Intel Core i5 processors. Seventh generation Intel Core processors (Kaby Lake): comparison of Core i5-HQ and Core i7-U

IntroductionThis summer, Intel did something strange: it managed to change as many as two generations of processors aimed at commonly used personal computers. At first, Haswell was replaced by processors with the Broadwell microarchitecture, but then within just a couple of months they lost their status as new products and gave way to Skylake processors, which will remain the most progressive CPUs for at least another year and a half. This leapfrog with the change of generations occurred mainly in connection with the problems Intel encountered when introducing the new 14-nm process technology, which is used in the production of both Broadwell and Skylake. Productive carriers of the Broadwell microarchitecture were greatly delayed on their way to desktop systems, and their successors were released according to a pre-planned schedule, which led to a crumpled announcement of the fifth generation Core processors and a serious reduction in their life cycle. As a result of all these upheavals, Broadwell occupied a very narrow niche in the desktop segment economical processors with a powerful graphics core and are now content with only a small level of sales typical 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 been pleasing its fans with the growth in 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 older systems. But the release of Skylake - a generation of CPUs along the way to which Intel actually jumped over a step - inspired certain hopes that we would get a truly 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 a kind of offshoot from the main line of processors for desktop systems, and Skylake turned out to be slightly faster than Haswell in most applications.

Therefore, despite all expectations, the appearance of Skylake on sale aroused skepticism among many. After reviewing the results of real tests, many buyers simply did not see the real point in switching to sixth-generation Core processors. Indeed, the main trump card of the new CPUs is primarily a new platform with accelerated internal interfaces, but not a new processor microarchitecture. And this means that Skylake offers few real incentives to update legacy systems.

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

Actually, this is exactly the comparison we will do today. Considering all that has been said, we decided to see how much the performance of Core i7 processors has increased since 2011, and we collected older Core i7s belonging to 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 older systems, and which of them can wait until subsequent generations of CPUs appear. Along the way, we will look at the performance level of the new Core i7-5775C and Core i7-6700K processors of the Broadwell and Skylake generations, which have not yet been tested in our laboratory.

Comparative characteristics of the tested CPUs

From Sandy Bridge to Skylake: Specific Performance Comparison

In order to remember how the specific performance of Intel processors has changed over the last five years, we decided to start with a simple test in which we compared the operating speed of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake, reduced to the same frequency 4 .0 GHz. In this comparison, we used processors from the Core i7 line, that is, quad-core processors with Hyper-Threading technology.

The complex test SYSmark 2014 1.5 was taken as the main testing 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 display 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 specific productivity only slightly - by about 3-4 percent. The next step to Haswell was much more effective, resulting in a 12 percent improvement in performance. And this is the maximum increase that can be observed in the above graph. After all, Broadwell is ahead of Haswell by only 7 percent, and the transition from Broadwell to Skylake even increases specific productivity by only 1-2 percent. All the progress from Sandy Bridge to Skylake results in a 26 percent increase in performance at constant clock speeds.

A more detailed explanation of the obtained SYSmark 2014 1.5 indicators can be found in the following three graphs, where the integral performance index is broken down into components by application type.

Please note that with the introduction of new versions of microarchitectures, multimedia applications increase execution speed most noticeably. In them, the Skylake microarchitecture outperforms Sandy Bridge by as much as 33 percent. But in counting problems, on the contrary, progress is least evident. Moreover, with such a load, the step from Broadwell to Skylake even results in a slight decrease in specific performance.

Now that we imagine what happened to the specific productivity Intel processors over the past few years, let's try to figure out what caused the observed changes.

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

We decided to make the representative of the Sandy Bridge generation the starting point for comparing different Core i7s for a reason. It was this design that laid a strong foundation for all further improvements in high-performance 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 were assembled in one semiconductor chip, as well as north bridge with L3 cache and memory controller. In addition, they were the first 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. These universal design principles embedded in the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture continue to be followed by all subsequent generations of CPUs without any major adjustments.

The internal microarchitecture of the 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 bowels of the execution pipeline. It was in Sandy Bridge that a separate level-0 cache was added for decoded instructions; a completely new instruction reordering unit 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 diverse reforms, carried out simultaneously at all stages of the pipeline, made it possible to significantly increase the specific productivity of Sandy Bridge, which immediately increased by almost 15 percent compared to the previous generation Nehalem processors. Added to this was a 15% increase in nominal clock frequencies and excellent overclocking potential, resulting in a family of processors that is still held up by Intel as an exemplary embodiment of the “so” phase in the company’s pendulum development concept.

