Almost every year, a new generation of Intel Xeon E5 CPUs enter the market. In each generation, the socket and technological process alternately change. There are more and more cores, and the heat dissipation is gradually decreasing. But a natural question arises: “What does the new architecture give to the end user?”

To do this, I decided to test the performance of similar processors of different generations. I decided to compare models of the mass segment: 8-core processors 2660, 2670, 2640V2, 2650V2, 2630V3 and 2620V4. Testing with such a generational spread is not entirely fair, because between V2 and V3 there is a different chipset, a new generation memory with a higher frequency, and most importantly - there are no direct peers in frequency among models of all 4 generations. But, in any case, this study will help to understand to what extent the performance of new processors has increased in real applications and synthetic tests.

The selected line of processors has many similar parameters: the same number of cores and threads, 20 MB SmartCache, 8 GT/s QPI (except 2640V2) and the number of PCI-E lanes is 40.

To assess the feasibility of testing all processors, I turned to the PassMark test results.

Below is a summary graph of the results:

Since the frequency is significantly different, it is not entirely correct to compare the results. But despite this, the conclusions immediately suggest themselves:

1. 2660 is equivalent in performance to 2620V4
2. 2670 outperforms 2620V4 (obviously due to frequency)
3. 2640V2 sags, and 2650V2 beats everyone (also due to frequency)

I divided the result by the frequency and got some performance value at 1 GHz:

Here the results are more interesting and visual:

1. 2660 and 2670 - an unexpected run for me within one generation, 2670 justifies only that its overall performance is very high
2. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - a very strange low result, which is worse than 2660
3. 2630V3 and 2620V4 - the only logical growth (apparently just due to new architecture...)

After analyzing the result, I decided to weed out some of the uninteresting models that have no value for further testing:

1. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - an intermediate generation, and not very successful, in my opinion - I remove it from the candidates
2. 2630V3 is an excellent result, but it costs unreasonably more than 2620V4, given the similar performance and, moreover, this is already an outgoing generation of processors
3. 2620V4 - reasonable price (compared to 2630V3), high performance and, most importantly, this is the only model of the latest generation 8-core processor with Hyper-threading in our list, so we definitely leave it for further tests
4. 2660 and 2670 are excellent results compared to 2620V4. In my opinion, it is the comparison of the first and last (at the moment) generation in the Intel Xeon E5 line that is of particular interest. In addition, we still have sufficient stocks of first-generation processors in stock, so this comparison is very relevant for us.

The cost of servers based on 2660 and 2620V4 processors can differ by almost 2 times not in favor of the latter, therefore, by comparing their performance and choosing a server based on V1 processors, you can significantly reduce the budget for buying a new server. But I will talk about this proposal after the results of testing.

For testing, 3 stands were assembled:

1. 2 x Xeon E5-2660, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
2. 2 x Xeon E5-2670, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
3. 2 x Xeon E5-2620V4, 8 x 8Gb DDR4 ECC REG 2133, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb

PassMark PerformanceTest 9.0

When selecting processors for tests, I already used the results of synthetic tests, but now it is interesting to compare these models in more detail. The comparison was made in groups: the 1st generation against the 4th.

A more detailed test report allows us to draw some conclusions:

1. Mathematics, incl. and floating point, mainly depends on the frequency. The difference of 100 MHz allowed the 2660 to outperform the 2620V4 in computational operations, in encryption and compression (and this despite a significant difference in memory frequency)
2. Physics and calculations using extended instructions on the new architecture are performed better, despite the low frequency
3. And, of course, the test with the use of memory passed in favor of V4 processors, since in this case different generations of memory competed - DDR4 and DDR3.

It was synthetic. Let's see what specialized benchmarks and real applications will show.

7ZIP archiver

Here the results are in line with the previous test - a direct link to the processor frequency. At the same time, it doesn't matter that a slower memory is installed - V1 processors confidently take the lead in frequency.

CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH is a computer performance benchmark for MAXON Cinema 4D professional animation software.

Xeon E5-2670 pulled out in frequency and beat 2620V4. But the E5-2660, which has a less visible advantage in frequency, lost to the 4th generation processor. Hence the conclusion - this software uses useful additions of the new architecture (although perhaps it's all about memory ...), but not so much that it was a decisive factor.

3DS MAX + V-Ray

To evaluate the performance of processors when rendering in a real application, I took a bunch: 3ds Max 2016 + V-ray 3.4 + a real scene with several light sources, specular and transparent materials, and an environment map.

The results were similar to CINEBENCH: the Xeon E5-2670 had the lowest render time, while the 2660 couldn't beat the 2620V4.

1С: SQL/File

In conclusion of testing, I enclose the results of gilev tests for 1C.

When testing a database with file access, the E5-2620V4 processor confidently leads. The table shows the average values ​​of 20 runs of the same test. The difference between the results of each stand in the case of the file base was no more than 2%.

A single-threaded SQL database test showed some very strange results. The difference turned out to be negligible, given the different frequencies for 2660 and 2670, and the different frequencies for DDR3 and DDR4. There was an attempt to optimize the SQL settings, but the results turned out to be worse than it was, so I decided to test all the stands on the basic settings.

The results of the multi-threaded SQL test turned out to be even more strange and inconsistent. The maximum speed of 1 thread in MB/s was equivalent to the performance index in the previous single-threaded test.

