System units with intel core i7. From Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake: comparing seven generations of Intel Core i7 Intel core i7 1st generation

2017 became a real test for Intel, something that had not been observed for many years after the debut of the Intel Core line on the market. This is primarily due to the release of a very successful line, which required Intel to quickly prepare the third generation of 14 nm processors in order to strengthen its position.

Under other circumstances, Intel might have completely abandoned the 14nm Intel Coffee Lake and Intel Kaby Lake R lines (mobile Intel Core 8th generation), directing its resources to speeding up the release of the 10nm Intel Ice Lake and Intel Cannon series Lake respectively. Moreover, the computing power of Intel Kaby Lake processors is quite enough for a wide range of home, school or office computers. But the competitor left no choice.

The first 8th generation Intel Core models were presented 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.

Six processor models will be the first to go on sale, each of which is iconic for its series. Thus, the Intel Core i3-8100 and Intel Core i3-8350K are the first full-fledged 4-core CPUs in this series, which previously only included 2-core, 4-thread solutions. The Intel Core i5 line was replenished for the first time 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, which replaced the 4-core, 8-thread model. In the first half of 2018, the list of available processors in each series will be expanded. The remaining 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addition, Intel processors are traditionally characterized by excellent performance in single-threaded mode, so even in outdated applications and games they look decent.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 increase of up to 25% (recorded in Gears of War 4 when comparing systems based on Intel 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 the gaming session and broadcast it on the Internet.

There are also some tasty facts in store for content creators: up to 32% speedup when editing 4K video (Intel Core i7-8700K vs Intel Core i7-7700K). And if you compare the performance of the Intel Core i7-8700K and the Intel Core i7-4790K (Intel Devil's Canyon), you can count on a 4.5 times acceleration when creating HEVC videos in PowerDirector, by 65% ​​when editing files in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and 7.8 times when transcoding in Handbrake Transcode.

In turn, overclockers are captivated by new features: overclocking a separate core, increasing the memory multiplier to 8400 MT/s, monitoring memory latency in real time, and others. If you are afraid of 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 if it is damaged during abnormal operation. The cost of such a plan depends on the specific model. For example, for the Intel Core i7-7700K it is set at $30, and owners of the Intel Core i9-7980XE will need to pay an additional $150.

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

The main emphasis in the press materials is on increasing the number of physical cores and cache memory, expanded overclocking capabilities and the use of an improved 14nm process technology. More precisely, Intel Skylake is manufactured using 14 nm, Intel Kaby Lake - 14+ nm, and Intel Coffee Lake - 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 is manifested in the different number of VCC pads of the Socket LGA1151 connector: Intel Coffee Lake has 146, and Intel Kaby Lake and Intel Skylake have 128. An additional 18 were obtained by activating spare pads, without introducing any or physical changes. That is, you can install a new processor on old motherboards or old processors on new boards, but such combinations will not work. Therefore, for Intel Coffee Lake it is mandatory to buy a motherboard based on Intel 300 series chipsets.

Intel did not forget to remind you of its accompanying product - Intel Optane Memory, which can significantly increase system responsiveness and speed up application launches. Although, at the current volume (16/32 GB) and price level, it is difficult for it 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 Intel Core line.

Specification

CPU socket
Base/dynamic clock speed, 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
Technical process, nm
Critical temperature (T junction), °C
Support 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 capacity, GB
Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630
Number of execution units (EU)
Base / dynamic frequency, MHz
Maximum amount of video memory (allocated from RAM), GB
Maximum screen resolution at 60 Hz
Maximum number of 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, 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 official press materials to evaluate the appearance of the box. Its front side unmistakably indicates that the processor belongs to the 8th generation of the Intel Core line and the corresponding series, and on one of the sides the key advantages are listed. The need to use new products exclusively with motherboards based on Intel 300 series chipsets is also indicated. The packages themselves also differ in thickness, that is, there will be options on sale with and without a complete cooler.

AndIntel Core i7-7700K

Externally, the Intel Core i7-8700K is no different from its predecessor, of course, if you do not take into account the markings and other markings on the heat distribution cover. The designation itself for the retail sample of the new product will be different. Firstly, instead of the inscription “Intel Confidential” the model name (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 in the 19th week of 2017 (from 05/08 to 05/14).

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 processors from the Intel Coffee Lake line.

Technical characteristics analysis

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

The maximum load frequency (AIDA64) with Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology enabled reached the specified 4.7 GHz. The temperature rose to 96°C, but there was no skipping of cycles (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, the speed of the Intel Core i7-8700K is reduced to 800 MHz.

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

The cache memory structure of the new product is as follows:

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

The built-in RAM controller is guaranteed to support operation of DDR4-2666 MHz modules in 2-channel mode. Of course, you can, at your own peril and risk, try to overclock the RAM to higher frequencies, but there are no guarantees here and it all depends on the quality of the strips 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 figure is reported by AIDA64.

The Intel Core i7-8700K processor has a built-in Intel UHD Graphics 630 graphics core, which at the time of preparation of the review 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 to suit its needs. Its base operating frequency is 350 MHz, and its dynamic frequency can increase to 1200 MHz.

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

Testing

During testing we used Processor Test Stand 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 (1 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s, NCQ), Seagate Enterprise Capacity 3.5 HDD v4 (ST6000NM0024, 6 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s)
power unit	Seasonic X-660, 660 W, Active PFC, 80 PLUS Gold, 120 mm fan
operating system	Microsoft Windows 8.1 64-bit

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

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

First, let's analyze the situation in the domestic 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 many gaming benchmarks have been replaced since testing the 4-core model. 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 rich. In synthetic tests it came out ahead by an average of 1%, and in gaming tests it was even at parity. The difference between them in recommended price tags is $240 ($359 versus $599). That is, the Intel Core i7-8700K deals a blow not only to the positions of AMD’s opponents, but also to Intel’s own HEDT lineup.

And now, actually, about the competitors. These include the 8-core AMD Ryzen 7 1700 ($349) and the 6-core AMD Ryzen 5 1600X ($249). But we haven’t tested them yet, so we compared the results of the new product 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 was ahead of the Ryzen 7 1700X by 17%, and the Ryzen 5 1600 by 43%. But in games the situation turned out to be interesting. The advantage of the new product over its 8-core opponent was almost 5%, but the Ryzen 5 1600 is already ahead by the same 5%. And all thanks to the low minimum score of the Intel Core i7-8700K in the Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege test. If you do not take this into account, the new flagship in games is 3% ahead of the Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i7-7820X. The results of comparison with Ryzen 7 1700X does not change because this processor has not been tested in it.

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

Overclocking

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

However, we were unable to manually overclock the test sample: raising it even 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 “TPU II” mode, it was possible to increase the core frequency to 5.0 GHz with a “x50” multiplier and reduce the frequency by 300 MHz when executing AVX instructions. The RAM speed was increased to 3200 MHz, and the maximum temperature during testing did not exceed 94°C, which allowed the system to operate 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, High
	1920x1080, DX11, High
Average value

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

Results

What did we get in the end? First, Intel should be commended for adding additional cores and threads to the Intel Coffee Lake line of desktop processors, regardless of the reasons that prompted it to do so. Secondly, the additional cores came with their own cache memory of all three levels, which also helps to increase the overall level of performance. 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 the additional overclocking options.

Now to the weaknesses of the tested engineering sample. The first is high heat dissipation: even under load in nominal mode using a fairly powerful Scythe Mugen 3 tower cooler, the temperature rose to 96°C. For this reason, we were not able to carry out manual overclocking, but the automatic one allowed us to increase the speed to 5 GHz, reducing it 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 Intel and AMD processors. Thirdly, in games there is no noticeable advantage of the new product over its 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

Almost always, under any publication that in one way or another touches on the performance of modern Intel processors, sooner or later several angry reader comments appear that progress in the development of Intel chips has long stalled and there is no point in switching from the “good old Core i7-2600K "to something new. In such remarks, most likely, there will be irritated mention of productivity gains at an intangible level of “no more than five percent per year”; about the low-quality internal thermal interface, which irreparably damaged modern Intel processors; or about the fact that in modern conditions buying processors with the same number of computing cores as several years ago is generally the lot of short-sighted amateurs, since they do not have the necessary reserves for the future.

There is no doubt that all such remarks are not without reason. However, it seems very likely that they are greatly exaggerating the existing problems. The 3DNews laboratory has been testing Intel processors in detail since 2000, and we cannot agree with the thesis that any kind of their development has come to an end, and what has been happening with the microprocessor giant in recent years can no longer be called anything other than stagnation. Yes, any drastic changes with Intel processors rarely occur, but nevertheless they continue to be systematically improved. Therefore, those Core i7 series chips that you can buy today are obviously better than the models offered several years ago.