Indeed, we have not seen improvements in microarchitecture similar in scale and effectiveness since Sandy Bridge. All subsequent generations of processor designs make much smaller improvements in the computing cores. Perhaps this is a reflection of the lack of real competition in the processor market, perhaps the reason for the slowdown in progress lies in Intel's desire to focus on improving the graphics cores, or perhaps Sandy Bridge simply 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 innovation intensity. Despite the fact that the next generation of processors after Sandy Bridge was transferred to a new production technology with 22 nm standards, its clock speeds did not increase at all. The improvements made in the design mainly affected the memory controller, which became more flexible, and the PCI Express bus controller, which became compatible with the third version of this standard. As for the microarchitecture of the computing cores itself, some cosmetic changes made it possible to speed up the execution of division operations and slightly increase the efficiency of Hyper-Threading technology, and that’s all. As a result, the increase in specific productivity was no more than 5 percent.

At the same time, the introduction of Ivy Bridge also brought something that the million-strong army of overclockers now bitterly regrets. Starting with this generation of processors, Intel has abandoned pairing semiconductor crystal The CPU and the cover that covers it using flux-free soldering and switched to filling the space between them with a polymer thermal interface material with very questionable heat-conducting properties. This artificially degraded the frequency potential and made Ivy processors Bridge, like all their followers, are noticeably less overclockable compared to the very vigorous “oldies” Sandy Bridge in this regard.

However, Ivy Bridge is just a “tick”, and therefore no one promised any special breakthroughs in these processors. However, the next generation, Haswell, which, unlike Ivy Bridge, already belongs to the “so” phase, did not bring any encouraging growth in productivity. And this is actually a little strange, since a lot of various improvements have been made in the Haswell microarchitecture, and they are dispersed across different parts of the execution pipeline, which in total could well increase the overall speed of command execution.

For example, in the input part of the pipeline, the performance of branch prediction was improved, and the queue of decoded instructions began to be dynamically divided between parallel threads coexisting within the Hyper-Threading technology. At the same time, there was an increase in the window for out-of-order execution of commands, which in total should have increased the share of code executed in parallel by the processor. Two additional functional ports were added directly to the execution unit, aimed at processing integer commands, servicing branches and storing data. Thanks to this, Haswell became capable of processing up to eight micro-operations per clock cycle - a third more than its predecessors. Moreover, the new microarchitecture has doubled the bandwidth of the first and second level cache memory.

Thus, improvements in the Haswell microarchitecture did not affect only the speed of the decoder, which, it seems, has currently become the bottleneck in modern processors Core. Indeed, despite the impressive list of improvements, the increase in specific productivity for Haswell compared to Ivy Bridge was only about 5-10 percent. But in fairness, it must be noted that in vector operations the acceleration is noticeably much stronger. And the greatest gains can be seen in applications that use the new AVX2 and FMA commands, support for which also appeared in this microarchitecture.

Haswell processors, like Ivy Bridge, were also not particularly liked by enthusiasts at first. Especially considering the fact that in original version They did not offer any increase in clock speeds. However, a year after its debut, Haswell began to seem noticeably more attractive. First, there has been an increase in the number of applications that take advantage of the architecture's greatest strengths and use vector instructions. Secondly, Intel was able to correct the situation with frequencies. Later modifications of Haswell, codenamed Devil's Canyon, were able to increase their 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 has improved the polymer thermal interface under the processor cover, which makes Devil's Canyon more suitable for overclocking. Of course, not as pliable as Sandy Bridge, but still.

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 in their microarchitecture were planned - it was supposed to be almost the most banal “tick”. Everything necessary for the success of new products could well be provided by just one thin technical process with second-generation FinFET transistors, which in theory allows reducing power consumption and raising frequencies. However, practical implementation new technology turned into a series of failures, as a result of which Broadwell got only efficiency, 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 successors to Devil’s Canyon. Moreover, in addition to reduced thermal packages and rolled back frequencies, they differ from their predecessors in having a smaller L3 cache, which, however, is somewhat compensated by the appearance of a fourth-level cache located on a separate chip.

At the same frequency as Haswell, Broadwell processors demonstrate approximately a 7 percent advantage, provided by both the addition of an additional level of data caching and another improvement in the branch prediction algorithm along with an increase in the main internal buffers. In addition, Broadwell implements new and faster schemes for executing multiply and divide instructions. However, all these small improvements are negated by the clock speed fiasco, which takes us back to the pre-Sandy Bridge era. 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, as long as there is no serious drop in productivity.

Largely because of this, Broadwell turned out to be unattractive to the majority of users. Yes, processors of this family are highly economical and even fit into a thermal package with a 65-watt frame, but who really cares about that? The overclocking potential of the first generation 14nm CPU turned out to be quite restrained. There is no talk of any operation 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, Intel's fifth generation Core turned out to be, 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 had a negative impact on sales, and the company does not plan to undertake any more such experiments.

