5th generation Intel Core desktop processors. Which Intel processor to choose - Core i3, i5 or i7

It should be noted right away that the numbers in the names of Intel core i3, i5, i7 processors do not indicate the number of cores, but are an identifier (trademark) and indicate their computing power. The rating for this criterion is expressed in stars; in its compilation, parameters such as the number of physical cores, clock speed, cache size and the presence of some new technologies that speed up and optimize the operation of the processor are used. And in this situation, the numbers 3, 5 and 7 indicate the number of stars that the new released model had. Thus, i7 processors have the highest rating.

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

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

Basic parameters of processors that determine their performance

When choosing a computer, the user first of all tries to evaluate the processor power; it is determined by the following main indicators:

Clock frequency.
Number of physical cores.
Cache size.
Possibility of multi-stream data transfer.
Overclocking capabilities to higher clock speeds.

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

It is no coincidence that developers have recently relied on an increasing number of cores placed on a processor chip. How many cores, how many information flows a processor can simultaneously process. But it does not follow from this, as some users think, that the clock frequency increases as a multiple of the number of cores. But if we compare two Intel processors with the same frequencies, then the one with two cores will be more productive due to the fact that it can process two streams of information per unit of time, that is, perform twice as many tasks. Thus, the more cores on a chip, the better, at least for multitasking applications.

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

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

Dynamic increase in clock speed

Some users independently overclock processors to higher frequencies. This is easy to do if the model marking contains the letter “K”, then you can increase the clock frequency using the settings in the BIOS. Overclocking can lead to increased temperatures and equipment failure. Why shouldn't the processor itself increase its clock frequency, but only if necessary?

Intel's Turbo Boost technology is designed to do just that, allowing the processor to dynamically increase its clock speed when necessary. Such controlled acceleration no longer threatens trouble. The increase in clock frequency depends on the number of active cores, current power consumption and processor temperature. The same i5-661 (3.33 GHz) can, thanks to this technology, increase the data transmission frequency to 3.6 GHz. Only i5 and i7 processors are equipped with Turbo Boost, given the similar intel core i5 specifications, These processors will outperform i3 models with the same number of cores and frequency.

Hyper-Threading technology

At a certain period of time, only one stream of information can be supplied to the core. If the processor is dual-core, then two threads can be supplied, etc. Hyper-Threading technology allows one core to serve multiple threads at once. On i3, each core can safely work with two threads. In contrast, i5 processors do not support Hyper-Threading technology, with rare exceptions, and in this parameter, having four cores, they are not superior to i3, since they are ultimately capable of receiving 4 threads on two cores. Therefore, the i7 line that supports super-streaming technology will be the best. And if the processor of these models has 6 cores, they are capable of processing 12 threads simultaneously. If we take into account that more and more programs are appearing that support multithreading, the speed of such a computer will be noticeably higher. In this case, the application uses multiple threads to implement the command, which speeds up the appearance of the final result. This is a noticeable advantage when working with photo and video editing programs.

Cache memory

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

More precisely, RAM speeds up interaction with the hard drive, and the processor cache minimizes access to RAM. The larger the cached amount of information, the more temporary data can be saved, and the faster the work will be done. Considering intel core i3 specifications, You can find out that these processors have a cache size of 3 MB, almost all i5 have six megabytes, and Core i7 have 8 MB. This is another indicator indicating the superior performance of i7 processors over the rest of the described trio.

Selecting i-Series Processors

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

The choice of processor should always be based on the tasks that will be performed on the computer. Processing texts and tables, web surfing, using social networks - all this will not require much processor power; in any case, the advantages of more productive models will not be noticeable in these programs anyway. Therefore, it is more logical to focus on cheaper Core i3.

For processing images and photos, working with office programs and the Internet, as well as watching videos, it makes sense to purchase processors with at least four cores. More powerful i5 processors will satisfy the average user. These models do not use Hyper-threading technology, but for the specified tasks it would not play a significant role: Internet browsers do not support multithreading.

Compared to the others, intel core i7 specifications most attractive to those involved in video editing and gamers. In this regard, we should also mention integrated graphics. A good graphics core allows you to easily view high-resolution videos and show powerful performance in video editors

23.03.2018 17:29

In the Intel Core model range, there are devices not only with the index “K”, but also with “T”. And, if everything is very clear with the first letter (these are CPUs with an unlocked multiplier, intended for overclocking), then some users have never heard of the second solutions.

Maximum multiplier Intel Core i5-7400T– 30, this means that all 4 physical cores can actually be run at a frequency of 3000 MHz.

In fact, the key feature of T-processors one is low power consumption (and therefore heat dissipation). As a rule, these are CPUs with a lower clock speed, but with exactly the same number of physical cores and threads compared to solutions without a characteristic letter in the marking.

So the guest of today's review called Intel Core i5-7400T is essentially classic 4-core processor with full cache capacity; the characteristics of this modification are no different from the well-known version of the Intel Core i5-7400, except for two key parameters (lower clock speed and a modest TDP, not exceeding 35 W).

It’s hard to believe, but Intel was actually able to create a 4-core processor with a fairly high clock frequency (in automatic mode, only one core runs at 3 GHz), while keeping it to 35 W thermal package.

	Intel Pentium G4620	Intel Core i3-7100	Intel Core i5-7400T	Intel Core i5-6400
Technical process	14 nm	14 nm	14 nm	14 nm
Socket	LGA 1151	LGA 1151	LGA 1151	LGA 1151
Cores/threads	2/4	2/4	4/4	4/4
Nominal clock frequency	3700 MHz	3900 MHz	2400 MHz	2700 MHz
Turbo clock speed	3700 MHz	3900 MHz	3000 MHz	3300 MHz
Cache	3 MB	3 MB	6 MB	6 MB
TDP	51 W	51 W	35 W	65 W
Memory support	DDR4-2133/2400 DDR3L-1333/1600	DDR4-2133/2400 DDR3L-1333/1600	DDR4-2133/2400 DDR3L-1333/1600	DDR4-1866/2133 DDR3L-1333/1600
Integrated Graphics	Intel HD Graphics 630	Intel HD Graphics 630	Intel HD Graphics 630	Intel HD Graphics 530
Intel Optane Memory	No	Yes	Yes	No
Intel Hyper-Threading	Yes	Yes	No	No
Price	90$	117$	185$	185$

All central processors with the letter “T” in their names are not intended for use in extreme systems and overclocking PCs. There are certainly no hardware limitations, it's just not practical.

