Intel today announced its eighth generation Core processors. Only this announcement turned out not at all what we expected. Firstly, they presented only four CPUs of the Core i5 and Core i7 families. Secondly, they are not called Coffee Lake at all, but Kaby Lake Refresh.
So, first about the processors themselves.
| Model | # Of cores / threads | Frequency, GHz | L3 cache size, MB | GPU | GPU frequency, MHz | TDP, W | Price, USD |
| Core i5-8250U | 4/8 | 1,6-3,4 | 6 | UHD Graphics 620 | 300/1100 | 15 | 297 |
| Core i5-8350U | 4/8 | 1,7-3,6 | 6 | UHD Graphics 620 | 300/1100 | 15 | 297 |
| Core i7-8550U | 4/8 | 1,8-4,0 | 8 | UHD Graphics 620 | 300/1150 | 15 | 409 |
| Core i7-8650U | 4/8 | 1,9-4,2 | 8 | UHD Graphics 620 | 300/1150 | 15 | 409 |
So, as you can see, mobile CPUs of the U family have now become quad-core, which is one of the most impressive changes in Intel processors in recent years. In addition, this is achieved while maintaining the TDP at 15 W. However, of course, it was not given for nothing. As you can see, the frequencies are noticeably lower than those of their predecessors. Moreover, all the new items received a junior GPU UHD Graphics 620, while some Kaby Lake CPUs use the Iris Plus Graphics 640 core. That is, in some tasks, the new processors may even be inferior to the old ones, but in general there should be a very significant advantage, especially in resource-intensive applications. Also, the real power consumption of new products is likely to still be higher.
Now let's move on to an equally interesting part of Intel's presentation. Recently, we have repeatedly asked questions about the logic of the release of new generations of the company's CPU. Finally we got the answers. The thing is that from now on one numbered generation of Intel processors can include several generations of CPUs that are different from an architectural point of view. More specifically, the eighth generation Core will eventually consist of not only Kaby Lake Refresh models, but also Coffee Lake and even Cannonlake processors.
Probably, Intel decided to do so in order to streamline at least a little too many new solutions, which will be released in a short period of time. Intel promises desktop models of the eighth generation in the fall, without specifying the timing. Apparently, these processors will be called Coffee Lake-S, although they could also be called Kaby Lake Refresh. Further, within the framework of the eighth generation, there will even be a change in the technical process, since the Cannonlake solutions will be 10-nanometer. In the end, everything converges, since the ninth generation, as we already know, will be called Ice Lake. True, this probably means that with the transition to these processors, Intel will again return to the principle of one architectural generation per one numbered one.
Intel released its latest eighth generation mobile processors in early April 2018, but many users still don’t know how different they are from the previous one, and are also confused between the H and U series.Therefore, in this article I would like to tell you more about them. and then benchmark them using the new GT75 and GS65 notebooks versus the previous generation GP62 notebook. By the way, if you use laptops from other brands, then the difference in performance may not be so noticeable due to the lower power supply unit and weaker cooling system.
The difference in the number of cores and heat dissipation
Looking at the table below, we can see that all eighth-generation Core i9 and Core i7 H-series models have a 6-core / 12-thread architecture. This means that the performance gain in some benchmarks can be 40-50%, since we have 2 cores (and 4 computational threads) more than the Core i7-7700HQ. The Core i5-8300H and Core i7-8500U processors have a 4-core / 8-thread formula and may also be faster in some benchmarks than the Core i7-7700HQ.The more cores, the more heat dissipation and power consumption of the processor, so a sharp rise in temperature of an eighth generation Core i7 or Core i9 processor to 95 ° and higher is quite normal. Some programs require increased performance, and the cooling fan accelerates after a few seconds. However, this will not cause damage to the processor or any speed issues, as MSI gaming laptops are equipped with more powerful cooling system with more heat pipes than the competition. The most "advanced" version is used in the GT75, in order to provide high performance and stable operation of the Core i9 processor at frequencies up to 4.7 GHz together with two 230-watt power supplies!
