Technical characteristics of Intel Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 processors. Iron experiment: older Core i3 versus younger Core i5 in games Which is better than i3

Hello everyone. So let's talk about processors such as the Intel Core I* series, this is a series of high-performance processors, so to speak. There are also Celeron and Pentium, they are also not bad, but of course they are less productive.

In general, now I have a Pentium G3220, and to be honest, I can’t say that this is a slow processor, you can even play games, of course, if the video card doesn’t let you down (and I don’t have one, because I don’t play games). The disadvantage of the Pentium G3220 is that it cannot be overclocked, and I learned this disadvantage after the purchase, in general it’s a shame. But take note that if you buy a processor, it would be better if it could be overclocked..

So let's get back to the cores. This means cores and threads are the main differences between Core I* series processors. They also differ in frequency.

Well, let me tell you with an example, to put it simply. Here comes Pentium and Celeron, there are just two cores. Then, the next step is i3, it already has the same two cores, but it already has Hyper-threading technology, that is, there are threads. It turns out that i3 is two cores or 4 threads, Windows itself sees threads as cores, so such a processor is defined as quad-core. Next comes i5, there are no longer threads, there are just 4 cores and that’s it. That is, a little more powerful. Well, the latest i7 already comes with 4 cores or 8 threads. That is, this is the maximum filling, so to speak, here there are maximum kernels and threads.

Here in this picture you can roughly understand which models have how many cores there are (HT is Hyper-threading, that is, threads):

In addition to all this, that is, cores, threads, there are also differences in some instructions, well, it does not particularly affect performance, but nevertheless it is worth taking into account. But what affects and what else differs is frequency. The more expensive the model, the higher the frequency. This is what I mean, so to speak, internal models, that is, the i3 can be with a frequency of either 3.2 GHz or 3.8 GHz, of course the latter will be better.

By the way, if you suddenly decide to buy a computer on the Intel platform, then I advise you to take the 1151 socket, this is the best choice. No, well, of course you can take 2011-3, but it’s too expensive and there’s so much power that it’s unlikely that that much is needed. The fact is that if I'm not mistaken, then 2011-3 only supports i7 processors, that is, the most powerful ones

In laptops everything is a little different; there are mobile processors with fewer cores. This is done so that the processor consumes less energy and there is even an i7, one might even say that it is stripped down, because there are only 2 cores/4 threads, these are the pies guys. But there is an i7 with all 4 cores, but they are still less productive than the desktop versions.

But what to do, how to find out how many cores and threads you have? In general, let's first summarize a little. If you have an i3, then most likely you have 2 cores/4 threads. If you have an i5, then most likely you have 4 cores. If you have an i7, then most likely you have 4 cores/8 threads. This would be the case if you take desktop processors (not laptops) of the Intel Core I* series in a compartment, and the most popular models will have exactly the same number of threads and cores.

I also advise you to do this: download and install the CPU-Z program. It happens that you don’t need to install it at all, but just run it right away and that’s it. This is a super program, it is small, but it shows all the necessary information about the processor, how many threads, cores, frequency, supported instructions, cache size, etc. In general, everything you need, she shows it all, I advise in one word

As I already wrote, I have a Pentium G3220, of course there are no threads (otherwise it would be i3), but I launched the CPU-Z program and this is the information it showed me:

You see, there are Cores and Threads down there, well, these are the cores and threads. I highly recommend installing CPU-Z, because it doesn’t ask for food at all, it doesn’t load the computer at all, it takes up almost no space, but at the same time, if necessary, it will show all the relevant information about the process

Something I didn’t write at all about the fact that you can see how many more cores/threads and in Windows Manager 10. So if you have such a modern Windows, then look, to do this, right-click on the taskbar and select Task Manager there:

And then on the Performance tab in the CPU section it will be written how many cores you have and how many threads you have:

If I'm not mistaken, then logical processors are threads. I just have, as I already wrote, a Pentium G3220, it has no threads, so I can’t say for sure, but I’m 99% sure that these are threads..

You can even search by your processor model, if you know it, then look for information, characteristics and quickly find out how many threads and how many cores you have. But honestly, it seems to me that it is best to use the CPU-Z program for these matters.

By the way, not everyone knows that these threads or Hyper-threading technology were already in the Pentium 4. And before that, it seemed to be only in Xeon server processors. Well, the fact is that today Hyper-threading technology has been very, very improved, one might even say that it has been radically improved. Intel just decided not to change the name, but leave it as it is. So actually the flows have improved a lot so to speak. I wrote this because there is simply an opinion that threads are nonsense and that there is no benefit from them. This opinion, it seems to me, dates back to the times of the Pentium 4, because then tests often showed the same performance both with Hyper-threading technology turned on and with it turned off. But the funny thing is that in the days of the Pentium 4, few programs were able to parallelize work and two threads, that is, work in multi-threaded mode.

