Part 1: 53 configurations with integrated graphics

The change of the year on the calendar, as a rule, leads to an update of the methods of testing computer systems, and therefore to the summing up of the results of testing of central processors (which is a particular case of testing systems), carried out in the past year. In principle, the main part of the results was obtained long before the end of the year, but we wanted to add the “seventh generation” Core to the results (at least in limited quantities). Unfortunately, we failed to do this: the "original" version of Windows 10 used in the 2016 tests is incompatible with Intel graphics drivers suitable for HD Graphics 630. More precisely, of course, the opposite is true: this driver requires at least an Anniversary Update. In principle, there is nothing new in this, the latest versions of Nvidia graphics drivers, for example, behave similarly, but changing the test bench software violates the concept of tests "in the closest possible conditions". However, tests of new processors using the 2017 methodology have already shown that there is nothing really "new" in them - as expected. Therefore, it is possible to do without the results of "Skylake Refresh" for now, which we will do.

The second point that should also be taken into account is the number of subjects. In last year's results, the results of 62 processors were presented, 14 of which were tested with two "video cards" - an integrated GPU (all different) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X, and four with different types of memory. In total, there were 80 configurations. It is not so difficult to "cram" them all into one article (after all, not so long ago we had 149 test configurations in one article ), but the diagrams were, to put it mildly, not very convenient for viewing. In addition, there is no great need for a direct comparison of the "atomic" Celeron N3150 and the extreme ten-core Core i7-6950X: these are still fundamentally different platforms. The "immensity" of the final articles on the "old" methods was mainly due to the fact that in the main line of tests all participants worked with the same discrete video card, but this approach was not always applicable before - as a result, some of the computer systems had to be taken out into a separate line of tests, and then summarize the individual test results.

This year we decided to do the same. Today's article will present the results of 53 different configurations: 47 processors, five of which were tested with two different types of memory, and one with different TDP levels. But all - exclusively using the integrated GPU (also different for everyone). To some extent, this is a return to the results of 2014 - only there are more results. And in the near future, those who wish will be able to familiarize themselves with the summary material based on testing 21 processors with the same Radeon R9 380. Some of the participants overlap, and in general the test results are "compatible" with each other, but to improve their perception, it seems to us, two separate materials are better. Those readers who are only interested in dry numbers can (and for a long time) compare them in any set, using the traditional one, which, by the way, includes information on several “specialized” tests, which is somewhat difficult to add to the final materials.

Testbed configuration

Since there are many subjects, it is not possible to describe in detail their characteristics. After thinking a little, we decided to abandon the usual concise table: all the same, it becomes too boundless, and at the request of the workers, we nevertheless brought some parameters directly to the diagrams, as in the past year. In particular, since some are asking to indicate right there the number of cores / modules and threads of computations executed simultaneously, as well as the ranges of operating clock frequencies, we tried to do just that, adding at the same time information about the heat package. The format is simple: “kernels (or modules) / threads; minimum-maximum clock frequency of cores in GHz; TDP in W ".

Well, all other characteristics will have to be looked at in other places - the easiest way is from manufacturers, and prices are in stores. Moreover, prices for some devices are still not determined, since these processors themselves are not available in retail (all BGA models, for example). However, all this information is, of course, in our review articles devoted to these models, and today we are engaged in a slightly different task than actually studying processors: we collect the data obtained together and look at the resulting patterns. Including, paying attention to the relative position not of processors, but of entire platforms, including them. Because of this, the grouping of data in charts is precisely by platform.

Therefore, it remains only to say a few words about the environment. As for memory, we always used the fastest supported by the specification, except for the case that we called "Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)" - processors for LGA1151, but paired with DDR3-1600, and not faster (and "main according to specifications) DDR4-2133. The amount of memory has always been the same - 8 GB. System storage () - the same for all subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: in this article, only the data obtained with the built-in video core was used. Accordingly, those processors where it is absent are automatically sent to the next part of the totals.

Testing methodology

The technique is described in detail. Here we will briefly inform you that for the results, the main are two "modules" of the four standard ones: and. As for gaming performance, as has been demonstrated more than once, it is mainly determined by the video card used, so first of all these applications are relevant specifically for GPU tests, and discrete ones. For serious gaming applications, discrete video cards are still needed, and if for some reason you have to limit yourself to IGP, then you will have to take a responsible approach to choosing and configuring a game for a specific system. On the other hand, for a quick assessment of the capabilities of integrated graphics, our “Integral Game Result” is quite suitable (first of all, it is a qualitative, not a quantitative assessment), so we will also present it.

Let us make sure that the detailed results of all tests are available in the form. Directly in the articles, we already use relative results, divided into groups and normalized relative to the reference system (like last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD). The same approach is used when testing laptops and other ready-made systems, so that all the results in different articles (of course, using the same version of the methodology) can be compared, despite the different environment.

