Intel i5 processors. Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors: what is the difference and which is better? PC with Intel Core i5 from EDELWEISS

The results made a dual impression: on the one hand, the performance of the processor part is quite consistent with the modern budget level, on the other hand, two computation threads are already not enough for many modern programs (in the sense that they can use more, accelerating accordingly). And the graphics core, even if it has “grown up” compared to the previous generation, still remains too weak to play more or less modern games at least at minimum settings and with a reduced resolution.

What happens if you pay extra? The question is not idle, since the value of money has increased somewhat recently, so the question of the price of processors is again beginning to matter, which has been greatly devalued over the last decade. In addition, the functional features of modern computers are already very weakly dependent on central processors, satisfying many users even within the budget segment, so additional costs only lead to the fact that everything becomes a little faster. We will try to estimate the magnitude of this “slightly”.

Test bench configuration

Two Core i3 and one Core i5 models will help us with this. With the first, everything is simple - these are the same two computing cores as in Celeron/Pentium, but capable of performing four threads of calculations thanks to the support of Hyper-Threading technology. The number of graphics pipelines has also doubled, and there are completely no restrictions on video technology support in this family - in general, this is a “more mature” option. Models 4130 and 4370 are just two opposite ends of the range: in the first case, the minimum frequency for “regular” Core i3, 3 MiB of L3 cache and a low-end GPU, while the second is the maximum in frequency (3.8 GHz is quite serious) , both in cache memory (full 4 MiB L3), and in graphics. But this processor is quite expensive, so it almost overlaps with the younger Core i5-4460: the same graphics, low frequency, but there are already four “full-fledged” cores - a more efficient scheme than 2+HT.

With whom to compare? Of course, we will need the senior Pentium G3460, tested last time. Another processor of the previous generation, namely the Core i5-3427U, is a guest from a completely different segment: it is a CULV model, usually found in laptops and mini-PCs. But this is what makes it interesting - after all, the question of what to buy: a full-size computer or some kind of NUC (the 3427U was just tested as part of one of the modifications of the latter) arises for many people. And two AMD models - A8-7600 and A10-7800. It is clear that the Pentium graphics were not up to the A6, but today we have more serious (and expensive!) Intel models participating, so it is not interesting to compare with the A6. But with modern A8 and A10 - quite well.

As for other testing conditions, they were as close as possible to those recommended by the manufacturers. Those. AMD processors were tested with the TDP set to 65 W, RAM in maximum mode for all except the Core i5-3427U: there were no SO-DIMM modules suitable for it, so DDR3-1333 was used.

Testing methodology

To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using benchmarks and . We normalized all testing results in the iXBT Notebook Benchmark v.1.0 relative to the results of a Pentium G3250 with 8 GB of memory and an Intel 520 240 GB SSD, and the methodology for calculating the integral result remained unchanged. Another program that, like last time, we added to the test set is the Basemark CL 1.0.1.4 benchmark, created to measure the performance of OpenCL code.

iXBT Notebook Benchmark v.1.0

Four threads on two AMD modules in this resource-intensive task is approximately equal to four threads on two Intel cores in the minimum version: the high-frequency i3-4370 is even faster. However, we are not talking about direct competition with quad-core models - although the i5-4460 has a low frequency, it outperforms the best Pentiums by more than twice, and the younger Core i3 and non-top A8/A10 by one and a half. Here is the level of ultrabook Core i5 - only Pentium. Which, however, is not so bad for those who care about the space occupied by the system or its autonomy :)

But not all programs need so many computation threads, and the further we move out of narrow niches towards mass-produced software, the more often this is observed, so the advantages of multi-cores or, at least, multi-threading may dry out. But don’t worry at all - don’t forget that the younger Core i3 and i5 have lower frequencies than the Pentium, but this doesn’t help the latter too much. AMD processors are in an even worse position - it wouldn’t hurt for them to break away from ultrabook Cores more significantly or to overtake the desktop Pentium :)

Photoshop, as we already wrote, still reacts poorly to additional x86 code streams, but it already rates the ability of processors to execute OpenCL quite highly. However, this doesn’t help the “APU ideology” much - it’s still only the Pentium level, and the Core is obviously faster than it. Tabletop ones, of course, but it doesn’t really matter which ones. So the maximum gain actually comes from Core i3.

Two streams are two streams. With weak attempts to use more, which allows the younger Core i3 and i5 to outperform the Pentium and Core i3 running at higher frequencies, respectively, but nothing more. And the Core i5-3427U, swinging the magic sword of Turbo Boost, managed to overtake both AMD desktop models with a TDP of 65 W, and... Celeron G1820 :) In general, not so much, although it could have been worse.

This is where the low clock speed of the Core i5-3427U does not allow one to appreciate its four-thread capabilities, although it still outperforms the G1820. But what’s more interesting is what’s in the desktop segment? And everything is predictable there: Core i3, regardless of frequency, is faster than AMD processors, Core i5 is also even faster, regardless of frequency.

In archivers, multi-threaded packaging “pulls up” multi-core processors, but decompression is performed in one thread - and in the same way “pulls up” high-frequency processors. As a result, the most interesting thing is the practical equality of the older Core i3 and the younger Core i5.

As we have already noted, the test started to run slowly on the LGA1150. Which, however, is not so critical - if you replace a fast solid-state drive with a hard drive (and many still use them as their main and only one, especially when finances are limited) - it will be many times slower: up to 20 points on any platform: ) But with a fast one and within the same platform, as we see, a more powerful processor gives practically nothing: this is the main result from the point of view of testing processors.