Why buy a slow (even cold) processor if you can buy a CPU with more attractive characteristics for the same money? By the way, the Intel Core i5-7400 version and the same model, but with the “T” index, cost the same at retail.

Technical features

So, the 14 nm Intel Core i5-7400T has four physical cores (the same number of computational threads, Hyper-Threading technology is not used), 6 MB of L3 cache and an integrated graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630. The processor is compatible with dual-channel DDR4-2133 RAM /2400 and DDR3L-1333/1600.

To cool this CPU we used the Cooler Master X Dream P115 cooler.

The nominal clock frequency of all 4 physical cores is 2400 MHz; in Turbo Boost mode, one of them is accelerated to 3 GHz (if you wish, you can set all four to 3000 MHz, we’ll talk about this below). And, as mentioned above, the declared TDP of the device is 35 W.

In fact, this figure in some cases (under high load) jumps to more significant values, for example, we were able to capture 75 W in the Corona 1.3 Benchmark test. But these are short-term peaks; most of the time, monitoring programs do not show indicators above 30 W.

Intel Core i5-7400T at par
Intel Core i5-7400T at 3050 MHz (all 4 cores)

Intel Core i5-7400T and DDR4-2933 memory

Obviously, the Intel Core i5-7400T is very cold processor, still operating voltage stone– 0.912 V, and the clock frequency is 2400 MHz. To cool this CPU we used the Cooler Master X Dream P115 cooler. As a result, the maximum temperature that we recorded did not exceed 45 degrees (under the most severe load). By the way, the processor under exactly the same CO heats up to similar values (it has 2 cores and 51 W TDP).

Test stand:

Motherboard – ASUS Maximus IX Extreme
RAM –
Video card –
Storage –
Power unit -

Performance and Test Results

Four active physical cores help the reviewed processor compete on an equal footing with high-frequency CPUs that have two cores and 4 threads. The truth is not in those applications where the performance of a single core is key. For example, in Cinebench R15, the Intel Core i5-7400T shows a higher result compared to, but not in WinRAR and Corona 1.3.

Therefore, before choosing an Intel Core i5-7400T for a particular system, it is worth outlining the range of tasks that will be performed using such a PC. Perhaps your goals primarily require a high clock speed, rather than 4 physical cores.

For swings powerful graphics adapter and modern games Intel Core i5-7400T is perfect. And here four physical cores play a key role, because the processor clock speed in toys is not so significant (especially in high resolutions). Yes, additional megahertz allows you to achieve maximum fps, but your eye still won’t be able to catch the difference between 60 and 80 fps, believe me.

Overclocking

The Intel Core i5-7400T has one extremely useful cunning, which allows you to increase processor performance by 5-8% if you need it. Maximum monitored multiplier stone– 30, this means that all 4 physical cores can actually be run at a frequency of 3000 MHz (to do this, you must manually select this value in the UEFI BIOS). True, TDP in this mode will no longer correspond to 35 W, it will grow.

Using the TPU II function module, which is soldered onto the ASUS Maximus IX Extreme, the Intel Core i5-7400T was overclocked to 3050 MHz, and this is the limit for our configuration.

Conclusion

The Intel Core i5-7400T, without any “buts,” is a full-fledged 4-core processor that copes well with multimedia tasks in home and gaming PCs. Along with this stone It is advisable to install a top-end video card into the system if you are mainly interested in gaming applications.

For " swinging" powerful graphics adapter and modern games Intel Core i5-7400T is perfect.

Although for a PC that already has one cold element, it is reasonable to look for an accelerator with a low TDP (and even with a passive cooling system) in order to reduce the number of fans inside the computer case to a minimum.

As a result, you can count on a completely silent, energy-efficient, and most importantly cold PC (no compromise on performance); Such systems are becoming increasingly popular these days.

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

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

As a result, only desktop computer users may be somewhat averse to Ivy Bridge, and the dissatisfaction is not due to any serious shortcomings, but rather to the lack of fundamental positive changes, which, however, no one promised. Do not forget that in Intel’s classification, Ivy Bridge processors belong to the “tick” clock, that is, they represent a simple translation of the old microarchitecture onto new semiconductor rails. However, Intel itself is well aware that fans of desktop systems are somewhat less intrigued by the new generation of processors than their colleagues - laptop users. Therefore, there is no rush to carry out a full-scale update of the model range. At the moment, in the desktop segment, the new microarchitecture is cultivated only in older quad-core processors of the Core i7 and Core i5 series, and models based on the Ivy Bridge design are adjacent to the familiar Sandy Bridge and are in no hurry to relegate them to the background. A more aggressive introduction of the new microarchitecture is expected only in late autumn, and until then the question of which quad-core Core processors are preferable - the second (two-thousandth series) or third (three-thousandth series) generation - buyers are asked to decide on their own.

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

Third generation Intel Core i5: detailed introduction

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

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

Despite the similarity of all LGA 1155 Core i5 processors in a number of formal characteristics, the differences between them are clearly noticeable. A new technological process with 22-nm standards and three-dimensional (Tri-Gate) transistors allowed Intel to reduce the typical heat dissipation for the new Core i5. If previously Core i5 in LGA 1155 version had a thermal package of 95 W, then for Ivy Bridge this value is reduced to 77 W. However, following the reduction in typical heat dissipation, there was no increase in clock frequencies of the Ivy Bridge processors included in the Core i5 family. The older Core i5s of the previous generation, as well as their today's successors, have nominal clock speeds not exceeding 3.4 GHz. This means that in general, the performance advantage of the new Core i5 over the old ones is provided only by improvements in the microarchitecture, which, in relation to CPU computing resources, are insignificant even according to the Intel developers themselves.

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

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

From its first debut to the general public until now, the third-generation Core i5 desktop processor family (that is, Core i5-3000 processors) has remained almost unchanged. Only a couple of intermediate models have been added to it, as a result of which, if we do not take into account economical options with a reduced thermal package, it now consists of five representatives. If we add a pair of Ivy Bridge Core i7 microarchitecture-based ones to this top five, we get a complete desktop line of 22nm processors in LGA 1155 version:

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

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

Using the readings of the CPU-Z diagnostic program, let’s take a closer look at the representatives of the Core i5 lineup with Ivy Bridge design.

