However, these two materials, it seems to us, are still insufficient for a full disclosure of the topic. The first "subtle point" is clock frequencies - after all, with the release of Haswell Refresh, the company has already divided rigidly the line of "regular" Core i7 and "overclocking" ones, factory overclocking the latter (which was not so difficult, since such processors generally require a little , so it is not difficult to select the required amount of the required crystals). The appearance of Skylake not only preserved the state of affairs, but also exacerbated it: Core i7-6700 and i7-6700K are generally very different processors, differing in TDP level. Thus, even at the same frequencies, these models could work differently in terms of performance, and the frequencies are not at all the same. In general, it is dangerous to draw conclusions according to the older model, but basically it was studied everywhere and only it. "Younger" (and more in demand) has not been spoiled by the attention of test laboratories until recently.
And what is it for? Just for comparison with the "tops" of previous families, especially since there usually was not such a large spread of frequencies. Sometimes it was not at all - for example, the pairs 2600 / 2600K and 4771 / 4770K are identical in terms of the processor part in the normal mode. It is clear that the 6700 is more analogous to the unnamed models, but to the 2600S, 3770S, 4770S and 4790S, but ... This is important only from a technical point of view, which, in general, is of little interest to anyone. In terms of prevalence, ease of acquisition and other significant (as opposed to technical details) characteristics, this is just a "regular" family, which most owners of "old" Core i7 will be looking at. Or potential owners - while the upgrade is still something useful at times, the majority of users of processors of lower processor families, if necessary to increase performance, look first of all at devices for the platform already in their hands, and only then consider (or do not consider) the idea its replacement. Whether this approach is correct or not, the tests will show.
Testbed configuration
| CPU | Intel Core i7-2700K | Intel Core i7-3770 | Intel Core i7-4770K | Intel Core i7-5775C | Intel Core i7-6700 |
| Kernel name | Sandy bridge | Ivy bridge | Haswell | Broadwell | Skylake |
| Prod-va technology | 32 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency std / max, GHz | 3,5/3,9 | 3,4/3,9 | 3,5/3,9 | 3,3/3,7 | 3,4/4,0 |
| # Of cores / threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (sum), I / D, KB | 128/128 | 128/128 | 128/128 | 128/128 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 | 4 × 256 |
| L3 (L4) cache, MiB | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 (128) | 8 |
| RAM | 2 × DDR3-1333 | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR3-1600 | 2 × DDR4-2133 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 77 | 84 | 65 | 65 |
| Graphic arts | HDG 3000 | HDG 4000 | HDG 4600 | IPG 6200 | HDG 530 |
| Number of EU | 12 | 16 | 20 | 48 | 24 |
| Std / max frequency, MHz | 850/1350 | 650/1150 | 350/1250 | 300/1150 | 350/1150 |
| Price | T-7762352 | T-7959318 | T-10384297 | T-12645073 | T-12874268 |
To make it more academic, it would make sense to test Core i7-2600 and i7-4790, and not 2700K and 4770K at all, but the first one is already difficult to find in our time, while 2700K was found at hand and was tested at one time. As well as 4770K was also studied, and in the "ordinary" family it has complete (4771) and close (4770) analogs, and all the mentioned trinity differs insignificantly from 4790, so we decided not to neglect the opportunity to minimize the amount of work. As a result, by the way, the Core processors of the second, third and fourth generations turned out to be as close to each other as possible in the official clock frequency range, and the 6700 differs only slightly from them. Broadwell could also be "pulled up" to this level by taking the results not from i7-5775C, but from Xeon E3-1285 v4, but only to tighten up, not completely eliminate the difference. That is why we decided to use a more massive (fortunately, most of the other participants are the same), and not an exotic processor.
As for the other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: operating frequency random access memory was the maximum supported by specifications. But its volume (8 GB) and system storage (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects.
Testing methodology
To evaluate the performance, we used our methodology for measuring performance using benchmarks and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all the test results in the first benchmark relative to the results of the reference system, which this year will be the same for laptops and for all other computers, which is designed to make it easier for readers to make a difficult comparison and choice:
iXBT Application Benchmark 2015
As we have already written more than once, the video core is of considerable importance in this group. However, not everything is as simple as one might suppose only from the technical characteristics - for example, the i7-5775C is still slower than the i7-6700, although the first has a much more powerful GPU. However, the comparison of 2700K and 3770 is even more revealing here, which differ fundamentally in terms of the execution of the OpenCL code - the former is not capable of using the GPU for this at all. The second is capable. But it does it so slowly that it has no advantages over its predecessor. On the other hand, endowing such capabilities with the "most massive GPU on the market" led to the fact that software manufacturers began to use them little by little, which manifested itself already by the time the next generations of Core entered the market. And along with minor improvements and processor cores, it can lead to a fairly noticeable effect.
However, not everywhere - this is just the case when the growth from generation to generation is completely invisible. However, he is, but such that it is easier not to pay attention to him. Interesting here is perhaps the fact that the past year made it possible to combine such an increase in performance with significantly less stringent requirements for the cooling system (which opens up the segment of compact systems with the usual desktop Core i7), but this is not true in all cases.