Working with video content

This group of applications has traditionally gravitated towards multi-core processors. But when comparing formally identical models different years release, it is clearly seen that the quality of cores is no less important here than their number, and the functionality (first of all) of the integrated GPU is also important here. However, fans of "maximum performance" still have nothing to please: AMD has never played in this market (even the company plans to have the fastest IGP processors), while Intel has solutions for LGA115x, where the performance per stream increases slightly with the platform number and the clock frequency, but while maintaining the formula "four cores - eight threads", and the frequencies cannot be said to have increased very actively. As a result, comparing the Core i7-3770 and Core i7-6700K gives us a 25% increase in performance in five years: the same notorious "5% per year", which is customary to complain about. On the other hand, in a pair of Pentium G4520 / G2130 the difference is already quite weighty 40%, and the new models of these processors for LGA1151 acquired Hyper-Threading support, so they behave like Core i3-6100 with all that it implies. In the area of ​​nettop-tablet solutions, there is still a place for intensive methods of increasing productivity, which is brilliantly demonstrated by Celeron J3455, which is already outperforming some desktop processors. In general, progress in different market segments comes with different speed, but the reasons for this have long and repeatedly been voiced: desktop computers have ceased to be the main target purpose, and the times when it was necessary to increase productivity at any cost, since it, in principle, was not enough to solve the problems of mass users, also ended in the last decade. There are, of course, server platforms, but (again, unlike the situation at the end of the last century), this has long been a separate area, where also a lot of attention is paid to economy, and not just performance.

Digital photo processing

We continue to observe similar trends, adjusted for the fact that Photoshop, for example, has only partial multithreaded optimization. But some filters used actively use new instruction sets, so to some extent one compensates for the other in the case of budget desktop processors, but not "atomic »Platforms. In general, there is an increase in performance over a long time interval, and with a certain devaluation of old processor families (Core i7 for LGA1155 is roughly Core i5 for LGA1151), but global "breakthroughs" that some "potential buyers" have been dreaming of for a long time not anymore. Perhaps they are not there, because changes generally occur only in the range of Intel, and even those are planned :)

Vector graphics

We refused to use Adobe Illustrator in the new version of the technique, and the final diagram clearly shows the reason for this decision: the last thing we seriously optimized this program for is Core 2 Duo, so for work (note: this is not a household application, and very expensive) a modern Celeron or a five-year-old Pentium is quite enough, but even paying seven times more, you can get only 1.5 times faster. In general, although in this case the performance is interesting to many, it makes no sense to test it - in such a narrow range it is easier to assume that all colas are the same:) Only “atomic” solutions are “in flight” - it’s not in vain that it has been said about them for 10 years in a row that they are intended for the consumption of content, and not for its production.

Audio processing

Adobe Audition is another program that is leaving the list of those used by us for testing this year. The main complaint to it is the same: too quickly the "required level of performance" is reached, and the "maximum" differs too little from it. Although here the difference between Celeron and Core i7 in each LGA115x iteration is approximately twofold, it is easy to see that most of it is still “recouped” within the limits of, if not budget, then inexpensive processor lines. Moreover, the above is true only for Intel processors - the application is generally somewhat biased towards today's AMD platforms.

Text recognising

The times of the rapid progress of character recognition technologies have long been in the past, so the corresponding applications develop without changing the basic algorithms: they, as a rule, are integer and do not use new instruction sets, but they scale well in terms of the number of computational threads. The second provides a good spread of values ​​within the platform - up to three times, which is close to the maximum possible (after all, the effect of code parallelization is usually not linear). The first does not allow you to notice a significant difference between processors of different generations of the same architecture - a maximum of 20 percent over five years, which is even less than the "average". But the processors different architectures behave differently, so this application continues to be an interesting tool.

Archiving and unarchiving data

Archivers also, in principle, have reached such a level of performance that in practice you can no longer pay attention to their speed. On the other hand, they are good because they quickly respond to changes in performance characteristics within the same processor family. But comparing different ones with them is a dangerous occupation: the fastest among the tested by us (from those included in today's article, of course) turned out to be the Core i7-4970K for the already formally "outdated" platform. And in the "atomic" family, too, not everything is smooth.

File operations

The diagram clearly shows why, starting in 2017, these tests will no longer be taken into account in the overall score and "go" into their own: with the same fast drive, the results are too even. In principle, this could be assumed a priori, but it did not hurt to check. Moreover, as we can see, the results are even, but not perfectly even: "surrogate" solutions, junior mobile processors and old AMD APUs do not squeeze the maximum out of the SSD used. SATA600 is supported in their case, so no one seems to interfere with copying data at least at the same speed as in "adult" platforms, but there is a decrease in performance. More precisely, it was until recently, but now it ceases to matter.