Intel Core i5-3570K

The Core i5-3570K processor is the crown of the entire third-generation Core i5 line. It boasts not only the highest clock frequency in the series, but also, unlike all other modifications, it has an important feature, emphasized by the letter “K” at the end of the model number - an unlocked multiplier. This allows Intel, not without reason, to classify the Core i5-3570K as a specialized overclocking offering. Moreover, compared to the older overclocking processor for the LGA 1155 platform, Core i7-3770K, Core i5-3570K looks very tempting thanks to a much more acceptable price for many, which can make this CPU almost the best market offer for enthusiasts.

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

Intel Core i5-3570

The same name as the Core i5-3570K, but without the final letter, seems to hint that we are dealing with a neo-overclocking version of the previous processor. So it is: the Core i5-3570 operates at exactly the same clock speeds as its more advanced brother, but does not allow unlimited multiplier variation, which is popular among enthusiasts and advanced users.

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

As a result, the Core i5-3570 is more similar to the Core i5-3550 than the Core i5-3570K. For which he has very good reasons. Appearing a little later than the first group of Ivy Bridge representatives, this processor symbolizes a certain development of the family. Having the same recommended price as the model that is one line lower in the table of ranks, it seems to replace the Core i5-3550.

Intel Core i5-3550

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

Intel Core i5-3470

The younger pair of Core i5 processors, based on the new 22nm Ivy Bridge core, have a recommended price below the $200 mark. These processors can be found in stores at similar prices. At the same time, the Core i5-3470 is not much inferior to the older Core i5: all four computing cores are in place, a 6-MB third-level cache and a clock speed of over 3 gigahertz. Intel chose a 100-MHz clock frequency step to differentiate modifications in the updated Core i5 series, so there is simply no way to expect a significant difference between the models in performance in real tasks.

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

Intel Core i5-3450

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

How we tested

To get a full breakdown of the performance of modern Core i5s, we tested in detail all five Core i5s of the 3,000th series described above. The main competitors for these new products were earlier LGA 1155 processors of a similar class belonging to the Sandy Bridge generation: Core i5-2400 and Core i5-2500K. Their cost makes it possible to contrast these CPUs with the new Core i5 of the three thousandth series: Core i5-2400 has the same recommended price as Core i5-3470 and Core i5-3450; and the Core i5-2500K is sold slightly cheaper than the Core i5-3570K.

In addition, we included in the charts the test results for higher-end processors Core i7-3770K and Core i7-2700K, as well as a processor offered by a competitor, AMD FX-8150. By the way, it is very significant that after the next price reductions, this senior representative of the Bulldozer family costs as much as the cheapest Core i5 of the three thousandth series. That is, AMD no longer harbors any illusions about the possibility of pitting its own eight-core processor against Intel's Core i7 class CPU.

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

Processors:

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

CPU cooler: NZXT Havik 140;
Motherboards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Computational performance

Overall Performance

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

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

A deeper understanding of SYSmark 2012 results can be provided by familiarizing yourself with the performance estimates obtained in various system usage scenarios. The Office Productivity scenario simulates typical office work: writing texts, processing spreadsheets, working with email, and surfing the Internet. The script uses the following set of applications: ABBYY FineReader Pro 10.0, Adobe Acrobat Pro 9, Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Outlook 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010, Microsoft Word 2010 and WinZip Pro 14.5.

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

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

The Data/Financial Analysis scenario is dedicated to statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends, which is performed in Microsoft Excel 2010.

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

The last scenario, System Management, involves creating backups and installing software and updates. Several different versions of Mozilla Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5 are used here.

In most scenarios, we are faced with a typical picture where the Core i5 3000 series is faster than its predecessors, but inferior to any Core i7, both based on the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture and Sandy Bridge. However, there are also cases of processor behavior that is not entirely typical. Thus, in the Media Creation scenario, the Core i5-3570K processor manages to outperform the Core i7-2700K; when using 3D modeling packages, the eight-core AMD FX-8150 performs unexpectedly well; and in the System Management scenario, which generates mainly a single-threaded load, the previous generation Core i5-2500K processor almost catches up with the performance of the fresh Core i5-3470.

Gaming Performance

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

In our numerous previous tests, we have repeatedly characterized the Core i5 family of processors as being well suited for gamers. We do not intend to abandon this position now. In gaming applications, Core i5 is strong due to its efficient microarchitecture, quad-core design and high clock speeds. Their lack of support for Hyper-Threading technology can play a good role in games that are poorly optimized for multi-threading. However, the number of such games among the current ones is decreasing every day, which we can see from the results presented. The Core i7, based on the Ivy Bridge design, ranks higher than the internally similar Core i5 in all charts. As a result, the gaming performance of the 3,000-series Core i5 turns out to be at a completely expected level: these processors are definitely better than the Core i5 of the 2,000-series, and sometimes they can even compete with the Core i7-2700K. At the same time, we note that AMD’s senior processor cannot compete with modern Intel offerings: its lag in gaming performance can, without any exaggeration, be called catastrophic.

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

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

Tests in applications

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

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

Processor performance under cryptographic load is measured by the built-in test of the popular TrueCrypt utility, which uses AES-Twofish-Serpent “triple” encryption. It should be noted that this program is not only capable of efficiently loading any number of cores with work, but also supports a specialized set of AES instructions.

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

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

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

We measure performance in Adobe Photoshop CS6 using our own test, a creative reworking of the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test, which involves typical processing of four 24-megapixel images taken with a digital camera.

The new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture provides an approximately 6 percent advantage over the similarly clocked third-generation Core i5 over its earlier counterparts. If we compare processors with the same cost, then the carriers of the new microarchitecture find themselves in an even more advantageous position, winning over 10 percent of performance from the Core i5 of the 2000 series.

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

Nonlinear video editing is a highly parallelizable task, so the new Core i5 with Ivy Bridge design is not able to reach the Core i7-2700K. But they outperform their classmate predecessors using the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture by about 10 percent (when comparing models with the same clock frequency).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cinebench results chart doesn't show anything new either. The new Core i5 of the three thousandth series once again turns out to be noticeably better than their predecessors. Even the youngest of them, Core i5-3450, confidently outperforms Core i5-2500K.

Energy consumption

One of the main advantages of the 22-nm process used to produce Ivy Bridge generation processors is the reduced heat generation and power consumption of semiconductor crystals. This is reflected in the official specifications of the third generation Core i5: they are equipped with a 77-watt thermal package rather than a 95-watt one, as before. So the superiority of the new Core i5 over its predecessors in terms of efficiency is beyond doubt. But what is the scale of this gain in practice? Should the efficiency of the 3,000-series Core i5 series be considered a serious competitive advantage?