In general, the layout is simple. Even the junior Core i3-4130 is slightly faster than any AMD processor for Socket FM2/FM2+. But not much, so these processors can be considered roughly equivalent - as well as all dual-module AMD models. The advantage over Pentium is small, so it is quite possible to limit yourself to representatives of the latter family if you want to “wait inexpensively”. Well, or in cases where “inexpensive” is not too much of a concern, but compactness/autonomy is a big concern, ultramobile Core i5 will also provide a comparable level of performance. But they should not be confused with desktop Core i5 - they are one and a half times faster. The older Core i3s are somewhere between the younger i3 and i5, but closer to the former. For the price, however, too.

OpenCL

We have placed the Core i5-3427U here for now, since it is on par with many desktop models - which is not surprising, since its GPU is more powerful than those of “many” even more modern ones, and this test pays little attention to processor performance.

All three processors with HDG 4600 (i3-4370, i5-4460 and i7-4770K) behave the same, although they cost differently. In general, I again want to wipe away a stingy tear about the fact that in real applications everything is not at all as beautiful as in specialized test utilities, so you have to pay for “unnecessary” x86 cores and gigahertz.

Games

Actually, this is why they buy AMD APUs - you can play in FHD (even at minimum settings), and on Intel processors you can only lower the resolution. But at least it's already possible.

The picture is similar: HD Graphics, even in older versions, and integrated Radeons provide the same frame rate, but in different resolutions. “Somehow it’s possible” and “somehow it’s possible in FullHD” - briefly and clearly :)

The only case where the balm is given to the soul is that the HDG 4600 in medium processors even catches up with the Radeon in FHD, and in low resolutions the Pentium is already faster than AMD processors, but this is not such a frequent (albeit popular) case.

More often than not, this is already in the third game from the set.

Well, the icing on the cake is when we compare “low resolution” and “not at all.”

In Hitman it is a little easier, since the game is less demanding on the GPU. But all the same - AMD is already storming the peaks of full resolution, and Intel only some of its models exceed low resolution.

In general, in a global sense, nothing has changed. Progress in terms of performance (and functionality) of integrated Intel graphics is quite noticeable, but there has been no fundamental change in the picture since the days of Llano. For now, if you still want to play some games without purchasing a discrete video card, AMD processors seem to be the more optimal solutions - they are simply faster and you can afford (as a result) a little more: both in terms of the range of games and in terms of settings.

Total

If the top Core i7 models are expensive, then many can afford a Core i3 or inexpensive Core i5. For what? And simply because they are faster than the same Pentium, but still not much more expensive. On the other hand, they are not many times faster, so you can save money. There are so many people - so many opinions. In any case, there is demand - there is never too much productivity. Moreover, the results of the Core i5-3427U clearly show that desktop computers are not in danger of dying at the hands of mini-PCs or laptops - they sacrifice compactness for performance and price.

But do not forget that when we talk about high performance, we mean precisely “processor” performance in mass-produced programs. The graphics core of the reviewed processors may be superior to the “numberless” HD Graphics, but it is not worth seriously considering it for regular use in games. It is better, however, to choose A8/A10 in this case or install a discrete video card - paired with a Core i3/i5 you will get a truly gaming computer.

Long-awaited models for the mass platform, but different

Just 15 years ago, the question of the number of cores in the central processors of typical personal computers simply did not arise - of course, there was only one core. True, there could have been two processors themselves, although in those (and earlier) years this could not be called a cheap pleasure, and for most users it was not at all useful. In essence, there was a standard chicken and egg problem: programmers did not take into account the possibility of having a second processor, since users rarely bought dual-processor computers, and they rarely bought them precisely because there were practically no programs capable of realizing the potential of multiple computing devices. In certain areas, SMP configurations were quite appropriate, but they remained niche solutions - in fact, the most popular operating systems of the Windows 9x line at that time did not support such “perversions” in principle.

Things started to change in 2005, when both AMD and Intel began shipping dual-core processors, but the change was slow because there was still too little mainstream software to take full advantage of the new capabilities. Of course, there was specialized software, and there were programs that could utilize a larger number of cores, but only in certain niches. However, the transition from one core to two was not even quantitative, but qualitative, and when using predominantly single-threaded software: the “extra” core remained free to ensure the normal functioning of the OS, so it became more difficult to “freeze” the computer even with “crooked” programs, which many I liked it. The beauty of the concept was spoiled by the fact that the first dual-core processor models were “glued together” from a pair of single-core processors, so that, other things being equal, they were more expensive or, at comparable prices, were not quite equal in technical characteristics (clock frequency, for example). This led to lower performance in mainstream software and, accordingly, low popularity of dual-core processors in general. In general, it turned out to be a kind of vicious circle.