Against this background, the newest Skylake appears not so much as a further development of Intel microarchitecture, but as a kind of work on mistakes. Despite the fact that this generation of CPU uses the same 14nm process technology as Broadwell, Skylake does not have any problems with operating at high frequencies. The nominal frequencies of the sixth generation Core processors have returned to those that were characteristic of their 22-nm predecessors, and the overclocking potential has even increased slightly. The fact that in Skylake the processor power converter again moved to the motherboard and thereby reduced the total heat generation of the CPU during overclocking played into the hands of overclockers here. The only pity is that Intel never returned to using an effective thermal interface between the die and the processor cover.

But as for the basic microarchitecture of computing cores, despite the fact that Skylake, like Haswell, is the embodiment of the “so” phase, there are very few innovations in it. Moreover, most of them are aimed at expanding the input part of the executive pipeline, while the remaining parts of the pipeline remained without any significant changes. The changes relate to improving the performance of branch prediction and increasing the efficiency of the prefetch unit, and that’s all. At the same time, some of the optimizations serve not so much to improve performance, but are aimed at further increasing energy efficiency. Therefore, one should not be surprised that Skylake is almost no different from Broadwell in its specific performance.

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

But in the end, it turns out that 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 to fanless systems of the tablet form factor. Desktop representatives of this generation do not differ too noticeably from those of Haswell. Even if we close our eyes to the existence of the intermediate generation Broadwell, and compare Skylake directly with Haswell, the observed increase in specific productivity will be about 7-8 percent, which can hardly be called an impressive manifestation of technical progress.

In passing, it is worth noting that the improvement of technological production processes. On the way from Sandy Bridge to Skylake, Intel changed two semiconductor technologies and reduced the thickness of transistor gates by more than half. However, the modern 14-nm process technology, compared to the 32-nm technology of five years ago, has not made it possible to increase 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 small.

To clearly illustrate this fact, you can look at the following graph, which displays the clock speed of older overclocking Core i7 processors of different generations.

Moreover, the peak clock speed does not even occur on Skylake. Haswell processors belonging to the Devil’s Canyon subgroup can boast the maximum frequency. Their nominal frequency is 4.0 GHz, but thanks to the turbo mode in real conditions they are capable of accelerating to 4.4 GHz. For modern Skylake, the maximum frequency is only 4.2 GHz.

All this, naturally, affects the final performance of real representatives of various CPU families. And then we propose to see how all this is reflected in the performance of platforms built on the basis of flagship processors from 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, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3, 128 MB L4).
Intel Core i7-6700K (Skylake, 4 cores, 4.0-4.2 GHz, 8 MB L3).

CPU cooler: Noctua NH-U14S.
Motherboards:

ASUS Z170 Pro Gaming (LGA 1151, Intel Z170);
ASUS Z97-Pro (LGA 1150, Intel Z97);
ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel Z77).

Memory:

2x8 GB DDR3-2133 SDRAM, 9-11-11-31 (G.Skill F3-2133C9D-16GTX);
2x8 GB DDR4-2666 SDRAM, 15-15-15-35 (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R).

Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (6 GB/384-bit GDDR5, 1000-1076/7010 MHz).
Disk subsystem: Kingston HyperX Savage 480 GB (SHSS37A/480G).
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 processor performance in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark test package, which simulates user 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 characterizing the weighted average speed of the computer during everyday use. After release operating system Windows 10 this benchmark has been updated once again, and now we are using the latest version - SYSmark 2014 1.5.

When comparing Core i7s of different generations, when they operate in their nominal modes, the results are completely different from those when compared at a single clock frequency. Still, the actual frequency and operating 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 insignificant - it is only about 3 percent. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the newest Skylake turns out to be significantly faster than 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 be provided by familiarizing yourself with the performance estimates obtained in various system usage scenarios. The Office Productivity scenario simulates typical office work: writing texts, processing spreadsheets, working with email, and surfing the Internet. The script uses the following set of applications: Adobe Acrobat XI Pro, Google Chrome 32, Microsoft Excel 2013, Microsoft OneNote 2013, Microsoft Outlook 2013, Microsoft PowerPoint 2013, Microsoft Word 2013, WinZip Pro 17.5 Pro.

In the script Media Creation creation is simulated commercial using pre-captured digital images and videos. For this purpose, the popular packages Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and Trimble SketchUp Pro 2013 are used.