Scientific calculations

Questions regularly arose in the forum about using SolidWorks Flow Simulation for testing budget systems, but in general the results of this program are quite interesting: as you can see, it scales well in cores, but only in "physical" ones - different SMT implementations are contraindicated for it. From a methodological point of view, the case is interesting, and not unique; while most of the programs in our set are fully multi-threaded. But on the whole, the results of this scenario fit into the big picture.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2016

So what do we have in the bottom line? Mobile processors are still a thing in themselves: they overlap in performance with desktop, but lower classes. There is nothing unexpected in this - but their energy consumption is significantly lower. The performance gain between similarly positioned Intel desktop processors for five years is 20-30%, and the more "top-end" the family, the slower it grew. This, however, does not interfere with "social justice": it is in the budget segment that higher performance is needed, as well as more powerful graphics (there may simply not be enough money for a discrete one). In general, thrifty buyers are lucky - we can say that the primary focus on laptop computers has contributed to budget desktops. And not only in performance and purchase price, but also in the cost of ownership.

In any case, this is true for Intel solutions - the second manufacturer of x86 processors left on the market was doing well last years, to put it mildly, worse. FM1 is a solution five years ago, FM2 + until the end of 2016 remained the most modern and powerful integrated platform of the company, but they differ ... literally by the same 20% as different generations of Core i7. However, it cannot be said that over the past years nothing has changed at all: both the graphics have become more powerful, and the energy efficiency has grown, but as the main niche of these processors is gaming, it has remained. Moreover, for the graphics performance at the level of junior discrete video cards, you have to pay off with both low performance of the processor part and high energy consumption - which is just what we are moving on.

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

In principle, the diagram clearly explains why budget processors "grow" in speed faster than "non-budget" ones: power consumption is more limited than, generally speaking, is necessary for desktop computers (although this is better than the horrors of the 90s and "zero"), but also the relative share of "full-size desktops" has also declined dramatically over the years and continues to decline. And for laptops or tablets, even the older "atomic" models are no longer very comfortable - not to mention the quad-core Core. Which, in an amicable way, is high time to make the main mass product - you look, and the software industry will find a useful application for such capacities.

It should be noted that it was not only the efficiency that grew - first of all, the energy efficiency increased, since more modern processors spend less energy on solving any problem in the same or even less time. And working quickly is useful: you can stay in the energy-saving mode longer. Recall that these technologies began to be actively used precisely in mobile processors- when there was such a division at all, because now all processors are to a certain extent like that. AMD has the same tendency, but in this case the company failed to repeat the success of at least Sandy Bridge, as a result of which the most “tasty” market segments were lost. Let's hope that the release of processors and APUs based on a new microarchitecture and a new technical process will solve this problem.

iXBT Game Benchmark 2016

As mentioned in the description of the methodology, we will restrict ourselves to a qualitative assessment. At the same time, let us recall its essence: if the system demonstrates a result above 30 FPS at a resolution of 1366 × 768, it receives one point, and for the same at a resolution of 1920 × 1080 - two more points. Thus, given that we have 13 games, the maximum score could be 39 points - it does not mean that the system is gaming, but such a system at least copes with 100% of our gaming tests. It is by the maximum result that we will normalize all the others: the points were calculated, multiplied by 100, divided by 39 - this will be the "Integral game result". For really gaming systems, it is not needed, because there everyone is more interested in nuances, and for the assessment of "universal" - it will do. It turned out more than 50 - it means that sometimes you can play something more or less comfortably; about 30 - even lowering the resolution will not help; Well, if 10-20 points (not to mention zero), then it's better not to even stutter about games with more or less 3D graphics.

As you can see, with this approach everything is simple: only AMD APUs for FM2 + (most likely, FM2) or any Intel processors with L4 cache (with eDRAM) can be considered "conditionally gaming" solutions. The latter are faster, but rather specific: firstly, they are quite expensive (it is easier to buy an inexpensive processor and a discrete video card, which will provide higher comfort in games), and secondly, most of them have BGA execution, so they are sold only in the composition of ready-made systems. AMD, on the other hand, is playing on a different field - its desktop A8 / A10 are practically uncontested if you need to assemble a computer that is in the slightest degree suitable for games, but having a minimal cost.

Other Intel solutions, as well as the younger ones (A4 / A6) and / or outdated AMD APUs, should not be considered as gaming solutions at all. Which does not mean that their owner will have nothing to play with - but the entire range of available games will also include either old or undemanding applications for graphics performance. Or both at once. For other purposes, they will have to purchase at least an inexpensive discrete video card - but not the cheapest one, since “grassroots” solutions (as has been shown more than once in the relevant reviews) are comparable to the best integrated solutions, that is, money will be wasted.

Total

In principle, we made the main conclusions on processor families directly in their reviews, so they are not required in this article - this is, first of all, a generalization of all the information obtained earlier, nothing more. More precisely, almost all - as mentioned above, we postponed some systems for a separate article, but there will be fewer of them, and the systems will be less massive. The main segment is here. In any case, if we talk about desktop systems, which are now different in performance.