To answer these questions, we conducted special testing. The new Corsair AX1200i digital power supply we use in our test system allows us to monitor the electrical power consumed and output, which is what we use for our measurements. The following graphs, unless otherwise noted, show 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. During measurements, the load on the processors was created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.6.4-AVX utility. In addition, to properly estimate idle power consumption, we activated turbo mode and all available energy-saving technologies: C1E, C6 and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep.

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

A single-threaded load, in which processors with turbo mode increase the frequency to maximum values, leads to noticeable differences in consumption. The first thing that catches your eye is the completely immodest appetites of the AMD FX-8150. As for LGA 1155 CPU models, those based on 22 nm semiconductor crystals are indeed noticeably more economical. The difference in consumption between quad-core Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge, operating at the same clock speed, is about 4-5 W.

The full multi-threaded compute load exacerbates the consumption differences. The system, equipped with third-generation Core i5 processors, is more economical than a similar platform with processors of the previous design of about 18 W. This perfectly correlates with the difference in theoretical heat dissipation figures declared by Intel for its processors. Thus, in terms of performance per watt, Ivy Bridge processors have no equal among desktop CPUs.

GPU performance

When considering modern processors for the LGA 1155 platform, attention should also be paid to the graphics cores built into them, which with the introduction of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture have become faster and more advanced in terms of available capabilities. However, at the same time, Intel prefers to install in its processors for the desktop segment a stripped-down version of the video core with the number of actuators reduced from 16 to 6. In fact, full graphics are present only in Core i7 and Core i5-3570K processors. Most of the 3,000-series Core i5 desktops will obviously be quite weak in 3D graphics applications. However, it is likely that even the existing reduced graphics power will satisfy a certain number of users who are not intended to consider the integrated graphics as a 3D video accelerator.

We decided to start testing integrated graphics with the 3DMark Vantage test. Results obtained in different versions of 3DMark are a very popular metric for assessing the weighted average gaming performance of video cards. The choice of the Vantage version is due to the fact that it uses DirectX version 10, which is supported by all video accelerators tested, including the graphics of Core processors with Sandy Bridge design. Note that in addition to the full set of processors of the Core i5 family working with their integrated graphics cores, we included in the tests and performance indicators of systems based on the Core i5-3570K with a discrete graphics card Radeon HD 6570. This configuration will serve as a kind of benchmark for us, allowing imagine the place of Intel graphics cores HD Graphics 2500 and HD Graphics 4000 in the world of discrete video accelerators.

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

In addition to the synthetic 3DMark Vantage, we also ran several tests in real gaming applications. In them, we used low graphics quality settings and a resolution of 1650x1080, which we currently consider to be the minimum of interest to desktop users.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overclocking

Overclocking Core i5 processors belonging to the Ivy Bridge generation can proceed according to two fundamentally different scenarios. The first of them concerns overclocking the Core i5-3570K processor, which was initially aimed at overclocking. This CPU has an unlocked multiplier, and increasing its frequency above the nominal values is carried out according to a typical algorithm for the LGA 1155 platform: by increasing the multiplication factor, we raise the processor frequency and, if necessary, achieve stability by applying increased voltage to the CPU and improving its cooling.

Without raising the supply voltage, our copy of the Core i5-3570K processor overclocked to 4.4 GHz. All that was required to ensure stability in this mode was simply switching the motherboard's Load-Line Calibration feature to High.

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

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

However, be that as it may, overclocking to 4.6 GHz is a very good result, especially if you take into account the fact that Ivy Bridge processors at the same clock frequency as Sandy Bridge produce approximately 10 percent better performance due to their microarchitectural improvements.

The second overclocking scenario concerns the remaining Core i5 processors, which do not have a free multiplier. Although the LGA 1155 platform has an extremely negative attitude towards increasing the frequency of the base clock generator, and loses stability even when the generating frequency is set 5 percent higher than the nominal value, it is still possible to overclock Core i5 processors that are not related to the K-series. The fact is that Intel allows you to increase their multiplier to a limited extent, increasing it by no more than 4 units above the nominal value.

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

Core i5-3570:

Core i5-3550:

Core i5-3470:

Core i5-3450:

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

Conclusions

We have already said more than once that the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture has become a successful evolutionary update of Intel processors. 22nm semiconductor manufacturing technology and numerous microarchitectural improvements have made the new products both faster and more cost-effective. This applies to any Ivy Bridge in general and to the 3,000-series Core i5 desktop processors discussed in this review in particular. Comparing the new line of Core i5 processors with what we had a year ago, it is not difficult to notice a whole bunch of significant improvements.

Firstly, the new Core i5, based on the Ivy Bridge design, has become more productive than its predecessors. Despite the fact that Intel has not resorted to increasing clock speeds, the advantage of new products is about 10-15 percent. Even the slowest third-generation Core i5 desktop processor, the Core i5-3450, outperforms the Core i5-2500K in most tests. And the older representatives of the new line can sometimes compete with higher-class processors, Core i7, based on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture.

Secondly, the new Core i5 has become noticeably more economical. Their thermal package is set at 77 Watt, and this is reflected in practice. Under any load, computers using Core i5 with Ivy Bridge design consume several watts less than similar systems using Sandy Bridge CPUs. Moreover, with the maximum computing load, the gain can reach almost two dozen watts, and this is a very significant saving by modern standards.

Thirdly, the new processors have a significantly improved graphics core. The junior version of the graphics core of Ivy Bridge processors works at least as well as the HD Graphics 3000 from the older second-generation Core processors, and besides, supporting DirectX 11, it has more modern capabilities. As for the flagship integrated accelerator HD Graphics 4000, which is used in the Core i5-3570K processor, it even allows you to get quite acceptable frame rates in fairly modern games, albeit with significant relaxations in the quality settings.

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

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

Before the advent of Sandy Bridge architecture, choosing an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processor was very difficult. This was difficult because Intel did not separate the features equally for all brands.

Processors of the same brand sometimes don't even use the same socket. This made it extremely difficult to explain the differences between them.

After the company introduced the Sandy Bridge architecture and relaunched its products using the same i3, i5 and i7 brands, the problems disappeared.

To represent this, Intel switched to a 4 number naming scheme and numbered 2100, 2500, etc.

core i3 series

The Intel Core i3 line has always been a budget option. These are dual-core processors, unlike the rest of the line, which is quad-core. They also have more limited options.

The main characteristic is support for Core i3 Turbo Boost processors, an overclocking function that is dynamically available on most Intel processors.