Generation Core	Codename	Technical process	Development stage	Release time
2	Sandy Bridge	32 nm	So (Architecture)	I quarter 2011
3	IvyBridge	22 nm	Tick ​​(Process)	II quarter 2012
4	Haswell	22 nm	So (Architecture)	II quarter 2013
5	Broadwell	14 nm	Tick ​​(Process)	II quarter 2015
6	Skylake	14 nm	So (Architecture)	III quarter 2015
7	KabyLake	14+ nm	Optimization	I quarter 2017
8	CoffeeLake	14++ nm	Optimization	IV quarter 2017

Actually, this material is precisely a counterargument to arguments about the worthlessness of Intel’s chosen strategy for the gradual development of consumer CPUs. We decided to collect in one test the older Intel processors for mass platforms over the past seven years and see in practice how much the representatives of the Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake series have advanced relative to the “reference” Sandy Bridge, which over the years of hypothetical comparisons and mental contrasts have become in the minds of ordinary people a true icon of processor engineering.

⇡ What has changed in Intel processors from 2011 to the present

The starting point in the recent history of the development of Intel processors is considered to be microarchitecture SandyBridge. And this is not without reason. Despite the fact that the first generation of processors under the Core brand was released in 2008 based on the Nehalem microarchitecture, almost all the main features that are inherent in modern mass CPUs of the microprocessor giant came into use not then, but a couple of years later, when the next generation became widespread processor design, Sandy Bridge.

Now Intel has accustomed us to frankly leisurely progress in the development of microarchitecture, when innovations have become very few and they almost do not lead to an increase in the specific performance of processor cores. But just seven years ago the situation was radically different. In particular, the transition from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge was marked by a 15-20 percent increase in IPC (the number of instructions executed per clock), which was caused by a deep reworking of the logical design of the cores with an eye to increasing their efficiency.

Sandy Bridge laid down many principles that have not changed since then and have become standard for most processors today. For example, it was there that a separate zero-level cache appeared for decoded micro-operations, and a physical register file began to be used, which reduces energy costs when operating out-of-order instruction execution algorithms.

But perhaps the most important innovation was that Sandy Bridge was designed as a unified system-on-a-chip, designed simultaneously for all classes of applications: server, desktop and mobile. Most likely, public opinion placed him as the great-grandfather of modern Coffee Lake, and not some Nehalem and certainly not Penryn, precisely because of this feature. However, the total amount of all the alterations in the depths of the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture also turned out to be very significant. Ultimately, this design lost all the old kinship with the P6 (Pentium Pro) that had appeared here and there in all previous Intel processors.

Speaking about the general structure, one cannot help but recall that a full-fledged graphics core was built into the Sandy Bridge processor chip for the first time in the history of Intel CPUs. This block went inside the processor after the DDR3 memory controller, shared by the L3 cache and the PCI Express bus controller. To connect the computing cores and all other “extra-core” parts, Intel engineers introduced into Sandy Bridge a new scalable ring bus at that time, which is used to organize interaction between structural units in subsequent mass-produced CPUs to this day.

If we go down to the level of the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, then one of its key features is support for the family of SIMD instructions, AVX, designed to work with 256-bit vectors. By now, such instructions have become firmly established and do not seem unusual, but their implementation in Sandy Bridge required the expansion of some computing actuators. Intel engineers strived to make working with 256-bit data as fast as working with vectors of smaller capacity. Therefore, along with the implementation of full-fledged 256-bit execution devices, it was also necessary to increase the speed of the processor and memory. Logical execution units designed for loading and storing data in Sandy Bridge received double the performance, in addition, the throughput of the first level cache when reading was symmetrically increased.

It is impossible not to mention the fundamental changes made in Sandy Bridge in the operation of the branch prediction block. Thanks to optimizations in the applied algorithms and increased buffer sizes, the Sandy Bridge architecture made it possible to reduce the percentage of incorrect branch predictions by almost half, which not only had a noticeable impact on performance, but also made it possible to further reduce the power consumption of this design.

Ultimately, from today’s perspective, Sandy Bridge processors could be called an exemplary embodiment of the “tock” phase in Intel’s “tick-tock” principle. Like their predecessors, these processors continued to be based on a 32-nm process technology, but the performance increase they offered was more than convincing. And it was fueled not only by the updated microarchitecture, but also by clock frequencies increased by 10-15 percent, as well as the introduction of a more aggressive version of Turbo Boost 2.0 technology. Taking all this into account, it is clear why many enthusiasts still remember Sandy Bridge with the warmest words.

The senior offering in the Core i7 family at the time of the release of the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture was the Core i7-2600K. This processor received a clock frequency of 3.3 GHz with the ability to auto-overclock at part load to 3.8 GHz. However, the 32-nm representatives of Sandy Bridge were distinguished not only by relatively high clock frequencies for that time, but also by good overclocking potential. Among the Core i7-2600K it was often possible to find specimens capable of operating at frequencies of 4.8-5.0 GHz, which was largely due to the use of a high-quality internal thermal interface - flux-free solder.

Nine months after the release of the Core i7-2600K, in October 2011, Intel updated the older offering in the lineup and offered a slightly accelerated Core i7-2700K model, the nominal frequency of which was increased to 3.5 GHz, and the maximum frequency in turbo mode was up to 3.9 GHz.

However, the life cycle of the Core i7-2700K turned out to be short - already in April 2012, Sandy Bridge was replaced by an updated design IvyBridge. Nothing special: Ivy Bridge belonged to the “tick” phase, that is, it represented a transfer of the old microarchitecture to new semiconductor rails. And in this regard, the progress was indeed serious - Ivy Bridge crystals were produced using a 22-nm process technology based on three-dimensional FinFET transistors, which were just coming into use at that time.

At the same time, the old Sandy Bridge microarchitecture at a low level remained practically untouched. Only a few cosmetic tweaks were made to speed up Ivy Bridge's division operations and slightly improve the efficiency of Hyper-Threading technology. True, along the way, the “non-nuclear” components were somewhat improved. The PCI Express controller gained compatibility with the third version of the protocol, and the memory controller increased its capabilities and began to support high-speed overclocking DDR3 memory. But in the end, the increase in specific productivity during the transition from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge was no more than 3-5 percent.

The new technological process did not provide serious reasons for joy either. Unfortunately, the introduction of 22 nm standards did not allow for any fundamental increase in Ivy Bridge clock frequencies. The older version of the Core i7-3770K received a nominal frequency of 3.5 GHz with the ability to overclock in turbo mode to 3.9 GHz, that is, from the point of view of the frequency formula, it turned out to be no faster than the Core i7-2700K. Only energy efficiency has improved, but desktop users traditionally care little about this aspect.

All this, of course, can be attributed to the fact that no breakthroughs should occur at the “tick” stage, but in some ways Ivy Bridge turned out to be even worse than its predecessors. We're talking about acceleration. When introducing carriers of this design to the market, Intel decided to abandon the use of flux-free gallium soldering of the heat distribution cover to the semiconductor chip during the final assembly of processors. Starting with Ivy Bridge, banal thermal paste began to be used to organize the internal thermal interface, and this immediately hit the maximum achievable frequencies. Ivy Bridge has definitely become worse in terms of overclocking potential, and as a result, the transition from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge has become one of the most controversial moments in the recent history of Intel consumer processors.

Therefore, for the next stage of evolution, Haswell, special hopes were placed. In this generation, belonging to the “so” phase, serious micro-architectural improvements were expected to appear, from which it was expected to be able to at least push forward stalled progress. And to some extent this happened. The fourth generation Core processors, which appeared in the summer of 2013, did acquire noticeable improvements in the internal structure.

The main thing: the theoretical power of Haswell actuators, expressed in the number of micro-operations executed per clock cycle, has increased by a third compared to previous CPUs. In the new microarchitecture, not only was the existing actuators rebalanced, but two additional execution ports appeared for integer operations, branch servicing and address generation. In addition, the microarchitecture gained compatibility with an expanded set of vector 256-bit instructions AVX2, which, thanks to three-operand FMA instructions, doubled the peak throughput of the architecture.

In addition to this, Intel engineers reviewed the capacity of internal buffers and, where necessary, increased them. The planner window has grown in size. In addition, the integer and real physical register files were enlarged, which improved the processor's ability to reorder the execution order of instructions. In addition to all this, the cache subsystem has also changed significantly. L1 and L2 caches in Haswell received a twice wider bus.

It would seem that the listed improvements should be enough to significantly increase the specific performance of the new microarchitecture. But no matter how it is. The problem with Haswell's design was that it left the front end of the execution pipeline unchanged and the x86 instruction decoder retained the same performance as before. That is, the maximum rate of decoding x86 code in microinstructions remained at the level of 4-5 commands per clock cycle. And as a result, when comparing Haswell and Ivy Bridge at the same frequency and with a load that does not use the new AVX2 instructions, the performance gain was only 5-10 percent.

The image of the Haswell microarchitecture was also spoiled by the first wave of processors released on its basis. Based on the same 22nm process technology as Ivy Bridge, the new products were unable to offer high frequencies. For example, the older Core i7-4770K again received a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a maximum frequency in turbo mode of 3.9 GHz, that is, there has been no progress compared to previous generations of Core.