My opinion is that threads improve performance very well. In fact, I once read that Intel threads are equal in performance to AMD cores, or something like that. I just have AMD is good The processor is the FX-8300, well, it’s weaker in power than the i7, but at the same time it’s significantly weaker. Although the FX-8300 has 8 cores, and the i7 has 4 cores/8 threads. These are the pie guys

Well guys, it seems that’s all, I wrote everything I could. I hope that everything was clear to you here, sorry if something is wrong. Good luck in life and may everything go well for you

We continue the series “The Limits of the Possible”, and, as promised, in the fourth part we will look at the limits of productivity for Intel processors Core i3. We voiced the basic principle of selecting participants back in the first part: test the performance of the youngest and oldest processor of each line, if there are no significant reasons for deviating from this rule. This time there were no reasons for deviations, so the rules were fully observed. We even allowed ourselves one small addition: since formally the slowest in the Core i3 line for LGA1155 is the Core i3-2100T - but it is also a special version with reduced power consumption; for LGA1155 we tested both variants of the lower limit - absolute (Core i3 -2100T) and the lower limit for a normal desktop TDP of 65 W (Core i3-2100). Also, as a guide, we placed on the diagrams the Pentium G850 - the fastest processor at the current time from a lower positioning line.

Test bench configuration

In the first table we present the most indicative technical specifications tested processors, how they differ (or, conversely, do not differ) from each other.

By the way: for those who want to compare all, all, all the characteristics of the tested CPUs, we can suggest using.

It is easy to notice that Core i3 for LGA1155 differ from Pentium for the same platform only in that desktop versions of Core i3 with a TDP of 65 W start at a frequency that even the highest Pentium has not yet reached, plus support for Hyper-Threading, allowing them based on 2 physical cores, represent 4 virtual ones. The Pentium also has a rather severely reduced built-in graphics core, but this aspect has nothing to do with our testing, since in all cases we used an external video card. Analyzing the above, it is easy to predict on which two fronts the main battles will take place: this is a competition in speed between the previous generation Clarkdale core and the new Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, as well as (in the case of Pentium) a competition between two physical cores and four virtual ones. To be honest, we do not foresee sensations, because the answers to both questions have long been known: Sandy Bridge at the same frequency is almost always faster than all previous Intel microarchitectures, and four virtual cores outperform two physical ones in a strictly defined list of well-threaded optimized applications, which many of you (and certainly of us) know it by heart.

Traditionally, for particularly discerning connoisseurs of beauty, we present the complete hardware configuration of the test benches.

The type and characteristics of the modules installed in the test bench are indicated. Real memory frequencies and timings in the system under test are determined by the capabilities of its components (processor, motherboard) and default BIOS settings, and may turn out to be more conservative than the capabilities of the modules themselves.

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups, and show the average result for a group of tests/applications in diagrams (you can find out more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points; the performance of the iXBT reference test system from 2011 is taken as 100 points. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form. The configuration of the 2011 iXBT reference test system is as follows:

Interactive work in 3D packages

The first shock: all first-generation Core i3s were inferior to all test participants, including the Pentium G850. However, let's not forget that interactive work in none of the 3D packages we use can really use even 2 cores, so one of the key advantages of the Core i3 of any generation - Hyper-Threading - could not be used. However, the Core i3-560 has a frequency of 433 MHz higher than the Pentium G850!

Final rendering of 3D scenes

Rendering is very sensitive to the number of cores, and, apparently, even the fact that they are virtual cannot greatly spoil the result - therefore, there is “nothing to catch” Pentium in this test group, as can be seen from the first glance at the diagram. But the efficiency of Sandy Bridge (2nd generation Core i3) compared to Clarkdale (1st generation), when they work in approximately equal conditions, is also visible to the naked eye: compare 120 points Core i3-2120 and 109 points Core i3-560 - but they have almost the same frequency, the 560 is even a little higher.

Packing and Unpacking

Very interesting results: after all, archivers are traditionally considered “cache-loving” applications. And, despite this, even the highest-frequency Core i3 of the first generation, with Hyper-Threading, four virtual cores and 4 megabytes of L2, could not catch up with the Core i3 of the second - even a Pentium with Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, although the latter has 3 megabytes of L2 and 2 honest physical cores.

Audio encoding

And again, in this almost perfectly parallelizable task, Hyper-Threading support certainly did not turn out to be superfluous. However, there are no ambiguities among the Core i3: the older model of the previous generation lagged even behind the Core i3-2100.

