 14-nm standards, no significant innovations were planned in their microarchitecture - it was supposed to be almost the most banal “tick”. Everything necessary for the success of new products could well be provided by only one thin process technology with second-generation FinFET transistors, which in theory allows reducing power consumption and raising 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 that Intel introduced for desktop systems came out more like mobile CPUs than like followers of the Devil's Canyon business. Moreover, in addition to truncated thermal packages and rolled back frequencies, they differ from their predecessors in a smaller L3 cache, which, however, is somewhat offset by the appearance of a fourth-level cache located on a separate chip.

At the same frequency as Haswell, Broadwell processors show a roughly 7% advantage, provided by both the addition of an additional data caching layer and another improvement in the branch prediction algorithm along with an increase in the main internal buffers. In addition, Broadwell has new and faster execution schemes for multiply and divide instructions. However, all these small improvements are canceled out by the clock speed fiasco, which takes us back to the pre-Sandy Bridge era. So, for example, the older overclocker 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 increase in productivity against this background, if only it could do without its serious drop.

In many ways, it was precisely because of this that Broadwell turned out to be unattractive to the majority of users. Yes, the processors of this family are highly economical and even fit into a thermal package with 65-watt frames, but who cares, by and large? The overclocking potential of the first generation 14nm CPU turned out to be quite restrained. We are not talking about any work at frequencies approaching the 5 GHz bar. The maximum that can be achieved from Broadwell using air cooling lies in the vicinity of 4.2 GHz. In other words, the fifth generation of Core came from Intel, at least strange. Which, by the way, the microprocessor giant eventually regretted: Intel representatives note that the late release of Broadwell for desktop computers, its shortened life cycle and atypical characteristics negatively affected sales, and the company does not plan to embark on such experiments anymore.

Against this background, the newest Skylake is presented not so much as a further development of the Intel microarchitecture, but as a kind of work on bugs. 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 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 played into the hands of the fact that in Skylake the processor power converter again migrated to the motherboard and thereby reduced the total heat dissipation of the CPU during overclocking. The only pity is that Intel never returned to using an effective thermal interface between the chip 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 execution pipeline, while the rest of the pipeline remained without any significant changes. The changes relate to improving the performance of branch prediction and improving the efficiency of the prefetch block, and nothing more. At the same time, some of the optimizations serve not so much to improve performance as they are aimed at another increase in energy efficiency. Therefore, one should not be surprised that Skylake is almost the same as Broadwell in terms of its specific performance.

However, there are exceptions: in some cases, Skylake can outperform its predecessors in performance and more noticeably. The fact is that in this microarchitecture the memory subsystem has been improved. The in-processor ring bus became faster, and this ultimately increased the bandwidth of the L3 cache. Plus, the memory controller received support for DDR4 SDRAM memory operating at high frequencies.

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 made in the graphics core and in energy efficiency, which opens the way for such CPUs into fanless tablet form factor systems. Desktop representatives of this generation differ from the same Haswell not too noticeably. Even if we close our eyes to the existence of the intermediate generation of Broadwell, and compare Skylake directly with Haswell, then the observed increase in specific productivity will be about 7-8 percent, which can hardly be called an impressive manifestation of technical progress.

Along the way, it should be noted that the improvement of technological production processes does not live up to expectations. On the way from Sandy Bridge to Skylake, Intel changed two semiconductor technologies and more than halved the thickness of transistor gates. However, the modern 14nm process technology, compared to the 32nm technology five years ago, did not allow increasing the operating frequencies of processors. All Core processors of the last five generations have very similar clock speeds, which, if they exceed the 4 GHz mark, are very insignificant.

For a visual illustration of this fact, you can look at the following graph, which displays the clock frequency of older overclocking Core i7 processors of different generations.

Moreover, the peak clock frequency is not even on 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 Skylake, the maximum frequency is only 4.2 GHz.

All this, of course, 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 basis of the flagship processors of each of the Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake families.

How We Tested

The comparison involved five Core i7 processors of different generations: 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, 3.3-3.7GHz, 6MB L3, 128MB 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).
Power supply: Corsair RM850i ​​(80 Plus Gold, 850 W).