At the same time, with the introduction of the next technological process with 14-nm standards, Intel began to encounter various kinds of difficulties, so a year later, in the summer of 2014, not the next generation of Core processors was launched onto the market, but the second phase of Haswell, which received the code names Haswell Refresh, or, if we talk about flagship modifications, then Devil's Canyon. As part of this update, Intel was able to significantly increase the clock speeds of the 22nm CPU, which really breathed new life into them. As an example, we can cite the new senior Core i7-4790K processor, which at its nominal frequency reached 4.0 GHz and received a maximum frequency taking into account turbo mode at 4.4 GHz. It is surprising that such a half-GHz acceleration was achieved without any process reforms, but only through simple cosmetic changes in the processor power supply and by improving the thermal conductivity properties of the thermal paste used under the CPU cover.

However, even representatives of the Devil’s Canyon family could not become especially complained about proposals among enthusiasts. Compared to the results of Sandy Bridge, their overclocking could not be called outstanding; moreover, achieving high frequencies required complex “scalping” - removing the processor cover and then replacing the standard thermal interface with some material with better thermal conductivity.

Due to the difficulties that plagued Intel when transferring mass production to 14 nm standards, the performance of the next, fifth generation of Core processors Broadwell, it turned out very crumpled. The company could not decide for a long time whether it was worth releasing desktop processors with this design onto the market, since when attempting to manufacture large semiconductor crystals, the defect rate exceeded acceptable values. Ultimately, Broadwell quad-core processors intended for desktop computers did appear, but, firstly, this happened only in the summer of 2015 - with a nine-month delay relative to the originally planned date, and secondly, just two months after their announcement, Intel presented the design next generation, Skylake.

Nevertheless, from the point of view of microarchitecture development, Broadwell can hardly be called a secondary development. And even more than that, desktop processors of this generation used solutions that Intel had never resorted to before or since. The uniqueness of desktop Broadwells was determined by the fact that they were equipped with a powerful integrated graphics core Iris Pro at the GT3e level. And this means not only that the processors of this family had the most powerful integrated video core at that time, but also that they were equipped with an additional 22-nm Crystall Well crystal, which is a fourth-level cache memory based on eDRAM.

The point of adding a separate fast integrated memory chip to the processor is quite obvious and is determined by the needs of a high-performance integrated graphics core in a frame buffer with low latency and high bandwidth. However, the eDRAM memory installed in Broadwell was architecturally designed specifically as a victim cache, and it could also be used by the CPU cores. As a result, Broadwell desktops have become the only mass-produced processors of their kind with 128 MB of L4 cache. True, the volume of the L3 cache located in the processor chip, which was reduced from 8 to 6 MB, suffered somewhat.

Some improvements have also been incorporated into the basic microarchitecture. Even though Broadwell was in the tick phase, the rework affected the front end of the execution pipeline. The window of the out-of-order command execution scheduler was enlarged, the volume of the second-level associative address translation table increased by one and a half times, and, in addition, the entire translation scheme acquired a second miss handler, which made it possible to process two address translation operations in parallel. In total, all the innovations have increased the efficiency of out-of-order execution of commands and prediction of complex code branches. Along the way, the mechanisms for performing multiplication operations were improved, which in Broadwell began to be processed at a significantly faster pace. As a result of all this, Intel was even able to claim that microarchitecture improvements increased the specific performance of Broadwell compared to Haswell by about five percent.

But despite all this, it was impossible to talk about any significant advantage of the first desktop 14-nm processors. Both the fourth level cache and microarchitectural changes only tried to compensate for Broadwell's main flaw - low clock speeds. Due to problems with the technological process, the base frequency of the senior representative of the family, Core i7-5775C, was set at only 3.3 GHz, and the frequency in turbo mode did not exceed 3.7 GHz, which turned out to be worse than the characteristics of Devil’s Canyon by as much as 700 MHz.

A similar story happened with overclocking. The maximum frequencies to which it was possible to heat up Broadwell desktops without using advanced cooling methods were in the region of 4.1-4.2 GHz. Therefore, it is not surprising that consumers were skeptical about the Broadwell release, and processors of this family remained a strange niche solution for those who were interested in a powerful integrated graphics core. The first full-fledged 14-nm chip for desktop computers, which was able to attract the attention of wide layers of users, was only the next project of the microprocessor giant - Skylake.

Skylake, like the previous generation processors, was produced using a 14 nm process technology. However, here Intel has already been able to achieve normal clock speeds and overclocking: the older desktop version of Skylake, Core i7-6700K, received a nominal frequency of 4.0 GHz and auto-overclocking in turbo mode to 4.2 GHz. These are slightly lower values ​​when compared to Devil's Canyon, but the newer processors were definitely faster than their predecessors. The fact is that Skylake is “so” in Intel nomenclature, which means significant changes in the microarchitecture.

And they really are. At first glance, not many improvements were made in the Skylake design, but all of them were targeted and made it possible to eliminate existing weak points in the microarchitecture. In short, Skylake received larger internal buffers for deeper out-of-order execution of instructions and higher cache memory bandwidth. Improvements affected the branch prediction unit and the input part of the execution pipeline. The execution rate of division instructions was also increased, and the execution mechanisms for addition, multiplication and FMA instructions were rebalanced. To top it off, the developers have worked to improve the efficiency of Hyper-Threading technology. In total, this allowed us to achieve approximately a 10% improvement in performance per clock compared to previous generations of processors.

In general, Skylake can be characterized as a fairly deep optimization of the original Core architecture, so that there are no bottlenecks in the processor design. On the one hand, by increasing the decoder power (from 4 to 5 microoperations per clock) and the speed of the microoperations cache (from 4 to 6 microoperations per clock), the rate of instruction decoding has significantly increased. On the other hand, the efficiency of processing the resulting micro-operations has increased, which was facilitated by the deepening of out-of-order execution algorithms and the redistribution of the capabilities of execution ports, along with a serious revision of the execution rate of a number of regular, SSE and AVX commands.

For example, Haswell and Broadwell each had two ports for performing multiplications and FMA operations on real numbers, but only one port for additions, which did not correspond well to real program code. In Skylake, this imbalance was eliminated and additions began to be performed on two ports. In addition, the number of ports capable of working with integer vector instructions has increased from two to three. Ultimately, all this led to the fact that for almost any type of operation in Skylake there are always several alternative ports. This means that the microarchitecture has finally successfully eliminated almost all possible causes of pipeline downtime.

Noticeable changes also affected the caching subsystem: the bandwidth of the second and third level cache memory was increased. In addition, the associativity of the second level cache was reduced, which ultimately made it possible to improve its efficiency and reduce the penalty when processing misses.

Significant changes have also occurred at a higher level. Thus, in Skylake, the throughput of the ring bus, which connects all processor units, has doubled. In addition, the CPU of this generation has a new memory controller, which is compatible with DDR4 SDRAM. And in addition to this, a new DMI 3.0 bus with twice the bandwidth was used to connect the processor to the chipset, which made it possible to implement high-speed PCI Express 3.0 lines also through the chipset.

However, like all previous versions of the Core architecture, Skylake was another variation on the original design. This means that in the sixth generation of the Core microarchitecture, Intel developers continued to adhere to the tactics of gradually introducing improvements at each development cycle. Overall, this is an underwhelming approach that doesn't allow you to see any significant changes in performance right away when comparing CPUs from neighboring generations. But when upgrading old systems, it’s not difficult to notice a noticeable increase in productivity. For example, Intel itself willingly compared Skylake with Ivy Bridge, demonstrating that processor performance has increased by more than 30 percent in three years.

And in fact, this was quite serious progress, because then everything became much worse. After Skylake, any improvement in the specific performance of processor cores stopped completely. Those processors that are currently on the market still continue to use the Skylake microarchitectural design, despite the fact that almost three years have passed since its introduction in desktop processors. The unexpected downtime occurred because Intel was unable to cope with the implementation of the next version of the semiconductor process with 10nm standards. As a result, the whole “tick-tock” principle fell apart, forcing the microprocessor giant to somehow get out and engage in repeated re-release of old products under new names.

Processors generation KabyLake, which appeared on the market at the very beginning of 2017, became the first and very striking example of Intel’s attempts to sell the same Skylake to customers for the second time. The close family ties between the two generations of processors were not particularly hidden. Intel honestly said that Kaby Lake is no longer a “tick” or “so”, but a simple optimization of the previous design. At the same time, the word “optimization” meant certain improvements in the structure of 14-nm transistors, which opened up the possibility of increasing clock frequencies without changing the thermal envelope. A special term “14+ nm” was even coined for the modified technical process. Thanks to this production technology, the senior mainstream desktop processor Kaby Lake, called Core i7-7700K, was able to offer users a nominal frequency of 4.2 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.5 GHz.

Thus, the increase in Kaby Lake frequencies compared to the original Skylake was approximately 5 percent, and that was all, which, frankly, cast doubt on the legitimacy of classifying Kaby Lake as the next generation Core. Until this point, each subsequent generation of processors, no matter whether it belonged to the “tick” or “tock” phase, provided at least some increase in the IPC indicator. Meanwhile, in Kaby Lake there were no microarchitectural improvements at all, so it would be more logical to consider these processors simply as the second Skylake stepping.