Compilation

If you purely visually compare this diagram with the previous one, you will probably feel that they are about the same thing.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

You have probably already noticed a trend: as soon as the majority of software in a certain test group turns out to be single-threaded, the Pentium on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture “easily and naturally” overtakes both first-generation Core i3s; Well, the Core i3 of the second one generally “takes off into the clouds.” In the subgroup under consideration, only MATLAB has more or less decent multi-threaded optimization, so the fate of the “old guys” was sealed.

Raster graphics

In the raster graphics group, the situation is more complicated, because here as many as 3 packages can boast of fairly serious multi-core support: ACDSee, ImageMagick and Adobe Photoshop.

Vector graphics

But here it’s really interesting: we know for sure that neither CorelDraw nor Illustrator can use even 2 cores. It would seem that the results should be the same as in other similar tests: the new Core i3 is ahead of everyone, followed by the new Pentium, and in the tail are the first generation Core i3 and the energy-efficient Core i3-2100T (due to the fact that it operates at a “ridiculous” frequency for a modern CPU of 2.5 GHz). But... no! In fact, this funny artifact of speed once again demonstrates to us that with the interaction of two “black boxes” - processors, whose microarchitecture is known to us very superficially, and closed software, whose code is not known to us at all - anything is possible. And it is by no means always possible to explain this. You can, of course, once again thoughtfully note that the executable code in this particular case, they say, did not fit the new, progressive architecture... but you and I understand that in essence this means nothing more than “who the hell knows why it that’s how it happened.” :)

Video encoding

Quite well multi-threaded optimized software - and a fairly predictable result. I remember that at the very beginning of the article we warned you that, judging by the initial data, intense and bloody battles are not expected, and the outcome of the battle is predetermined even before it begins. As you can see, our predictions come true with enviable consistency.

Office software

In the case of the CPUs under consideration, the truth is that for them the office diagram is no longer significant, since their performance in this application area in the vast majority of cases turns out to be either sufficient or even excessive.

Java

Again, good multiprocessor optimization of the test - and again a completely predictable result.

Games

Enchanting: for the second time, the game diagram behaves in a completely mysterious way, arranging processors strictly according to ranking, which, it would seem, are not ranked according to it at all. And, by the way, again, for the second time, the energy-efficient version of the CPU on the Sandy Bridge core turns out to be faster than its older counterparts with a standard TDP. We would risk drawing the attention of readers to one fact that is not very quickly evident: the difference in performance between the slowest and fastest processor in the diagram is not at all that great - only 18%.

Results

As last time, to keep citizens who are concerned about the situation in Honduras on their toes, in the final diagram we “framed” the results of the Intel Core i3 line at the top and bottom with the results of the competitor’s processors that are closest in overall score. This time, of course, there was no chance for a subtle joke in our overall score, since the top-end Core i3 demonstrates quite respectable performance. However, as you can see, he also found companions from the enemy camp. But this, to be honest, is not at all the main topic in this material.

First, let's calculate the performance coefficient per gigahertz frequency for all processors. After all, they all have the same number of physical cores and not dramatically different cache sizes, so why not compare?

So: despite the fact that the old Core i3 has a 33% larger L2 cache, in terms of efficiency per gigahertz they are inferior to all the new Core i3s, and even the new Pentium - which, by the way, not only has less L2 than them, but there is also no support for Hyper-Threading. That is, roughly speaking, Clarkdale with Hyper-Threading is approximately as efficient as Sandy Bridge without it (and new Pentiums, when operating at the same frequency, outperform older Core i3s). It seems that the new platform was clearly a success?..

It seems like yes - but it is somewhat worrying that among the new Core i3s, the highest efficiency per gigahertz is demonstrated by the lowest frequency 2100T (and if you do not round the values ​​to whole numbers, you will see that the efficiency of the 2100 is also higher than that of the 2120). Therefore, it is logical to assume that with a further increase in frequency the trend will not change, and the efficiency will drop even lower. Considering that the updated Core i3 line launched quite recently, and there are only 5 processors in it, we would call this, albeit a trifle, but not very pleasant. On the other hand, who is stopping you from converting Core i3 to an integrated DDR3-1600 controller in the future? Perhaps no one.

In the next part, we'll tell you everything you need to know about Intel Core 2 performance...

Greetings, dear colleagues and guests of the expert club. Today we will talk about desktop processors. Unlike the rapidly developing market of ARM processors for mobile and media solutions, the x86 processor market is not developing as dynamically as several years ago; there have been no significant breakthroughs since the advent of the Sandy Bridge family, and the development of desktop processors, at this stage, first of all, is to reduce the chip area (technical process), reduce heat dissipation, reduce power consumption, improve integrated graphics and update instructions.