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

The results we obtained under various load scenarios qualitatively repeat the general indicators of SYSmark 2014 1.5. The only noteworthy fact is that the Core i7-4790K processor does not look outdated at all. 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 insignificant amount, or is generally faster. For example, a representative of the Haswell family is ahead of the new Skylake in office applications. But the older processors, Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K, already look like somewhat outdated offerings. They lose to the new product in different types tasks from 25 to 40 percent, and this is perhaps quite sufficient reason for the Core i7-6700K to be considered as 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 select the most processor-dependent games, and measure the number of frames twice. The first pass tests are carried out without turning on anti-aliasing and with settings that are far from the highest. Such settings allow you to evaluate how well processors perform with a gaming load in principle, and therefore allow you to speculate about how the tested computing platforms will behave in the future, when more quick options graphics accelerators. The second pass is performed with realistic settings - when selecting FullHD resolution and the maximum level of full-screen anti-aliasing. In our opinion, such results are no less interesting, since they answer the frequently asked question about what level of gaming performance processors can provide right now - in modern conditions.

However, in this testing we assembled a powerful graphics subsystem based on the flagship NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti video card. And as a result, in some games the frame rate showed a 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 insignificant. However, when comparing five Core i7s of different generations, the results are not at all uniform. Even when installed maximum settings graphics quality Core i7-6700K and Core i7-5775C demonstrate the highest gaming performance, while the older Core i7 lags behind them. Thus, the frame rate obtained in a system with a Core i7-6700K exceeds the system performance by Core based i7-4770K by an inconspicuous one percent, but the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K processors already seem to be a noticeably worse base for a gaming system. Switching from a Core i7-2700K or Core i7-3770K to the latest Core i7-6700K gives an increase in fps of 5-7 percent, which can have a quite 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 at a reduced image quality, when the frame rate does not depend on the power of the graphics subsystem.

Results at reduced resolution

The latest Core i7-6700K processor once again manages to show the highest performance among all Core i7s last generations. Its superiority over the Core i7-5775C is about 5 percent, and over the Core i7-4690K – about 10 percent. There is nothing strange about this: games are quite sensitive to the speed of the memory subsystem, and it is in this area that serious improvements have been made in Skylake. But the superiority of the Core i7-6700K over the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K is much more noticeable. The older Sandy Bridge lags behind the new product by 30-35 percent, and Ivy Bridge loses to it by about 20-30 percent. In other words, no matter how much Intel is criticized for improving too slowly own processors, the company has been 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.

The results produced by Futuremark 3DMark echo the gaming indicators. 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 Devil’s Canyon processors added an additional 7-14 percent to the performance of older Core i7s. However, then the appearance of the Core i7-5775C, which has a relatively low clock frequency, somewhat rolled back the performance. And the newest Core i7-6700K, in fact, had to take the rap for two generations of microarchitecture 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 improvement in performance over the past five years. The latest generations of desktop processors are indeed somewhat disappointing.

Tests in applications

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

We conduct another final rendering test using the popular free 3D graphics package Blender 2.75a. In it we measure the time it takes to build 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 work various platforms when rendering in current versions of the Cinema 4D animation package.

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

Processing Performance Testing graphic images takes place in Adobe Photoshop CC 2015. Measures the average execution time of a test script that is a creative reworking of the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed ​​Test, which involves typical processing of four 24-megapixel images taken with a digital camera.

Due to numerous requests from amateur photographers, we tested graphics performance Adobe program Photoshop Lightroom 6.1. The test scenario involves post-processing and exporting 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 performance for non-linear video editing. The time for rendering a Blu-Ray project containing HDV 1080p25 video with various effects applied is measured.

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

To evaluate the speed of video transcoding into the H.264 format, the x264 FHD Benchmark 1.0.1 (64bit) test is used, based on measuring the time the x264 encoder encodes the source video into MPEG-4/AVC format with a resolution of 1920x1080@50fps and default settings. It should be noted that the results of this benchmark are of great practical importance, since the x264 encoder underlies numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc. We periodically update the encoder used for performance measurements, and this testing involved version r2538, which supports all modern instruction sets, including AVX2.

In addition, we have added to the list of test applications a new x265 encoder designed for transcoding video into the promising H.265/HEVC format, which is a logical continuation of H.264 and is characterized by more efficient compression algorithms. To evaluate performance, a source 1080p@50FPS Y4M video file is used, which is transcoded into H.265 format with a medium profile. The release of the encoder version 1.7 took part in this testing.

Advantage of Core i7-6700K over earlier predecessors in various applications there is no doubt. However, two types of problems have benefited most from the evolution that has occurred. Firstly, related to the processing of multimedia content, be it video or images. Secondly, the final rendering in batches 3D modeling and design. 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 delivers 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 new product 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. In most multimedia tasks, the Core i7-6700K offers only a 10 percent improvement in performance compared to the Core i7-4790K. And under loads of a different nature, the difference in performance is even smaller or absent altogether.

Separately, I need to say a few words about the result shown by the Core i7-5775C. Due to its low clock speed, this processor is slower than the Core i7-4790K and Core i7-6700K. But do not forget that its key characteristic is efficiency. And it is quite capable of becoming one of the best options in terms of specific performance per watt of electricity expended. We can easily verify this in the next section.