The next parameter was the maximum speed (of all streams) - the result was almost identical for all stands. Since the results of different runs fluctuated greatly (+ -5%) - sometimes they were at different stands with a significant margin both in one direction and in the other. The same average multi-threaded SQL test results lead me to 3 thoughts:

1. This situation is caused by an unoptimized SQL configuration
2. SSD became the bottleneck of the system and did not allow processors to overclock
3. There is almost no difference between the frequency of memory and processors for these tasks (which is extremely unlikely)

Also, the result for the “Recommended number of users” parameter turned out to be inexplicable. The average result of the 2660 turned out to be the highest of all - and this is despite the low results of all tests.
I will also be glad to see your comments on this issue.

conclusions

The results of several comprehensive computational tests showed that the frequency of the processor in most cases turned out to be more important than the generation, architecture, and even memory frequency. Of course, there is modern software that uses all the improvements of the new architecture. For example, video transcoding is sometimes performed incl. using AVX2.0 instructions, but this is specialized software - and most server applications are still tied to the number and frequency of cores.

Of course, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no difference between processors, I just want to note that for certain applications there is no point in a "planned" transition to a new generation.

If you do not agree with me or you have suggestions for testing, the stands have not been dismantled yet, and I will be happy to test your tasks.

economic benefit

As I wrote at the beginning of the article, we offer a line of servers based on the first generation Xeon E5 processors, which are significantly more expensive than servers based on the E5-2620V4.
These are the same new servers (not to be confused with used ones) with a 3-year warranty.

Below is an approximate calculation.

Intel is one of the two most popular companies developing processors 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 range. So, sometimes it’s not so easy to figure out which processor for which computer is more suitable. In order to make it easier for buyers to navigate in a wide range offers from the manufacturer, we have created a rating of Intel processors. With it, you can easily choose the processor to your liking.

#10 - Intel Pentium G4400

Price: 5745 rubles

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

This processor is based on the Skylake architecture and consists of two cores clocked at 3.3 GHz. Additional performance device provides cache memory, the volume of which here is 3072 KB.

The Pentium G4400 is also capable of image processing. There is an integrated 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 problems with installing the required amount of RAM should not arise.

Intel Pentium G4400

#9 - Intel Pentium G4620

Price: 7085 rubles

The Intel Pentium G4620 is a dual core processor clocked at 3700 MHz. It is developed using a 14nm process technology. The basis of this device is the Kaby Lake architecture.

This model has the same amount of cache memory - 3 MB, but the graphics processor here is slightly more powerful than the HD Graphics 630. Of course, if you are comparing the Pentium G4400 and G4620, then the latter option is better, but not by much. It is unlikely that you will feel a significant difference in performance.

However, the G4620 is an excellent processor, which is certainly not suitable for professional gamers, but may well satisfy the needs of the average user or lover of old games.

In general, it will cope with new games, but I will slow down, and it will not work to set the settings to the maximum. If this is not a problem for you, then the G4620 is worth taking. Otherwise, it is better to look at more expensive models.

Intel Pentium G4620

#8 - Intel Core i3-8300

Price: 12955 rubles

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

The Core i3-8300 comes with an excellent cooler, which is actually a rarity 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 insufficient to maintain a normal working condition. But in this case, the boxed cooler copes well with its task.

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

In addition, it is sold for a meager price, given 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, like the basic version, has four cores and 8 MB of cache, but it has a clock speed of 4 GHz.

This is enough high rate, which is guaranteed to give you 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 4 GHz can be raised to 4.6 GHz. This is a pretty good overclocking for Intel processors.

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

Without a doubt, in the table of Intel models, this is one of the best processors in terms of price and quality.

Intel Core i3-8350K

#6 - Intel Core i5-8400

Price: 16575 rubles

The golden mean in the company's lineup is occupied by Core i5 chipsets. It includes quite relevant, but still affordable processors. Let's start with the Intel Core i5-8400.

It's a six-core processor clocked at just 2.8GHz, but that's only in Standard mode. In turbo boost, when maximum performance is required, it accelerates 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 quite a decent price compared to older models.

In general, this is more than a decent processor. The only downside is that it has sudden temperature fluctuations, but usually it does not heat up above 61 degrees. For any modern games, this model is more than enough.

Intel Core i5-8400

#5 - Intel Core i5-8600

Price: 18990 rubles

The improved six-core processor of the fifth generation Intel Core i5-8600 has a significantly higher clock speed. The base frequency is 3.1 GHz, but in turbo mode this figure increases to 4.3 GHz. Otherwise, the technical specifications are the same.

The undoubted advantage of the Core i5-8600 is that in some cases its performance can be equal to even the newest models of processors 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-ranger 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 taken off with an increase in clock speed. Here, this figure is 3.7 GHz. And when you turn on the turbo mode, the processor accelerates to an incredible 4.6 GHz.

The Core i5-9600K is the best Intel processor available today. Next up are models for those who are greedily trying to accumulate as much power as possible for years to come.

With the i5-9600K and a good graphics card, enough RAM and other adequate specs, 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 will begin its consideration with such a model as the Core i7-8700K. There are as many cores here as in previous models - 6, and the maximum clock frequency is the same.

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

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

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 the 14nm process technology. The clock frequency of the processor cores is 3.6 GHz, and the amount of cache memory here 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 power reserve 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 you have to pay a lot for the power.

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 processor of the latest generation 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 running at a clock speed of 2.2 GHz. In turbo mode, it is possible to overclock the frequency up to 4.2 GHz. Supports 22MB cache.

If you have a lot of money, you can buy this processor and not worry about your computer not pulling something for many years to come. But if you only need 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 choose an option that will meet your needs and financial capabilities, because all the chips presented here are best solutions for your price.

Considering best processors 2017, it is worth noting that the performance of each is enough to run gaming applications.

Even budget versions, together with the right memory and graphics card, can easily run a modern game with a good resolution.

And you can choose the model that suits you according to several parameters - cache memory, frequency, number of cores and threads, power consumption and, of course, price.