The technology for producing central processors has changed significantly, but this has not greatly affected performance. For example, Sandy Bridge processors, the production of which began back in 2009, are still largely relevant (especially their older segments). Intel, which for a long time is a leader in the desktop processor market, is no longer trying very hard to raise the performance bar that it set back in 2009, and in response to AMD’s solutions, with an emphasis on integrated graphics, it began to do the same with regard to it. Such developments are undoubtedly very useful for mobile platforms, where installing a discrete card has a detrimental effect on autonomous operation, are useful for the budget segment, in which more or less productive integrated graphics are able to attract attention, useful for work solutions, where graphics are just a nice bonus, but are actually useless in the older segment. Intel, which has completely conquered the senior segment of desktop solutions, has gone on the offensive on the front of budget solutions. The first attempt to change something was the Ivi Bridge family: by reducing the die area and improving graphics, Intel stopped losing out in the budget and multimedia PC market. However main mistake Intel (in the desktop processor market) used high-performance graphics only in top-end solutions; budget and mid-range solutions never received sufficient graphics performance. It was decided to correct this error with the Huswell family, in which productive solutions are used even in budget series. Even the Intel DualCore graphics are slightly faster than those found in the previous generation i3 and i5 desktops, so AMD may have to move up a bit with its APUs. What exactly has improved in the new solutions from Intel? Will they be able to somehow compete with AMD APUs in terms of graphics performance? And what surprises await us from budget solutions? All this is what you and I must find out.

First, let's look at 2 new representatives of the Core i3 family: 4330 and 4130. The i3 4330 solution is notable not only for its very high frequency, for its class - 3.5 GHz, being in fact the fastest desktop dual-core processor (only the i3 4340 is faster - 3.6 GHz), but also also an increased cache and Intel HD4600 graphics, which is found in older Intel solutions. Yes, you heard right, in the new solutions from Intel, each line has processors with improved graphics (the frequency of these graphics for all is 1150 MHz; in previous generations, the graphics frequency varied depending on the family).

The i3 4130 processor has a slightly lower frequency, 1 MB less cache and slightly weaker Intel HD 4400 graphics. Both new products have a lower TDP of 54 W, are made using a 22 nm process technology and support the Hyper-Threading function

Specifications

Intel Core I3 4330

Socket – H3 (LGA 1150)

Line – Intel Core i3

Core – Haswell

Technological process – 22 nm

Processor frequency – 3500 MHz

GPU model – Intel HD Graphics 4600

Stream processors – 20

Number of cores – 2

L1 cache size – 64 KB

L2 cache size – 512 KB

L3 cache size – 4096 KB

SSE4 support – yes

Heat dissipation – 54 W

Intel Core i3 4130

Socket – H3 (LGA 1150)

Line – Intel Core i3

Core – Haswell

Technological process – 22 nm

Processor frequency – 3400 MHz

Integrated graphics core – yes

GPU model – Intel HD Graphics 4400

Maximum graphics core frequency – 1150 MHz

Stream processors – 16

Built-in memory controller – yes

Maximum memory bandwidth – 25.6 GB/s

Number of cores – 2

L1 cache size – 64 KB

L2 cache size – 512 KB

L3 cache size – 3072 KB

Hyper-Threading support – yes

SSE4 support – yes

Virtualization Technology support – yes

Heat dissipation – 54 W

Packaging and equipment

We received the Core i3 4330 in the BOX package, so we can see the new packaging design for Intel processors. The new packaging does not have a strong emphasis on the line (unlike Sandy Bridge, where the design of the Pentium Dualcore and Core iX series was very different).

The package includes, as usual, instructions, a branded sticker and a boxed cooler. Let's take a closer look at the latter. It's no secret that each new series of processors takes a step towards lowering TDP; this trend allows manufacturers to save more and more on CO. At the moment, instead of BOX coolers from Delta (which were used to cool older processors of the Sandy Bridge family) with a copper base, simpler ones from Foxconn (F90T12NS1A7), made entirely of aluminum, are used.

Appearance

Actually, the design of the processor on the heat distribution cover side has not actually changed. But the type of contact surface and the design of the microcircuit have changed.

A cooler that is now used throughout the Haswell family, from the simplest to the most expensive. But reducing the TDP of top-end processors to 84 W did the trick; the cooler is designed for a maximum TDP of 90 W, so for everyday tasks this cooler is quite enough for any processor.