It was possible to “unlock” it in the second half of 2006, when Intel introduced processors of the Core 2 Duo family. Firstly, they initially had a dual-core design, so the release of single-core models based on it was very limited and affected only the lowest segment (in other words, Celeron). Secondly, they themselves turned out to be very successful - both in desktop and mobile versions. At the same time, this led to a price war between AMD and Intel, as a result of which processor prices fell to the level we are accustomed to today. In general, two cores have become the “norm of life,” which programmers have begun to take into account, albeit with a slight delay. But four cores could not become widespread for a long time, although the company introduced Core 2 Quad in the same year: they were spinning in the same vicious circle “no software, they don’t take it, and if they don’t take it, no software.” Only a few users had such software, and they greeted these quad-core processors warmly, thinking about more cores. Sometimes they even bought dual-processor systems for old times' sake :)

But in order for such products to become widespread, it was necessary to prepare the market, which is what Intel did. In particular, the first Core processors at the end of 2008 added Hyper-Threading support to the four cores, which allowed them to execute eight threads of code. In 2010, the first six-core processors appeared, quickly falling in price from $1000 (which is not so much - the price of extreme Core 2 Quad reached one and a half thousand) to about $600. But all this preparation became especially noticeable in 2011 - with the release of Sandy Bridge for LGA1155. Then the company clearly limited the price niche of dual-core processors to $150, i.e. they definitely no longer found their way into expensive computers. And in general, the mass platform was “sandwiched” by the bar around $300 - quad-core Core i7 with HT were sold at these prices. In top-end systems, one could rather find six-core processors, which a little later (after the release of LGA2011-3) dropped in price to almost $400, i.e. the difference became minimal. Well, eight-core processors began to be prescribed in the most powerful systems - with a recommended price of “a buck,” but not long before that, models with only four cores were sold at the same (and even higher) prices.

In general, all these measures gradually led to the fact that the potential base for software capable of using eight or more computational threads became large. The efforts of AMD also made their contribution - the company tried to “show off its cores” in the competition more than once or twice (not very successfully, but largely due to the problems mentioned at the beginning). In addition, eight-core processors were firmly established in game consoles, albeit with weak cores - and as a result, game engine developers were simply forced to parallelize the code to the maximum extent: it was impossible to “run” on one or two fast threads due to the complete absence of them. As a result, they began to expect the next logical step from Intel - the introduction of at least six-core processors into the mass segment. Moreover, this event was expected along with the advent of Skylake and the LGA1151 platform, i.e. a couple of years ago, but it did not happen...

In fact, already at the beginning of 2015, the company made it clear that on the new platform the distribution of roles and prices would be exactly the same as on the previous LGA1150 and even LGA1155. Of course, this was a disappointment to many desktop users who had acquired a quad-core processor in previous years and were starting to think about more. But “more” was available only on a more expensive platform, to which some were forced to migrate. The others saw no way out of the impasse. Moreover, it was not traced later, when a few months after Skylake appeared on the market it became known that the next generation Core (Kaby Lake) would differ slightly from Skylake: no obvious changes should be expected either in terms of performance characteristics or in the technical process. At the end of 2017, deliveries of 10-nanometer Cannonlake with unknown characteristics were planned.

Several months passed, and plans changed again: it turned out that there would be another version of processors, still using the 14 nm process technology - once again improved, but still quite old, since the first Broadwells based on it were released for another three years ago (naturally, these were mobile processors - less mass markets, including desktop ones, usually receive new models with some delay). And most importantly, the older Coffee Lake models should have received exactly the required six cores and the LGA1151 design that was already familiar by that time - what was expected from Skylake the fall before last. At the same time, prices had to remain unchanged, i.e., for the first time since 2011, all families had to “move down” one step. In any case, according to the first assumptions, Core i5 should have received Hyper-Threading, and Core i3 - four cores (the “2+HT” configuration remained only for Pentium, i.e., it “went” to the segment below $100, and this is it already did, starting with Broadwell laptops and Kaby Lake desktops). Then it turned out that the Core i5 will also have six cores. This is where the information Intel has about AMD Ryzen may have had an impact: both on the level of performance and the number of cores. Moreover, let us remind you (and we will tell someone for the first time), AMD Ryzen is not only a maximum of eight cores, but also models for the mass (including mobile) market with four cores paired with a video core. True, these processors never came out on time (they were expected back in the summer of this year), but these are minor technical details. In fact, Coffee Lake is aimed at the same niches and has a similar configuration (i.e. with an integrated GPU), so giving all models six cores is very convenient for competition. Moreover, Intel managed to cram four cores with support for Hyper-Threading into a 15 W thermal package - such are Kaby Lake-R, which also belongs to the eighth generation and uses similar optimizations, not only Core i7, but also Core i5. It is clear that AMD’s video core will (most likely) be more productive, but the processor component is of interest to many users no less, if not more. In the end, for those who are interested specifically in graphics, there are discrete video cards - IGP will always lag behind them anyway. So from this side everything is logical.

But with the “usual design of LGA1151” everything turned out to be not so smooth. For obvious reasons, new processors required new chipsets - everyone, in general, has long been accustomed to this situation. But the fact that new chipsets will be incompatible with old processors is something that everyone has become accustomed to since the days of LGA775. And even then, “official incompatibility” often turned into “unofficial compatibility” in practice. Will it work out this time? It is still difficult to reject this possibility, but at the moment old processors are physically installed in new boards, but cannot work. At the same time, there are no completely new 300-series chipsets yet, there is only the Z370, which is completely similar to the previous Z270 - this is a top-end “caliber for an hour”, since next year it should be replaced by the Z390 with support for USB 3.1 Gen2 and other improvements. A little earlier, other models of chipsets of the new family should be released, including the inexpensive B360 or H310, which will be sorely missed for some time for the younger Core i3-8100: the idea of ​​​​installing an inexpensive non-overclockable processor on a board with an expensive overclocker chipset looks a bit strange. However, the new Core i3 does not fall into the first wave of shipments, but this also applies to the Core i5-8400 to some extent. In general, at first there may be distortions in the market, so a pair of an old “expensive” processor and an old cheap motherboard may cost the buyer less than a new “cheap” processor for which the corresponding motherboards have not yet been released. This will definitely have to be taken into account by those who are planning to buy new Intel solutions as soon as they become available. Well, we’ll check now how they work.