Energy consumption

Skylake processors are manufactured on modern 14nm technological process with second-generation three-dimensional transistors, however, despite this, their thermal package increased to 91 W. In other words, the new CPUs are not only “hotter” than the 65-watt Broadwell, but also exceed the calculated heat dissipation of Haswell, produced using 22-nm technology and coexisting within the 88-watt thermal package. The reason, obviously, is that the Skylake architecture was initially optimized not for high frequencies, but for energy efficiency and the ability to be used in mobile devices. Therefore, in order for desktop Skylake to receive acceptable clock frequencies lying in the vicinity of the 4-GHz mark, it was necessary to raise the supply voltage, which inevitably affected power consumption and heat dissipation.

However, Broadwell processors also did not have low operating voltages, so there is hope that the Skylake 91-watt thermal package was obtained due to some formal circumstances and, in fact, they will turn out to be no more voracious than their predecessors. Let's check!

Used by us in test system The new Corsair RM850i ​​digital power supply allows you to monitor the electrical power consumed and output, which is what we use for measurements. The following graph shows the total system consumption (without monitor), measured “after” the power supply and representing the sum of the power consumption of all components involved in the system. The efficiency of the power supply itself is not taken into account in this case. To correctly assess energy consumption, we have activated turbo mode and all available energy-saving technologies.

At idle, a quantum leap in the efficiency of desktop platforms occurred with the release of Broadwell. The Core i7-5775C and Core i7-6700K feature noticeably lower idle consumption.

But under the load of video transcoding, the most economical CPU options are the Core i7-5775C and Core i7-3770K. The latest Core i7-6700K consumes more. His energy appetite is at the level of the older Sandy Bridge. True, the new product, unlike Sandy Bridge, has support for AVX2 instructions, which require quite significant energy costs.

The following diagram shows the maximum consumption under 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 is distinguished by its exorbitant energy appetites.

Once again, the Broadwell generation processor shows miracles 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 offerings have emerged with extremely tempting performance-to-power ratios, but the latest desktop processors continue to consume about the same amount as their predecessors consumed five years before today.

conclusions

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 keen on increasing the performance of desktop processors aimed at high-performance systems. And if, compared to the older Broadwell, the new product offers approximately a 15% improvement in performance due to significantly better clock frequencies, then in comparison with the older, but faster Haswell, it no longer seems 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 for the older desktop Skylake to be unambiguously recommended for updating existing LGA 1150 systems.

However, it would take a long time to get used to such minor steps by Intel in increasing the speed of processors for desktop systems. The increase in performance of new solutions, which lies approximately within these limits, is a long-established tradition. There have been no revolutionary changes in the computing performance of Intel CPUs aimed at desktop PCs for a very long time. And the reasons for this are quite clear: the company’s engineers are busy optimizing the microarchitectures being developed 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 adherents of classic desktops can only be content with small increases in performance, which, fortunately, have not yet completely disappeared.

However, this does not mean that the Core i7-6700K can only be recommended for new systems. Owners of configurations based on the LGA 1155 platform with processors of the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge generations may well be thinking about upgrading their computers. In comparison with the Core i7-2700K and Core i7-3770K, the new Core i7-6700K looks very good - its weighted average superiority over such predecessors is estimated at 30-40 percent. In addition, processors with the Skylake microarchitecture can boast support for the AVX2 instruction set, which has now found widespread use in multimedia applications, and thanks to this, in some cases the Core i7-6700K turns out to be much faster. So, when transcoding video, we even saw cases where the Core i7-6700K was more than twice as fast as the Core i7-2700K!

Skylake processors also have a number of other advantages associated with the introduction of the new LGA 1151 platform accompanying them. And the point is not so much in the support for DDR4 memory that appeared in it, but in the fact that the new logic sets of the hundredth series finally received really high-speed processor connection and support large quantity PCI Express 3.0 lines. As a result, advanced LGA 1151 systems can boast of numerous fast interfaces for connecting drives and external devices, which are devoid of any artificial bandwidth limitations.

Plus, when assessing the prospects of the LGA 1151 platform and Skylake processors, you need to keep one more thing in mind. Intel will not rush to bring the next generation of processors, known as Kaby Lake, to market. If you believe 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.

This article provides a small comparison of i3 i5 i7 processors. Typical tasks for all Core series processors will also be briefly described. The names of Intel processors vary so much that the average user will not understand what one or another processor name means. Of course, in itself it carries its own meaning, but at first glance, it is a confusion of abbreviations and numbers.