Test stand

To draw a full conclusion, we need to compare the results of our guests with other processors, namely:

Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge and Ivi Bridge (i3 2130 3.4 GHz and i3 3210 3.2 GHz);

Intel Pentium DualCore G2140 3.3 GHz;

Comparison with budget processors of the previous generation will help us feel the changes in the series. A comparison with the AMD A4 will allow you to find out whether budget solutions from Intel can compete in terms of graphics capabilities with budget APUs from AMD. The presence of a senior in the test AMD processor A10 will allow us not only to set the bar for the race participants (the A10 solution has the fastest graphics built into the processor), but will also allow us to show whether 2-core Intel solutions can compete with 4-core AMD solutions.

Test stand:

The choice of motherboards and power supplies was determined only by their availability (what was at hand was used). The same strips were used for tests RAM, in order to minimize their impact on the test, this will especially affect graphics tests (we are dealing with integrated graphics). In order to speed up the testing process and also reduce the impact on synthetics hard drive(especially in encoding and archiving tests), we will use SSD for the test. For the “purity of the experiment,” we used the same boxed cooler for modifications from Intel, as well as a boxed cooler from AMD to draw conclusions about heat dissipation.

This is what the test bench looks like, based on Intel Haswell processors.

Participants of our testing.

Boxed coolers from Intel and AMD participating in testing.

Characteristics of test participants:

As we can see from the table, the AMD A4 attracts with its low price; in terms of this indicator, it is absolutely unrivaled. The quad-core A10 costs virtually the same as an Intel Core i3 4330, which once again confirms the correctness of adding it to the tests.

Testing and Performance

1. Synthetic tests

In order to be able to carry out any parallel, for testing we tried to use memory of the same frequency at 1600 MHz (with the exception of processors that did not support given frequency). We also tried to take into account that the graphics from AMD (especially the A10 processor) have significantly higher theoretical performance, therefore, in tests we would get a result that would be limited by memory bandwidth. In order to understand how much bandwidth could affect graphics performance, we decided to use memory in dual-channel mode for our today's guests and for AMD processors (fortunately, the test memory sticks were sufficient for this; the memory switched to the frequency in the BIOS without any problems 1866 and even 2133 MHz, increasing timing), for graphics tests and games. Please note that all graphics are clickable, it is possible to see the original size image.

In the popular 3DMark benchmark, our guests performed very well, in absolutely equal conditions catching up and even overtaking not only the A4 5300 processor, but even the A10 6700 processor; the latter managed to regain its leadership only by increasing the memory bandwidth, on processors from Intel Memory bandwidth had little impact. Actually, the result was pleasantly surprising; the graphics from Intel became much better; it was not only able to outperform the cheap A4, but also compete with the A10, even if it had limited memory bandwidth. As for the difference between the graphics of the HD4400 and HD4600, the difference between them in this test was about 10%, which is generally quite predictable.

In the Heaven Benchmark, the advantage of using dual-channel memory with AMD processors is still evident; performance has increased by more than 2 times, moreover, both in the case of the A10 and A4 processors. The increase in bandwidth again did not significantly improve the performance of Haswell processors; they hold up quite vigorously, regardless of the memory channel width.

In the OpenGL Cinebench test. The performance gain from increasing memory bandwidth for the AMD A4 5300 processor is not so huge, but the increase for the A10 6700 is again more than 100%. Naturally, when using a wide memory bandwidth, the A10 has no competitors, but using single-channel 1600 MHz memory, the i3 4330 processor was able to snatch the lead.

Having finished with graphics performance, let's move on to combined and computing performance. In the Cinebench CPU test, the i3 4330 processor turned out to be the absolute leader, the i3 4130 took second place, as if the A10 6700 had broken into third place, the rest of the i3 processors were literally “breathing” in its back. In general, in terms of computing performance, we can say that progress has been made to a greater extent by AMD processors, which were able to reach the level of i3 processors in terms of computing. Changes in the architecture of the new Haswell processors helped them gain only about 10-15% compared to their predecessors (this is most noticeable with the i3 4130 and i3 2130 processors, which are completely analogues in frequency, but with the new processor, by about 14% faster, and the i3 4330, which has a frequency 100 MHz higher, is already almost 18% faster than its “brother”. Between Haswell processors, in this test, the performance differs by only 3%, that is, approximately the same.

In the PCMark 7 combined test, AMD processors turned out to be absolute outsiders, losing even to the Pentium G2140. The reason for this is most likely optimization and problems with multi-threading of the tester itself, since even the i3 2130, which has prohibitively weak graphics, passed this test more successfully (hence, the 1600 MHz bandwidth and single-channel mode are not the reason). Haswell representatives again took the lead, leaving their closest competitors 20% behind.