Testing was performed on the Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise Build 10240 operating system 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 Performance

To evaluate the performance of processors in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark test package, 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 average weighted speed of a computer during everyday use. After leaving the operating room Windows systems 10, this benchmark has been updated once again, and now we use the most latest version– SYSmark 2014 1.5.

When comparing Core i7s of different generations when they are running in their nominal modes, the results are not at all the same as when compared on a single clock frequency. Still, the real frequency and features of the turbo mode have a fairly 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 very small - it is only about 3 percent. At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that the latest Skylake is 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 usage scenarios. The Office Productivity scenario models a typical office work: preparing texts, processing spreadsheets, working with email and visiting Internet sites. 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-captured digital images and video. For this purpose, the popular Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended packages are used, Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and Trimble SketchUp Pro 2013.

The Data/Financial Analysis scenario is dedicated to statistical analysis and investment forecasting based on a certain financial model. The scenario uses large amounts of numerical data and two Microsoft applications Excel 2013 and WinZip Pro 17.5 Pro.

The results obtained by us under various load scenarios qualitatively repeat the general indicators of SYSmark 2014 1.5. Only the fact that the Core i7-4790K processor does not look outdated at all attracts attention. It noticeably loses to the latest Core i7-6700K only in the Data/Financial Analysis calculation scenario, and in other cases it is either inferior to its successor by a very inconspicuous amount, or even turns out to be faster. For example, a member of the Haswell family is ahead of the new Skylake in office applications. But processors from older release years, the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K, seem to be somewhat outdated offerings. They lose from 25 to 40 percent to the novelty in different types of tasks, and this, perhaps, is quite sufficient reason for the Core i7-6700K to be considered a worthy replacement.

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 choose the most processor-intensive games, and measure the number of frames twice. The first pass tests are carried out without turning on anti-aliasing and setting far from the highest resolutions. Such settings allow you to evaluate how well processors perform with a gaming load in general, which means they allow you to speculate about how the tested computing platforms will behave in the future, when faster variants of 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, these results are no less interesting, as they answer the frequently asked question about what level of gaming performance processors can provide right now - in modern conditions.

However, in this test, we have assembled 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 dependence on processor performance even in FullHD resolution.

Results in FullHD resolution 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 i7 different generations, the results are not at all uniform. Even at the highest quality settings, the graphics of the Core i7-6700K and Core i7-5775C show the highest gaming performance, while the older Core i7 lag behind them. Thus, 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 an inconspicuous one percent, but the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K processors already seem to be a significantly worse basis for a gaming system. Switching from a Core i7-2700K or Core i7-3770K to the latest Core i7-6700K results in a 5-7 percent increase in fps, which can have quite a noticeable impact on the quality of the gameplay.

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 does not rest against the power of the graphics subsystem.

Results at reduced resolution

The latest Core i7-6700K 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 Skylake has made serious improvements. But the superiority of the Core i7-6700K over the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K is much more noticeable. The older Sandy Bridge lags behind the novelty by 30-35 percent, and Ivy Bridge loses to it in the region of 20-30 percent. In other words, no matter how Intel was scolded for too slow improvement of its own processors, 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 the results that Futuremark 3DMark gives. When the microarchitecture of Core i7 processors was transferred from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge, 3DMark scores increased by 2 to 7 percent. The introduction of the Haswell design and the release of the Devil's Canyon processors added an additional 7-14 percent to the performance of the older Core i7. However, then the appearance of the Core i7-5775C, which has a relatively low clock speed, somewhat rolled back the performance. And the latest Core i7-6700K, in fact, had to take the rap for two generations of microarchitecture at once. The increase in the final 3DMark rating for the new Skylake family processor compared to the Core i7-4790K was up to 7 percent. And in fact, this is not so much: after all, Haswell processors have been able to bring the most noticeable performance improvement over the past five years. The latest generations of desktop processors are indeed somewhat disappointing.

Application Tests

In Autodesk 3ds max 2016 we are testing the final rendering speed. Measures the time it takes to render at 1920x1080 using a renderer mental ray one frame of a standard Hummer scene.

Another test of the final rendering is carried out by us using the popular free build package. 3D graphics Blender 2.75a. In it, we measure the duration of building the final model from Blender Cycles Benchmark rev4.