Features of choice

The processor frequency, which is an important parameter of this device, modern models is at the level of 3-4 GHz. And although some of them can increase this characteristic when overclocking or turning on the turbo mode, of great importance it doesn't have.

Much more important for running games and applications are the characteristics of a video card that works with the central processor.

Another important parameter is the energy consumption during operation, on which the power of the computer's power supply and cooling cooler depends. This figure is significantly lower for Intel models and higher for AMD processors. However, the higher the performance of the device, the smaller the difference in power consumption between the top versions - regardless of the manufacturer, they have a power of about 90 watts.

The speed of data processing depends on the number of cores and threads. The higher these numbers, the higher the likelihood of launching not only a modern and resource-demanding game on a computer, but also any applications over the next few years. Most modern processors have 4 to 8 cores. And dual-core are considered almost obsolete - especially if you use them for games.

Ryzen 7 1800X is the best gaming processor

Released in 2017, the Ryzen 7 series of processors includes whole line top models, the oldest of which is the 1800X. The performance of each thread and core is inferior to the capabilities of a similar Intel Core i7 model, but the device wins due to their number. Octa-core processor processes a large number of information and can be overclocked from 3.6 to 4 GHz.

Additional advantages of buying a processor include Neural Net Prediction technology, which, in fact, is a built-in artificial intelligence to speed up data processing. And among the minuses, one can note the absence of "boxed versions", that is, models that are immediately equipped with a powerful cooler. The cooling system for Ryzen 7 will have to be purchased separately.

Model characteristics:

• socket: AM4;
• frequency (normal / turbo): 3.6 / 4.0 GHz;
• L3 cache: 16 MB;
• cores/threads: 8/16;
• power: 95 W;
• price: from 28000 rub.

Rice. 1. Ryzen 7 1800X.

Core i7-7700K - maximum performance from Intel

The lineup Intel processors also have their own leader - i7-7700K, featuring high performance and clock speed. At the same time, the device consumes a relatively large amount of electricity - almost as much as the top-end AMD. And the processor frequency can vary within 4.2-4.7 GHz - enough to support any, even the most demanding games of 2016, 2017 and, most likely, 2018.

Although, in order for the device to run resource-intensive applications, it should be used together with a suitable memory and video card (from 8 GB and from 4 GB, respectively). The capabilities of the built-in graphics processor for the game will not be enough - but it will be enough to play video in the best resolution to date.

Main settings:

• power consumption: 91 W;
• socket: 1151;
• frequency: 4.2 GHz (4.5 GHz in turbo mode);
• L3 cache: 8 MB;
• number of cores/processes: 4/4;
• average price: 25,000 rubles.

Rice. 2. i7-7700K.

Core i5-7500 - fast gaming processor

If prices above 20 thousand rubles seemed too high to the user, he can buy an Intel processor of the previous series - Core i5-7500.

The price will be half as compared to the i7 models, and the performance and size of the third-level cache are practically not inferior to the "older" versions. With a good graphics card and 8-16 GB of RAM, this processor can run any game released to date.

The advantages of the model include the built-in graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630, which supports videos with a resolution of 4K. And support for DirectX 12 technology provides even better interaction with games, allowing you to call the processor both fast and gaming.

Model characteristics:

• power, W: 65;
• frequency, GHz: 3.4–3.8;
• socket: 1151;
• threads and cores: 4/4;
• cache L3, MB: 6;
• prices, rub.: from 11600 rub.

Rice. 3. Intel Core i5-7500.

Ryzen 5 1600X - Midrange AMD

A more economical, but practically not inferior in terms of capabilities to the top model, there is also an option in the Ryzen 5 line from AMD. The 1600X processor is in the top five best offers manufacturer. However, it costs almost 40% less.

The operating frequency and cache model are fully consistent with the Rysen 7 series, and the only important difference is the smaller number of cores. However, if you do not use the processor at full capacity, the difference will be almost imperceptible. Moreover, the speed of the device is increased thanks to the same built-in "artificial intelligence".

Technical specifications:

• socket version: AM4;
• frequency: 3.6 (4.0 in turbo mode);
• L3 cache: 16 MB;
• cores/threads: 6/12;
• power consumption: 95 W;
• cost: from 16,000 rubles.

Rice. 4. Ryzen 5 1600X.

Intel Core i3-7100 is a good gaming processor

Users who prefer to build their computer based on Intel processors and at the same time not pay more than $1000 for a system unit should pay attention to the Core i3-7100 model.

A device with two cores, but with four threads will cope with the launch of even those games that have a Core i5 or i7 parameter in the minimum requirements. To do this, the processor must be installed on a PC with a sufficient amount of RAM and graphics memory. Although DirectX 12 support and integrated video are already built into this model, which allow it to work even without a discrete graphics card.

Main characteristics:

• frequency and socket: 3.9 GHz, 1151;
• L3 cache: 3 MB;
• number of threads/cores: 4/2;
• processor power consumption: 51 W;
• cost: 6300–9700 rubles.

Rice. 5. Intel Core i3-7100.

AMD FX-6300 - profitable and fast

The manufacturer AMD, whose products have always been less expensive compared to Intel models, allows you to choose an excellent alternative to a budget gaming processor.

For example, the FX-6300, which may come with an inexpensive motherboard and 8 GB of RAM.

This set will provide work with most modern games and applications. Moreover, with the help of the FX-6300 processor, it is quite possible to watch two different films on two monitors, record streams and process video.

Model Features:

• socket: AM3+;
• power consumption parameters: 95 W;
• processor frequency: 3.5 GHz;
• cache memory level 3: 8 MB;
• cores and threads: 6/6;
• online prices: from 4400 rubles.