However, the new version of the 14-nm process technology was still able to show itself in some positive ways: the overclocking potential of Kaby Lake compared to Skylake increased by about 200-300 MHz, thanks to which the processors of this series were quite warmly received by enthusiasts. True, Intel continued to use thermal paste under the processor cover instead of solder, so scalping was necessary to fully overclock Kaby Lake.

Intel also failed to cope with the commissioning of 10-nm technology by the beginning of this year. Therefore, at the end of last year, another type of processors built on the same Skylake microarchitecture was introduced to the market - CoffeeLake. But talking about Coffee Lake as the third guise of Skylake is not entirely correct. Last year was a period of radical paradigm shift in the processor market. AMD returned to the “big game”, which was able to break established traditions and create demand for mass processors with more than four cores. Suddenly, Intel found itself playing catch-up, and the release of Coffee Lake was not so much an attempt to fill the pause until the long-awaited arrival of 10nm Core processors, but rather a reaction to the release of six- and eight-core AMD Ryzen processors.

As a result, Coffee Lake processors received an important structural difference from their predecessors: the number of cores in them was increased to six, which happened for the first time on a mass Intel platform. However, no changes were reintroduced at the microarchitecture level: Coffee Lake is essentially a six-core Skylake, assembled on the basis of exactly the same internal design of computing cores, which are equipped with an L3 cache increased to 12 MB (according to the standard principle of 2 MB per core ) and are united by the usual ring bus.

However, despite the fact that we so easily allow ourselves to say “nothing new” about Coffee Lake, it is not entirely fair to say about the complete absence of any changes. Although nothing has changed in the microarchitecture, Intel specialists had to spend a lot of effort to ensure that six-core processors could fit into a standard desktop platform. And the result was quite convincing: the six-core processors remained true to the usual thermal package and, moreover, did not slow down at all in terms of clock frequencies.

In particular, the senior representative of the Coffee Lake generation, Core i7-8700K, received a base frequency of 3.7 GHz, and in turbo mode it can accelerate to 4.7 GHz. At the same time, the overclocking potential of Coffee Lake, despite its more massive semiconductor crystal, turned out to be even better than that of all its predecessors. Core i7-8700K are often taken by their ordinary owners to reach the five-gigahertz mark, and such overclocking can be real even without scalping and replacing the internal thermal interface. And this means that Coffee Lake, although extensive, is a significant step forward.

All this became possible solely thanks to another improvement in the 14nm process technology. In the fourth year of using it for mass production of desktop chips, Intel was able to achieve truly impressive results. The introduced third version of the 14-nm standard (“14++ nm” in the manufacturer’s designations) and the re-arrangement of the semiconductor crystal made it possible to significantly improve performance per watt spent and increase the total computing power. With the introduction of six-cores, Intel was perhaps able to take an even more significant step forward than any of the previous microarchitecture improvements. And today Coffee Lake looks like a very tempting option for upgrading older systems based on previous Core microarchitecture media.

Codename	Technical process	Number of cores	GPU	L3 cache, MB	Number of transistors, billion	Crystal area, mm 2
Sandy Bridge	32 nm	4	GT2	8	1,16	216
Ivy Bridge	22 nm	4	GT2	8	1,2	160
Haswell	22 nm	4	GT2	8	1,4	177
Broadwell	14 nm	4	GT3e	6	N/A	~145 + 77 (eDRAM)
Skylake	14 nm	4	GT2	8	N/A	122
Kaby Lake	14+ nm	4	GT2	8	N/A	126
Coffee Lake	14++ nm	6	GT2	12	N/A	150

⇡ Processors and platforms: specifications

To compare the seven latest generations of Core i7, we took the older representatives in the respective series - one from each design. The main characteristics of these processors are shown in the following table.

	Core i7-2700K	Core i7-3770K	Core i7-4790K	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-6700K	Core i7-7700K	Core i7-8700K
Codename	Sandy Bridge	Ivy Bridge	Haswell (Devil's Canyon)	Broadwell	Skylake	Kaby Lake	Coffee Lake
Production technology, nm	32	22	22	14	14	14+	14++
release date	23.10.2011	29.04.2012	2.06.2014	2.06.2015	5.08.2015	3.01.2017	5.10.2017
Cores/threads	4/8	4/8	4/8	4/8	4/8	4/8	6/12
Base frequency, GHz	3,5	3,5	4,0	3,3	4,0	4,2	3,7
Turbo Boost frequency, GHz	3,9	3,9	4,4	3,7	4,2	4,5	4,7
L3 cache, MB	8	8	8	6 (+128 MB eDRAM)	8	8	12
Memory support	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1600	DDR3-1600	DDR3L-1600	DDR4-2133	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2666
Instruction Set Extensions	AVX	AVX	AVX2	AVX2	AVX2	AVX2	AVX2
Integrated Graphics	HD 3000 (12 EU)	HD 4000 (16 EU)	HD 4600 (20 EU)	Iris Pro 6200 (48 EU)	HD 530 (24 EU)	HD 630 (24 EU)	UHD 630 (24 EU)
Max. graphics core frequency, GHz	1,35	1,15	1,25	1,15	1,15	1,15	1,2
PCI Express version	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
PCI Express lanes	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
TDP, W	95	77	88	65	91	91	95
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1150	LGA1150	LGA1151	LGA1151	LGA1151v2
Official price	$332	$332	$339	$366	$339	$339	$359

It is curious that in the seven years since the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel has not been able to significantly increase clock speeds. Despite the fact that the technological production process has changed twice and the microarchitecture has been seriously optimized twice, today's Core i7 has made almost no progress in its operating frequency. The latest Core i7-8700K has a nominal frequency of 3.7 GHz, which is only 6 percent higher than the frequency of the Core i7-2700K released in 2011.

However, such a comparison is not entirely correct, because Coffee Lake has one and a half times more computing cores. If we focus on the quad-core Core i7-7700K, then the increase in frequency still looks more convincing: this processor has accelerated relative to the 32-nm Core i7-2700K by a fairly significant 20 percent in megahertz terms. Although this can still hardly be called an impressive increase: in absolute terms, this is converted into an increase of 100 MHz per year.

There are no breakthroughs in other formal characteristics. Intel continues to provide all its processors with an individual L2 cache of 256 KB per core, as well as a common L3 cache for all cores, the size of which is determined at the rate of 2 MB per core. In other words, the main factor in which the greatest progress has occurred is the number of computing cores. The development of Core began with four-core CPUs and came to six-core ones. Moreover, it is obvious that this is not the end and in the near future we will see eight-core variants of Coffee Lake (or Whiskey Lake).

However, as is easy to see, Intel’s pricing policy has remained almost unchanged for seven years. Even the six-core Coffee Lake has risen in price by only six percent compared to previous quad-core flagships. However, other older processors of the Core i7 class for the mass platform have always cost consumers about $330-340.

It is curious that the biggest changes have occurred not even with the processors themselves, but with their support for RAM. The bandwidth of dual-channel SDRAM has doubled since the release of Sandy Bridge until today: from 21.3 to 41.6 GB/s. And this is another important circumstance that determines the advantage of modern systems compatible with high-speed DDR4 memory.

And in general, all these years, along with the processors, the rest of the platform has evolved. If we talk about the main milestones in the development of the platform, then, in addition to the increase in the speed of compatible memory, I would also like to note the appearance of support for the PCI Express 3.0 graphical interface. It seems that high-speed memory and a fast graphics bus, along with progress in processor frequencies and architectures, are significant reasons why modern systems have become better and faster than past ones. Support for DDR4 SDRAM appeared in Skylake, and the transfer of the PCI Express processor bus to the third version of the protocol occurred in Ivy Bridge.

In addition, the system logic sets accompanying processors have received noticeable development. Indeed, today's Intel chipsets of the three hundredth series can offer much more interesting capabilities in comparison with the Intel Z68 and Z77, which were used in LGA1155 motherboards for Sandy Bridge generation processors. This is easy to see from the following table, in which we have summarized the characteristics of Intel's flagship chipsets for the mass platform.

	P67/Z68	Z77	Z87	Z97	Z170	Z270	Z370
CPU compatibility	Sandy Bridge Ivy Bridge		Haswell	Haswell Broadwell	Skylake Kaby Lake		Coffee Lake
Interface	DMI 2.0 (2 GB/s)				DMI 3.0 (3.93 GB/s)
PCI Express standard	2.0				3.0
PCI Express lanes	8				20	24
PCIe M.2 support	No			Eat	Yes, up to 3 devices
PCI support	Eat	No
SATA 6 Gb/s	2		6
SATA 3 Gb/s	4		0
USB 3.1 Gen2	0
USB 3.0	0	4	6		10
USB 2.0	14	10	8		4

Modern logic sets have significantly improved the ability to connect high-speed storage media. The most important thing: thanks to the transition of chipsets to the PCI Express 3.0 bus, today in high-performance assemblies you can use high-speed NVMe drives, which, even compared to SATA SSDs, can offer noticeably better responsiveness and higher read and write speeds. And this alone can become a compelling argument in favor of modernization.