To measure the speed of photorealistic 3D rendering, we used the Cinebench R15 test. Maxon recently updated its benchmark, and now it again allows you to evaluate the speed of various platforms when rendering in current versions animation package Cinema 4D.

The performance of websites and Internet applications built using modern technologies is measured by us in a new browser Microsoft Edge 20.10240.16384.0. For this, a specialized WebXPRT 2015 test is used, which implements the algorithms actually used in Internet applications in HTML5 and JavaScript.

Graphics performance testing 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 involves the typical processing of four 24-megapixel images taken by a digital camera, is measured.

Due to numerous requests from amateur photographers, we conducted a performance test in graphics program Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1. The test scenario includes post-processing and export to JPEG at 1920x1080 resolution and maximum quality of two hundred 12-megapixel RAW images taken with a Nikon D300 digital camera.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015 tests non-linear video editing performance. Measures rendering time to H.264 Blu-ray for a project containing HDV 1080p25 footage with various effects applied.

To measure the speed of processors during information compression, we use the WinRAR 5.3 archiver, with the help of which we archive a folder with various files with a total volume of 1.7 GB with the maximum compression ratio.

The x264 FHD Benchmark 1.0.1 (64bit) test is used to estimate the speed of transcoding video to H.264 format, based on measuring the time it takes x264 encoder to encode source video to MPEG-4/AVC format with 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 the basis of numerous popular transcoding utilities, such as HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, and so on. We periodically update the encoder used for performance measurements, and version r2538 took part in this testing, which supports all modern instruction sets, including AVX2.

In addition, we have added a new x265 encoder to the list of test applications, designed to transcode 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 the performance, the original [email protected] Y4M video file that is transcoded to H.265 format with medium profile. The release of the encoder version 1.7 took part in this testing.

The advantage of the Core i7-6700K over its early predecessors in various applications is beyond doubt. However, two types of tasks have benefited most from the evolution that has taken place. Firstly, related to the processing of multimedia content, whether it be video or images. Secondly, final rendering in 3D modeling and design packages. In general, in such cases, the Core i7-6700K outperforms the Core i7-2700K by at least 40-50 percent. And sometimes you can see a much more impressive improvement in speed. So, when transcoding video with the x265 codec, the latest Core i7-6700K gives exactly twice as much performance as the old Core i7-2700K.

If we talk about the increase in the speed of performing resource-intensive tasks that the Core i7-6700K can provide compared to the Core i7-4790K, then there are no such impressive illustrations of the results of the work of Intel engineers. The maximum advantage of the novelty is observed in Lightroom, here Skylake turned out to be one and a half times better. But this is rather an exception to the rule. For most multimedia tasks, however, the Core i7-6700K offers only a 10 percent performance improvement over the Core i7-4790K. And with a load of a different nature, the difference in speed is even less or even absent.

Separately, a few words need to be said about the result shown by the Core i7-5775C. Due to the 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 efficiency. 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.

power usage

Skylake processors are manufactured on a modern 14nm process with second-generation 3D transistors, however, despite this, their TDP has increased to 91W. In other words, the new CPUs are not only “hotter” than 65-watt Broadwells, but also outperform Haswells in terms of calculated heat dissipation, produced using 22-nm technology and coexisting within the 88-watt thermal package. The reason, obviously, is that initially the Skylake architecture was optimized with an eye not to high frequencies, but to energy efficiency and the possibility of using in mobile devices. Therefore, in order for the desktop Skylake to receive acceptable clock frequencies lying in the vicinity of the 4 GHz mark, the supply voltage had to be turned up, 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 due to some formal circumstances and, in fact, they will turn out to be no more voracious than their predecessors. Let's check!

The new Corsair RM850i ​​digital power supply used by us 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 consumption of systems (without a 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 in this case is not taken into account. To properly assess energy consumption, we have activated the turbo mode and all available energy-saving technologies.

In the idle state, a qualitative leap in the efficiency of desktop platforms occurred 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 latest Core i7-6700K consumes more. His energy appetites are at the level of the older 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 consumption under the load created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.6.5 utility with support for the AVX2 instruction set, which is based on the Linpack package, which has exorbitant energy appetites.