Generally speaking, the past year, of course, has been rather poor in processor events: both Intel and AMD in the mass market continued to sell what debuted in 2015, or even earlier. As a result, many participants in these and last year's results turned out to be the same - especially since we tested the "historical" platforms once again (we hope that for the last time :)) But the slowest last year was Celeron N3150: 54.6 points, and the fastest - Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. In the same position, they did not change, and the results were actually the same - 53.5 and 251.2 points. The top-end system had even worse results :) Note: this is despite the significant overhaul of the software used, and in the direction of the most demanding tasks in terms of computer performance. On the other hand, the budget “old man” Pentium G2130, on the other hand, grew from 109 to 115 points over the year, just as the “non-budget old man” Core i7-3770 after the software update began to look even a little more attractive than before. On this, in fact, the idea of ​​acquiring "productivity for the future" can be closed - if someone has not done it yet;)

At the end of each year, we summarize our benchmark results for most modern processors, taking into account BIOS updates and changes in performance, and then divide the findings into three separate categories.

The first part of our ranking focuses on performance in gaming benchmarks, in the second we will touch on performance in CAD applications for workstations (real-time rendering), and finally in the third we will collect general data on performance, rendering and power consumption.

No one can always be a leader: a system that lacks performance today may surpass all others tomorrow. So if you have a good strategy, then you can be confident in your future.

This truth works, but not always. First of all, you need to understand today's PC capabilities, tomorrow's computing needs, and also have a reserve for the future. This is where you need to focus - and plan a small supply.

Unfortunately, high productivity always costs more, perhaps not even always proportionally, so it is very important to optimally determine the amount of such a stock.

Our requests, desires and financial capabilities do not always coincide. However, in this case, there is the concept of "common sense", allowing you to drop insurmountable obstacles. It is always worth combining environmental aspects, such as energy consumption and durability, with economic - costs and profitability of the purchase. Simply put, it is worth buying exactly what you really need (or will need in the near future).

Our testing methodology is described in the article ", so for convenience we will refer to this article. If you are interested in details, we recommend that you refer to it.

The differences from this method in relation to this testing are reduced to the hardware configuration: processor, RAM, motherboard and cooling system, the features of which can be found in the following table.

Let's start with two synthetic benchmarks, dividing them into two categories for DirectX11 and DirectX12 support. In 3DMark Fire Strike test greatest value has a number of cores, which improves the performance of older multi-core processors that do not run at high enough clock speeds, such as the Core i7-6950X. AMD Threadripper and Ryzen 7 also show good results. Simple quad-core processors have little chance here, as well as Intel six-core processors without Hyper-Threading support.

The pattern is repeated in 3DMark Time Spy based on DirectX12. Regardless of the software interface, there is nothing to replace the number of cores. The performance becomes even more convincing with increasing clock speeds.

As in 3DMark, core count plays a major role in Ashes of Singularity: Escalation, followed by clock speed. it good example correct load distribution between multiple threads.

In Civilization VI, the number of threads also matters, but in processors with eight or more possible threads (for example, in Intel Core i7-7700K using Hyper-Threading, important role clock frequencies also start to play. So this game needs the right balance between core count and clock speed.

In the game Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War III, the processor clock speed comes to the fore, while four well-scalable threads will be enough. This lowers Ryzen slightly and boosts the performance of Intel chips.

Grand Theft Auto V is also an Intel-dominated construction site overall. At the same time, all Ryzen do not look too bad in terms of price-performance ratio.

In Hitman 2016, the AMD world looks pretty good. At the same time, the basic performance of the chips (for example, in the case of the Intel Core i5-8400) is limited by the power of the video card used. it illustrative example that if any of the components serve as limiting factors, any increase in performance can be costly. The key to everything is the right balance: the video card must match the processor level, and vice versa.

Project Cars is completely dominated by Intel processors. Even the low-end quad-core models without Hyper-Threading are significantly ahead of Ryzen 7 and Threadripper. Ryzen 3 and Pentium fail completely, and Ryzen 7 1700 has problems with too low clock speeds. So overclocking is indispensable here.

Far Cry Primal is the second game in our tests where the graphics card is the limiting factor, but a little clarification is needed here. This game works well with eight threads, and physical cores are not necessary, a quad-core chip with Hyper-Threading will do if the clock speeds are high enough. However, with "purely" quad-core models, this trick will no longer work if their clock frequency does not go beyond certain limits. In other words, frequency is important here, but frequency alone is not enough.

In the VRMark test, we see a similar picture, and here Threadripper is already ahead of all Ryzen 7 modifications. However, this test is still the domain of Intel chips.

First, the bad news: there is no single best processor among the ones we tested, so in order to make the right choice, you need to consider all factors, such as the purpose of use, the performance required, the general concept of your PC and your budget. So good news is that everyone can find the best processor just for themselves.

Games or office applications, workstation packages or HTPCs? The applications and applications are multifaceted, and most of us already know how the new processor will be used before purchasing it. The wrong choice not only causes disappointment in the acquisition, but also often leads to significant financial losses, especially if you have to resell, exchange or completely replace components that do not fit together.