Test bench configuration

So far we have got, one might say, the best pair - the Core i5-8600K and i7-8700K, which have unlocked multipliers, so the Z370 chipset may come in handy for them. In principle, these processors differ from each other in the same way as before: i5 have slightly lower official frequencies and lack Hyper-Threading support. That's all. Both models have six physical cores, plus a dual-channel memory controller with support for DDR4-2667 and an old video core, which, although now called UHD Graphics 630, is similar to the HD Graphics 630 in Kaby Lake (and it’s not too different from the HD Graphics 530 of the Skylake era ). However, we won’t touch the video core today - all tests were performed with a discrete video card based on the GTX 1070.

Without fail, we need to compare the new processors with their immediate predecessors of the seventh generation: Core i5-7600K and i7-7700K. It’s easy to see that this is almost the same thing - only there are four cores, not six. A familiar (and even boring) configuration for six years.

We took four more processors from recent testing of HEDT platforms: the Core i7-6800K was recently the cheapest six-core Intel processor, and now it is being replaced by the i7-7800X (a direct comparison of it with the i7-8700K, it seems to us, is generally very interesting). Due to the specifics of the platform, these test subjects will now be working with twice the amount of memory compared to other testing participants, which, however, is not so important in practice (but it needs to be mentioned).

And a couple of AMD models. The Ryzen 5 1600X, when using a discrete graphics card, was a direct competitor to the Core i5-7600K, and now must fight the i5-8600K. The Ryzen 7 1800X, strictly speaking, does not directly interfere with anyone. But, unfortunately, we never got our hands on the younger Ryzen 7 1700, so it’s enough to evaluate the ends of the range - both it and the 1700X should be somewhere between 1600X and 1800X in terms of performance. 1700X, by the way, as we know, in terms of performance it is practically no different from 1800X, but it consumes more energy - so it’s cheaper for a reason. In general, we can consider that we gave AMD a slight head start by taking the Ryzen 7 1800X, and also testing both processors with slightly overclocked memory - DDR4-2933 instead of the standard 2667 MHz.

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

Eight cores are, of course, eight, but Intel’s new six-core processors are not too far behind the Ryzen 7 1800X, and are cheaper. Particularly good, of course, is the i7-8700K, which works even a little faster than the 7800X. In principle, the i5-8600K did not disappoint us: it easily beat the Core i7-7700K. True, it still lags behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, but this is not the same defeat that was observed in the case of the i5-7600K. By the way, it’s worth paying attention to the fact that the advantage over its predecessor is more than one and a half times, i.e. we’re not just talking about an additional pair of cores. And the Core i7 also “scaled” almost linearly.

The situation is almost the same, only here the Core i7-8700K is not behind the 1800X. Excellent result in the upper segment! And worse - on average: the Ryzen 5 1600X continues to be attractive when used with a discrete graphics card. On the other hand, you can count on the fact that after the appearance of inexpensive motherboards, some Core i5-8400 will be perfect for those who do not need fast graphics - in fact, they will have no one to compete with in this situation :)

As we already know, in this group, increasing the number of cores from six to eight does not have a very big effect, and the benefit of SMT (naturally) in such conditions is minimal. Therefore, today's pair of newcomers can simply be considered winners.

Photoshop continues to do weird things: the program clearly doesn’t like not only the lack of Hyper-Threading, since the performance of the Core i5-8600K here is only at the level of the i5-7400, not even 7600K. The remaining two programs in the group "pull" the beginner higher, but still we get an excellent illustration of how software problems can ruin anything. But the Core i7-8700K does not have such problems, so in the overall standings it lost only to the i7-7800X.

And again flows are everything, so the Core i5-8600K failed to catch up with the Core i7-7700K. On the other hand, it’s cheaper - it’s okay :) But of course, it wasn’t worth it to lag behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, and even so noticeably, but it’s difficult to break the laws of physics. Quality doesn't always outweigh quantity, and the Core i7-8700K only looks like the fastest six-core processor (which it is). No more. But no less.

There is a feeling that the four-channel memory controller “played” once - in any case, it is difficult to explain such a success of the i7-6800K with anything else. But the i7-8700K lags behind it slightly, but it itself is quite noticeably ahead of the Ryzen 7 1800X, which closes the top three. This program may have room to improve its work with new processors, which will allow the i7-7800X and Ryzen to demonstrate better results. However, the state of affairs with archiving is already favorable for newcomers, although they are not too ahead of their immediate predecessors.

The main thing in this group is a noticeable increase in performance compared to its predecessors, and at the same prices. A very good level, although not a record, but six cores by today’s standards is not the maximum. But with such proximity to the mass price segment, the result is a record one.

In general, a very serious application, especially in the case of the new Core i7, which can compete well with both Ryzen 7 and its namesake for the HEDT platform. The Core i5 is a little less pleasing, but it is already reaching the level of the recent Core i7 and is noticeably ahead of its predecessor. At the same time, the new Core i5 is not supposed to lag behind the Ryzen 5 1600X. And the problem is not only in Photoshop - the situation is similar in many other programs. However, the presence of a built-in video core allows you to build small and energy-efficient (and inexpensive) computers on the new Core i5, but this is more difficult for Ryzen. But if you still need to use a discrete video card, then AMD remains superior in this segment, and you don’t have to buy a 1600X - you can slightly overclock a very inexpensive 1600. But “from above” the situation has been radically corrected in favor of Intel.