Once again, the Broadwell generation processor shows the wonders of energy efficiency. However, if you look at how much power the Core i7-6700K consumes, it becomes clear that progress in microarchitectures has bypassed the energy efficiency of desktop CPUs. Yes, in the mobile segment with the release of Skylake, new proposals have appeared with an extremely seductive ratio of performance and power consumption, however latest processors for desktops continue to consume about the same as their predecessors consumed five years before today.

findings

Having tested the latest Core i7-6700K and compared 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 aimed at high-performance systems. And if, compared to the older Broadwell, the new product offers about a 15 percent improvement in performance due to significantly better clock frequencies, then compared to the older, but faster Haswell, it no longer seems to be as progressive. The difference in performance between the Core i7-6700K and Core i7-4790K, despite the fact that these processors are separated by two generations of microarchitecture, does not exceed 5-10 percent. And this is very little so that the older desktop Skylake could be unambiguously recommended for updating existing LGA 1150 systems.

However, it would take a long time to get used to such insignificant steps taken by Intel in increasing the speed of processors for desktop systems. The increase in the speed of new solutions, which lies approximately in such limits, is a long-established tradition. No revolutionary changes in the computing performance of Intel desktop-oriented CPUs have been happening 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 only have to be content with small increases in performance, which, fortunately, have not yet completely disappeared.

However, this does not mean at all that the Core i7-6700K can only be recommended for new systems. Owners of configurations based on the LGA 1155 platform with processors from the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge generations may well think about upgrading their computers. Compared to 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 Skylake microarchitecture boast support for the AVX2 instruction set, which has now found wide use in multimedia applications, and thanks to this, the Core i7-6700K is much faster in some cases. So, when transcoding video, we even saw cases when the Core i7-6700K outperformed the Core i7-2700K in speed by more than twice!

Skylake processors also have a number of other advantages associated with the introduction of the new LGA 1151 platform accompanying them. And the point is not so much in the support for DDR4 memory that has appeared in it, but in the fact that the new chipsets of the hundredth series have finally received really high-speed connection with the processor and support for a large number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes. As a result, advanced LGA 1151 systems boast numerous fast interfaces for connecting drives and external devices without any artificial bandwidth limitations.

Plus, when evaluating the prospects for the LGA 1151 platform and Skylake processors, one more thing needs to be borne in mind. Intel will not be in a rush to bring the next generation of processors known as Kaby Lake to market. According to the available information, representatives of this series of processors in versions for desktop computers will appear on the market only in 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.

However, these two materials, it seems to us, are still insufficient for a full disclosure of the topic. The first “thin moment” is clock speeds - after all, when Haswell Refresh was released, the company already rigidly divided the line of “regular” Core i7 and “overclocker” ones, factory overclocking the latter (which was not so difficult, since such processors, generally speaking, require a little , so it is not difficult to select the required number of required crystals). The appearance of Skylake not only preserved the state of affairs, but also aggravated 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 in fact the frequencies are not at all the same. In general, it is dangerous to draw conclusions from the older model, but basically it was studied everywhere and only it. The "younger" (and more in demand) until recently has not been spoiled by the attention of test laboratories.

Why might this be needed? Just for comparison with the "tops" of previous families, especially since there usually was not such a large frequency spread. Sometimes there was none 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 to a greater extent analogous to the 2600S, 3770S, 4770S and 4790S models, 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 the “regular” family, which most owners of the “old” Core i7 will look at. Or potential owners - while an upgrade still remains something useful at times, most users of processors of lower families of processors, if they need to increase performance, look first of all at devices for an already available platform, and only then consider (or not consider) an idea its replacement. Whether this approach is correct or not, tests will show.