 |
* Thermal Pack in Boost mode based on media reviews and internal testing using Intel XTU Utility. When all processor cores are running at maximum frequency, heat dissipation rises well above the baseline. *
MSI cooling solutions are the best choice for gaming laptops
With 4 heatpipes and 3 fans with 47 blades, the GS65 Stealth Thin's Cooler Boost Trinity cooling system is the most powerful in its segment. Thanks to it, this ultra-thin laptop supports a special turbo mode, in which the processor runs at an increased frequency.The GT75 Titan is equipped with a true masterpiece called Cooler Boost Titan. This cooling system includes 2 huge fans, 3 heatpipes for the CPU and 6 for the GPU and voltage regulator. It is capable of dissipating over 120 watts of heat and even more, allowing the processor to be overclocked to extremely high frequencies.
When testing the Core i9-8950HK and Core i7-8750H processors in MSI Dragon Center 2, Sport mode was activated. Thus, users of these notebooks have the option to overclock the system even further by switching to Turbo mode. Specifically, the GT75 Titan can provide a stable processor running at 4.5-4.7GHz.
 |
Core i9-8950HK - over 86% faster than Core i7-7700HQ
Let's take a look at the results of the multi-threaded processor benchmark CineBench R15, which allows you to assess the performance in professional applications. The Core i9-8950HK processor outpaces the Core i7-7700HQ by 86%, and also outperforms the Core i7-8750H by 24%. A speed worthy of its price. And even the Core i5-8300H is over 13% faster than the Core i7-7700HQ. As for the Core i7-8550U model, it is considered cheaper and more economical, and this affects the performance, which is 25% lower than that of the Core i7-7700HQ. |
More cores and higher frequency means faster X.264 FHD video transcoding
Full-HD video transcoding and editing has already become a daily task for gamers, YouTube bloggers and streamers, so I was curious to see what improvements the Core i9-8950HK and Core i7-8750H processors have to offer in this area. I used the X264 FHD Benchmark to test it.Let's take a look at the results. The six-core Core i9-8950HK and Core i7-8750H handle video transcoding much faster. If we express the results as a percentage, the i9-8950HK, i7-8750H and i5-8300H processors outperform the i7-7700HQ by 74%, 39% and 9%, respectively.
 |
Maximum separation - in a purely processor-based PASS Mark benchmark
The PASS Mark is a benchmark that only depends on the CPU, so it shows very well the difference between different CPU architectures. Here, the Intel Core i9-8950H is 99% faster than the i7-7700HQ, and the Core i7-7850H outperforms the i7-7700HQ by 62% - all thanks to the higher frequency and more cores. We also see that the Core i5-8300H, having the same architecture (4 cores, 8 threads) and a similar base frequency as the i7-7700HQ, shows almost the same performance.Superior Cooling and Power for MSI Laptops
Not all laptops equipped with the Core i9-8950HK and Core i7-8750H will experience the same performance gains as these processors consume more power when they are running at maximum. A heat pack of 45 watts refers only to the base frequency. If you want the processor to work longer at an increased frequency in Boost mode, then be prepared for the fact that the power consumption of the eighth generation Core i9 / i7 processor can be 60-120 watts when all six cores are fully loaded. This is why it is so important to have a powerful power system and good cooling. |
Using the Intel XTU utility, I limited the thermal pack of the Core i9-8950HK processor in the GT75 Titan laptop that was running in Turbo mode, and tested it in the multi-threaded CPU test of the CineBench R15 benchmark. As you can see, if the cooling system is weak or the processor is not receiving enough power, performance will be significantly degraded.