Before purchasing a new processor from Intel, a reasonable question will arise: what is the difference between i3 i5 i7 processors. To understand all this, we can divide all Core processor names into two groups. The first, most interesting for us, is the line (i3/i5/i7). We will focus our attention on it. The remaining part of the name, including numbers and letters, shows us the distinctive features of a particular processor, which we will consider below.

There are a couple of main features in the Core series. The socket (socket for installing a processor) in the same generation will always be the same. You will not need another motherboard for the same Core i3, unlike i5 or i7. All processors have a built-in graphics core. The sixth generation Skylake we are considering uses 1151 sockets and integrated HD530 graphics.

Core i3

Even though i3 processors are the least powerful among the Core processor series, they are excellent choice for everyday tasks. They have two physical cores, but Hyper-Threading technology smooths out this drawback. Hyper-Threading doubles the available processor threads by emulating 4 "virtual" cores. The L3 cache size reaches 3-4 MB, depending on specific model, and frequencies range from 2.7 to 3.9 GHz. You can buy a processor for 110-140 US dollars.

He can do everything a little, but he can’t do anything perfectly. The performance of these processors is enough to make the system responsive, but heavy tasks like rendering or video editing will be a pain on them. They are fast enough to expose a modern graphics card, so they can be used in gaming systems entry level with an average video card.

Core i5

Sitting exactly in the middle between the i3 and i7 lines, the i5 line of processors have many of the latest features with pretty good power efficiency. This series does not have Hyper-Threading technology, but there are 4 physical cores, Turbo Boost, and processor models with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The amount of L3 cache reaches 6 MB (in i5 desktop models).

Turbo Boost allows the processor to temporarily increase the frequency of one or more cores under load, at the expense of increased power consumption and reduced processing power of other cores. In essence, this technology is a kind of overclocking of the physical core. Sixth generation i5 frequencies range from 2.2 to 3.5 GHz, and prices range from $180 to $220

Core i7

At the top are the i7 line of processors. They have four logical cores, like in the i5 line. Hyper-Threading is also present, creating as many as 8 threads on 4 physical cores. These processors have the highest frequencies, reaching 4 GHz by default and 4.2 GHz in Turbo Boost. i7s come with 8 MB of L3 cache, and you can purchase a processor in this line for prices ranging from $300 to $340.

Although these processors are endowed with the highest performance, this is clearly more than enough for the average user. It is the processors of this line that will allow you to see by eye how the i3 i5 i7 processors differ. i7 processors are great for programs that can take full advantage of all 8 threads. Despite this, many games to this day use only 4 cores. Even Photoshop benefits from working with more than 2 cores only when special filters and operations are used. If you don't work in Maya and Autodesk on a regular basis, you will see virtually no increase in how the i3 i5 i7 differ in simple tasks.

Index values

A processor from any manufacturer has its own indexes, located in the remainder of the name after the manufacturer and product number. The larger the product ID, the usually more powerful processor. Letters T, U And Y denote processors designed for low power consumption. Letter K at the end indicate processors with overclocking potential, and P indicates the presence of a less powerful graphics core. If you want a more detailed description of the indexes, take a look at the Intel website.

What to buy?

Without going into all these designations, we can say that Core processors make it easy to determine which one is best for you. This can be seen even from one symbol in the name of the line. The difference between i3 i5 i7 is the processing power. Another difference between i3 i5 i7 processors is the graphics core. In i5 and i7 it is usually the same, but in i3 it is weaker. Unfortunately, not all users think about how the i3 i5 i7 differs and choose a processor whose capabilities are simply not used, or vice versa.

Most users will be happy with the i5, which offers a good price-to-power ratio. The i3 will still be an excellent choice for budget builds; it is a good option for the money. If you are confident that your processor will be tasked with heavy tasks such as rendering or editing large video files or modeling, then the capabilities of the Core i7 will completely satisfy you.

I think that this article has clarified how i3 i5 i7 processors differ. Hope, this information will play a role in choosing a particular processor when purchasing.

Posted on October 30, 2017

We selected Core i7 and Core i5 processors from the HQ and U series. These four models are used in most laptops on the market. As you may have noticed above, the two U-series processors have more high frequency than the Core i5-7300HQ, and are generally offered at a lower price.
Is this enough to win?

The short answer is NO. Full-fledged HQ series processors are still cooler.

Cinebench R15

Let's start with one of the cult processor benchmarks, Cinebench. We chose the multi-core scenario not only because most applications (including games) use multiple cores at once, but also to see how the result would be affected by the presence of additional processing cores on the processor (or the ability to execute more instruction threads).

We see the same picture: HQ series processors are tearing their U-series rivals to shreds. Moreover, the Core i5-7300HQ model is not only ahead of the i5-7200U by as much as 40%, but also leaves behind the Core i7-7500U - by 22%!