There are many options for combining components. Does your CPU match the socket on the motherboard, and if so, does the motherboard itself support it? Is the cooling system suitable in terms of power for this processor, and if so, does this cooler cover the modules? random access memory and does it interfere with the installation of a video card in the first PCI Express slot? There are such "experts" who screw a huge cooler onto a mini-ITX board, and only then think about the case ...

Processor prices fluctuate like palm trees during a tropical cyclone, and any budding assembler pays attention to them first. Therefore, we are not going to comment on the price level in any way, since as usual adjustments market prices and the relative scarcity of individual models (for example, Intel's Coffee Lake-S) makes such comments meaningless just a few days after they were uttered. Therefore, we simply present the "clean" results and leave the readers the opportunity to independently inquire about prices.

Intel is one of the two most popular processor companies for laptops and computers. Many gamers and other users consider this company to be the best and prefer its products. But Intel has a fairly wide lineup. So, figuring out which processor is more suitable for which computer is sometimes not so easy. Especially in order to make it easier for buyers to navigate in a wide range of offers from the manufacturer, we have created a rating of Intel processors. With it, you can easily choose a processor to your liking.

No. 10 - Intel Pentium G4400

Price: 5745 rubles

And our top chipset begins, called Intel Pentium G4400 - great option for budget personal computers.

This processor is based on the Skylake architecture, it consists of two cores, the clock frequency of which is 3.3 GHz. Additional performance of the device is provided by the cache memory, the volume of which here is 3072 KB.

The Pentium G4400 is also capable of image processing. There is a built-in graphics processor SkylakeIntel HD Graphics 510. Of course, it cannot completely replace a full-fledged video card, but it is enough to perform simple tasks.

This model has a special controller that supports two-way data transfer between the processor and RAM.

This controller is capable of working with memory modules up to 64 GB. So there shouldn't be any problems with installing the required amount of RAM.

Intel Pentium G4400

No. 9 - Intel Pentium G4620

Price: 7085 rubles

The Intel Pentium G4620 is a 3700 MHz dual-core processor. It is designed using a 14nm process technology. This device is based on the Kaby Lake architecture.

In this model, the cache memory is the same - 3 MB, but the graphics processor here is a little more powerful than the HD Graphics 630. Of course, if the comparison is between Pentium G4400 and G4620, then the latter option is better, but not much. It is unlikely that you will feel a significant difference in performance.

That said, the G4620 is a great processor that certainly won't suit professional gamers, but it may well meet the needs of the average user or old game enthusiast.

In general, he will cope with new games, but I will have brakes, and it will not be possible to set the settings to the maximum. If this is not a problem for you, then the G4620 is worth taking. Otherwise, take a closer look at more expensive models.

Intel Pentium G4620

# 8 - Intel Core i3-8300

Price: 12,955 rubles

Having finished with the budget segment, let's move on to the entry-level processors. Intel Core i3-8300 is already a quad-core processor with a clock speed of 3.7 GHz. There is also twice as much cache memory here - as much as 8 MB.

The Core i3-8300 comes with an excellent cooler, which, in fact, is rare for powerful processors. Usually, when you buy a really good processor, you definitely need to buy a cooling system for it, because the base one, as a rule, is terribly lacking to maintain normal working condition... But in this case, the boxed cooler copes with its task.

The Core i3-8300 is a good processor that, coupled with an equally good graphics card, can handle most modern games.

In addition, it is sold for a paltry price, considering all its advantages. So, if you need not the most powerful, but high-quality chipset, we recommend choosing the i3-8300.

Intel Core i3-8300

# 7 - Intel Core i3-8350K

Price: 13100 rubles

Intel Core i3-8350K is an improved version of the previous model. It also, like the base version, has four cores and 8 MB of cache, but its clock speed is 4 GHz.

This is enough high rate guaranteed to provide you with high performance. The main advantage of the Core i3-8350K over the Core i3-8300 is the unlocked multiplier.

That is, the processor can also be overclocked. Thus, the already high clock frequency of 4GHz can be raised to 4.6 GHz. This is pretty good overclocking for Intel processors.

Intel Core i3-8350K maintains adequate temperatures well. With active work with a computer, you are unlikely to heat it over 50 degrees, which is just an excellent indicator.

Without a doubt, in the Intel model chart, this is one of the best processors in terms of value for money.

Intel Core i3-8350K

# 6 - Intel Core i5-8400

Price: 16 575 rubles

The middle ground in the company's lineup is occupied by Core i5 chipsets. It includes quite up-to-date, but still available processors. We'll start with the Intel Core i5-8400.

This is a six-core processor with a clock speed of only 2.8 GHz, but this is only in standard mode. In a turbo boost, when maximum performance is required, it overclocks to 4 GHz. The amount of cache memory here is 9 MB.

The i5-8400 processor is quite popular, because it has six ultra-fast cores and is sold for a fairly decent price compared to older models.