So, with a thermal package of 150 watts, the result is 1444 points. Thermal package 120 W - 1348 points, 90 W - 1250 points. And with a 60W thermal package, the i9-8950HK gets 1103 points, which is even less than the i7-8750H (1113 points). So, the cooling system and power consumption are the key factors that determine the performance of the processor. The more cores run under full load, the higher the power requirements. And this means that by purchasing a gaming laptop from another brand with weak cooling or insufficiently powerful power system, you can get nice numbers in the specifications, but low speed in practice.
 |
Performance varies with cooling and power supply
The Core i9-8950HK processor requires over 120 watts of power to achieve maximum performance, while the Core i7-8750H requires over 60 watts. To dissipate this amount of heat, MSI notebooks are equipped with powerful cooling systems with the unique Cooler Boost feature. Stable power supply and good cooling are the key to high gaming performance. Replace your old laptop with MSI's gaming model and you will immediately see its superb speed! |
Thanks to the improvement of the technical process, it was possible to achieve a significant increase in productivity, which will amount to more than 15% according to the SysMark test. Thus, this year the performance of the Core i7 processors will increase more than in the past. This is shown in the slide from the presentation above under the heading "Moving Moore's Law at 14nm".
The new generation of processors on the improved 14 nm platform is scheduled for release in the second half of 2017. These will be designated the Core i7 / i5 / i3-8000 family and will replace the existing 7th generation family.
At the presentation to investors, Intel did not say anything about plans to release the Cannonlake family (formerly called Skymont) - microprocessors based on a 10nm technological process. They are supposed to be out in late 2017, and a working 10nm Cannonlake prototype was shown recently at CES. It was the Cannonlake family that was previously positioned as the 8th generation of the processor architecture, which will replace Skylake as part of the tick-tock strategy. Now another family has appeared that has nothing to do with Cannonlake. Perhaps this is an attempt to sell an old product in a new package.
Cancellation of the "tick-tock" strategy
Intel has consistently followed a tick-tock strategy since 2006. Since then, it has released processors every two years using a new process technology, significantly increasing the number of transistors on a chip. Each transition to a new technical process was designated as a "tick", and the subsequent improvement of the microarchitecture with the same technical process - "so". The semiconductor giant has worked like a clock for ten years, delivering new architectures without a hitch.It seems that in 2016 Intel's "clock" shorted a little at 14nm, and the company announced about.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. Again, this year's chip performance (over 15%) will be even greater than last year (15%), Intel said. Maybe it's really better to squeeze all the reserves out of the existing technical process, optimizing it, and only then move on. We cannot criticize Intel for deviating from a strategy that it voluntarily set for itself.
One way or another, but now the "tick-tock" strategy has been modified in a different form.
Instead of a measured metronome, a new procedure with a greater emphasis on optimization is now implemented. Perhaps the new architecture will not be released every two years, as it was before.
Why is Intel not pushing for 10nm? She does not need to do this, because she believes that she is already far ahead in her technological superiority from competitors in the semiconductor industry (Samsung, TSMC and others). The company estimates this gap to be about three years.
Such a reserve allows you to feel quite confident.
New plant for 7 nm
The bright future of Moore's Law should be provided by the new Intel Fab 42 plant, which will be able to support production using the 7 nm process technology.
Construction and equipment will take another three to four years and will require significant investment. The plant in Chandler, Arizona will reduce the number of local unemployed by about 3,000 people (+ another 10,000 jobs will be added indirectly).
Construction of the Chandler plant began in 2011. It should become the most advanced and innovative semiconductor enterprise in the world. The building itself was completed in 2013, but instead of installing 14nm hardware in early 2014, Intel decided to postpone the launch of the pipeline. At the moment, the plant is ready: air conditioning, heating systems and others - everything is functioning, all that remains is to install and adjust the equipment. Intel does not plan to use this factory for production according to the 10 nm process technology, so in a few years, it is likely that they will master the production at the next 7 nm rate.
According to Intel, the equipment will cost about $ 7 billion. This is the cost of a modern industrial enterprise. It is not yet known what specific equipment will be needed. Perhaps Intel will start using deep ultraviolet photolithography (EUV) there.
At the dawn of the 2000s, Intel hoped that by 2005 processor frequencies would rise to 10 GHz, and they would operate at voltages below a volt. As we know, this did not happen. About ten years ago, Dennard's scaling law ceased to work, claiming that as the size of transistors decreased, the voltage applied to the gate could be reduced and the switching speed increased. Since then, rarely any processor gets a nominal operating frequency above 4 GHz, but there are more cores, the north bridge has migrated to the crystal from the motherboard, other optimizations and accelerations have appeared. Now Moore's law is also slowing down, an empirical observation that speaks of a constant increase in the number of transistors on a chip due to a decrease in their size.