Rice. 6. AMD FX-6300.

Pentium G4560 - cheap gaming processor

Another budget Intel model is the Pentium G4560, which you can buy when building an inexpensive gaming PC.

If you use this processor for assembly, the cost of the kit (without monitor) will not exceed $500. And the resources of the resulting computer will be enough either to run modern games at minimum settings, or for older gaming applications.

An RX 460 or GTX 7xx video card (for example, Nvidia 750 Ti) that matches its price and performance is best suited to such a processor.

Processor features:

• slot: Socket 1151;
• frequency: 3.5 GHz;
• power consumption: 54 W;
• Level 3 cache: 3 MB;
• cores/threads: 2/4;
• prices: from 3500 rubles.

Rice. 7. Pentium G4560.

Athlon X4 860K - budget processor from AMD

If the user does not care about the power consumption of the processor, it is advisable to pay attention to the X4 860K model, which differs in the optimal ratio of performance and price.

For only 2800-3000 rubles, the user gets at his disposal a device without an integrated graphics processor, but with a silent cooler and four cores. Moreover, another advantage of the processor is compatibility with inexpensive motherboards for the FM2 + socket, although they do not support either modern memory or new video cards.

Specifications:

• processor socket: FM2+;
• frequency: 3.7 GHz;
• number of cores and threads: 4/4;
• cache memory of the third level: no;
• power: 95 W;
• price: from 2800 rubles.

Rice. 8. Athlon X4 860K.

AMD A10-7890K - great opportunities and savings on video

For users who prefer integrated graphics, the AMD A10-7890K processor is a good option. Among its advantages is the ability to run many modern gaming applications even without using a powerful graphics card.

The characteristics of the device are roughly comparable to RX460 GPUs, which means it is suitable for most eSports games like DOTA2 and CS:GO with high image quality.

Subsequently, a discrete graphics card can be purchased for the A10-7890K, expanding the possibilities of using the computer. Often this is exactly what gamers do, buying parts for a budget gaming PC in stages - as far as their financial capabilities.

Part parameters:

• Socket: FM2+;
• processor frequency: 4.1 GHz;
• cores/threads: 4/4;
• power consumption: 95 W;
• average price: 8000 rubles.

Rice. 9. A10-7890K.

A10-7860K - the most profitable of gaming processors

If you want to buy a decent and inexpensive processor with integrated graphics, you can pay attention to the A10-7860K - the "younger" model A10-7890K.

The speed of work and most of the characteristics of the devices differ little from each other. But choosing more affordable option, the cost of assembling a computer is reduced by another $ 30–35, almost without noticing a decrease in performance.

Processor options:

• number of cores/threads: 4/4;
• socket: FM2+;
• frequency: 3.6 GHz;
• power: 65 W;
• cost in the network: 6000 rubles.

Rice. 10. A10-7860K.

conclusions

Based on the results of the review of the best modern processors in their class, we can draw conclusions about a good assortment modern market.

Depending on financial capabilities and computer requirements, any user can find a suitable chipset.

For example, Intel i7 and Ryzen 7 for powerful gaming and graphics work. Or the Athlon X4 860K and Pentium G4560 for less demanding gaming applications. And gamers who want to save money, run more or less modern games, should give preference to the i5 series from Intel or Ryzen 5 from AMD.

As for office applications, there are no suitable models for them in 2017 - all these programs run perfectly on PCs with processors released several years ago.

CES2017: Processors of the Year 2017

Everything that was shown at #CES2017 about central and hybrid processors: Intel Kaby Lake, AMD Ryzen Summit Ridge, Qualcomm Snapdragon 835.

Part 1: 53 Integrated Graphics Configurations

A change of the year on the calendar, as a rule, leads to an update in the methods of testing computer systems, and, therefore, to summing up the results of testing of central processors (which is a special case of testing systems) conducted in the past year. In principle, we received the bulk of the results 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, this did not work out: the “original” version of Windows 10 used in the tests according to the 2016 method is incompatible with Intel graphics drivers suitable for HD Graphics 630. More precisely, of course, on the contrary: this driver requires at least 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 set violates the concept of tests "in the closest possible conditions." However, tests of new processors according to the 2017 methodology have already shown that there is nothing truly “new” in them - as expected. Therefore, it is possible to do without the results of Skylake Refresh for the time being, 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 (each one is different) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X, and four with different types memory. In total, 80 configurations were obtained. It’s 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 turned out, 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 either: these are still fundamentally different platforms. The “immensity” of the final articles according to 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, part of the computer systems had to be taken out into a separate line of tests, and then summarize 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 everything - exclusively using the integrated GPU (also different for everyone). To some extent, this is a return to the results of 2014 - only more results. And in the near future, those who wish will be able to get acquainted with summary material based on testing 21 processors with the same Radeon R9 380. Some of the participants intersect, 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, also includes information on several “specialized” tests, which is somewhat difficult to add to the final materials.

Test stand configuration

Since there are many subjects, it is not possible to describe in detail their characteristics. After some thought, we decided to abandon the usual short table: anyway, it becomes too vast, and at the request of the workers, we still put some parameters directly on the diagrams, as in the past year. In particular, since some people ask to indicate right there the number of cores / modules and computational threads performed simultaneously, as well as the ranges of operating clock frequencies, we tried to do just that, adding information about the heat pack at the same time. The format is simple: “cores (or modules)/threads; minimum-maximum core clock frequency in GHz; TDP in Watts.

Well, all other characteristics will have to be looked at in other places - the easiest way is from manufacturers, and prices - 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 the actual study of processors: we collect the data obtained together and look at the resulting patterns. Including, paying attention to the relative position of not processors, but of entire platforms that include them. Because of this, the grouping of data on the charts is by platform.