This, along with the dual-core feature, plus the performance difference between the i3, i5 and i7.

Core i3 processors also feature Intel Vpro virtualization technology and AES encryption acceleration technology.

A feature that i3 and i5 have is Hyper-Threading technology. This is the duplication of logical cores, which allows each physical core to manifest itself as two logical cores.

The result of this is that the dual-core Core i3 will appear as a quad-core processor.

Ultimately, the i3 is a GPU with a limited maximum speed of 1100 MHz.

This results in a slight performance penalty than regular PGI, but the difference is small and unnoticeable in many situations.

core i5 series

Intel used two different lines to separate the i5 brand, one of which was dual-core and one was quad-core. This was a bit confusing for buyers.

Thankfully, all Sandy Bridge i5s are now quad-core, but not all have Hyper-Threading capabilities.

Most i5s except the K series have PGI 2000 series with a maximum execution speed of 1100 MHz.

In a battle between three processors, the Core i5 is now the most popular option. The only significant difference between the i5 variants is the core with clock speeds ranging from 2.8 GHz to 3.3 GHz.

Obviously, products with higher clock speeds are more expensive than those with lower clock speeds.

core i7 series

The i7 series currently only offers five Sandy Bridge Core i7 desktop processors, which are: i7-2600, i7-2600S, i7-2600K, i7-2700K, i7-3820.

These processors are almost identical to i5. The real difference is the addition of Hyper-Threading technology to the i7, which means the processor will appear to be eight-core.

This improves performance and can result in significant performance gains if you are using a program that is capable of running in 8 threads.

Of course, most programs can't use 8 threads. Therefore, they are intended for those who use video editing applications, advanced 3D programs, rendering and scientific programs.

The average user is unlikely to get much benefit from these features (from Hyper-Threading).

The i7 can reach a maximum speed of 1350 MHz. As I said, this difference is largely irrelevant when measuring performance in normal situations.

Connectors and chipsets were a barrier for those who wanted to build their system with Core products. Different devices within the same brand used different connectors.

Not anymore. All Sandy Bridge LGA 1155 versions use the same and are compatible with the new P67, H67, B65, H61, Q67 and Z68 chipsets.

The Core i5 line remains the most popular. The quad core I5 product is very fast and has all the important features like Turbo Boost.

They are also reasonably priced. However, the i3 should be considered unless you're looking for very fast performance suitable for everyday tasks. Good luck.

Category: Uncategorized

On June 2, Intel announced ten new 14-nanometer processors for desktop and mobile PCs from the fifth-generation Intel Core family (codenamed Broadwell-C) and five new 14-nanometer processors from the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family.

Of the ten new fifth-generation Intel Core processors (Broadwell-C) for desktop and mobile PCs, only two processors are desktop-oriented and have an LGA 1150 socket: these are the quad-core Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C models. All other fifth-generation Intel Core processors are BGA-designed and are aimed at laptops. Brief characteristics of the new Broadwell-C processors are presented in the table.

	Connector	Number of cores/threads	L3 cache size, MB		TDP, W	Graphics core
Core i7-5950HQ	BGA	4/8	6	2,9/3,7	47	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i7-5850HQ	BGA	4/8	6	2,7/3,6	47	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i7-5750HQ	BGA	4/8	6	2,5/3,4	47	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i7-5700HQ	BGA	4/8	6	2,7/3,5	47	Intel HD Graphics 5600
Core i5-5350H	BGA	2/4	4	3,1/3,5	47	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i7-5775R	BGA	4/8	6	3,3/3,8	65	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i5-5675R	BGA	4/4	4	3,1/3,6	65	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i5-5575R	BGA	4/4	4	2,8/3,3	65	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i7-5775C	LGA 1150	4/8	6	3,3/3,7	65	Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Core i5-5675C	LGA 1150	4/4	4	3,1/3,6	65	Iris Pro Graphics 6200

Of the five new processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family, only three models (Xeon E3-1285 v4, Xeon E3-1285L v4, Xeon E3-1265L v4) have an LGA 1150 socket, and two more models are made in a BGA package and are not intended for self-installation on the motherboard. Brief characteristics of the new processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family are presented in the table.

	Connector	Number of cores/threads	L3 cache size, MB	Nominal/maximum frequency, GHz	TDP, W	Graphics core
Xeon E3-1285 v4	LGA 1150	4/8	6	3,5/3,8	95	Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Xeon E3-1285L v4	LGA 1150	4/8	6	3,4/3,8	65	Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Xeon E3-1265L v4	LGA 1150	4/8	6	2,3/3,3	35	Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Xeon E3-1278L v4	BGA	4/8	6	2,0/3,3	47	Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Xeon E3-1258L v4	BGA	2/4	6	1,8/3,2	47	Intel HD Graphics P5700

Thus, out of 15 new Intel processors, only five models have an LGA 1150 socket and are aimed at desktop systems. For users, of course, the choice is small, especially considering that the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family of processors is aimed at servers, and not at consumer PCs.

Moving forward, we'll focus on reviewing the new 14nm LGA 1150 processors.

So, the main features of the new fifth-generation Intel Core processors and the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family of processors are the new 14-nanometer core microarchitecture, codenamed Broadwell. In principle, there is no fundamental difference between the processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family and the fifth generation Intel Core processors for desktop systems, so in the future we will refer to all these processors as Broadwell.

In general, it should be noted that the Broadwell microarchitecture is not just Haswell in 14-nanometer design. Rather, it is a slightly improved Haswell microarchitecture. However, Intel always does this: when switching to a new production process, changes are made to the microarchitecture itself. In the case of Broadwell, we are talking about cosmetic improvements. In particular, the volumes of internal buffers have been increased, there are changes in the execution units of the processor core (the scheme for performing multiplication and division operations on floating point numbers has been changed).

We will not consider in detail all the features of the Broadwell microarchitecture (this is a topic for a separate article), but we will once again emphasize that we are only talking about cosmetic changes to the Haswell microarchitecture, and therefore you should not expect that Broadwell processors will be more productive than Haswell processors. Of course, the transition to a new technological process has made it possible to reduce the power consumption of processors (at the same clock frequency), but no significant performance gains should be expected.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the new Broadwell and Haswell processors is the Crystalwell fourth-level cache (L4 cache). Let us clarify that such an L4 cache was present in Haswell processors, but only in top models of mobile processors, and in Haswell desktop processors with an LGA 1150 socket it was not present.