Test stand 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
Production 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
Number of cores/threads	4/8	4/8	4/8	4/8	4/8
L1 cache (total), 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
Cache L3 (L4), 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
Graphic arts	HDG 3000	HDG4000	HDG4600	IPG 6200	HDG530
EU quantity	12	16	20	48	24
Frequency std/max, MHz	850/1350	650/1150	350/1250	300/1150	350/1150
Price	T-7762352	T-7959318	T-10384297	T-12645073	T-12874268

For more academic purposes, it would make sense to test the Core i7-2600 and i7-4790, and not the 2700K and 4770K at all, but the former is already difficult to find in our time, while the 2700K was found at our fingertips and was tested. As well as 4770K, it was also studied, and in the “ordinary” family it has full (4771) and close (4770) analogues, and the whole trinity does not differ significantly from 4790, so we decided not to neglect the possibility of minimizing the amount of work. As a result, by the way, Core processors of the second, third and fourth generations turned out to be as close as possible to each other in terms of the official clock frequency range, and the 6700 differs slightly from them. Broadwell could also be "pulled up" to this level, taking the results not from the i7-5775C, but from the 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), rather than an exotic processor.

As for other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of the RAM was the maximum supported by the specifications. But its volume (8 GB) and system drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects.

Test Methodology

To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using benchmarks and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all test results in the first benchmark against the results of the reference system, which this year will be the same for laptops and for all other computers, which is designed to make it easier for readers to compare and choose:

iXBT Application Benchmark 2015

As we have already written more than once, the video core is of considerable importance in this group. However, not everything is as simple as one might assume only from technical specifications- for example, the i7-5775C is still slower than the i7-6700, although the former has a much more powerful GPU. However, the comparison of 2700K and 3770 is even more indicative 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 one is capable. But it does it so slowly that it has no advantages over its predecessor. On the other hand, the endowment of such abilities with the “most massive GPU on the market” has led to the fact that manufacturers have begun to use them little by little. software, which manifested itself by the time the next generations of Core entered the market. And along with minor improvements and processor cores can lead to a fairly noticeable effect.

However, not everywhere - that's just the case when the growth from generation to generation is completely invisible. However, it is, but such that it is easier not to pay attention to it. The only interesting thing here is that the past year has made it possible to combine such an increase in performance with significantly less stringent requirements for the cooling system (which opens up the regular desktop Core i7 and the segment of compact systems), but this is not true in all cases.

And here is an example when a considerable part of the load has already been shifted to the GPU. The only thing that can “save” the old Core i7 in this case is a discrete video card, however, data transfers over the bus spoil the effect, so the i7-2700K will not necessarily catch up with the i7-6700 in this case, 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 puzzled 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 long been enough? As you can see, it's not too "enough" if the fastest processor (as here) can sometimes turn out to be a processor with a far from the most powerful "processor" part. And it's already interesting in advance - what can we get from Skylake in the GT4e modification;)

Amazing unanimity, ensured by the fact that this program does not require any new instruction sets, nor any miracles in the field of increasing multi-threaded performance. There is, however, a slight difference between the generations of processors. But you can only look for it at exactly the same clock frequency. And when it differs significantly (which we have in the performance of the i7-5775C, in single-threaded mode lagging behind everyone else by 10%) - you don’t have to look :)

Audition "can" more or less everything. Unless he is rather indifferent to additional computation threads, but he knows how to use them. Moreover, judging by the results, Skylake does it better than it was typical of previous architectures: the advantage of 4770K over 4690K is about 15%, but the 6700 outperforms the 6600K by 20% (despite the fact that the frequencies are approximately equal for all). In general, most likely, many more discoveries will be waiting for us in the new architecture. Small, but sometimes giving a cumulative effect.

As in the case of text recognition, where exactly does the 6700 break away from its predecessors most "briskly". Although in the absolute result it is insignificant, it would be a priori too optimistic to expect such an increase on relatively old and well-groomed algorithms, given that, in fact, we have an energy-efficient processor in front of us (by the way, the 6700K really copes with this task much faster) . We didn't wait. And practice turned out to be more interesting than a priori assumptions :)

All top processors cope very well with archivers, regardless of generation. In many ways, it seems to us, because for them this task is already very simple. Actually, the count is already going by seconds, so it is almost impossible to radically improve something here. If only to speed up the memory system, but DDR4 has higher latency than DDR3, so only an increase in caches gives a guaranteed result. Therefore, the only processor with a GT3e GPU among the tested ones turned out to be the fastest - the fourth-level cache is used not only by the video core. On the other hand, the increase from an additional crystal is not so great, so archivers are just that load, which in the case of obviously fast systems (and not some mini-PCs) can no longer be paid attention to.