Therefore, it remains only to say a few words about the environment. As for memory, the fastest supported by the specification was always used, with the exception of the case that we called "Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)" - processors under 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 drive () - the same for all subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: in this article, only data obtained with the built-in video core was used. Accordingly, those processors where it is not present are automatically sent to the next part of the totals.

Test Methodology

The methodology is described in detail. Here we will briefly inform you that for the results, two of the four standard “modules” are the main ones: and. As for gaming performance, as has been demonstrated more than once, it is mainly determined by the video card used, so these applications are primarily relevant for GPU tests, and discrete ones at that. 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 responsibly approach the choice and configuration of the game for a specific system. On the other hand, for a quick assessment of the capabilities of integrated graphics, our “Integrated Gaming Result” is quite suitable (first of all, this is a qualitative, not a quantitative assessment), so we will also give it.

Let's pretend that the detailed results of all tests are available as . 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 the Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD). The same approach is used when testing laptops and other off-the-shelf systems, so that all 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 traditionally gravitates towards multi-core processors. But when comparing formally identical models different years release, it is clearly seen that the quality of the cores is no less important here than their number, and the functionality (primarily) of the integrated GPU is also important here. However, lovers of “maximum performance” still have nothing to please: AMD has never played in this market (even the company plans to lose the fastest IGP processors), while Intel has solutions for LGA115x, where performance per thread increases little by little with the platform number and clock frequency, but while maintaining the formula "four cores - eight threads", and the frequencies cannot be said to be very actively increased. As a result, comparing the Core i7-3770 and Core i7-6700K gives us a 25% increase in performance over five years: those same notorious “5% per year” that people usually complain about. On the other hand, in a pair of Pentium G4520/G2130 the difference is already quite significant 40%, and the new models of these processors for LGA1151 have got support for Hyper-Threading, so they behave like the Core i3-6100 with all the consequences. In the field of non-tablet solutions, there is still room for intensive methods of improving performance, which is brilliantly demonstrated by the Celeron J3455, which already overtakes some fully desktop processors. In general, progress in different market segments comes with different speed, but the reasons for this have been voiced for a long time and repeatedly: desktop computers have ceased to be the main target, and the times when it was necessary to increase productivity at any cost, since in principle it 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 considerable attention is also 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 multi-threaded optimization, but some of the filters used actively use new sets of commands, so that to some extent one compensates for the other in the case of budget desktop processors, but not "atomic" ones. » 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 about Core i5 for LGA1151), but there are global “breakthroughs” that some people dream of " potential buyers' is long gone. Perhaps they are not there because changes generally occur only in the Intel assortment, and even those are planned :)

Vector graphics

From using Adobe Illustrator to new version we abandoned the methodology, and the final diagram clearly shows the reason for this decision: the last thing this program was seriously optimized 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 one is enough Pentium, but even paying seven times more, you can get only one and a half times faster. In general, although many people are interested in performance in this case, 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” - so it was not in vain that they were said about them for 10 years in a row that they are intended for content consumption, and not for its production.

Audio processing

Adobe Audition is another program that has been dropped from the list of our testing programs since this year. The main claim to it is the same: the “necessary level of performance” is reached too quickly, and the “maximum” differs too little from it. Although there is already a difference between Celeron and Core i7 in each iteration of LGA115x, it’s easy to see that most of it is still “played out” within, if not budget, then inexpensive processor lines. Moreover, the above is true only for Intel processors - the application generally treats today's AMD platforms somewhat biased.

Text recognising

The times of rapid progress in character recognition technologies are long gone, so the corresponding applications develop without changing the basic algorithms: they, as a rule, are integer-based 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 to notice a significant difference between processors of different generations of the same architecture - a maximum of 20 percent in five years, which is even less than the "average". But processors of 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 family of processors. But comparing different ones with them is a dangerous occupation: the fastest among those tested by us (of those included in today's article, of course) was the Core i7-4970K for the already formally "outdated" platform. And in the "atomic" family, too, not everything is going smoothly.

File operations

The diagram clearly shows why since 2017 these tests will no longer be taken into account in the overall score and “go away” to 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 used SSD. SATA600 is supported in their case, so no one seems to interfere with copying data at least at the same speed as that of "adult" platforms, but there is a decrease in performance. More precisely, it was until recently, but now it ceases to matter.

scientific calculations

Regarding the use of SolidWorks Flow Simulation for testing low-end systems, questions regularly arose in the forum, but in general the results of this program are quite interesting: as you can see, it scales well across cores, but only in “physical” ones - different implementations of SMT 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, if multi-threaded, then fully. But in general, 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 intersect in performance with desktop processors, but of lower classes. This is not surprising - but their energy consumption is significantly lower. The increase in performance between identically positioned Intel desktop processors over five years is 20-30%, and the more “top-end” the family, the slower it grew. This, however, does not interfere with "social justice" in any way: 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, economical buyers were lucky - one can say that the primary focus on portable computers has also 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 remaining on the market was doing well. last years, to put it mildly, worse. FM1 is a five-year-old solution, FM2+ remained the company's most modern and powerful integrated platform until the end of 2016, but they differ ... literally by the same 20% as different generations of Core i7. However, it cannot be said that nothing has changed at all over the past years: the graphics have become more powerful, and the energy efficiency has grown, but as the main niche of these processors was gaming, it has remained. And for graphics performance at the level of junior discrete video cards, you have to pay with both low performance of the processor part and high energy consumption - to which we are just 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, necessary for desktop computers (although this is better than the horrors of the 90s and "zero"), but also the relative share of "full-sized desktops" has also declined dramatically over the years and continues to fall. And for laptops or tablets, even the older "atomic" models are no longer very comfortable - not to mention the quad-core Core. Which, in a good way, it is high time to make the main mass product - you see, and the software industry will find useful application such capacities.