Overall, this is a more than decent processor. The only downside is that it experiences sharp jumps in temperature, but usually it does not heat up above 61 degrees. This model is more than enough for any modern games.

Intel Core i5-8400

# 5 - Intel Core i5-8600

Price: 18990 rubles

The improved 5th Gen Intel Core i5-8600 six-core processor has a significantly higher clock speed. The base frequency is 3.1 GHz, but in turbo mode this figure rises to 4.3 GHz. Otherwise, the specifications are the same here.

The undoubted advantage of the Core i5-8600 is that in some cases, its performance can be equal to even the newest processor models from Intel.

There is also very little heat dissipation, which is quite good for such a powerful chip. In short, the i5-8600 is a great mid-range member that will give you maximum performance even in new games.

Intel Core i5-8600

# 4 - Intel Core i5-9600K

Price: 21750 rubles

The Intel Core i5-9600K, being the most advanced model in the lineup, has once again left with an increase in clock speed. Here this figure is equal to 3.7 GHz. And when you use turbo mode, the processor accelerates to an incredible 4.6 GHz.

The Core i5-9600K is the best Intel processor to date. Then there are the models for those who are eagerly trying to accumulate as much power as possible for years to come.

When using i5-9600K and a good video card, sufficient RAM and other adequate technical characteristics, you shouldn't have any performance issues in modern games.

Intel Core i5-9600K

# 3 - Intel Core i7-8700K

Price: 23615 rubles

So we moved on to the most powerful line of Intel - Core i7. We'll start with a model like the Core i7-8700K. There are as many cores here as in the previous models - 6, and the maximum clock frequency is the same.

But the i7-8700K has a significantly increased cache size - 12288 KB. Also, a more powerful graphics core HD Graphics 630 at 1200 MHz was installed here.

12 threads provide a significant headroom, thanks to which the Intel Core i7-8700K will be relevant for many years to come. The fact that with the presence of the appropriate video card, all modern games will go even at ultra-settings, probably not worth mentioning, this is understandable.

Intel Core i7-8700K

# 2 - Intel Core i7-9700K

Price: 34299 rubles

The Intel Core i7-9700K processor is based on an architecture codenamed Coffee Lake-R. It has 8 cores and is based on a 14 nm technical process. The clock speed of the processor cores is 3.6 GHz, and the cache memory is 12 MB.

In fact, the Core i7-9700K repeats the previous model, but already contains 8 cores and 16 threads, which further increases the headroom of the processor.

With such a processor, you can not only play, but stream modern games in good quality. There is also an unlocked multiplier and, as a result, the ability to overclock the cores.

The only problem is the very high price, but power comes at a premium.

Intel Core i7-9700K

# 1 - Intel Core i9-7960X

Price: 113,030 rubles

So we come to the first place where the Core i9-7960X is located - this is the best latest generation processor from Intel to date.

It costs three times more than the previous model, but this is more than justified, because there are as many as 16 cores operating at a clock frequency of 2.2 GHz. In turbo mode, it is possible to overclock the frequency up to 4.2 GHz. Supports 22 MB cache.

If you have a lot of money, you can buy this processor and not worry about your computer not being able to handle something for many years to come. But if you only want modern games, you can pick up something cheaper.

Intel Core i9-7960X

Above are the most best models processors from Intel. Among them, you can easily select an option for yourself that will meet your needs and financial capabilities, because all the chips presented here are best solutions for its price.

Computers have entered our lives so tightly that we already consider them to be something elementary. But their structure cannot be called simple in any way. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drives: all these are integral parts of a computer. You cannot throw out this or that detail, because they are all important. But the most important role is played by the processor. It is not for nothing that it is called “central”.

The role of the CPU is enormous. He is responsible for all calculations, which means that it depends on him how quickly you will complete your tasks. It can be surfing the web, drafting a document in a word processor, editing photos, moving files, and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main load falls on the shoulders of the graphics accelerator, the central processor plays a huge role, and with an incorrectly selected "stone", the performance of even the most powerful video card will not be revealed to its fullest.

At the moment, there are only two in the consumer market large manufacturers processors: AMD and Intel. We will talk about them in the traditional rating.

The best inexpensive processors: budget up to 5000 rubles.

4 Intel Celeron G3900 Skylake

Most Affordable Intel Processor
Country: USA
Average price: 4 381 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5

The rating is opened by an extremely weak Celeron processor. The G3900 model has two cores of the previous generation - Skylake, which, together with the 2.8 GHz frequency, gives the lowest performance result. In synthetic tests, the processor shows a result about half that of the Core i3. But the price here is also quite budgetary - 4-4.5 thousand rubles. This means that this processor is perfect for assembling, for example, a simple office computer or a multimedia system for the living room. In general, this model cannot be called bad. Still, the 14 nm process technology provides good energy efficiency, and the HD Graphics 510 graphics core is suitable for casual games.