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

However, performance and price are not the only characteristics of the processor, and in terms of power consumption, the Core i5-8600K looks great: it is almost identical to its predecessor. The energy consumption of the Core i7-8700K is slightly higher than we would like.

This is especially noticeable if you evaluate only the energy consumption of the processor, without taking into account the platform: after all, a hundred watts is a bit much for mass solutions. Maybe Intel tried to “squeeze” maximum performance out of the top model (it’s no secret that such flagship processor races are carefully studied by those who will only buy a Celeron anyway), or maybe we didn’t get a very successful copy. But in general, we would like more... More precisely, less: the result of the new flagship is only at the level of the Ryzen 5 1600X, which is not bad for AMD, but not for Intel. However, at least the new product cannot be compared with the i7-7800X - and that’s good.

But we would like higher performance from the Core i5-8600K, since now the energy efficiency of the new pair of processors is approximately equal. And yet, the Core i5 has it a little better, which also indirectly hints at certain problems with this Core i7 model (or with our sample) - previously, the use of SMT improved it, and not vice versa. However, these are nitpicks - anyway, both of these processors are the absolute leaders among those tested at the moment. And there are no competitors... :)

iXBT Game Benchmark 2017

Today we will once again present all the diagrams first, and then a general commentary for them.

As you can see, the results of all subjects fall within a very small range - as expected. There are a couple of games where the Core i5-7600K lags behind its competitors (in one it is very noticeable), but it is the only “only” quad-core processor here, and even with a high core frequency this can sometimes not be enough. However, most often the difference, if there is one, is small. It is clear that when using a more powerful video card, such situations may occur more often, but there are not so many more powerful video cards, and compared to their prices, saving on a processor looks strange - unless, of course, it is a faithful overclocked Core i5-2500K, which has been around for many years I coped with any games and with any video card without any questions at all :) And only today a gamer might want to change it - fortunately there is already something for it.

Total

Summing up our testing, we can say: the new processors turned out to be successful, they can be used wherever their predecessors worked, the price has remained virtually unchanged. Among the objective shortcomings, the power consumption of the Core i7-8700K could be lower. But it is clear that this can easily be “treated” by lowering the frequencies, so on the basis of this crystal it is possible to produce laptop processors even tomorrow, applicable not only in bulky “gaming” models. And this is also a plus, and for Intel, perhaps even more significant than the good results of desktop modifications. In fact, nothing fundamentally new has happened to the desktop processor market, because six-core models have been here for a long time. Now they have fallen in price a little more - that’s all. Here’s a laptop (a full-fledged one, not the strange DTR modifications based on desktop or server processors) with a six-core processor—already a new product that can somewhat change the market.

One of the disadvantages of Coffee Lake is the appearance of two incompatible LGA1151 platforms. And if in one direction compatibility is not really a pity (except for owners of two-year-old motherboards, who were cynically cut off from the possibility of inexpensive upgrading), then in the other... In fact, it turns out that for the new platform at the moment there are not only inexpensive motherboards, but also cheap processors. And the transfer of the same Pentiums to a new version will most likely “hit” hard on shipments of the old one. In general, this is a problem about which large manufacturers, it seems to us, have probably already expressed their dissatisfaction to Intel. No other problems have been identified at this time. These are the processors that many have been waiting for for a long time - and now they finally got it :) It only seems to us that if these processors had come out instead of Kaby Lake, there would have been more satisfied people, even with the same compatibility problems (or rather, lack thereof) between the two versions of the platform .

Intel Core i5 processors are among the most popular in the IT market in Russia and around the world. Within this family, chips are produced that are adapted to the widest range of tasks solved by users. What are the specifics of individual Which ones are best adapted for overclocking?

General information about Core i5 processors

Processors, reviews of which are different, are represented by microcircuits in several generations. Despite the similarity of the name, technologically the chips can be very different.

Thus, the first generation i5 processors appeared in 2009. They were adapted for "desktops", they used the Lynnfield kernel, corresponding to the Nehalem architecture. The next modification of i5 chips appeared in 2010. These processors used the Clarkdale core and had a built-in computer graphics processing module. Note that these chips, according to the classification common among IT experts, are of the same generation.

In 2011, Core i5 chips with Sandy Bridge architecture appeared. The main characteristic of this generation, released as part of the Intel Core i5 series, is the complete integration of the graphics module with the chip crystal. In 2012, a new line of processors appeared - with the Ivy Bridge core. In 2013, the American corporation released Haswell-type processors, one of which - the Intel Core i5 4070K - soon became especially popular among gamers, since it could be overclocked in the most efficient way thanks to the unlocked multiplier.

Let's take a closer look at the specifics of the latest generations - 3rd and 4th, Intel Core i5 processors, characteristics of chips based on Ivy Bridge and Haswell architecture - how well can they correspond to the leading position of the American corporation in the global microchip market?

General information about Ivy Bridge processors

Features of the processors of the family under consideration are the presence of several cores, the lack of support for Hyper-Threading technology, which provides multi-threading, and the presence of a third-level cache of 6 MB. As some experts note, processors within the family under consideration are characterized by a high degree of mutual similarity in terms of key technological characteristics. For example, all Ivy Bridge chips are implemented within the 22 nm process technology, they contain an E1 type crystal, which contains 1.4 billion transistors.