It should be noted that not only the economy grew, but first of all, energy efficiency increased, since more modern processors spend less energy to solve any problem in the same or even less time. Moreover, working quickly is useful: it will turn out to stay in energy-saving mode longer. Recall that these technologies have been actively used in mobile processors - when there was such a division at all, because now all processors are like that to a certain extent. AMD has the same trend, but in this case the company failed to repeat the success of at least Sandy Bridge, as a result of which the most “delicious” 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 it was said in the description of the methodology, we restrict ourselves to a qualitative assessment. At the same time, let's 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 can 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 rest: 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, since everyone is more interested in the nuances there, and for evaluating “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 reducing 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 present 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 a fourth-level cache (with eDRAM) can be considered "conditionally gaming" solutions. The latter are faster, but rather specific: firstly, they are quite expensive (it’s easier to buy an inexpensive processor and a discrete video card, which will provide higher comfort in games), and secondly, most of them have a BGA design, so they are sold only in composition of finished systems. AMD, on the other hand, is playing on a different field - its desktop A8 / A10 are practically uncontested if you need to build a computer that is more or less suitable for games, but has a minimal cost.

Other Intel solutions, as well as junior (A4 / A6) and / or outdated AMD APUs, should not be considered as gaming solutions at all. From which it does not follow that their owner will not have anything to play at all - but the entire range of available games will also include either old or undemanding applications for graphic performance. Or both at once. For other things, they will have to purchase at least an inexpensive discrete video card - but not the cheapest, 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 thrown away.

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 primarily a generalization of all the information received earlier, nothing more. More precisely, almost all - as mentioned above, we put aside 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 execution.

Generally speaking, the past year, of course, was rather poor in processor events: both Intel and AMD continued to sell on the mass market 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 once again tested the "historical" platforms (we hope that for the last time :)) But the Celeron N3150 was the slowest last year: 54.6 points, and the fastest - Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. In the same position, the positions have not changed, and the results are actually the same - 53.5 and 251.2 points. The top system had even worse :) Note: this is despite the significant reworking of the software used, and just in the direction of the most demanding tasks for computer performance. The budget "old man" in the face of the Pentium G2130, on the contrary, has grown from 109 to 115 points over the year, as well 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 "performance for the future" can be closed - if someone has not done this yet;)

62 processors and 80 different configurations

Another year has changed on the calendar, we have prepared new methods for testing computer systems, which means that the time has come to sum up the results of processor testing (which is a special case of system testing) in 2015. Last year's results were quite brief - they included the results of only 36 systems, differing only in processors and obtained exclusively using the built-in GPU. This approach, for obvious reasons, left behind a considerable number of platforms lacking integrated graphics, so we decided to modify it a bit, starting to sometimes use a discrete graphics card - at least where it is needed. However, the tests of 2015 became to some extent "training" - in 2016 we plan to further refine the approach to testing in order to further bring it closer to real life. But be that as it may, today we will present the results of already 62 processors (more precisely, there are 61 different ones, but thanks to cTDP one of them goes for two). And that's not all: 14 of them were tested with two "video cards" - an integrated GPU (each one is different) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X. We also tested four processors for the latest LGA1151 platform with two types of memory: DDR4-2133 and DDR3-1600. In this way, total number configurations amounted to 80 - this is much less than 149 in the results before last, but for those we collected information for two and a half years, and the "lifetime" of the current test methodology was about eight months, i.e. almost three times less. In addition, the unification of tests for different systems allows you to compare the results with those obtained when testing laptops, all-in-ones and other complete systems.

But in this particular article, as mentioned above, we will limit ourselves to processors. More precisely, systems that differ mainly only in processors - it is clear that “testing processors” (especially for different platforms) has no other meaning for a long time, although for some this is still a revelation :)

Test stand 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 brief table: anyway, it becomes too vast, and at the request of the workers, we still put some parameters directly on the diagrams. In particular, since some people ask to indicate right there the number of cores / modules and computational threads running simultaneously, as well as the ranges of operating clock frequencies - we tried to do just that. If readers like the result, we will save it for other tests next year. The format is simple: “cores/threads; minimum/maximum clock frequency of the cores in GHz".

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

Therefore, it remains only to say a few words about the environment. As for the memory, the fastest supported by the specification was almost always used. There are two exceptions: what we called "Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)" and Core i5-3427U. For the second, there were simply no suitable DDR3-1600 modules, so it had to be tested with DDR3-1333, and the first - processors under LGA1151, but paired with DDR3-1600, and not faster (and "main" according to specifications) DDR4-2133 . The amount of memory in most cases is the same - 8 GB, with the exception of two versions of LGA2011 - there were 16 GB DDR3 or DDR4, respectively, since the four-channel controller directly provokes the use of more RAM. System drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT 256 GB) - the same for all subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: a discrete Radeon R7 260X and an integrated video core. The video core was always used when the processor had it (the exception is the Core i5-655K, since the first version of Intel HD Graphics is no longer supported by modern operating systems), while a discrete video card was used where there was no built-in video. And in some cases - where there is an embedded video: to compare the results.

Test Methodology

To evaluate performance, we used our benchmarking methodology to measure performance. We normalized all test results relative to the results of the reference system, which last year was the same for laptops and for all other computers, in order to make it easier for readers to compare and choose.