Nearly 3x the speed: 802.11ax 2x2 160MHz allows you to reach a maximum theoretical data transfer rate of up to 2402Mbps, almost 3x (2.8x) faster than 802.11ac 2x2 80MHz (867Mbps) ) as documented in the IEEE 802.11 wireless standard specifications. Requires a similarly configured 802.11ax wireless router.
Compared to other PC I / O technologies including eSATA, USB, and IEEE 1394 Firewire *. Actual performance figures may vary depending on the hardware and software used. Be sure to use a Thunderbolt ™ device. More information can be found on the website.
Best-in-class Wi-Fi 6 technology: Intel® Wi-Fi 6 (Gig +) adapters support additional 160 MHz channels, which allows you to achieve the theoretical maximum speed (2402 Mbps) for typical 2x2 802.11ax PC Wi-Fi adapters. Premium Intel® Wi-Fi 6 (Gig +) adapters offer 2x to 4x faster theoretical speeds than standard 802.11ax PC Wi-Fi adapters 2x2 (1201 Mbps) or 1x1 (600 Mbps). which only support the mandatory 80 MHz channels.
Based on 10th Gen Intel® Core ™ i7-1065G7 Pre-Production vs. 8th Gen Intel® Core ™ i7-8565U Processor (INT8 results), AIXprt Workload Benchmark Test. Performance test results are based on testing as of May 23, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See the configuration description for details. No system can be completely secure.
Intel is a sponsor and member of the Benchmark XPRT developer community and the primary developer of XPRT benchmarks. Principled Technologies is the publisher of the XPRT family of benchmarks. You should consult other sources of information and performance tests to get a full assessment of the product you are planning to buy.
Changing the clock speed or voltage may damage or shorten the life of the processor and other system components, and may result in poor system stability and performance. Product specifications may not be eligible for warranty service if processor specifications are changed. For more information, contact your system and component manufacturers.
Intel and the Intel logo are trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and / or other countries.
* Other names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. (if third party names and trademarks are used)
On June 2, Intel announced ten new fifth-generation 14nm Intel Core desktop and mobile processors (codenamed Broadwell-C) and five new 14nm Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4.
Of the ten new 5th Generation Intel Core (Broadwell-C) processors for desktop and mobile, only two are desktop-oriented and have an LGA 1150 socket: the quad-core Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C. All other 5th Gen Intel Core processors are BGA and are aimed at notebooks. 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 | Frequency nominal / maximum, 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, the choice, of course, is small, especially when you consider that the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family processors are focused on servers, not user PCs.
In the future, we will focus on reviewing the new 14nm processors with the LGA 1150 socket.
So, the main features of the new fifth generation Intel Core processors and processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 family is the new 14-nanometer microarchitecture of the cores, 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 a 14-nanometer version. Rather, it is a slightly improved Haswell microarchitecture. However, Intel always does this: when switching to a new manufacturing process, changes are also made to the microarchitecture itself. In the case of Broadwell, we are talking about cosmetic enhancements. 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 of 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 emphasize once again that we are talking only about cosmetic changes to the Haswell microarchitecture, and therefore, one should not expect that Broadwell processors will be more productive than Haswell processors. Of course, the transition to a new technical process made it possible to reduce the power consumption of processors (at the same clock frequency), but you should not expect any significant performance gains.
Perhaps the most significant difference between the new Broadwell processors and Haswell is the Crystalwell L4 cache. Let's clarify that such an L4 cache was present in Haswell processors, but only in top models of mobile processors, while Haswell processors for desktop PCs with an LGA 1150 socket did not have it.
Recall that some of the top models of Haswell mobile processors implemented the Iris Pro graphics core with additional eDRAM (embedded DRAM), which made it possible to solve the problem of insufficient memory bandwidth used for the GPU. EDRAM was a separate die that sits on the same substrate as the processor die. This crystal was codenamed Crystalwell.