Advantages:

• The most low price in class
• Perfect for office PC or HTPC

Disadvantages:

• Does not support Hyper-Threading Technology

3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo

Best price
Country:
Average price: 3 070 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5

Athlon processors belong to the budget class, which is clearly seen from the cost of the bronze medalist. But for a little over three thousand rubles, you will get a very interesting stone. There are 4 cores (2 logical cores for each physical), made according to the 28 nm process technology. Due to this, the power consumption is low, and the heat dissipation is quite low for AMD - only 65 W. True, you don't have to rejoice at this because of the locked multiplier - you won't be able to overclock the processor. Also, the disadvantages include the lack of an integrated graphics core, which means that when assembling an office PC or a multimedia system, you will have to buy a video card separately.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in class
• Excellent performance at this cost

Disadvantages:

• Lack of built-in graphics core
• Multiplier not unlocked

2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera

The only 6-core processor in its class
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 4 160 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

AMD's FX-6300 is the only processor in the six-core category. Unfortunately, there is no reason to hope for high power in the budget class - the model is based on the 2012 Vishera core. In normal mode, the cores operate at a frequency of 3.5 GHz, but, like many AMD CPUs, it overclocks perfectly. Yes, the performance, judging by user reviews, is sufficient even for games, but there are still enough disadvantages.

One of the main ones is high energy consumption. Due to the inexpensive 32nm process technology, AMD is very hot and consumes a lot of electricity. Also note the lack of support for modern DDR4 RAM. Because of this, the processor can be advised not for assembling a new PC, but for updating an old one without replacing the motherboard and other components.

Advantages:

• 6 cores. Perfect for performing several simple tasks at the same time.
• Good overclocking potential
• Low cost

Disadvantages:

• Poor energy efficiency
• Obsolete platform

At the moment, there are only two players on the processor market - Intel and AMD. But the choice doesn't get any easier. To facilitate the decision to purchase a CPU from one manufacturer or another, we have highlighted for you several main pros and cons of the products of these companies.

1 Intel Pentium G4600 Kaby Lake

Better performance
Country: USA
Average price: 7 450 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

It is the good old Pentium that we can recommend for purchase in this category. This processor, like the previous participants, is made using a 14 nm process technology, socket LGA1151. Belongs to one of the latest generations - Kaby Lake. There are, of course, only 2 cores. They operate at 3.6 GHz, which is about 18-20% behind the Core i3. But this is not much, because the price difference is twofold! In addition to the core frequency, the relatively low power is due to the small size of the L3 cache - 3071 KB.

In addition to the excellent price-performance ratio, the advantages of this CPU include the presence of an integrated graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630, which is more than enough for comfortable use of a PC without a discrete graphics card.

Advantages:

• Great value for this performance
• Generation Kaby Lake
• Good on-board graphics

The best processors of the middle class: budget up to 20,000 rubles.

5 Intel Core i3-7320 Kaby Lake

Most Affordable Processor with Integrated Graphics
Country: USA
Average price: 12 340 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

Let's open the rating with the most affordable i-core processor. The model is extremely difficult to call excellent in terms of price / quality ratio, because the cheaper ryzen 3 shows even a few top scores in synthetic tests. Nevertheless, the model that opens the TOP-5 can be safely chosen not only for an office system, but also for a gaming computer.

There are only two physical cores, but these are modern 14 nm chips of one of the latest generations - Kaby lake. The frequency is 4100 MHz. This is a very shameful indicator. In addition, there is the possibility of overclocking. Considering the excellent energy efficiency and low heat dissipation - even with a complete cooler in idle, the temperature is kept at 35-40 degrees, under load up to 70 degrees - you can painlessly increase the frequencies. Unlike competitors from AMD, the Core i3 has an integrated graphics core, which allows it to be used in an office system without a discrete graphics card. But keep in mind that it officially only works on Windows 10.

Advantages:

• Integrated graphics
• Overclocking capability
• Low temperatures

Disadvantages:

• Poor performance for a given cost

4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge

Best price
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 6 917 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Ryzen 3 is AMD's youngest low-cost new line of processors, designed to re-impose the fight on Intel. And the 1200 does the job just fine. For 7 thousand rubles, the buyer gets a 4-core processor. The factory frequencies are low - only 3.1 GHz (in the increased performance mode of 3.4 GHz), but the multiplier is unlocked, which means that enthusiasts can easily make the "stone" a little faster.

Switching to new chips not only improved performance, but also reduced power consumption, and also allowed temperatures to be reduced to acceptable values. Due to the lack of an integrated graphics chip, we can only recommend this processor for budget gaming builds. The performance is only slightly higher than that of the previous participant.

Advantages:

• Unlocked multiplier

Disadvantages:

• No onboard graphics chip

3 Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake

Great processor for gaming
Country: USA
Average price: 19 084 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

To begin with, the i5-7600K is by no means an outsider. Yes, in terms of performance, it is slightly worse than the mastodons, which you will see below, but for most gamers it will be enough with a head. The processor has four Kaby Lake cores clocked at 3.8 GHz (in reality up to 4.0 GHz with TurboBoost). There is also a built-in graphics core - HD Graphics 630, which means that you can even play demanding games at the "minimum". With a normal video card (for example, GTX 1060), the processor reveals itself completely. In most games at FullHD resolution (these are the monitors most gamers have) and high graphics settings, the frame rate rarely drops below 60 fps. Do you need something else?