X264 Benchmark

If the term “computing performance” sounds too vague for you, the X264 benchmark, which simulates video transcoding using the CPU, will help clarify the picture. The higher the result, the faster the processor can convert videos from one format to another.
HQ series processors win again. This time their advantage is on average about 30%.

conclusions

If you expect decent performance from your computer, go for the HQ series processor.

Don't let the "i7" name fool you. Even the i5-HQ processor will be faster than the i7-U! In addition to the number of cores and execution threads, HQ processors have other advantages, such as larger cache sizes, and are therefore better suited for high-end laptops, including gaming models.
This does not mean that U-series processors are worse. They are just designed for different purposes. Their destiny is ultrabooks, for which mobility and low power consumption are priorities. When speed matters most, you should always choose HQ series processors.

Hello, dear subscribers of our blog. Today I will try to explain how the i3 processor differs from the i5. Surely many people are interested in why one Intel Core costs so much more than another, although you won’t immediately understand what the point is. In this article we will look at what kind of stone would be better suited for PC games and work tasks.

The comparison will be multi-stage and contain summary tables. By the way, in the second part we will look at and also advise which one for certain tasks.

Separately, I would like to say that we do not specifically mention mobile processors - everything is much more complicated there, and besides, special attention is paid to labeling rather than to the numerical value of chips and characteristics.

Difference between Coffee Lake and previous generations

The release of the 8th generation of Intel Core literally put the entire computer hardware market on edge. The difference between previous generations is colossal, and is expressed in the following figures:

Characteristic	Core i3 (2-7)	Core i5 (2-7)	Core i3 (8)	Core i5 (8)
Number of physical cores	2	4	4	6
Level 3 cache	3 MB	8 MB	6 MB	9 MB
Hyper Threading support	+	—	—	—
Turbo Boost support	—	+	—	+
Memory support	DDR-2400	DDR-2400	DDR-2400	DDR-2666
Unlocked multiplier	—	+	+ (8350K)	+
Socket	1151	1151	1151v2	1151v2

As you can see, the usual concept has changed radically, as well as the technical characteristics. This was facilitated by the release of AMD Ryzen, which included 4 computing cores (Ryzen 3 1200) in the minimum configuration.

I'm glad that the built-in video remains, as do most proprietary technologies and instructions. Another thing is that the quality of graphics has not changed compared to Kaby Lake - still the same Intel UHD 630.

Difference between i3 and i5

First, let's look at the classic confrontation between processors, and then switch to the more recent Coffee Lake. The confrontation scheme will include several points.

• Number of Cores

The more physical cores, the more operations the chip performs per clock cycle. For i3 this indicator is 2, for i5 – 4, respectively.

For Coffee Lake the situation is as follows: both chips added 2 physical cores, but i5 is still the leader in this area.

• Turbo Boost

This technology allows you to significantly increase the CPU frequency in automatic mode only in cases where it is really necessary. In essence, this is a “lazy” version of overclocking by a multiplier, which is limited by the limitations of the platform, heat package and cooling. Only i5 has this mode, when i3 has fixed frequencies.

• Hyper-Threading

For processors, one physical core usually receives one stream of data, which is processed by this core. This function (i.e. HT) allows you to use 2 threads per core at once.

Many people mistakenly believe that virtual cores are almost identical to physical ones, but in fact the processor performs one operation not with one, but with two hands, to put it as simply and intelligibly as possible.

i3 processors of the second, third, fourth and even seventh generations supported this function, but with the advent of Coffee Lake the number of physical computing units increased from 2 to 4, and the need for the technology disappeared. Core i5s do not support the mode natively.

• Cache size

The processor is the brain of the computer, but it takes a lot of your own brain to understand the differences between processors! Intel hasn't made it easy for consumers with its weird naming schemes, and the question most often asked is: what's the difference between an i3, i5, or i7 processor? Which one should I buy?

It's time to demystify it. In this article I will not touch on other Intel processors such as the Pentium series or new laptop Core M Series: They're good in their own right, but the Core series is the most popular and confusing, so let's just focus on that.

Understanding Model Numbers

Honestly, it's very simple. Intel Core i7 is better than Core i5, which in turn is better than Core i3. The problem is knowing what to expect from each processor.

First of all, i7 does not mean seven-core processor! These are just names to indicate relative performance.

Typically, the Core i3 series uses only dual-core processors, while the Core i5 and Core i7 series use dual-core and quad-core processors. Quad-core processors are usually better than dual-core processors, but don't worry about that for now.

Intel releases families of chipsets such as the new generation of Skylake processors for the 6th generation Skylake family. Each family, in turn, has its own line of Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors.