Let us recall that some top models of Haswell mobile processors implemented the Iris Pro graphics core with additional eDRAM memory (embedded DRAM), which solved the problem of insufficient memory bandwidth used for the GPU. eDRAM memory was a separate crystal, which was located on the same substrate with the processor crystal. This crystal was codenamed Crystalwell.

The eDRAM memory had a size of 128 MB and was manufactured using a 22-nanometer process technology. But the most important thing is that this eDRAM memory was used not only for the needs of the GPU, but also for the computing cores of the processor itself. That is, in fact, Crystalwell was an L4 cache shared between the GPU and the processor cores.

All new Broadwell processors also include a separate 128 MB eDRAM memory die, which acts as an L4 cache and can be used by the graphics core and the processor's compute cores. Moreover, we note that the eDRAM memory in 14-nanometer Broadwell processors is exactly the same as in top-end Haswell mobile processors, that is, it is manufactured using a 22-nanometer technical process.

The next feature of the new Broadwell processors is the new graphics core, codenamed Broadwell GT3e. In the version of processors for desktop and mobile PCs (Intel Core i5/i7) it is Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and in processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family it is Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (with the exception of the Xeon E3-1258L v4 model). We will not delve into the specifics of the Broadwell GT3e graphics core architecture (this is a topic for a separate article) and will only briefly consider its main features.

Let us recall that the Iris Pro graphics core was previously present only in Haswell mobile processors (Iris Pro Graphics 5100 and 5200). Moreover, the graphics cores of Iris Pro Graphics 5100 and 5200 each contain 40 execution units (EU). The new graphics cores Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300 are already equipped with 48 EUs, and the EU organization system has also changed. Each individual GPU unit contains 8 EUs, and the graphics module combines three graphics units. That is, one graphics module contains 24 EU, and the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 or Iris Pro Graphics P6300 graphics processor itself combines two modules, that is, a total of 48 EU.

As for the difference between the graphics cores of Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300, at the hardware level they are the same (Broadwell GT3e), but their drivers are different. In the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 version, the drivers are optimized for tasks specific to servers and graphics stations.

Before moving on to a detailed review of the Broadwell testing results, we’ll tell you about a few more features of the new processors.

First of all, the new Broadwell processors (including the Xeon E3-1200 v4) are compatible with motherboards based on Intel 9-series chipsets. We can't say that every board based on the Intel 9-series chipset will support these new Broadwell processors, but most boards do support them. True, for this you will have to update the BIOS on the board, and the BIOS must support new processors. For example, for testing we used the ASRock Z97 OC Formula board and without updating the BIOS, the system only worked with a discrete video card, and image output through the graphics core of Broadwell processors was impossible.

The next feature of the new Broadwell processors is that the Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C models have an unlocked multiplier, that is, they are focused on overclocking. In the Haswell family of processors, such processors with unlocked multipliers made up the K-series, and in the Broadwell family, the letter “C” is used instead of the letter “K”. But the Xeon E3-1200 v4 processors do not support overclocking (it is impossible to increase the multiplication factor for them).

Now let's take a closer look at the processors that came to us for testing. These are models , and . In fact, of the five new models with an LGA 1150 socket, the only thing missing is the Xeon E3-1285L v4 processor, which differs from the Xeon E3-1285 v4 only in lower power consumption (65 W instead of 95 W) and the fact that its nominal core clock speed slightly lower (3.4 GHz instead of 3.5 GHz). Additionally, for comparison, we also added the Intel Core i7-4790K, which is the top processor in the Haswell family.

The characteristics of all tested processors are presented in the table:

	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i7-5775C	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-4790K
Technical process, nm	14	14	14	14	22
Connector	LGA 1150	LGA 1150	LGA 1150	LGA 1150	LGA 1150
Number of cores	4	4	4	4	4
Number of threads	8	8	8	4	8
L3 cache, MB	6	6	6	4	8
L4 cache (eDRAM), MB	128	128	128	128	N/A
Rated frequency, GHz	3,5	2,3	3,3	3,1	4,0
Maximum frequency, GHz	3,8	3,3	3,7	3,6	4,4
TDP, W	95	35	65	65	88
Memory type	DDR3-1333/1600/1866		DDR3-1333/1600
Graphics core	Iris Pro Graphics P6300	Iris Pro Graphics P6300	Iris Pro Graphics 6200	Iris Pro Graphics 6200	HD Graphics 4600
Number of GPU execution units	48 (Broadwell GT3e)	48 (Broadwell GT3e)	48 (Broadwell GT3e)	48 (Broadwell GT3e)	20 (Haswell GT2)
Nominal GPU frequency, MHz	300	300	300	300	350
Maximum GPU frequency, GHz	1,15	1,05	1,15	1,1	1,25
vPro technology	+	+	−	−	−
VT-x technology	+	+	+	+	+
VT-d technology	+	+	+	+	+
Cost, $	556	417	366	276	339

And now, after our express review of the new Broadwell processors, let's move on directly to testing the new products.

Test stand

To test processors, we used a bench with the following configuration:

Testing methodology

Processor testing was carried out using our scripted benchmarks, and. More precisely, we took the methodology for testing workstations as a basis, but expanded it by adding tests from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 package and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 game tests.

Thus, the following applications and benchmarks were used to test processors:

MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680
SVPmark 3.0
Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 (Build 8.1.0)
Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (Version 13.1.1.3)
Photodex ProShow Producer 6.0.3410
Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1
ACDSee Pro 8
Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1
Adobe Audition CC 2014.2
Abbyy FineReader 12
WinRAR 5.11
Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 (Flow Simulation package)
SPECapc for 3ds max 2015
SPECapc for Maya 2012
POV-Ray 3.7
Maxon Cinebench R15
SPECviewperf v.12.0.2
SPECwpc 1.2

In addition, games and gaming benchmarks from the iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 package were used for testing. Testing in games was carried out at a resolution of 1920x1080.

Additionally, we measured the power consumption of processors in idle mode and under stress. For this purpose, a specialized software and hardware complex was used, which was connected to the gap in the power supply circuits of the system board, that is, between the power supply and the system board.

To create CPU stress, we used the AIDA64 utility (Stress FPU and Stress GPU tests).

Test results

Processor power consumption

So, let's start with the results of testing processors for energy consumption. The test results are presented in the diagram.

The most voracious in terms of energy consumption, as one might expect, turned out to be the Intel Core i7-4790K processor with a declared TDP of 88 W. Its real power consumption in stress load mode was 119 W. At the same time, the temperature of the processor cores was 95°C and throttling was observed.