In addition, modern system logic sets provide much richer possibilities for connecting additional devices. And we’re not just talking about a significant increase in the number of PCI Express lanes, which ensures the presence of several additional PCIe slots on boards, replacing conventional PCI. Along the way, today's chipsets also have native support for USB 3.0 ports, and many modern motherboards are also equipped with USB 3.1 Gen2 ports.

⇡ Description of test systems and testing methods

In order to test seven fundamentally different Intel Core i7 processors released over the past seven years, we needed to assemble four platforms with processor sockets LGA1155, LGA1150, LGA1151 and LGA1151v2. The set of components that turned out to be necessary for this is described by the following list:

• Processors:
  • Intel Core i7-8700K (Coffee Lake, 6 cores + HT, 3.7-4.7 GHz, 12 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i7-7700K (Kaby Lake, 4 cores + HT, 4.2-4.5 GHz, 8 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i7-6700K (Skylake, 4 cores, 4.0-4.2 GHz, 8 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i7-5775C (Broadwell, 4 cores, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3, 128 MB L4);
  • Intel Core i7-4790K (Haswell Refresh, 4 cores + HT, 4.0-4.4 GHz, 8 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores + HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i7-2700K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores + HT, 3.5-3.9 GHz, 8 MB L3).
  • CPU cooler: Noctua NH-U14S.
• Motherboards:
  • ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (LGA1151v2, Intel Z370);
  • ASUS ROG Maximus IX Hero (LGA1151, Intel Z270);
  • ASUS Z97-Pro (LGA1150, Intel Z97);
  • ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel Z77).
• Memory:
  • 2 × 8 GB DDR3-2133 SDRAM, 9-11-11-31 (G.Skill TridentX F3-2133C9D-16GTX);
  • 2 × 8 GB DDR4-3200 SDRAM, 16-16-16-36 (G.Skill Trident Z RGB F4-3200C16D-16GTZR).
  • Video card: NVIDIA Titan X (GP102, 12 GB/384-bit GDDR5X, 1417-1531/10000 MHz).
  • Disk subsystem: Samsung 860 PRO 1TB (MZ-76P1T0BW).
  • Power supply: Corsair RM850i ​​(80 Plus Gold, 850 W).

Testing was performed on the Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise (v1709) Build 16299 operating system using the following set of drivers:

• Intel Chipset Driver 10.1.1.45;
• Intel Management Engine Interface Driver 11.7.0.1017;
• NVIDIA GeForce 391.35 Driver.

Description of the tools used to measure computing performance:

Comprehensive benchmarks:

• Futuremark PCMark 10 Professional Edition 1.0.1275 - testing in the scenarios Essentials (usual work of the average user: launching applications, surfing the Internet, video conferencing), Productivity (office work with a word processor and spreadsheets), Digital Content Creation (creating digital content: editing photographs, non-linear video editing, rendering and visualization of 3D models). OpenCL hardware acceleration was disabled in testing.
• Futuremark 3DMark Professional Edition 2.4.4264 - testing in the Time Spy Extreme 1.0 scene.

Applications:

• Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 - testing performance when processing graphic images. The average execution time of a test script is measured, which 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.
• Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic CC 7.1 - testing performance when batch processing a series of images in RAW format. The test scenario involves post-processing and exporting to JPEG at 1920 × 1080 resolution and maximum quality of two hundred 16-megapixel RAW images taken with a Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera.
• Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2018 - performance testing for non-linear video editing. The time for rendering a Blu-Ray project containing HDV 1080p25 video with various effects applied is measured.
• Blender 2.79b - testing the final rendering speed in one of the popular free packages for creating 3D graphics. The duration of building the final model from Blender Cycles Benchmark rev4 is measured.
• Corona 1.3 - testing rendering speed using the renderer of the same name. The speed of building a standard BTR scene used to measure performance is measured.
• Google Chrome 65.0.3325.181 (64-bit) - testing the performance of Internet applications built using modern technologies. A specialized test, WebXPRT 3, is used, which implements algorithms actually used in Internet applications in HTML5 and JavaScript.
• Microsoft Visual Studio 2017 (15.1) - measuring the compilation time of a large MSVC project - a professional package for creating three-dimensional graphics Blender version 2.79b.
• Stockfish 9 - testing the speed of a popular chess engine. The speed of searching through options in the position “1q6/1r2k1p1/4pp1p/1P1b1P2/3Q4/7P/4B1P1/2R3K1 w” is measured;
• V-Ray 3.57.01 - testing the performance of a popular rendering system using the standard V-Ray Benchmark application;
• VeraCrypt 1.22.9 - testing cryptographic performance. A benchmark built into the program is used that uses Kuznyechik-Serpent-Camellia triple encryption.
• WinRAR 5.50 - archiving speed testing. The time spent by the archiver to compress a directory with various files with a total volume of 1.7 GB is measured. The maximum degree of compression is used.
• x264 r2851 - testing the speed of video transcoding into H.264/AVC format. To evaluate performance, we use an original 1080p@50FPS AVC video file with a bitrate of about 30 Mbps.
• x265 2.4+14 8bpp - testing the speed of video transcoding into the promising H.265/HEVC format. To evaluate performance, the same video file is used as in the x264 encoder transcoding speed test.

Games:

• Ashes of Singularity. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX 11, Quality Profile = High, MSAA = 2x. Resolution 3840 × 2160: DirectX 11, Quality Profile = Extreme, MSAA=Off.
• Assassin's Creed: Origins. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Graphics Quality = Very High. Resolution 3840 × 2160: Graphics Quality = Very High.
• Battlefield 1. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX 11, Graphics Quality = Ultra. Resolution 3840 × 2160: DirectX 11, Graphics Quality = Ultra.
• Civilization VI. Resolution 1920×1080: DirectX 11, MSAA = 4x, Performance Impact = Ultra, Memory Impact = Ultra. Resolution 3840 × 2160: DirectX 11, MSAA = 4x, Performance Impact = Ultra, Memory Impact = Ultra.
• Far Cry 5. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Graphics Quality = Ultra, Anti-Aliasing = TAA, Motion Blur = On. Resolution 3840 × 2160: Graphics Quality = Ultra, Anti-Aliasing = TAA, Motion Blur = On.
• Grand Theft Auto V. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX Version = DirectX 11, FXAA = Off, MSAA = x4, NVIDIA TXAA = Off, Population Density = Maximum, Population Variety = Maximum, Distance Scaling = Maximum, Texture Quality = Very High, Shader Quality = Very High, Shadow Quality = Very High, Reflection Quality = Ultra, Reflection MSAA = x4, Water Quality = Very High, Particles Quality = Very High, Grass Quality = Ultra, Soft Shadow = Softest, Post FX = Ultra, In -Game Depth Of Field Effects = On, Anisotropic Filtering = x16, Ambient Occlusion = High, Tessellation = Very High, Long Shadows = On, High Resolution Shadows = On, High Detail Streaming While Flying = On, Extended Distance Scaling = Maximum, Extended Shadows Distance = Maximum. Resolution 3840 × 2160: DirectX Version = DirectX 11, FXAA = Off, MSAA = Off, NVIDIA TXAA = Off, Population Density = Maximum, Population Variety = Maximum, Distance Scaling = Maximum, Texture Quality = Very High, Shader Quality = Very High , Shadow Quality = Very High, Reflection Quality = Ultra, Reflection MSAA = x4, Water Quality = Very High, Particles Quality = Very High, Grass Quality = Ultra, Soft Shadow = Softest, Post FX = Ultra, In-Game Depth Of Field Effects = On, Anisotropic Filtering = x16, Ambient Occlusion = High, Tessellation = Very High, Long Shadows = On, High Resolution Shadows = On, High Detail Streaming While Flying = On, Extended Distance Scaling = Maximum, Extended Shadows Distance = Maximum.
• The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Resolution 1920 × 1080, Graphics Preset = Ultra, Postprocessing Preset = High. Resolution 3840 × 2160, Graphics Preset = Ultra, Postprocessing Preset = High.
• Total War: Warhammer II. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX 12, Quality = Ultra. Resolution 3840 × 2160: DirectX 12, Quality = Ultra.
• Watch Dogs 2. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Field of View = 70°, Pixel Density = 1.00, Graphics Quality = Ultra, Extra Details = 100%. Resolution 3840 × 2160: Field of View = 70°, Pixel Density = 1.00, Graphics Quality = Ultra, Extra Details = 100%.

In all gaming tests, the results are given as the average number of frames per second, as well as the 0.01-quantile (first percentile) for fps values. The use of 0.01 quantile instead of minimum fps indicators is due to the desire to clear the results from random performance spikes that were provoked by reasons not directly related to the operation of the main components of the platform.

⇡ Performance in comprehensive benchmarks

The comprehensive PCMark 8 test shows the weighted average performance of systems when running typical, commonly used applications of various kinds. And it well illustrates the progress that Intel processors have undergone at each stage of design change. If we talk about the basic Essentials scenario, then the average speed increase for each generation does not exceed the notorious 5 percent. However, the Core i7-4790K stands out from the general background, which, thanks to improvements in the microarchitecture and an increase in clock frequencies, was able to provide a good leap in performance that goes beyond the average level. This breakthrough is also visible in the Productivity scenario, according to the results of which the performance of the Core i7-4790K is comparable to the performance of older processors in the Skylake, Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake families.