The eDRAM was 128MB in size and was manufactured in a 22nm process. But the most important thing is that this eDRAM memory was used not only for the needs of the GPU, but also for the computational cores of the processor itself. That is, in fact, Crystalwell was an L4 cache shared between the GPU and the processing cores of the processor.
All new Broadwell processors also include a separate 128MB eDRAM die that acts as an L4 cache and can be used by the graphics and processing cores of the processor. Moreover, we note that the eDRAM memory in 14-nanometer Broadwell processors is exactly the same as in the top-end Haswell mobile processors, that is, it is performed using a 22-nanometer process technology.
The next feature of the new Broadwell processors is the new graphics core, codenamed Broadwell GT3e. For desktop and mobile processors (Intel Core i5 / i7), this is Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and for Intel Xeon E3-1200 v4 processors, this is Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (excluding Xeon E3-1258L v4). We will not delve into the architecture of Broadwell GT3e graphics cores (this is a topic for a separate article) and will only briefly consider its main features.
Recall that the Iris Pro graphics core was previously present only in Haswell mobile processors (Iris Pro Graphics 5100 and 5200). Moreover, in the graphics cores Iris Pro Graphics 5100 and 5200 there are 40 executive units (EU) each. The new graphics cores Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300 are already endowed with 48 EUs, and the EU organization system has also changed. Each individual GPU unit contains 8 EUs, and the graphics module contains three graphics units. That is, one graphics module contains 24 EU, and the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 or Iris Pro Graphics P6300 itself combines two modules, that is, we get 48 EU in total.
As for the difference between the graphics cores 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 proceeding to a detailed examination of the Broadwell test results, let's talk 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 cannot say that any board based on the Intel 9-series chipset will support these new Broadwell processors, but most boards do. However, for this you have to update the BIOS on the board, and the BIOS must support the new processors. For example, for testing we used the ASRock Z97 OC Formula board and without updating the BIOS, the system worked only 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 multiplication factor, that is, they are focused on overclocking. In the Haswell family of processors, such unlocked multiplier processors 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 (they cannot increase the multiplication factor).
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 the LGA 1150 socket, only the Xeon E3-1285L v4 processor is missing, which differs from the Xeon E3-1285 v4 only in lower power consumption (65 W instead of 95 W) and the fact that the nominal clock frequency of the cores is slightly lower (3.4 GHz instead of 3.5 GHz). In addition, 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 i5-5675С | Core i7-4790K | |
| Process technology, 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 |
| Nominal 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 frequency of the graphics processor, 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 to testing new products.
Test bench
To test the processors, we used the bench with the following configuration:
Testing technique
Processors were tested using our scripted benchmarks, and. More precisely, we took the workstation testing methodology as a basis, but expanded it by adding tests from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 package and the iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 game tests.
Thus, the following applications and benchmarks were used to test the 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, for testing, we used games and game benchmarks from the iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 package. Testing in games was carried out at a resolution of 1920 × 1080.
Additionally, we measured the power consumption of the processors in idle and stressed mode. For this, a specialized hardware and software complex was used, connected to the break in the power supply circuits of the motherboard, that is, between the power supply and the motherboard.
To create a stressful CPU load, we used the AIDA64 utility (Stress FPU and Stress GPU tests).
Test results
Power consumption of processors
So, let's start with the results of testing processors for power consumption. The test results are presented in the diagram.
The most gluttonous in terms of power consumption, as expected, turned out to be the Intel Core i7-4790K processor with a declared TDP of 88 W. Its real power consumption under stress load was 119 W. At the same time, the temperature of the processor cores was 95 ° C and throttling was observed.
The next in terms of power consumption was the Intel Core i7-5775C processor with a declared TDP of 65 W. For this processor, the stress-load power consumption was 72.5 watts. The core temperature of the processor reached 90 ° C, but throttling was not observed.