In the SVPmark 3 benchmark, which evaluates a processor's video encoding capabilities, as well as computing and graphics performance, the A10 processor was able to show its best side. Bypassing the i3 4330 processor in all tests. This tester actually did not notice a difference in the performance of the i3 4330 and i3 4130.

In WinRar, which also does not work very well with a large number of cores, there is not much difference from using HyperThreading or full-fledged cores. If you look at the graph, you can understand that within generations of Intel Core, the archiver is more sensitive to frequency than to generation. In single-threaded mode, the difference between the A10 and A4 processors virtually disappeared, and in the same mode, AMD processors turned out to be the weakest among all participants. In multi-threaded mode, the A10 was able to beat the i3 3210, but couldn't come close to Haswell's results.

In another well-known archiver, 7Zip, the situation is somewhat different. In multi-threaded mode, although the archiver does not see much of a difference between threads and cores, there is a clear priority in the direction of processor frequency, so the winner in the 7Zip test was the A10 6700. In single-threaded mode, the aforementioned processor did not even manage to overtake the Pentium G2140. Our today's participants were able to take their rightful place, getting excellent results in both multi-threaded and single-threaded modes.

2. Gaming performance

Since there were quite a lot of configurations for tests, large quantity We were not able to test games, however, given that all processors have rather mediocre graphics for games, this drawback is not so significant. So, let's look at 3 games: DoTA 2, Mass Effect 3 and World of Tanks (we took 2 games in which performance worries many and one platform game to test the capabilities of the built-in graphics on one of the Unreal engine games).

IN DoTA 2, with medium graphics settings, it is possible to play comfortably on most of the tested processors. It is absolutely impossible to play on an Intel Core i3 2130 processor, with its Intel HD 2000 graphics, and there were also slight drops in FPS in large battles on the Pentium G2140, i3 3210 and A4 5300 (in single-channel memory mode). The absolute leader was the AMD A10 6700; in dual-channel mode it simply had no equal, but even in single-channel mode, the processor retained its leadership due to the narrow bus and low frequency. Our guests today performed well; in any case, there were no freezes, freezes or drops in FPS to an unplayable level, which is what they undoubtedly surpassed the processors of previous generations. Interestingly, in dual-channel memory mode, even the cheap A4 5300 shows a more than acceptable level of performance in this game.

IN Mass Effect 3, where the settings were lowered, primarily to allow all processors to run this game, the A10 6700 processor again took the lead. The Haswell processors were barely able to compete even with the AMD A4 5300 processor, but they produced a fairly acceptable level of performance. On previous generation processors, the game showed quite low or sometimes saggy FPS, which generally makes the game on these processors, at Full HD resolution without discrete graphics, uncomfortable.

In a popular game World of Tanks, at medium graphics settings, only the A10 6700 processor allowed me to play comfortably; in other configurations, there was a drop in FPS in massive battles. Naturally, you can reduce the graphics to minimum and play comfortably on any of the processors, except, perhaps, the Core i3 2130 (the game refused to start at all), but the choice of settings is not accidental; this is the highest quality picture for our configurations. The FPS drop is not very critical in the case of Haswell processors, so playing at medium settings, with anti-aliasing disabled, is possible on these processors, but sometimes the FPS will drop, so some may consider this unacceptable, while others will not even notice short-term “losses” » frames.

3. Load temperature

The processors are not overly hot-tempered, so all test participants show acceptable heating indicators, even on Box coolers. Naturally, the situation may change if they get into a poorly ventilated case, but I think overheating will not happen even in this case. The hottest was the old Core i3 2130. Haswell processors did not turn out to be cooler than their predecessors in the form of Ivi, the coldest among the participants in the “tournament” was the Intel Pentium G2140, however, this processor has the HyperThreading function disabled, which undoubtedly increases the “ardor” of the processor .

Conclusions

Having tested and compared new processors from Intel, we saw that the Haswell series turned out to be quite successful in terms of integrated graphics. In terms of integrated graphics, new Intel processors can not only outperform junior APUs from AMD in some tests and games, but even in some places compete with the champions represented by older APUs. The computing side of the processors also turned out to be at its best, although it did not go very far from previous generations.

Pros:

+ excellent performance; + productive integrated video; + presence of HyperThreading; + 22 nm technical process; + low heat generation; + low power consumption.

Cons:

- the price of the platform is still somewhat inflated (buying a PC on platforms of previous generations is much cheaper).