The third scenario, Digital Content Creation, which combines resource-intensive creative tasks, gives a completely different picture. Here the fresh Core i7-8700K can boast an 80 percent advantage over the Core i7-2700K, which can be regarded as a more than worthy result of seven years of microarchitecture evolution. Of course, a significant part of this advantage is explained by an increase in the number of processing cores, but even if we compare the performance of the quad-core Core i7-2700K and Core i7-7700K, then in this case the speed increase reaches a respectable 53 percent.

The 3DMark synthetic gaming test highlights the advantages of the new processors even more. We use the Time Spy Extreme scenario, which has enhanced optimizations for multi-core architectures, and in it the final rating of the Core i7-8700K is almost three times higher than that of the Core i7-2700K. But the representative of the Kaby Lake generation, which, like all its predecessors, has four computing cores, also shows a twofold advantage over Sandy Bridge.

Interestingly, the most successful improvement to the original microarchitecture, judging by the results, should be considered the transition from Ivy Bridge to Haswell - at this stage, according to 3D Mark, performance increased by 34 percent. However, Coffee Lake, of course, also has something to brag about, but Intel processors from 2017-2018 have exactly the same microarchitecture as Skylake, and stand out solely due to extensive gain - an increase in the number of cores.

⇡ Performance in resource-intensive applications

In general, application performance has grown significantly over the past seven years of the evolution of Intel processors. And we are not talking here at all about the five percent per year that people in the ranks of Intel-haters joke about. Today's Core i7s are more than twice as powerful as their 2011 predecessors. Of course, the transition to six-cores played a big role here, but microarchitectural improvements and an increase in clock frequency also made a significant contribution. The most successful design in this regard was Haswell. It significantly increased the frequency, and also supported AVX2 instructions, which gradually became stronger in applications for working with multimedia content and in rendering tasks.

It is worth noting that in some cases, upgrading processors in systems on which professional tasks are performed can provide a truly breakthrough improvement in operating speed. In particular, a threefold increase in performance when moving from Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake can be obtained when transcoding video with modern encoders, as well as during final rendering using V-Ray. A good increase is also observed with non-linear video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro. However, even if your field of activity is not directly related to solving such problems, in any of the applications we tested the increase was at least 50 percent.

Rendering:

Photo processing:

Video processing:

Video transcoding:

Compilation:

Archiving:

Encryption:

Chess:

Internet surfing:

In order to more clearly imagine how the power of Intel processors has changed with the change in the last seven generations of microarchitecture, we have compiled a special table. It shows the percentage of average performance gains in resource-intensive applications obtained when replacing one flagship Core i7 series processor with another.

It's easy to see that Coffee Lake turned out to be the most significant design update for Intel's mainstream processors. A one and a half times increase in the number of cores gives performance a significant boost, thanks to which when switching to the Core i7-8700K, even from processors of recent generations you can get a very noticeable acceleration. Intel has experienced comparable performance growth only once since 2011 - with the introduction of the Haswell processor design (in an improved form of Devil’s Canyon). Then it was due to serious changes in the microarchitecture, which were carried out simultaneously with a noticeable increase in clock frequency.

⇡ Gaming performance

The fact that the performance of Intel processors is steadily increasing is clearly visible to users of resource-intensive applications. However, there is a different opinion among players. Of course, games, even the most modern ones, do not use vector instruction sets, are poorly optimized for multi-threading, and generally scale their performance at a much more restrained pace due to the fact that in addition to computing resources they also need graphics. So does it make sense to upgrade processors for those who use computers primarily for gaming?

Let's try to answer this question. To begin with, we present the test results in FullHD resolution, where the processor dependence is more pronounced, since the graphics card is not a serious limitation for the fps indicator and allows the processors to demonstrate what they are capable of more clearly.

The situation is similar in different games, so let's look at the average relative gaming performance in FullHD. They are shown in the following table, which shows the increase obtained when replacing one flagship Core i7 series processor with another.

Indeed, gaming performance scales much less when new generations of processors are released than in applications. If it could be said that over the past seven years, Intel processors have accelerated by about half, then from the point of view of gaming applications, the Core i7-8700K is only 36 percent faster than Sandy Bridge. And if we compare the latest Core i7 with some Haswell, then the advantage of the Core i7-8700K will be only 11 percent, despite a one and a half times increase in the number of computing cores. It seems that players who do not want to update their LGA1155 systems are right in some way. They will not receive even close to the same increase as creative workers - content creators.

The difference in the results is very slight; the overall situation looks like this.

It turns out that 4K gamers - owners of Core i7-4790K and later processors - have nothing to worry about right now. Until a new generation of graphics accelerators comes to the market, such CPUs will not be a bottleneck for gaming loads at ultra-high resolutions, and performance is entirely limited by the video card. Upgrading the processor may only make sense for systems equipped with retro Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge processors, but even in this case the increase in frame rate will not exceed 6-9 percent.

⇡ Energy consumption

It would be interesting to supplement the performance tests with energy consumption measurement results. Over the past seven years, Intel has changed its technological standards twice and its stated thermal package limits six times. In addition, the Haswell and Broadwell processors, unlike the others, used a fundamentally different power supply circuit and were equipped with an integrated voltage converter. All this, naturally, influenced real consumption in one way or another.

The Corsair RM850i ​​digital power supply we use in the test system allows us to control the consumed and output electrical power, which is what we use for measurements. The graph below 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.

In the idle state, the situation fundamentally changed with the introduction of the Broadwell design, when Intel switched to using a 14-nm process technology and introduced deeper power-saving modes.

When rendering, it turns out that increasing the number of computing cores in Coffee Lake has a noticeable impact on its power consumption. This processor has become significantly more power-hungry than its predecessors. The most economical representatives of the Core i7 series are the Broadwell and Ivy Bridge microarchitectures, which is quite consistent with the TDP characteristics that Intel declares for them.

Interestingly, at the highest loads, the consumption of the Core i7-8700K is similar to the consumption of the Devil’s Canyon processor and no longer seems so prohibitive. But in general, the energy appetites of Core i7 processors of different generations differ very noticeably, and more modern CPU models are not always more economical than their predecessors. A big step in improving consumption and heat dissipation characteristics was made in the Ivy Bridge generation, and Kaby Lake is also quite good in this regard. However, now it seems that improving the energy efficiency of flagship desktop processors has ceased to be an important task for Intel.

Addendum: performance at the same clock speed

Comparative testing of mainstream Core i7 processors of different generations can be interesting even if all participants are brought to the same clock frequency. Often the performance of newer representatives is higher due to the fact that Intel increases their clock speeds. Tests at the same frequency allow us to isolate the extensive frequency component from the overall result, which depends only indirectly on the microarchitecture, and focus on issues of “intensification”.

Performance measured regardless of clock speeds may also be of interest to enthusiasts who operate the CPU outside of its nominal modes, at frequencies very different from the standard values. Guided by these considerations, we decided to add an additional discipline to the practical comparison - tests of all processors at the same frequency of 4.5 GHz. This frequency value was chosen based on the fact that it is not difficult to overclock almost any of the Intel processors of recent years to it. Only the representative of the Broadwell generation had to be excluded from this comparison, since the overclocking potential of the Core i7-5775C is extremely limited and one cannot even dream of reaching 4.5 GHz. The remaining six processors went through another round of testing.

Even if we ignore the fact that the frequencies of Intel processors, although slowly, are still growing, Core i7s become better with each new generation only due to structural changes and optimizations in the microarchitecture. Based on performance in applications for creating and processing digital content, we can conclude that the average increase in specific productivity at each stage is about 15 percent.

However, in games in which optimization of program code for modern microarchitectures occurs with a large lag, the situation with performance growth is somewhat different:

The games clearly show how the development of Intel microarchitectures stopped at the Skylake generation, and even an increase in the number of computing cores in Coffee Lake helps little in increasing gaming performance.

Of course, the lack of growth in specific gaming performance does not mean that the newer Core i7s are uninteresting for gamers. After all, keep in mind that the above results are based on frame rates for CPUs running at the same clock speed, and newer processors not only have higher nominal clock rates, but also overclock much better than older ones. This means that overclockers may be interested in switching to Coffee Lake not because of its microarchitecture, which has remained unchanged since Skylake, and not because of its six cores, which provide a minimal increase in speed in games, but for another reason - thanks to overclocking capabilities. In particular, reaching the 5 GHz milestone for Coffee Lake is a completely feasible task, which cannot be said about its predecessors.

⇡ Conclusion

It so happens that Intel is usually criticized for the strategy chosen in recent years for the measured and leisurely implementation of improvements to the basic Core architecture, which gives a not very noticeable increase in performance when moving to each next generation of CPU. However, detailed testing shows that, in general, real performance increases at a not so sluggish pace. You just need to keep two things in mind. Firstly, many improvements added to new processors do not reveal themselves immediately, but only after some time, when the software acquires the corresponding optimizations. Secondly, although a small but systematic improvement in productivity that occurs every year, in total it gives a very significant effect if we consider the situation in the context of longer time periods.