Thus, these normalized results can be compared with those obtained in the same version of the benchmark for other systems (for example, we take and compare it with desktop platforms). For those who are interested in absolute results, we offer them as a file in Microsoft Excel format.

Video conversion and video processing

As we have noted more than once, in this group a discrete video card allows you to increase performance, but this effect is clearly visible only on older platforms (such as LGA1155), where the power of integrated GPUs was not high in itself. Actually, here is the answer - why did they increase it in new generations: but so that there would be no incentive to buy a video card too :)

Also, the dependence of performance on the number of threads of the executable code is clearly visible here. As a result, we come to a very wide range of results - they differ by more than an order of magnitude, since the junior two- and eight-core Core i7-5960X - all 577. But the main "crush" unfolds in the mass segment (up to $ 200): modern Core i5 allow you to increase performance (relative to the "floor level") five times, but further investments raise it only twice more. Actually, there is nothing surprising in this: the higher - the more expensive.

As for the comparison of platforms, then ... they can not be compared. Indeed, the desktop AMD FM2+ roughly corresponds only to Intel ultrabook processors, and formally the top-end AM3+ only corresponds to the long-outdated LGA1155. However, Intel's growth from generation to generation is small - even in such well-optimized tasks, we can only talk about 15-20% at each step. (However, this sometimes leads to qualitative changes - for example, the Core i7-6700K actually caught up with the once top six-core i7-4960X, despite the significantly more low price and a simpler device.) In general, it is clear that manufacturers are occupied with completely different issues, and not at all trying to greatly increase the performance of desktop systems.

Creation of video content

As we have already written more than once, in this group a decent pig was put to us by a multi-threaded test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1. For its normal operation, it is recommended to have at least 2 GB per calculation thread - in otherwise the test can “fall out” into single-threaded mode and start running even slower than without using Multiprocessing technology (as Adobe calls it). In general, 16 GB of RAM is desirable for full eight-thread operation, and an octa-core processor with HT will require a minimum of 32 GB of memory. We use 8 GB of memory on most systems, which is enough for “eight-streams” when using integrated video (if they have it: this is done for desktop Core i7, but FX-8000, for example, is worse), but not discrete. Another pebble in the garden of those who still believe in "testing processors" as something independent - apart from the platform and other environment: as you can see, sometimes attempts to make it equal lead to extremely interesting effects. A “pure” comparison is possible, perhaps, only within the framework of one platform, and even then not always: the amount of memory required by some programs may depend on, in fact, the processor and not only it. Which just hits hard top models, insofar as they need more, and "more" in this case means more expensive.

However, in any case, in this group of applications, "processor dependence" is less pronounced than in the previous one - there older Core i5 outperformed low-voltage surrogates five times, and here only a little more than four. In addition, a more powerful video card is able to increase the results noticeably weaker, although it should not be neglected (if possible) either.

Digital photo processing

This group is interesting in that it is absolutely different from the previous ones - in particular, the degree of “multithreading utilization” is much lower here, which significantly reduces the range of results obtained, but here are the differences between the Core i5 (we will continue to stick to this family as the top level mass segment - sales of systems based on more expensive processors are incomparably less) and entry-level devices exceed six times. What is it connected with? Firstly, the dependence of performance on the GPU is noticeable. First of all - integrated: discrete cannot be deployed at full strength due to the need for frequent data transfer. But just the power of integrated graphics in junior and senior processors differs significantly! And don't forget that there are still not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences between junior and senior processors - for example, in supported instruction sets. This hits both the junior Intel families (recall that Pentiums, for example, still do not support AVX) and outdated processors from both companies.

Vector graphics

But here is a good example of the fact that modern software is different. Even if we are talking about, to put it mildly, not the cheapest programs, and not "home use". In fact, as we have noted more than once, any serious optimizations in Illustrator were last made 10 years ago, so the program needs processors that are as similar as possible to Core 2 Duo for fast work: a maximum of a couple of cores with maximum single-threaded performance and without support for new command sets. As a result, modern Pentiums look the most advantageous (taking into account the price), and higher-class processors can be faster than them only because of the higher clock frequency. Processors of other architectures get really bad in such conditions. Actually, even in the Intel line, such intensive methods of increasing performance, like adding a fourth-level cache, in this case only interfere, not help. However, in any case, trying to greatly speed up the work in this program (and similar ones) is not a very promising occupation: only a fourfold difference between the best Core i5 and surrogate platforms speaks for itself.

Audio processing

Here is an example of a situation where, it seems, the computing cores are not superfluous, and even the GPU matters, etc., but the difference between the Celeron N3150 (the slowest in this test) and the Core i7 for mass platforms is only about five times . Moreover, a large part of it can be attributed to the surrogacy of lower architectures - the already very old Celeron 1037U (albeit a very limited, but full-fledged Core) is almost one and a half times faster than the N3150, and the younger desktop Pentiums are three times faster. But further ... the more expensive, the less effective the size of the "surcharge for the processor." Even within the framework of one architecture, AMD's "construction equipment" with its "budget multithreading" in this case is able to compete only with the same Pentiums: six threads are faster than four from the same manufacturer, but they do not look convincing against the background of only two cores of a competing development.

Text recognising

Not at all like in the previous case - here the FX-8000 still easily overtakes any Core i5. Note that AMD positioned them this way at the time of release: between i5 and i7. Including the price. Which then, unfortunately, had to be radically reduced, since the number of such “convenient” tasks turned out to be not too large. However, if the user is interested in them, this makes it possible to save a lot. Given, of course, that this family has not been updated for more than three years (in a serious way, anyway), and Intel processors are slowly but growing.