As for the choice between the i3 4130 and i3 4330 processors, it all depends on your goals, in general we found that the graphics gap between them was approximately 10%, and the gap in computing power was about 3%, is it worth paying extra for this? 600-800 rubles, it’s up to you to decide, with the same price and a difference of 100-200 rubles, the choice is obvious, when buying a PC with discrete graphics, the choice is also obvious. When choosing between the AMD A10 6700 and Intel Core i3 4330, you need to prioritize what is more important for you. If your goal is only games, and you are not planning to purchase discrete graphics, then the A10 6700 processor is for you, but if discrete graphics are in In the future or on a computer you will not only play, then the i3 4330 is a much better option. Using the example of new processors, we were able to understand that Intel was able to seriously improve the graphics, making it competitive with AMD, taking into account the fact that the new processors are still somewhat faster in terms of computing power, and also have slightly lower power consumption, but they just have slightly weaker graphics, the choice is not as obvious as it was before and we can safely say that Intel has every chance of winning these “budget wars”.

Thank you all for your attention, see you next time, AnSoReN was with you.

P.S. I would like to express my gratitude to the site administration of DNS and Technopoint for providing the site for testing.

To create a gaming platform, many people prefer to bypass the Core I3-3240 crystal, considering it a representative of the budget class with an inflated price (10,000 rubles). And only two hardware cores somehow confuse fans of productive and resource-intensive games. A review of this processor, its technical characteristics and reviews from owners will dispel all the myths that the crystal has acquired. And a potential buyer is recommended to listen not only to reviews, but also to pay attention to the test results in games, because these are the indicators that determine the performance of processors.

Market positioning

Manufacturer Intel offers the I3-3240 specifically in the gaming segment, guaranteeing the buyer that the device is capable of working with fast data processing, including graphic textures. There can be no question of any budget segment - the company's pricing policy simply does not allow this. Do not forget that the platform used to create the chip is proudly called Ivy Bridge, which means that the logic and technology of high-performance enterprise segment processors are used.

The integrated graphics core in the 2500 crystal is analogous to budget video cards, which allows undemanding users to create a simple gaming platform based on a workstation. And when it comes to performance, do not forget about the clock speed of the operating cores, because 3400 MHz is a decent indicator.

Technical characteristics of the Core I3-3240 crystal

Chasing processor bus frequencies (this is especially popular among fans of AMD products), many do not pay attention to the amount of data transferred between the crystal and the motherboard bus. For Intel Core processors, this parameter is indicated directly in the marking itself - 5 GT/s (for each thread). The Intel Core TM I3-3240 product has 2 threads for each core, which means the total data transfer is approximately 40 gigabytes per second (one way).

Yes, there are questions about the built-in cache memory - 128 kilobytes (versus 256 KB for the same AMD) looks poor. However, the second level cache has 512 KB, and the third level is limited to three megabytes. Such indicators are sufficient not only for gaming applications, but also for resource-intensive video processing and 3D modeling programs.

About technology

The OEM processor, as noted earlier, is built on the Ivy Bridge platform, which means that the crystal supports work with 64-bit systems, has hardware protection against malicious code and provides the functionality of the Intel Virtualization virtual environment. Standard support for dual-channel DDR3 1600 MHz memory is present in this case. The only complaint is when working with the maximum amount of data - it is limited to 32 gigabytes (for older representatives of the Intel Core I5/I7 line, the limit is increased to 64 GB).

The owners also speak positively about the heat dissipation of the crystal - only 55 watts for such a processor is a low figure. Accordingly, buyers do not need to worry about overheating when the entire system is operating under maximum load. It is quite possible to install a passive cooling system and enjoy complete silence in your computer.

Gaming CPU Testing

If you compare the Core I-3240 gaming crystal with representatives of older Core I5/I7 models, you will discover a pattern - in synthetic tests, the performance difference will be proportional to the cost of all devices. That is, the I3 processor is 30% weaker than the representative of the Core I5 ​​line (the price is the same) and two times slower than the Core I7 (the price is also different). This is the manufacturer’s policy, and no one will be able to change it even by overclocking.

It's a completely different matter in gaming applications. As the comparison shows, in resource-intensive performance toys, it doesn’t matter what number is in the Core I line marking - 3.5 or 7. Everything directly depends on the video adapter, RAM and hard drive. The processor has potential, and it is still unrealistic to reveal all of it in games.

Changing the platform must be justified

Many owners of gaming computers based on the LGA-775 platform believe that replacing systems with four cores (we are talking about Intel Core Quad) is irrational. After all, following the basics of mathematics, 4 is more than 2, and if you install a powerful processor, then it must have more hardware cores. This is incorrect reasoning. Any crystal (and even server Xeon) built on the basis of a previous generation platform is inferior in performance new technology, including Intel Core I3-3240 processor. The frequency characteristics may be similar, but the technology and operating speed are radically different.