In confirmation, it is enough to cite one very significant fact: the latest Core i7-8700K is more than twice as fast as its predecessor from 2011. And even if we compare the new product with the Core i7-4790K processor, which was released in 2014, it turns out that in four years the performance has increased by at least one and a half times.

However, you need to understand that the above growth rates relate to resource-intensive applications for creating and processing digital content. And this is where the watershed comes in: professional users who use their systems for work are reaping much greater dividends from improved processors than those whose computers are used purely for entertainment. And while for content creators, frequently upgrading platforms and processors is a more than sensible step to increase productivity, for gamers the conversation turns out to be completely different.

Gaming applications are a very conservative industry that reacts extremely slowly to any changes in processor architecture. Additionally, gaming performance is more dependent on the performance of graphics cards rather than processors. Therefore, it turns out that users of gaming systems see the development of Intel CPUs that has occurred in recent years in a completely different way. Where “professionals” state a twofold increase in performance, players receive, at best, only a 35% increase in fps. And this means that in pursuit of new generations of Intel CPUs there is practically no point for them. Even older processors of the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge series have enough power to unleash the potential of a graphics card at the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti level.

Thus, for now, players may be attracted to new processors not so much by the increase in performance as by the new features. They may be some additional functions that appear in new platforms, for example, support for high-speed drives. Or better overclocking potential, the limits of which, despite Intel’s problems with mastering new technological processes, are still gradually moving to more distant boundaries. However, in order for players to receive a clear and understandable signal to upgrade, first of all there must be a noticeable increase in the performance of gaming GPUs. Until then, even owners of seven-year-old Intel CPUs will continue to feel completely deprived of processor performance.

However, Coffee Lake generation processors are quite capable of changing this situation. The increase in the number of computing cores that has occurred in them (up to six, and in the future up to eight) carries a powerful emotional charge. Due to this, the Core i7-8700K seems like a very successful upgrade to almost any PC user, because many people think that six-core processors, due to the potential inherent in them, will be able to remain a relevant option for a longer period. Whether this is really so is difficult to say now. But, summing up everything said above, we can confirm that upgrading the system with the transition to Coffee Lake in any case makes much more sense than the upgrade options that the microprocessor giant has offered so far.

The first processors under the Intel Core i7 brand appeared nine years ago, but the LGA1366 platform did not pretend to be widely distributed outside the server segment. Actually, all “consumer” processors for it fell in the price range from ≈$300 to full-fledged “stubs,” 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 buyers (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 third-level cache.”

Later, it was inherited by models for the mass market-oriented LGA1156. Later, without changes, it migrated to LGA1155. Even later, it appeared 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 partially share), it’s a little late: it could have been earlier. However, the claim “good, but not enough” applies not only to processor performance, but in general to any evolutionary changes in any market. The reason for this lies not in a technical, but in a psychological plane, which goes far beyond the scope of interests of our site. We can arrange testing of computer systems of different generations to determine their performance and energy consumption (at least on a limited sample of tasks). That's what we'll do today.

Test bench 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 is opened by the three 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 testing: its recommended price was $562. In the future, not a single desktop quad-core Core i7 cost that much. And the quad-core processors of the Sandy Bridge family (as in the previous case, we have here a representative of the second wave, and not the “starter” i7-2600K) are the only 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 vice versa: it was later that narrow but noisy circles began to endow the thermal interface with truly magical properties. Somewhere starting with 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
L3 (L4) cache, MiB	8	6 (128)
RAM	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600
TDP, W	88	65

What we will be somewhat 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, 4790K is already Haswell Refresh. Some people were already waiting for Broadwell, but the company released processors of this family exclusively for the tablet and laptop market: where they were most in demand. As for desktops, 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 were compatible only with a couple of 2014 chipsets, and most importantly, they turned out to be the only “socket” models with a four-level cache memory. Formally, for the needs of the graphics core, although in practice all programs can use L4. There were similar processors earlier and later - but only in BGA design (i.e., they were soldered directly to the motherboard). These are unique in their own way. Enthusiasts, naturally, were not inspired due to low clock speeds and limited overclockability, but we will check how this “side shoot” relates to 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 versions that are incompatible with each other. However, we wrote about the difficult path of mainstream six-core processors to the market quite recently: when they were tested for the first time. So we won't repeat ourselves. Let us only note that we tested the i7-8700K again: using not a preliminary, but a “release” copy, and even installing it on a “normal” board with debugged firmware. The results changed little, but in several programs they became 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 you should definitely take a couple of the fastest modern dual- and quad-core processors from the Core i3 and Core i5 lines, fortunately they have already been tested, and it will be interesting to see which of the old guys they will catch up with and where (and whether they will catch up with them). In addition, we managed to get our hands on a completely new six-core Core i5-8400, so we took the opportunity to test that too.

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

There is no way 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 claimed that it is not only cheaper, but generally better - just few people know how to cook it. But if you use the “correct programs”, it will immediately overtake everyone. Since this year we have just at the request of workers we reworked the testing methodology towards “severe multi-threading”, so there is a reason to test this hypothesis - the testing is still historical. And modern models will require at least two. The Ryzen 5 1500X would be very suitable for us, very similar to the old Core i7, but it was not tested. Ryzen 5 1400 is formally also suitable... but in fact, in this model (and in modern Ryzen 3), along with the halving of the cache memory, the connections between the CCX have also suffered. Therefore, I also had to take the Ryzen 5 1600, which does not have this problem - as a result, it often outperforms the 1400 by more than one and a half times. And a pair of six-core Intel processors are also present in today's testing. Others are clearly too slow to compare with this inexpensive processor, but oh well - let him dominate.

Testing methodology

Methodology. Let us briefly recall here 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 games 2017

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

iXBT Application Benchmark 2017

In principle, the claims of AMD fans that in “severe multi-threaded” FX were not so bad, if we consider only performance, are justified: as we see, the 8350, in principle, could compete on equal terms with the Core i7 of the same year. However, here it looks good against the background of the younger Ryzen, but between these two families the company has produced practically nothing for this market segment. Intel, on the other hand, has a uniform line-up that has made it possible to double performance within the framework of the “quad-core” concept. Although the cores are of great importance here - the best dual-core of 2017 still did not catch up with the quad-core Core of the “previous” generation (let us remember that this is still officially called in the company’s materials, clearly distinguished from those numbered starting from the second). And six-core models are good - that’s all. So the accusations against Intel that the company delayed their entry into the market too much can be considered fair to some extent.

The only 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 “offhand” is quite comparable: there is still a twofold difference between 880 and 7700K, the i5-8400 is still inferior only to the latter, and the i3-7350K still hasn’t caught up with anyone. And this happened within the same seven years. We can count it as 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.

All you have to do is slightly “weaken” the utilization of multithreading, and the position of newer processors immediately improves, albeit quantitatively weaker. However, the comparison of the “previous” and “seventh” generations of Core gives us the traditional “two ends”, all other things being (relatively) equal. Although it is easy to notice that “revolutionary” is to the maximum extent drawn to “second” and... “eighth”. But this is more than understandable: the latter increased the number of cores, and in the “second” the microarchitecture and technical process radically changed, and at the same time.

As we already know, Adobe Photoshop is somewhat weird (the bad news is that the problem is not fixed in the latest version of the package; the very bad news is that now it will be relevant for the new Core i3), so we are not considering processors without HT. But our main characters have support for this technology, so no one bothers them all to work normally. As a result, in general, the situation is similar to other groups, but there is a nuance: the fastest processor for LGA1150 was not the high-frequency i7-4790K, but the i7-5775C. Well, in some places intensive methods of increasing productivity are very effective. It’s a pity that it’s not always the case: it’s easier to “work” with frequency. And cheaper: you don’t need an additional eDRAM chip, 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 - even more than the frequency. Although in our first testing the Core i7-8700K looked worse, 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 were previously positive about increasing the number of supported computation threads while maintaining a similar level of frequency.

Moreover, sometimes only it, and the number of computation threads, “decides”. Basically, of course, there are certain nuances here too, but “ there is no remedy against scrap" The entire revolutionary Ryzen architecture, for example, allowed the 1400 to only demonstrate performance at the level of the FX-8350 or Core i7-3770K, which entered the market in 2012. Considering that its frequency is lower than both, and in general it is a special budget model that actually uses only half of the semiconductor crystal, this is not so bad. But it doesn’t inspire reverence. Especially compared to another (and also inexpensive) representative of the Ryzen 5 line, which easily and noticeably outperformed any quad-core Core i7 of any year of production :)

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

It is characteristic that this branch from the “main line” of desktop processors demonstrates (still!) high results in this group of programs. However, what unites them is mainly their intended purpose, and not the optimization methods chosen by 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 decreased somewhat: 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: this 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 - not enough. Especially if you compare the gains at each annual step, adding a Core i7-4770K (which is why we regretted above that this processor was not found).