The main strength of the new processor line is the upgraded graphics accelerator. Thus, the series of chips under consideration uses modules of the HD Graphics 2500/4000 type. They provide support, in particular, for interfaces such as DirectX in version 11, OpenGL 4.0, and OpenCL 1.1. It is characterized by excellent performance in terms of working with 3D games and demanding applications.

Ivy Bridge processors have high-tech memory controllers and PCI Express buses. Thus, if a motherboard for Intel Core i5 assumes support for video cards using the PCI Express standard in version 3, then the microchips of this family help achieve very high PC performance. The same can be said for DDR3 memory modules - the interaction between them and Ivy Bridge processors also ensures the highest computer efficiency.

Let us now consider the features of popular processors within the 3rd generation of the Intel Core i5 family. The characteristics of these chips, according to reviews from many users and IT experts, allow us to speak of microcircuits as very effective hardware components that help solve a wide range of user tasks.

Specifications Core i5-3570K

This processor is considered the flagship processor of the 3rd generation. It leads the line in terms of clock speed, and is also characterized by an option that is useful in many respects - an unlocked multiplier. It allows, in particular, to easily overclock the microchip. We noted above that this feature also characterizes the Intel Core i5 4570K processor in the latest line - Haswell. However, it is fully functional. Many gamers in their reviews speak extremely positively about the possibility of effectively overclocking the processor. The chip in question is equipped with the same high-performance graphics module - HD Graphics 4000.

At the same time, there is a slightly more simplified modification of the processor - Intel Core i5-3570, that is, without an index. It is characterized, in turn, by the inability to use the unlocked multiplier. In addition, as the description of its characteristics indicates, this processor does not have the most powerful version of the graphics module. It has an HD Graphics 2500 accelerator installed, which is inferior to the Graphics 4000 modification noted above.

Features Intel Core 3550

Another notable Intel Core i5 model, which also has quite a lot of reviews, is the i5-3550. This processor is characterized by a lower clock frequency, and therefore runs a little slower than the flagship model. But the difference is small - 100 MHz. Therefore, by the way, the cost of these processors is almost the same. However, so are the key characteristics.

Advantages of Intel Core i5-3470

It belongs to the category of junior models of the line under consideration, and accordingly, it has a lower price. However, in general, the performance of the chip is comparable to the flagship modification - for example, it has 4 cores, a third-level cache of 6 MB, and a processor clock speed exceeding 3 GHz. True, the type of processor in question has a less powerful graphics module installed - Graphics 2500, which operates at a frequency slightly lower than the same one, but in higher modifications of the processor.

Specifications Intel Core i5-3450

It is considered the youngest model in the line under consideration. Between it and the modification described above there is a minimum of differences, which, in fact, are expressed in clock frequency. In modification 3470 it is slightly higher. Otherwise, the technical characteristics of the chips are the same.

Reviews of the third generation Core i5

So, what are users saying about the third generation Intel Core i5? The comparison, as noted by microprocessor technology enthusiasts, essentially comes down to finding differences between three indicators - the version of the graphics accelerator, the presence of an unlocked multiplier, and the clock frequency. According to PC owners on which this or that chip is installed, even if the processor has the lowest frequency, does not support an unlocked multiplier, and also does not process graphics as efficiently as its analogues - this is due to the presence of the Graphics 2500 module. But in any case an exceptionally high-performance tool is placed in the hands of the user.

The question that concerns many owners of PCs with an Intel Core i5 processor - “how to overclock the processor” - has a very simple answer: all you need to do is set the required values ​​for the multiplier, which is unlocked in the corresponding modifications of the chip.

No other experiments are required, and it is not recommended, so as not to violate the calculation algorithms laid down by the manufacturer. You should also understand that when overclocking an Intel Core i5, the processor temperature can increase significantly. Thus, you should equip the processor with a more powerful cooler in advance.

Features Intel Core i5-4430

Let's move on to studying the specifics of the latest generation of chips - those with a Haswell core installed. The i5-4430 processor can be considered the youngest in the line under consideration. It is characterized by a relatively low clock frequency, and also has a property that is not the most desirable for gamers - the lack of overclocking capabilities. At the same time, processors of this type have a floating multiplier, that is, they are selected automatically by the computer depending on the actual load. The chip has support for TurboBoost technology in version 2.0.

Advantages of Intel Core i5-4440

Among the main differences between this processor and the one discussed above is the difference in clock frequency. The corresponding figure for the i5-4440 microchip is 100 MHz higher. At the same time, the set of key instructions is generally the same. In other respects, the processors are identical.

Specifications Intel Core i5-4460

Thanks to the frequency increased by 100 MHz, it works faster than the previous modification of the processor. Also, the set of instructions is somewhat wider than that of the younger models in the line. Otherwise, the characteristics of the chips are the same. Many IT experts, as well as enthusiasts, consider the three youngest chips in the Haswell line in a single context - as identical devices. In fact, the main difference between them is the clock speed, and in some cases, the instruction set.

Specifications Core i5-4570

A model that is characterized as occupying a middle position in the family. It combines almost all the advantages of the latest line of Core i5 chips - such as, for example, full TurboBoost operation, vPro compatibility, as well as TXT. The chips under consideration support all instructions provided by the technological line.

The power of computers with an installed i5-4570 chip is enough to perform basic user tasks and run games - but provided that the motherboard for Intel Core i5, as well as the video card installed on it, has the necessary characteristics in terms of performance. A significant aspect is the quality of system programs. So, to fully utilize the capabilities of Intel Core i5, the drivers for all devices must be up to date.