Plus or minus half a shoe from the Sun, which, in general, also confirms that all top processors cope with such tasks in the same way, the controllers in the chipsets of the three series are almost identical, so a significant difference can only be due to the drive.

But in such a banal scenario as simply copying files, it’s also a thermal package: models with a reduced “accelerate” rather sluggishly (fortunately, formally and for nothing), which leads to slightly lower results than they could. But in general, this is also not the case for which there may be a desire to change the platform.

What do we get as a result? All processors are approximately identical to each other. Yes, of course, the difference between the best and the worst exceeds 10%, but do not forget that these are differences that have accumulated over more than three years (and if we take the i7-2600, it would be 15% in almost five). Thus, there is no practical point in replacing one platform with another, as long as the old one works. Naturally, if we are talking about LGA1155 and its followers, 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 at the moment, you can “squeeze out” something using the “steroidal” Core i7 (if you still focus on this expensive family), but not so much: in terms of integrated performance, the i7-6700K overtakes 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 essential.

Gaming Applications

For obvious reasons, for computer systems of this level, we limit 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 user. 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 of its owners who use the integrated video core are not interested in games at all. Those who are interested in at least somehow, they certainly found and installed at least some “slot plug” in the bins, since our testing according to the previous version of the methodology showed that the HD Graphics 3000 is no better than even the Radeon HD 6450, and both almost nothing is enough. Here 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 - just in a socket version, such a configuration is currently only available for Broadwell with all the consequences.

On the other hand, the “tanks” at minimum wages already “run” on everything so well that a slender picture only in high resolution and “dances”: in low 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 rank. But this is especially evident again in FHD, where the memory bandwidth already matters. As a result, on the i7-6700 it is already possible not to reduce the resolution. Even more so on the i7-5775C, and the absolute results are much higher, so if this application is of interest, 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 older Haswell "pull" the game at least in low resolution, and Skylake does it without reservations. We do not comment on Broadwell - this is not an architectural, but, let's say, quantitative superiority.

The older game in the series is similar at first glance, but there are no even quantitative differences between Haswell and Skylake.

In Hitman - noticeable ones are also observed, but there is still no transition from quantity to quality.

As well as here, where even the 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 sparing for all weak GPUs, although the HDG 4000 was still "enough" only for HD, not FHD.

And again a difficult case. Less "heavy" than Thief, but enough to demonstrate clearly that no integrated graphics can be considered a gaming solution.

Although some games can be played with relative comfort. However, tangible only if you complicate the IGP and quantitatively increase all functional blocks. Actually, it is in light modes that progress in the field of Intel GPUs is most noticeable - about twice in three years (there is no point in considering older developments seriously). But it does not follow from this that, over time, integrated graphics will be able to easily and naturally catch up with discrete graphics of a comparable age. Most likely, "parity" will be set on the other side - meaning a huge base of installed solutions of low performance, the manufacturers of the same games will focus on it. Why wasn't this done 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 rather 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 saturation point, because, firstly, the park of diverse computer technology is already very large, and there are fewer and fewer people who want to engage in a permanent upgrade. And secondly, “multi-platform” now means not only specialized game consoles, but also a variety of smartphone tablets, where, obviously, the performance is still worse than that of “adult” computers, regardless of the degree of integration of the platforms of the latter. But in order for this trend to become predominant, it seems to us that it is necessary to achieve a certain level of guaranteed productivity. What is not yet. 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 a level that none of the competitors can directly “attack”. Therefore, the main task of Intel 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 overtaken desktop computers in this indicator and are becoming more and 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 the case of which a large mass kills the whole meaning of their existence). In general, the development of computer platforms has long been on the wrong track to best meet the needs of buyers of large desktop computers. At best, not to their detriment. Therefore, the fact that, in general, in this segment, the performance of systems does not decrease, but even grows slightly, is already a reason for joy - it could be worse :) The only bad thing is that, due to changes in peripheral functionality, the platforms themselves have to be constantly changed: this maintainability is such a traditional advantage of modular computers, but nothing can be done here - attempts to maintain compatibility at any cost do not bring any good (doubters can look at, for example, AMD AM3 +).