You can determine which generation the processor belongs to the first digit in the four-digit model name. For example, Intel Core i3- 5 200 refers to 5 -th generation. Remember that the new generations of Intel will not support Windows 7, but since Windows 10 is a free upgrade anyway, use the newest generation.

Advice. Here's a useful rule of thumb. The other three numbers are Intel's assessment of how the processor compares to others in its own line. For example, the Intel Core i3-5350 is superior to the Core i3-5200 because 350 is more than 200.

Last letters: U, Q, H, K

Things have changed since we last looked at Intel's processor list. Decoding a list of processors. The model number is usually followed by one or a combination of the following letters: U, Y, T, Q, H, and K. Here's what they mean:

• U: Ultra low power. U rating is for laptop processors only. They use less power and are better for battery life.
• Y: Low power. Typically used for laptops and older generation mobile processors.
• T:Power Optimized for desktop processors.
• Q: Quad-core processor. The Q rating is only for processors with four physical cores.
• H: High-performance graphics. The chipset has one of the best graphics units from Intel.
• K: Unlocked. This means that you can overclock the processor yourself.

Understanding these letters and the numbering system above will help you know what the processor offers just by looking at the model number, without having to read the actual specifications.

You can find the meaning of other letters in the Intel manuals for processor numbers.

Hyper-Threading: i7 > i3 > i5

As you can see above, Intel specifically writes U and Q for the number of physical cores. Well, what other kernels are there, you ask? The answer is virtual cores activated using Hyper-Threading technology.

In layman's terms, hyperthreading allows one physical core to act as two virtual cores, thereby performing many tasks simultaneously without activating the second physical core (which will require more power from the system).

If both processors are active and using hyperthreading, these four virtual cores will compute faster. However, note that physical cores are faster than virtual cores. A quad-core processor will perform much better than a dual-core CPU with hyperthreading!

The Intel Core i3 series has hyper-threading. The Intel Core i7 series also supports hyperthreading. Intel Core i5 series does not support it.

Turbo Boost: i7 > i5 > i3

On the other hand, the Intel Core i3 series does not support Turbo Boost. The Core i5 series uses Turbo Boost to speed up your tasks, just like the Core i7.

Turbo Boost is a patented technology to intelligently increase the processor clock speed if the application requires it. For example, if you're playing a game and your system requires some extra power, Turbo Boost will kick in to compensate.

Turbo Boost is useful for those who use resource-intensive software such as video editors or video games, but it does not have of great importance, if you are just going to surf the web and use Microsoft Office.

Besides Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost, one of the main differences in the Core line is the cache size. The cache is the processor's own memory and acts as its personal RAM - and it's one of the little-known features that can slow down your PC.

Just like with RAM, the larger the cache size, the better. So if the processor performs one task over and over again, it will store that task in its cache. If the processor can store more tasks in its private memory, it can make them faster if they appear again.

The Core i3 series typically contains up to 3 MB of cache. The Core i5 series has between 3MB and 6MB cache. The Core i7 series has 4MB to 8MB cache.

Since graphics have been integrated into the processor chip, this has become an important consideration when purchasing processors. But as with everything else, Intel made the system a little confusing.

Now, as a rule, there are three levels graphics devices: Intel HD, Intel Iris and Intel Iris Pro. You'll see a model name like Intel HD 520 or Intel Iris Pro 580... and that's where the confusion begins.

Here's a quick example of how overwhelming it can be. Intel HD 520 is the main graphics chipset. The Intel Iris 550 is better than the Intel HD 520, but also basic. But Intel HD 530 is a high performance graphics unit and is better than Intel Iris 550. However, Intel Iris Pro 580 is also a high performance graphics unit and is better than Intel HD 530.

Best advice on how to interpret them? Just don't. Instead, rely on the Intel naming system. If the processor model ends with H, you know it is a high-end module.

Comparison of i3, i5, i7 cores

CPU	Number of Cores	Cache size	Hyper-Threading	Turbo Boost	Graphic arts	Price
	2	3MB	Eat	No	Low	Low
	2-4	3MB-6MB	No	Eat	Average	Average
	2-4	4MB-8MB	Eat	Eat	The best	Expensive

Simply put, here's who each processor type is best for:

• Core i3: main users. Economic choice. Convenient for viewing on the Internet, using Microsoft Office, video calls and social networks. Not for gamers or professionals.
• Core i5: Intermediate users. Those who want a balance between performance and price. Good for gaming if you buy an HQ processor or a Q processor with a dedicated GPU.
• Core i7: Professionals. This is the best Intel can do right now.

How did you choose?

This article is a basic guide for those who want to buy a new Intel processor but are confused between Core i3, i5 and i7. But even after understanding all this, when it's time to make a decision, you may need to choose between two processors from different generations.

What other advice do you have for others who are similarly stuck buying a PCU and need to make a choice?