Advantages of Core i5-4670K

This is the very processor that gamers love so much. The purpose for which many of them buy the Intel Core i5 chip in question is overclocking. You can carry it out, and even achieve the most outstanding results thanks to the unlocked microcircuit multiplier.

True, in some aspects the chip in question is inferior to the previous modification; in particular, it does not support the vPro and TXT standards, which are necessary to provide increased computer protection against malware. The key characteristics of the i5-4570K chip are identical to the previous modification. It copes well with games - but again, provided that the motherboard for Intel Core i5, and also, very importantly, the video card, are characterized by high performance. The main methodology for overclocking microchips is to increase the multiplier.

Features Core i5-4690

This model is among the newest. It can be noted that there are no obvious changes in characteristics in comparison with previous modifications of processors. Perhaps only the clock frequency has increased by 100 MHz compared to the Core i5-4570. The processor also now supports a number of modern instructions. But in general, Intel has not taken revolutionary steps in terms of upgrading chips, since, apparently, they already meet the criteria that characterize the manufacturer as a market leader.

Which of the processors we reviewed is the best? Intel Core i5, as we noted at the very beginning of the article, is a family of chips that are very different from each other. And not only in terms of comparing generations, but also sometimes within the same line. Each microchip we examined is optimal for solving its problems in terms of price and performance. It is important that the PC on which Intel Core i5 is installed has the latest and highest quality device drivers. The software component is no less important from the point of view of achieving high results than hardware components.

Optimal motherboard

What characteristics should an Intel Core i5 motherboard ideally have? So that all the processor capabilities provided by the manufacturer can be fully used? Experts recommend the appropriate hardware component that supports the Z87 chipset - it will be especially useful for users planning to overclock chips.

For example, Gigabyte GA-Z87-HD3 is an optimal motherboard for such purposes. Intel Core i5 in those modifications that are adapted for overclocking will be an excellent tool for an overclocking enthusiast - if there is an appropriate hardware component in the PC structure. It can be noted that this motherboard is suitable for all processors that support the LGA 1150 standard - that is, this significantly expands its functionality. Regarding other useful characteristics of the hardware component under consideration, we can highlight support for USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports, compatibility with SATA 3. Another remarkable feature of the motherboard from Gigabyte is that it allows for the simultaneous operation of two video cards at once.

An excellent option for third-generation Core i5 processors is the MSI H61M-P31 (G3) motherboard, which is based on the H61 chipset. It supports two G.Skill DDR3-1600 RAM modules with a capacity of 4 GB. There is support for high-performance video cards such as The motherboard in question is often used by IT experts when testing the performance of Intel Core i5 processors.

Another high-performance motherboard on which you can install processors of this family is Gigabyte G1.Sniper 5. It is characterized by a fairly high price - about 20 thousand rubles, but cheaper models are not always able to solve problems corresponding to the performance of Intel Core i5 chips. The motherboard in question supports the LGA1150 standard; it can install 4 DDR3 RAM slots operating at frequencies in the range from 1333 to 3000 MHz. There is support for the SLI/CrossFireX standard. The motherboard also allows you to install components compatible with a high-speed SATA slot, allowing data transfer at a speed of 6 Gbit/s. There is support for wireless technologies.

The question of the differences between processors of the Intel Core i5 and Intel Core i7 families arises for most users when choosing a PC or laptop with the stated characteristics, as well as when upgrading an existing system. With completely identical technical characteristics in the catalog or on the price tag (clock frequency, number of cores, cache size), the price difference reaches several thousand rubles. Naturally, a toad immediately appears and strangles the potential buyer, and he definitely wants to know why he is overpaying for and whether he needs it at all. Consultants, as a rule, cannot clearly explain how i5 processors differ from i7 processors. Probably because there are many models in both the i5 and i7 lines, and they are all different, although they are labeled the same. However, there are features common to models within the same line, and they can be considered, albeit not the main ones, but important selection criteria.

Intel Core i7 processors- a family of Intel processors based on the Nehalem microarchitecture, designed for LGA 1156/1366/2011 sockets. Used for high-end desktop systems, they have at least four cores in any modification.

Intel Core i5 processors- a family of Intel processors designed for mid-range systems. These processors are compatible with LGA 1155/1156 sockets, have two cores in the budget version, and four in the top version.

Intel Core i7 processors are said to provide better performance in demanding applications. In practice, it is not always possible to notice a difference in performance, and often the performance increase remains the prerogative of test benches exclusively.

The most important and obvious difference between Intel Core i7 and Intel Core i5 is the former's support for Hyper-Threading technology, which allows each core to serve multiple threads. The quad-core i7 processor supports 8 threads, which is equivalent to the performance of eight cores. Intel Core i5 does not support this technology (with the exception of the i5-661 model). Intel Core i5 can be dual- or quad-core, Intel Core i7 can be four- or six-core.

The L3 cache in Intel Core i7 processors can reach 12 MB, while in Intel Core i5 it is limited to 8 MB. The RAM controller in the i7 can be triple-channel (LGA 1366) or dual-channel (LGA 1156), while the i5 only works with two channels. Intel Core i7s work with QPI buses, while i5s work exclusively with DMI.

The maximum clock speed of processors from the Intel Core i7 family is slightly higher than that of models from the Intel Core i5 family. True, in real work these numbers play practically no role - there is no noticeable increase in productivity due to an increase in frequency. But the heat dissipation of i7 processors in normal mode can be higher than that of i5 processors (up to 130 W), with the same 45 nm process technology.

Intel Core i7 processors are always more expensive than Intel Core i5. This is due to the marketing tricks of the company, positioning the i7 as top components for high-end systems.