At the same time, the company has long had the opportunity to dramatically increase productivity, at least in multi-threaded software (and there has long been a lot of this among resource-intensive programs). Yes, and it was also implemented - but within the framework of completely different platforms with their own characteristics. It’s not for nothing that many people have been waiting for six-core models for LGA115x since 2014... But many didn’t expect any breakthroughs from AMD in those years - all the more impressive were the first Ryzen tests. It’s not surprising - as we see, even the inexpensive Ryzen 5 1600 can compete in performance with the Core i7-7700K, which just a couple of months ago was the fastest processor for LGA1151. Now a similar level of performance is quite accessible with Core i5, but it would be better if this happened earlier :) In any case, there would be fewer reasons for complaints.

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

However, this diagram once again demonstrates why the performance of mass-produced central processors in the second decade of the 21st century grew at a much slower rate than in the first: in this case, all development occurred against the backdrop of a “non-increase” in energy consumption. If possible, even reduce it. It was possible to reduce it using architectural or some other methods - users of mobile and compact systems (of which much more have been sold for a long time than “standard desktop ones”) will be satisfied. And in the desktop market there is a small step forward, since you can increase the frequencies a little more, which was done in the Core i7-4790K at one time, and then became established in the “regular” Core i7, and even in the Core i5.

This is especially clear when assessing the power consumption of the processors themselves (unfortunately, for LGA1155 it is impossible to measure it separately from the platform using simple means). At the same time, it becomes clear why the company does not need to somehow change the cooling requirements for processors within the LGA115x line. Also why more and more products in the (formally) desktop assortment are starting to fit into the traditional thermal packages for laptop processors: this happens naturally 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. For overclocking processors, the company considers it necessary to tighten the requirements for the cooling system, since there is a small (but not zero) probability that the buyer of a computer with one will overclock it and use all sorts of “stability tests”. But mass-produced 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 LGA1150. In normal mode, of course - with overclocking you can inadvertently return to 2010 :)

But, at the same time, modern economical processors are not necessarily slow - three to five years ago, the performance of “energy efficient” models compared to 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 at a much faster rate than pure performance: here, when comparing the Core i7-7700K and i7-880, not two times, but two and a half times. However... the first “big leap”, by one and a half times, came with the introduction of LGA1155, so it is 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 the Core i7-880 and i7-2700K, are of greatest interest. Unfortunately, nothing good happened with 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. And it’s clear why: many people skipped LGA1156 altogether, or have already managed to migrate from it to other solutions over so many years. But with the Core i7-2700K there is another problem: its performance (remember, in normal mode) is still often enough to work at the level of the new Core i7. In general, this is an indestructible legend: which (together with the older Core i5 for LGA1155) was first made a good gaming processor by its high single-threaded performance (in those years, Intel strongly “pressed” the Core i3 and Pentium in frequency), and then they began to work more or less effectively all eight supported computation threads will be disposed of. Although the same level of performance in games is often achieved by “simpler” solutions for new platforms, sometimes there is a feeling that this is connected not only and not so much with performance “in its pure form”. Therefore, for those who are to some extent interested in the results in games, we recommend that you familiarize yourself with them using the full table, and here we will present only a couple of the most interesting and indicative diagrams.

Here, for example, is Far Cry Primal. We immediately discard the results of the Core i7-880: the incorrect operation of the GTX 1070 video card with this platform is obvious. Perhaps, by the way, this also applies to LGA1155, although in general the frame rate here cannot be called low: in practice it is enough. But clearly lower than it could be. And LGA1151 too somehow doesn't shine, and the best platform seems to be LGA1150. Now we remember that a modified version of the Dunia Engine 2 (here it is used) was developed between 2013 and 2014, so they could just further optimize. An indirect confirmation of this 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 no longer see such artifacts. With the exception of the Core i7-880, which once again amused us with its “brakes,” but this correlates well with other games. And the best looking ones are not just multi-core processors, but also those released since 2015, i.e. LGA1151 and AM4 platforms. The exact 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 that has more computing cores. But within one- different (especially significantly different architecturally) they need to be compared very carefully. If you want to compare, of course: in general, you can play both (and not only them) on a system with a five-year-old processor and a “good” video card with much greater comfort than with any processor, but on a budget video card for $200 In general, whether games require processors to grow or not, a gaming computer needs to be assembled “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 or even tripled;)

Total

Actually, all we wanted to do was compare several processors from different years while working with modern software. Moreover, some characteristics of older Core i7 models have remained virtually unchanged 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 often discussed “5% per year.” And taking into account the fact that a normal user does not buy computers every year, but usually plans for 3-5 years - during this period there has been an improvement in productivity, efficiency, and functionality of the platform. But could have been better. At the same time, some “weak points” are clearly visible: for example, increasing the clock frequency in 2014 did not allow achieving significantly higher performance either in 2015 or even at the beginning of 2017. It was possible to “break away” noticeably from LGA1155 (as the software was optimized for processors starting with Haswell - at the start the results were more modest), and that’s all. And then (suddenly) +30% productivity, which hasn’t happened for a long time. In general, from a historical point of view, a smoother implementation of this process would have looked better. But what has happened has already happened.

In the process of assembling or purchasing a new computer, users are always faced with a question. In this article we will look at Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors, and also tell you the difference between these chips and what is better to choose for your computer.

Difference No. 1. Number of cores and support for Hyper-threading.

Perhaps, The main difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the number of physical cores and support for Hyper-threading technology, which creates two threads of computation for each actually existing physical core. Creating two computation threads per core allows for more efficient use of the processing power of the processor core. Therefore, processors with Hyper-threading support have some performance benefits.

The number of cores and support for Hyper-threading technology for most Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors can be summarized in the following table.

	Number of physical cores	Hyper-threading technology support	Number of threads
Intel Core i3	2	Yes	4
Intel Core i5	4	No	4
Intel Core i7	4	Yes	8

But there are exceptions to this table. Firstly, these are Intel Core i7 processors from their “Extreme” line. These processors can have 6 or 8 physical computing cores. Moreover, they, like all Core i7 processors, have support for Hyper-threading technology, which means the number of threads is twice the number of cores. Secondly, some mobile processors (laptop processors) are exempt. So, some Intel Core i5 mobile processors have only 2 physical cores, but at the same time have support for Hyper-threading.

It should also be noted that Intel has already planned to increase the number of cores in its processors. According to the latest news, Intel Core i5 and i7 processors with Coffee Lake architecture, scheduled for release in 2018, will each have 6 physical cores and 12 threads.

Therefore, you should not completely trust the table provided. If you are interested in the number of cores in a particular Intel processor, then it is better to check the official information on the website.

Difference No. 2. Cache memory size.

Also, Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors differ in cache memory size. The higher the processor class, the larger the cache memory it receives. Intel Core i7 processors get the most cache, Intel Core i5 slightly less, and Intel Core i3 processors even less. Specific values ​​should be looked at in the characteristics of the processors. But as an example, you can compare several processors from the 6th generation.

	Level 1 cache	Level 2 cache	Level 3 cache
Intel Core i7-6700	4 x 32 KB	4 x 256 KB	8 MB
Intel Core i5-6500	4 x 32 KB	4 x 256 KB	6 MB
Intel Core i3-6100	2 x 32 KB	2 x 256 KB	3 MB

You need to understand that a decrease in cache memory is associated with a decrease in the number of cores and threads. But, nevertheless, there is such a difference.

Difference number 3. Clock frequencies.

Typically, higher-end processors come with higher clock speeds. But, not everything is so simple here. It is not uncommon for Intel Core i3 to have higher frequencies than Intel Core i7. For example, let's take 3 processors from the 6th generation line.

	Clock frequency
Intel Core i7-6700	3.4 GHz
Intel Core i5-6500	3.2 GHz
Intel Core i3-6100	3.7 GHz

In this way, Intel is trying to maintain the performance of Intel Core i3 processors at the desired level.

Difference No. 4. Heat dissipation.

Another important difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the level of heat dissipation. The characteristic known as TDP or thermal design power is responsible for this. This characteristic tells you how much heat the processor cooling system should remove. As an example, let's take the TDP of three 6th generation Intel processors. As can be seen from the table, the higher the processor class, the more heat it produces and the more powerful the cooling system is needed.

	TDP
Intel Core i7-6700	65 W
Intel Core i5-6500	65 W
Intel Core i3-6100	51 W

It should be noted that TDP tends to decrease. With each generation of processors, the TDP becomes lower. For example, the TDP of the 2nd generation Intel Core i5 processor was 95 W. Now, as we see, only 65 W.

Which is better Intel Core i3, i5 or i7?

The answer to this question depends on what kind of performance you need. The difference in the number of cores, threads, cache and clock speeds creates a noticeable difference in performance between the Core i3, i5 and i7.

• The Intel Core i3 processor is an excellent option for an office or budget home computer. If you have a video card of the appropriate level, you can play computer games on a computer with an Intel Core i3 processor.
• Intel Core i5 processor – suitable for a powerful work or gaming computer. A modern Intel Core i5 can handle any video card without any problems, so on a computer with such a processor you can play any games even at maximum settings.
• The Intel Core i7 processor is an option for those who know exactly why they need such performance. A computer with such a processor is suitable, for example, for editing videos or conducting game streams.