Advantages:

• Best price
• Sufficient power for most gamers
• Excellent graphics core

2 AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Summit Ridge

Best price / performance ratio
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 11 970 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8

The second line of the TOP-5 processors of the middle level is occupied by one of the best processors in terms of price / performance ratio. With an average cost of only 12,000 rubles, in synthetic tests Ryzen 5 is able to compete with the well-known Intel Core i7-7700K at standard settings (in PassMark 12270 and 12050 points, respectively). This power is due to the presence of six Summit Ridge physical cores, made using a 12 nm process technology. The clock speed is not a record - 3.6 GHz. The possibility of overclocking is present, but in the reviews, users claim that at frequencies above 4.0-4.1 GHz, the processor behaves unstable and heats up a lot. With the factory settings in idle, the temperatures are kept at 42-46 degrees, in games 53-57 when using the standard cooler.

Also, high performance is due to large cache volumes of all levels. The CPU supports the modern DDR4-2667 standard, which makes it possible to create excellent computers based on this processor for playing at medium-high settings in FullHD.

Advantages:

• Excellent price / performance ratio
• Heats up a little

Disadvantages:

• Low overclocking potential

1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge

The most powerful processor in the class
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China, China)
Average price: 17 100 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8

As expected, the top-of-the-line Ryzen 7 processor has the best performance in its class. Again, we cannot but recall the cost - for 17 thousand rubles we get power at the level of the top Core i7 of previous years. The processor includes eight cores, split into two clusters. The standard clock speed is only 3.0 GHz, the Ryzen 7 is guaranteed to overclock to 3.7, and with a little luck, up to 4.1 GHz.

Like the previous representatives of the line, the leader is made according to the 12 nm process technology, which allows economical energy consumption. The situation with heat dissipation is good - in stress tests, temperatures are kept at the level of 70-75 degrees.

Advantages:

• High performance
• There is a possibility of overclocking
• Fresh platform that will be supported for at least 4 years

The best top processors

3 Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake

Most popular top processor
Average price: 29 060 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

Most recently, the i7-7700K was the top processor in the Intel lineup. But technologies are developing extremely quickly, and in 2018 it is difficult to recommend this particular chip for purchase. In synthetic tests, the model clearly lags behind its competitors - in PassMark, the CPU gains only 12 thousand points, which is comparable to modern mid-range processors. But these figures are achieved at standard settings, when 4 physical cores run at 4.2 GHz, and the CPU can be easily overclocked to even higher frequencies, thereby increasing performance.

Yes, the bronze medalist lags behind the competitors, but it costs at least half the price, and given the popularity it is quite possible to find a good used processor. Also, the high prevalence and long-standing presence on the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with an LGA1151 socket. In general, we have before us an excellent base for a powerful gaming system at a relatively low cost.

Advantages:

• Good price for this class
• High performance
• Great overclocking capabilities
• High popularity

Disadvantages:

• Not quite relevant in 2018

2 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake

The most powerful processor in the Intel line
Country: USA
Average price: 77 370 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Until recently, Intel's top line was the Core i7 series. But modern realities demand more and more power. If you are not familiar with solutions, take a look at the Core i9-7900X. The processor is able to enter the TOP-10 of the most powerful CPUs already at a standard clock frequency. For example, in PassMark, the model scores almost 22 thousand points, which is twice as much as the bronze medalist of the rating. At the same time, in the reviews, users talk about trouble-free overclocking to 4.2-4.5 GHz in the presence of high-quality air cooling... Temperatures do not exceed 70 degrees under load.

This high performance is due to the use of 10 cores, made using a 14 nm process technology. The model supports all the necessary modern standards and commands, which allows it to be used for any task.

Advantages:

• Highest performance
• Excellent overclocking potential
• Acceptable temperatures

Disadvantages:

• Very high cost
• No solder under the lid.

1 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

The leader of the rating is insane in everything - from the price of 65 thousand rubles to incredible performance. In terms of power in synthetic tests, the model slightly outperforms the previous participant. At the same time, the internal structure is significantly different. Threadripper uses 16 (!) Cores. The clock speed is comparable to the Core i9 - 3400 MHz - but the overclocking capabilities are more modest. Stable "stone" operates at a frequency of 3.9 GHz, with an increase in rates, the necessary stability is lost.

Such a large number of cores shows itself well in all tasks. But using a monster for games is not entirely reasonable - not all projects can reveal its potential. AMD is useful for professional video editors, 3D designers, and more. - in professional software, an increase in cores gives a tangible increase in render speed.

Advantages:

• Relatively low price tag
• High power
• Excellent performance in professional programs