Conclusions website

1. Intel Core i7 are positioned as processors for high-end systems.
2. The maximum number of cores in Intel Core i7 is six, while in Intel Core i5 it is four.
3. Intel Core i7 support Hyper-Threading technology.
4. The heat output of some Intel Core i7 models is higher.
5. The performance of Intel Core i7 in tests is higher than that of i5.
6. Intel Core i7 can work on the QPI bus and with a three-channel memory controller.
7. Intel Core i7 is more expensive.

One day, a great sage in captain's uniform said that a computer would not be able to work without a processor. Since then, everyone has considered it their duty to find the very processor that will make their system fly like a fighter.

From this article you will learn:

Since we simply cannot cover all the chips known to science, we want to focus on one interesting family of the Intelovich family - Core i5. They have very interesting characteristics and good performance.

Why this series and not i3 or i7? It's simple: excellent potential without overpaying for unnecessary instructions that plague the seventh line. And there are more cores than in the Core i3. It’s quite natural for you to start arguing about support and find yourself partially right, but 4 physical cores can do much more than 2+2 virtual ones.

History of the series

Today on our agenda is a comparison of Intel Core i5 processors of different generations. Here I would like to touch upon such pressing topics as the thermal package and the presence of solder under the lid. And if we’re in the mood, we’ll also push particularly interesting stones together. So, let's go.

I would like to start with the fact that only desktop processors will be considered, and not options for a laptop. There will be a comparison of mobile chips, but another time.

The release frequency table looks like this:

2009

The first representatives of the series were released back in 2009. They were created on 2 different architectures: Nehalem (45 nm) and Westmere (32 nm). The most striking representatives of the line are the i5-750 (4x2.8 GHz) and i5-655K (3.2 GHz). The latter additionally had an unlocked multiplier and the ability to overclock, which indicated its high performance in games and more.

The differences between the architectures lie in the fact that Westmare are built according to 32 nm process standards and have 2nd generation gates. And they have less energy consumption.

2011

This year saw the release of the second generation of processors – Sandy Bridge. Their distinctive feature was the presence of a built-in Intel HD 2000 video core.

Among the abundance of i5-2xxx models, I especially want to highlight the CPU with the 2500K index. At one time, it created a real sensation among gamers and enthusiasts, combining a high frequency of 3.2 GHz with Turbo Boost support and low cost. And yes, under the cover there was solder, not thermal paste, which additionally contributed to the high-quality acceleration of the stone without consequences.

2012

The debut of Ivy Bridge brought a 22-nanometer process technology, higher frequencies, new DDR3, DDR3L and PCI‑E 3.0 controllers, as well as USB 3.0 support (but only for i7).

Integrated graphics have evolved to Intel HD 4000.

The most interesting solution on this platform was the Core i5-3570K with an unlocked multiplier and a frequency of up to 3.8 GHz in boost.

2013

The Haswell generation did not bring anything supernatural except for the new LGA 1150 socket, the AVX 2.0 instruction set and the new HD 4600 graphics. In fact, the entire emphasis was placed on energy saving, which the company managed to achieve.

But the fly in the ointment is the replacement of solder with a thermal interface, which greatly reduced the overclocking potential of the top-end i5-4670K (and its updated version 4690K from the Haswell Refresh line).

2015

Essentially this is the same Haswell, transferred to 14 nm architecture.

2016

The sixth iteration, under the name Skylake, introduced an updated LGA 1151 socket, support for DDR4 RAM, 9th generation IGP, AVX 3.2 and SATA Express instructions.

Among the processors, it is worth highlighting the i5-6600K and 6400T. The first was loved for its high frequencies and unlocked multiplier, and the second for its low cost and extremely low heat dissipation of 35 W despite Turbo Boost support.

2017

The Kaby Lake era is the most controversial because it brought absolutely nothing new to the desktop processor segment except native support for USB 3.1. Also, these stones completely refuse to run on Windows 7, 8 and 8.1, not to mention older versions.

The socket remains the same - LGA 1151. And the set of interesting processors has not changed - 7600K and 7400T. The reasons for people's love are the same as for Skylake.

2018

Goffee Lake processors are fundamentally different from their predecessors. Four cores have been replaced by 6, which previously only the top versions of the i7 X series could afford. The L3 cache size was increased to 9 MB, and the thermal package in most cases does not exceed 65 W.

Of the entire collection, the i5-8600K model is considered the most interesting for its ability to overclock up to 4.3 GHz (though only 1 core). However, the public prefers the i5-8400 as the cheapest entry ticket.

Instead of results

If we were asked what we would offer to the lion's share of gamers, we would say without hesitation that the i5-8400. The advantages are obvious:

• cost below 190$
• 6 full physical cores;
• frequency up to 4 GHz in Turbo Boost
• heat package 65 W
• complete fan.

Additionally, you don’t have to select a “specific” RAM, as for the Ryzen 1600 (the main competitor, by the way), and even the cores themselves in Intel. You lose additional virtual streams, but practice shows that in games they only reduce FPS without introducing certain adjustments to the gameplay.

By the way, if you don’t know where to buy, I recommend paying attention to one very popular and serious one (believe me, it is known and familiar to many people) - at the same time you can find out the prices for the i5 8400 there, periodically, or rather very often, I use this resource myself, to decide who is more profitable to buy from.

In any case, it's up to you. Until next time, don't forget to subscribe to the blog.

And another piece of news for those keeping track (solid state drives) is that this rarely happens.