The next most power-consuming processor was the Intel Core i7-5775C processor with a stated TDP of 65 W. For this processor, power consumption in stress mode was 72.5 W. The temperature of the processor cores reached 90°C, but throttling was not observed.

The third place in terms of energy consumption was taken by the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor with a TDP of 95 W. Its power consumption in stress mode was 71 W, and the temperature of the processor cores was 78 °C

And the most economical in terms of energy consumption was the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 processor with a TDP of 35 W. In stress load mode, the power consumption of this processor did not exceed 39 W, and the temperature of the processor cores was only 56 °C.

Well, if we focus on the power consumption of processors, we must state that Broadwell has significantly lower power consumption compared to Haswell.

Tests from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 package

Let's start with the tests included in the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015. Note that we calculated the integral performance result as the geometric mean of the results in logical groups of tests (video conversion and video processing, video content creation, etc.). To calculate results in logical groups of tests, the same reference system was used as in the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015.

Full test results are shown in the table. In addition, we present the test results for logical groups of tests on diagrams in a normalized form. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.

Logical test group	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
Video conversion and video processing, points	364,3	316,7	272,6	280,5	314,0
MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680, seconds	125,4	144,8	170,7	155,4	132,3
SVPmark 3.0, points	3349,6	2924,6	2552,7	2462,2	2627,3
Video content creation, points	302,6	264,4	273,3	264,5	290,9
Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1, seconds	503,0	579,0	634,6	612,0	556,9
Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (Test #1), seconds	666,8	768,0	802,0	758,8	695,3
Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (Test #2), seconds	330,0	372,2	327,3	372,4	342,0
Photodex ProShow Producer 6.0.3410, seconds	436,2	500,4	435,1	477,7	426,7
Digital photo processing, points	295,2	258,5	254,1	288,1	287.0
Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1, seconds	677,5	770,9	789,4	695,4	765,0
ACDSee Pro 8, seconds	289,1	331,4	334,8	295,8	271,0
Vector graphics, points	150,6	130,7	140,6	147,2	177,7
Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1, seconds	341,9	394,0	366,3	349,9	289,8
Audio processing, points	231,3	203,7	202,3	228,2	260,9
Adobe Audition CC 2014.2, seconds	452,6	514,0	517,6	458,8	401,3
Text recognition, points	302,4	263,6	205,8	269,9	310,6
Abbyy FineReader 12, seconds	181,4	208,1	266,6	203,3	176,6
Archiving and unarchiving data, points	228,4	203,0	178,6	220,7	228,9
WinRAR 5.11 archiving, seconds	105,6	120,7	154,8	112,6	110,5
WinRAR 5.11 unzipping, seconds	7,3	8,1	8,29	7,4	7,0
Integral performance result, points	259,1	226,8	212,8	237,6	262,7

So, as can be seen from the testing results, in terms of integrated performance, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor is practically no different from the Intel Core i7-4790K processor. However, this is an integral result based on the totality of all applications used in the benchmark.

However, there are a number of applications that benefit from the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor. These are applications such as MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680 and SVPmark 3.0 (video conversion and video processing), Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 and Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (video content creation), Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1 and ACDSee Pro 8 (digital processing photographs). In these applications, the higher clock speed of the Intel Core i7-4790K processor does not give it an advantage over the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor.

But in applications such as Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1 (vector graphics), Adobe Audition CC 2014.2 (audio processing), Abbyy FineReader 12 (text recognition), the advantage is on the side of the higher-frequency Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor. It is interesting to note that tests based on the Adobe Illustrator CC 2014.1.1 and Adobe Audition CC 2014.2 applications load the processor cores to a lesser extent (compared to other applications).

And of course, there are tests in which the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Intel Core i7-4790K processors demonstrate the same performance. For example, this is a test based on the WinRAR 5.11 application.

In general, it should be noted that the Intel Core i7-4790K processor demonstrates higher performance (compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor) precisely in those applications in which not all processor cores are used or the cores are not fully loaded. At the same time, in tests where all processor cores are loaded at 100%, the leadership is on the side of the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor.

Calculations using Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 (Flow Simulation)

We presented the test based on the Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 application with the additional Flow Simulation package separately, since this test does not use a reference system, as in the tests of the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015.

Let us remind you that in this test we are talking about hydro/aerodynamic and thermal calculations. A total of six different models are calculated, and the results of each subtest are the calculation time in seconds.

Detailed test results are presented in the table.

Test	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
conjugate heat transfer, seconds	353.7	402.0	382.3	328.7	415.7
textile machine, seconds	399.3	449.3	441.0	415.0	510.0
rotating impeller, seconds	247.0	278.7	271.3	246.3	318.7
CPU cooler, seconds	710.3	795.3	784.7	678.7	814.3
halogen floodlight, seconds	322.3	373.3	352.7	331.3	366.3
electronic components, seconds	510.0	583.7	559.3	448.7	602.0
Total calculation time, seconds	2542,7	2882,3	2791,3	2448,7	3027,0

In addition, we also present the normalized result of the calculation speed (the reciprocal of the total calculation time). The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.

As can be seen from the testing results, in these specific calculations the leadership is on the side of Broadwell processors. All four Broadwell processors demonstrate faster calculation speeds compared to the Core i7-4790K processor. Apparently, these specific calculations are affected by the improvements in the execution units that were implemented in the Broadwell microarchitecture.

SPECapc for 3ds max 2015

Next, let's look at the results of the SPECapc for 3ds max 2015 test for the Autodesk 3ds max 2015 SP1 application. The detailed results of this test are presented in the table, and the normalized results for the CPU Composite Score and GPU Composite Score are presented in the charts. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.

Test	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
CPU Composite Score	4,52	3,97	4,09	4,51	4,54
GPU Composite Score	2,36	2,16	2,35	2,37	1,39
Large Model Composite Score	1,75	1,59	1,68	1,73	1,21
Large Model CPU	2,62	2,32	2,50	2,56	2,79
Large Model GPU	1,17	1,08	1,13	1,17	0,52
Interactive Graphics	2,45	2,22	2,49	2,46	1,61
Advanced Visual Styles	2,29	2,08	2,23	2,25	1,19
Modeling	1,96	1,80	1,94	1,98	1,12
CPU Computing	3,38	3,04	3,15	3,37	3,35
CPU Rendering	5,99	5,18	5,29	6,01	5,99
GPU Rendering	3,13	2,86	3,07	3,16	1,74

Broadwell processors take the lead in the SPECapc 3ds for max 2015 test. Moreover, if in subtests depending on CPU performance (CPU Composite Score), Core i7-4790K and Xeon E3-1285 v4 processors demonstrate equal performance, then in subtests depending on graphics core performance (GPU Composite Score), all Broadwell processors significantly ahead of the Core i7-4790K processor.