And the problem of scalability is also clearly visible - no matter how good the additional cores and threads are, the more of them, the less effect the increase in the number gives. Actually, in the end, one should not be surprised that this process stopped long ago in mass processors - even more convincing arguments for multi-core are needed than can be found so far. Here are four modern cores - good. Four dual-threaded cores are even better. And then - everything.

Archiving and unarchiving data

If archiving involves all cores (and additional computational threads) of processors, then the reverse process is single-threaded. Given the fact that they have to be used more often, this could be considered a nuisance if the process itself were not significantly faster. Yes, in fact, packaging has become a fairly simple operation to pay close attention to when choosing a processor. In any case, this is true for mass desktop models - low-power specialized platforms can still "tinker" with such tasks for a long time.

The speed of installing and uninstalling applications

In principle, we introduced this task into the test methodology mainly because of the need to test ready-made systems: on the same processor in different environments, as we already know, performance can differ by one and a half to two times. But when the system uses a fast drive and enough memory, the processors themselves do not differ fundamentally from each other. However, surrogate platforms may well turn out to be exactly the same two or three times slower than “normal” desktop ones. But the latter already differ slightly from each other - be it Pentium or Core i7. In fact, all that may be needed from the processor is one computational thread with maximum performance. But aside from mobile systems, this is nearly always done to about the same extent.

File operations

And these are all the more "platform-accumulative" tests, rather than processor ones. As part of this line of tests, we use the same drive - with all the consequences. But the "platform" may matter - some surprise, for example, were the results of LGA1156: seems to be not the worst desktop solution, which until recently could even be considered fast (the LGA775 still found among users is even worse), but it turned out that it can only be compared with Bay Trail or Braswell under such loads. And even then - the comparison will not be in favor of the "old woman" who was once close to the top level. But modern budget systems practically do not differ from non-budget ones - simply because the first ones are already enough for performance to begin to be determined by other system components, without "resting" on the processor or even on the chipset.

Total

In principle, we made the main conclusions on processor families directly in the reviews, so they are not required in this article - this is primarily a generalization of all the information received earlier, nothing more. And generalizations, as we see, can sometimes be interesting. First, it's easy to see that the impact of discrete video cards on performance in mass-purpose programs can generally be considered absent. More precisely, in some applications it is, but being “smeared” over all tests, it quietly evaporates. In any case, this is true for more or less modern platforms - it's easy to see that the weak integrated graphics of the LGA1155 times, even in the overall standings, can reduce the results by five percent, which is already more or less noticeable, although not critical. The same should apply to old discrete video cards, which will also lose to slightly newer ones, but in this case, the border between “good” and “bad” solutions is moved not by three, but by five or more years from the current moment. In a word, modern platforms are deprived of such problems. So for a qualitative comparison, it is not at all necessary to require the same video part, which means, if you need, for example, to compare a laptop with a desktop system, we find a suitable article about a laptop (not even about the same one - another one on a similar platform will do) and compare. The data storage system is even more important, so if there is no parity in the articles on it, you will have to limit yourself to the results of test groups that do not depend on the drive. As for the video... Let's repeat: among the mass applications, there are not so strongly tied to it, and the gaming application is a completely different story.

And now let's try (as usual) to look at the performance range that we managed to cover this year. The Celeron N3150 has the minimum result in the overall standings: 54.6 points. The maximum is for the Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. "Professional" platforms like LGA2011/2011-3 failed to take the first place, although in terms of tests its "multi-core" representatives were confidently in the lead. The reasons for this have been voiced more than once: mass software manufacturers are mainly guided by the fleet of equipment available to users, and not at all by some “sparkling peaks”. There are (and always have been and always will be) such tasks for which computing resources are “always scarce”, and it is for them that top-end systems are required (sometimes going far beyond the scope of our testing), but the bulk of the tasks are easily solved on a mass computer. Often even outdated.

In this regard, it is interesting to compare the current "Itogi" not with the past, but with the one before last. Then the tests were done according to a completely different scheme - always using a powerful discrete video card. And there were more professional applications, so the top six-core processors were still faster than the best solutions for mainstream platforms. However, at the same time, the Core i7-4770K scored 242 points - which is just comparable to the 258.4 of the Core i7-6700K (in terms of time-adjusted positioning, these processors are the same: one was the fastest solution for the mass LGA1150 of 2013, and the second - the same in 2016 for LGA1151). At the same time, both then and now, various Pentium / Core i3 / Core i5 were pushing in the range of 100-200 points - nothing has changed. Unless the scores have become different: it was said about the software above, but the standard has also changed. Previously, this was the AMD Athlon II X4 620 (budget, but desktop and quad-core processor) with a discrete graphics card based on the Nvidia GeForce GTX 570. Now it's an (ultrabook) Intel Core i5-3317U without any discrete. It seems to be everything else. But in practice - the same thing: a budget desktop gives a hundred points, any investment in it can at best increase productivity (on average for task classes) by two and a half times, and a compact nettop on a surrogate platform will work two to three times slower. This state of affairs in the segment of desktop computers has been established and persists for a long time, which is well shown by our summary results. In general, when going to the store for a new computer, you do not need to read any articles - just analyze the amount of money in your wallet :)

When are tests needed? Basically - when the task arises to change the old computer to a new one. In particular, when at the same time it is planned to “move to another class”: by changing the desktop to a nettop or a laptop, for example. When purchasing a new solution of the same class, you don’t have to worry: the new Core i5, for example, will always be faster than the old one of the same class, so there is no great need for accurate estimates of “by how much”. But the fact that the performance of processors for various purposes is slowly but surely growing can lead to pleasant surprises - when, for example, it turns out that an old desktop can easily replace an ultrabook, and without any negative consequences. Well, as we see, this is quite possible, since everyone “grows”.