To make sure that the previous generation platform has outlived its usefulness and is not capable of fully working with gaming applications, you can conduct testing. To do this, you will have to use an expensive video adapter, which must force the processor to work at the limit of its capabilities (NVIDIA Quadro will cope with this task perfectly). The testing carried out will surprise many users - the vaunted representatives of LGA-775 with 4 cores (by the way, the AMD processor with 6-8 cores too) work at maximum, but are not able to increase the number of FPS higher than that demonstrated by Intel Core I3.

Resource-intensive professional programs

Only video encoding and 3D modeling applications can fail the performance exam. Such programs are clearly not for the Core I3-3240 processor. The characteristics of the on-chip cache memory are clearly not up to the ideal. Neither overclocking nor installing more powerful computer components will help the processor show decent results.

This does not mean that the crystal is not at all capable of doing the usual in Sony Vegas or Nero Video. Everything will work, but for a very long time. There were no issues with support for office applications, processing of graphic raster images and complex mathematical calculations during testing. The processor coped with all the tasks quite quickly.

The Kings Last Argument

Everyone was interested to see how, in one price category, the unreasonably expensive Core I3-3240 lost to a monster with 6 cores. And this is quite realistic in synthetic tests. Without exception, all testing programs will show the clear superiority of the same FX-6300 crystal - in working with RAM, in overall system performance, core frequency and overclocking potential, hardware encryption, etc. But for some reason, a similar comparison is not carried out in gaming applications and working with video editors.

Any resource-intensive game (Rezident Evel 5, DIRT or FarCry 3) will immediately show a potential buyer who is king in the processor market. Owners of 6-8-core systems will be able to escape from censure only after overclocking the crystals. Here, the economical Core I3 processor will have to give up ground in some games (which are created for platforms with a large number of cores). A synthetic test that encodes video in HD format (x264 Benchmark HD) will help to decapitate the AMD representative in testing. Overclocking is powerless here - the Intel representative will take the lead by a huge margin.

Computer progress does not stand still; more and more new technologies are constantly appearing. Not everyone these days can explain the difference between one processor model and another. Let's try together to figure out the difference between the two most popular processor models today, Intel Core i3 and Intel Core i5.

Intel Core i3– latest generation dual-core processor. Originally intended for desktop computers entry level. The processor is equipped with a built-in dual-channel DDR3-1066/1333 RAM controller with voltages up to 1.6 V. It is important to note that modules that are designed for higher voltages will not function with this chip, in addition, they can damage it. The processor is equipped with a built-in PCI Express 2.0 x16 controller, with which the graphics accelerator can be connected directly to the processor. The DMI bus with a bandwidth of 2 GB/s is used to connect to the system logic set. The i3 processors have a built-in GMA HD graphics core with a clock frequency of 733 MHz and twelve pipelines. However, the base clock speed for all Core i3 models is 133 MHz; nominal frequencies are achieved by using multipliers.

Intel Core i5– latest generation dual or quad core processor. Originally designed for mid-range desktop computers. The processor is equipped with a built-in dual-channel DDR3-1066/1333 RAM controller with a voltage of up to 1.6 V. A DMI bus with a bandwidth of 2 GB/s is used to connect to the system logic set. The processor is equipped with a built-in PCI Express 2.0 x16 controller, with which the graphics accelerator can be connected directly to the processor. However, in models equipped with a GMA HD graphics core, you can connect one video card in x16 mode to the chip, and if the model does not have built-in graphics, then two video cards in x8 modes each. Dual-core models feature Hyper-Threading technology. It is worth noting that if the model number ends with 1, then the graphics clock speed will be 900 MHz, and if it ends with 0, then 733 MHz. All i5s feature Turbo Boost technology that automatically increases clock speeds at resource-intensive levels.

differences between Intel Core i3 and Intel Core i5:

1. i5 processors have 2- and 4-core versions, while i3 processors have only 2-core versions.
2. L3 cache memory in i5 processors is 4 or 8 MB, common to all cores, in i3 it is only 3 MB.
3. The i5 processor supports Turbo Boost technology.
4. The built-in PCI Express 2.0 controller in i5 can have one x16 or two x8 lanes; in i3 processors there is only one x16 lane.
5. The i5's integrated graphics can be clocked at 900 MHz, as opposed to the i3's clock speed of 733 MHz.

So what should you choose? Which model is better?
As can be seen from the comparison, these chips are very similar. Core i3 processors are quite powerful and at the same time inexpensive, ideal option, if you are strictly limited on budget. Core i5 600 series processors have high performance, however, they have a chip with integrated graphics. These models are aimed at office workers who do not need powerful graphics. Quad-core i5-750 is the most best choice, if you want to build a powerful computer for a reasonable price.

Call or directly on the website! Our specialists will be happy to help you!