SPECapc for Maya 2012

Now let's look at the result of another 3D modeling test - SPECapc for Maya 2012. Let us recall that this benchmark was run in conjunction with the Autodesk Maya 2015 package.

The results of this test are presented in a table, and the normalized results are presented in diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.

Test	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
GFX Score	1,96	1,75	1,87	1,91	1,67
CPU Score	5,47	4,79	4,76	5,41	5,35

In this test, the Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor demonstrates slightly higher performance compared to the Core i7-4790K processor, however, the difference is not as significant as in SPECapc 3ds for max 2015.

POV-Ray 3.7

In the POV-Ray 3.7 test (3D model rendering), the leader is the Core i7-4790K processor. In this case, a higher clock speed (with an equal number of cores) gives an advantage to the processor.

Test	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
Render average, PPS	1568,18	1348,81	1396,3	1560.6	1754,48

Cinebench R15

In the Cinebench R15 benchmark, the result was mixed. In the OpenGL test, all Broadwell processors significantly outperform the Core i7-4790K processor, which is natural since they integrate a more powerful graphics core. But in the processor test, on the contrary, the Core i7-4790K processor turns out to be more productive.

Test	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
OpenGL, fps	71,88	66,4	72,57	73	33,5
CPU, cb	774	667	572	771	850

SPECviewperf v.12.0.2

In the tests of the SPECviewperf v.12.0.2 package, the results are determined primarily by the performance of the processor's graphics core and, in addition, by the optimization of the video driver for certain applications. Therefore, in these tests the Core i7-4790K processor lags significantly behind the Broadwell processors.

The test results are presented in the table, as well as in normalized form in diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as the reference.

Test	Xeon E3-1285 v4	Xeon E3-1265L v4	Core i5-5675C	Core i7-5775C	Core i7-4790K
catia-04	20,55	18,94	20,10	20,91	12,75
creo-01	16,56	15,52	15,33	15,55	9,53
energy-01	0,11	0,10	0,10	0,10	0,08
maya-04	19,47	18,31	19,87	20,32	2,83
medical-01	2,16	1,98	2,06	2,15	1,60
showcase-01	10,46	9,96	10,17	10,39	5,64
snx-02	12,72	11,92	3,51	3,55	3,71
sw-03	31,32	28,47	28,93	29,60	22,63

2,36 Blender2,43 2,11 1,82 2,38 2,59 HandBrake2,33 2,01 1,87 2,22 2,56 LuxRender2,63 2,24 1,97 2,62 2,86 IOMeter15,9 15,98 16,07 15,87 16,06 Maya1,73 1,63 1,71 1,68 0,24 Product Development3,08 2,73 2,6 2,44 2,49 Rodinia3,2 2,8 2,54 1,86 2,41 CalculiX1,77 1,27 1,49 1,76 1,97 WPCcfg2,15 2,01 1,98 1,63 1,72 IOmeter20,97 20,84 20,91 20,89 21,13 catia-041,31 1,21 1,28 1,32 0,81 showcase-011,02 0,97 0,99 1,00 0,55 snx-020,69 0,65 0,19 0,19 0,2 sw-031,51 1,36 1,38 1,4 1,08 Life Sciences2,73 2,49 2,39 2,61 2,44 Lammps2,52 2,31 2,08 2,54 2,29 namd2,47 2,14 2,1 2,46 2,63 Rodinia2,89 2,51 2,23 2,37 2,3 Medical-010,73 0,67 0,69 0,72 0,54 IOMeter11,59 11,51 11,49 11,45 11,5 Financial Services2,42 2,08 1,95 2,42 2,59 Monte Carlo2,55 2,20 2,21 2,55 2,63 Black Schools2,57 2,21 1,62 2,56 2,68 Binomial2,12 1,83 1,97 2,12 2,44 Energy2,72 2,46 2,18 2,62 2,72 FFTW1,8 1,72 1,52 1,83 2,0 Convolution2,97 2,56 1,35 2,98 3,5 Energy-010,81 0,77 0,78 0,81 0,6 srmp3,2 2,83 2,49 3,15 2,87 Kirchhoff Migration3,58 3,07 3,12 3,54 3,54 Poisson1,79 1,52 1,56 1,41 2,12 IOMeter12,26 12,24 12,22 12,27 12,25 General Operation3,85 3,6 3,53 3,83 4,27 7Zip2,48 2,18 1,96 2,46 2,58 Python1,58 1,59 1,48 1,64 2,06 Octave1,51 1,31 1,44 1,44 1,68 IOMeter37,21 36,95 37,2 37,03 37,4

This is not to say that everything in this test is clear. In some scenarios (Media and Entertainment, Product Development, Life Sciences), Broadwell processors demonstrate better results. There are scenarios (Financial Services, Energy, General Operation) where the advantage is on the side of the Core i7-4790K processor or the results are approximately the same.

Game tests

And finally, let's look at the results of testing processors in gaming tests. Let us remind you that for testing we used the following games and gaming benchmarks:

Aliens vs Predator
World of Tanks 0.9.5
Grid 2
Metro: LL Redux
Metro: 2033 Redux
Hitman: Absolution
Thief
Tomb Raider
Sleeping Dogs
Sniper Elite V2

Testing was carried out at a screen resolution of 1920x1080 and in two setting modes: maximum and minimum quality. Test results are presented in diagrams. In this case, the results are not standardized.

In gaming tests, the results are as follows: all Broadwell processors show very close results, which is natural since they use the same Broadwell GT3e graphics core. And most importantly, with minimum quality settings, Broadwell processors allow you to comfortably play (at FPS over 40) most games (at a resolution of 1920x1080).

On the other hand, if the system uses a discrete graphics card, then there is simply no point in the new Broadwell processors. That is, there is no point in changing Haswell to Broadwell. And the price of Broadwells is not so attractive. For example, Intel Core i7-5775C is more expensive than Intel Core i7-4790K.

However, Intel does not seem to be betting on Broadwell desktop processors. The range of models is extremely modest, and Skylake processors are on the way, so it’s unlikely that Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C processors will be in special demand.

Server processors of the Xeon E3-1200 v4 family are a separate market segment. For most ordinary home users, such processors are of no interest, but in the corporate sector of the market these processors may be in demand.