The third place in terms of power 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 power consumption was the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 processor with a TDP of 35 W. In stress 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, then we must admit that Broadwell has a significantly lower power consumption in comparison with 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 the 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 a reference.
| Logical group of tests | Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Xeon E3-1265L v4 | Core i5-5675C | Core i7-5775C | Core i7-4790K |
| Video converting 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, scores | 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 |
| OCR, 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 unzipping 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 unzip, 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 test results, in terms of integrated performance, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor practically does not differ from the Intel Core i7-4790K processor. However, this is an integral result for the totality of all applications used in the benchmark.
However, there are a number of applications that take advantage of the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor. These applications include MediaCoder x64 0.8.33.5680 and SVPmark 3.0 (video converting and processing), Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 and Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 (creating video content), Adobe Photoshop CC 2014.2.1 and ACDSee Pro 8 (processing digital photos). In these applications, the higher clock speed of the Intel Core i7-4790K processor does not give it an edge 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 here 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 (in comparison with other applications).
And of course, there are tests in which the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Intel Core i7-4790K processors show the same performance. For example, this is a test based on WinRAR 5.11 application.
In general, it should be noted that the Intel Core i7-4790K processor demonstrates higher performance (in comparison with the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor) precisely in those applications in which not all processor cores are used or the core load is not full. 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.
Calculations in the application Dassault SolidWorks 2014 SP3 (Flow Simulation)
We took out 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.
Recall that this test deals with hydro / aerodynamic and thermal calculations. In total, 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 provide 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 a reference.
As can be seen from the test results, in these specific calculations the leadership is on the side of the Broadwell processors. All four Broadwell processors demonstrate faster computation speed compared to the Core i7-4790K processor. Apparently, these specific calculations are influenced by the improvements in the execution units that were implemented in the Broadwell microarchitecture.
SPECapc for 3ds max 2015
Next, let's take a look at the SPECapc for 3ds max 2015 benchmark results for Autodesk 3ds max 2015 SP1. The detailed results of this test are presented in the table, and the normalized results for the CPU Composite Score and GPU Composite Score - in the diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as a 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 |
| Interacive 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 |
In the SPECapc 3ds for max 2015 test, Broadwell processors are in the lead. Moreover, if in the subtests that depend on the performance of the CPU (CPU Composite Score), the Core i7-4790K and Xeon E3-1285 v4 processors demonstrate equal performance, then in the subtests that depend on the performance of the graphics core (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. Recall that this benchmark was run in tandem with the Autodesk Maya 2015 package.
The results of this test are presented in the table, and the normalized results are shown in the diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as a 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 performs slightly better than the Core i7-4790K processor, however, the difference is not as significant as in the SPECapc 3ds for max 2015 package.
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 ambiguous. In the OpenGL test, all Broadwell processors significantly outperform the Core i7-4790K processor, which is natural, since they have a more powerful graphics core integrated. 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 SPECviewperf v.12.0.2 tests, the results are determined primarily by the performance of the processor's graphics core and, moreover, by the optimization of the video driver for certain applications. Therefore, in these tests, the Core i7-4790K processor significantly lags behind the Broadwell processors.
The test results are presented in the table, as well as in normalized form in the diagrams. The result of the Core i7-4790K processor is taken as a 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 |
This is not to say that everything is unambiguous in this test. In some scenarios (Media and Entertainment, Product Development, Life Sciences), Broadwell processors show 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 in conclusion, let's look at the results of testing processors in gaming tests. As a reminder, we used the following games and gaming benchmarks for testing:
- 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 1920 × 1080 and in two settings modes: maximum and minimum quality. The test results are presented in the diagrams. In this case, the results are not standardized.
In gaming tests, the results are as follows: all Broadwell processors demonstrate very similar results, which is natural, since they use the same Broadwell GT3e graphics core. And most importantly, with the settings for the minimum quality, Broadwell processors allow you to comfortably play (at FPS over 40) in most games (at a resolution of 1920 × 1080).
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, it makes no sense to change Haswell to Broadwell. And the price of Broadwells is not so attractive, which would be very 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 the Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C processors are unlikely to be in special demand.
Server processor family Xeon E3-1200 v4 is a separate segment of the market. For most ordinary home users, such processors are not of interest, but in the corporate sector of the market, these processors may be in demand.