And here is an example, when a considerable part of the load has already been transferred to the GPU. The only thing that can "save" in this case old core i7 is a discrete video card, but data transfers over the bus spoil the effect, so the i7-2700K will not necessarily catch up with the i7-6700, but the 3770 is capable of it, but it can keep up with either 4790K or 6700K, or 5775C with any video can no longer. Actually, the answer to the puzzled question that sometimes arises among some users - why does Intel pay so much attention to integrated graphics, if there is still not enough of it for games, but for other purposes it has been enough for a long time? As you can see, it is not too "enough" if the fastest is sometimes capable (as here) of a processor with far from the most powerful "processor" part. And already in advance I wonder what we can get from Skylake in the GT4e modification;)
Amazing unanimity, provided that this program does not require new instruction sets or miracles in the field of increasing multi-threaded performance. There is still a slight difference between processor generations. But you can only look for it with exactly the same clock frequency. And when it differs significantly (what we have in the i7-5775С, which in single-threaded mode lags behind everyone by 10%) - you don't have to look for it :)
Audition "can" more or less everything. Unless he is rather indifferent to additional threads of computation, but he knows how to use them. Moreover, judging by the results, it does it better on Skylake than was typical of previous architectures: the advantage of 4770K over 4690K is about 15%, but 6700 bypasses 6600K by 20% (despite the fact that the frequencies are approximately the same). In general, most likely, many more discoveries will await us in the new architecture. Small, but sometimes cumulative.
As in the case of text recognition, where exactly the 6700 breaks away from its predecessors most "briskly". Although in absolute terms it is insignificant, it would be a priori too optimistic to wait for such an increase on relatively old and well-polished algorithms, taking into account the fact that, in fact, we have an energy efficient processor (by the way - 6700K really copes with this task much faster) ... We didn't expect. And practice turned out to be more interesting than a priori assumptions :)
All top-end processors cope very well with archivers regardless of generation. In many respects, it seems to us, because for them this task is already very simple. Actually, the count is already running for seconds, so it is almost impossible to radically improve something here. If only to speed up the memory system, but DDR4 has higher latencies than DDR3, so the guaranteed result is given only by an increase in caches. Therefore, the fastest was the only processor among the tested with the GPU GT3e - the fourth level cache is used not only by the video core. On the other hand, the gain from the additional die is not that great, so the archivers are just that load, which in the case of obviously fast systems (and not some mini-PCs) can no longer be ignored.
Plus or minus half a sandwich from the Sun, which, in general, also confirms that all top processors cope with such tasks in the same way, the controllers in the chipsets of the three series are approximately identical, so that a significant difference can only be caused by the drive.
But in such a banal scenario as a simple copying of files, also with a thermal package: models with a reduced "overclocking" are rather sluggish (fortunately, formally and for nothing), which leads to slightly lower results than they could. But in general, this is also not the case for the sake of which there may be a desire to change the platform.
What do we get in the end? All processors are roughly identical to each other. Yes, of course, the difference between the best and the worst is more than 10%, but do not forget that these are the differences that have accumulated over more than three years (and if we take the i7-2600, it would be 15% in almost five). Thus, there is no practical sense in replacing one platform with another while the old one is working. Naturally, if we are talking about LGA1155 and its successors - as we have already seen, the "difference" between LGA1156 and LGA1155 is much more noticeable, and not only in terms of performance. On the latter on this moment Intel platforms can “squeeze out” something using the “steroid” Core i7 (if we are still focusing on this expensive family), but not so much: in terms of integral performance, the i7-6700K outperforms the i7-6700 by 15%, so and its gap with any i7-2700K increases to almost 30%, which is already more significant, but still not essential.
Game applications
For obvious reasons, for computer systems At this level, we restrict ourselves to the minimum quality mode, and not only in "full" resolution, but also with its reduction to 1366 × 768: Despite the obvious progress in the field of integrated graphics, it is not yet able to satisfy the demanding gamer of picture quality. And we decided not to check the 2700K at all on a standard gaming set: it is obvious that those owners who use the integrated video core are not interested in games at all. Whoever is interested in any way, they certainly found and installed at least some kind of "plug for the slot" in the bins, since our testing according to the previous version of the methodology showed that HD Graphics 3000 is no better than even the Radeon HD 6450, and both practically not enough for anything. HDG 4000 and newer IGPs are of some interest.
For example, in Aliens vs. Predator can be played on any of the studied processors, but only at a lower resolution. For FHD, only GT3e is suitable, and it doesn't matter which one - it's just that in a socket version, this configuration is currently available only for Broadwell with all that it implies.
But the "dancers" at minimum salaries already "run" on everything so well that a harmonious picture only in high definition and "dances": in the low one it is not even clear - who is better and who is worse.
Grid2, with all its weak requirements for the video part, still puts processors strictly in order of magnitude. But this is especially clearly seen again in FHD, where memory bandwidth is already important. As a result, it is already possible not to lower the resolution on the i7-6700. On the i7-5775C, even more so, and the absolute results are much higher, so if this area of application is of interest, and the use discrete graphics card undesirable for some reason, there are still no alternatives to this line of processors. In which there is nothing new.
Only older Haswells "pull" the game at least in low resolution, and Skylake does it without any reservations. We do not comment on Broadwell - this is not an architectural, but, let's say, quantitative superiority.
At first glance, the older game in the series is similar, but there are no quantitative differences between Haswell and Skylake.
In Hitman, there are also noticeable ones, but there is still no transition from quantity to quality.
As well as here, where even a low-resolution mode can only "pull out" a processor with a GT3e. The rest have significant, but still insufficient progress even for such "feats".
The minimum settings mode in this game is very sparing for all weak GPUs, although the HDG 4000 was still only "enough" for HD, but not FHD.
And again a difficult case. Less "heavy" than Thief, but sufficient to demonstrate clearly that no integrated graphics can be considered a gaming solution.
Although some games can be played with relative comfort. However, it can only be perceptible if we complicate the IGP and increase quantitatively all functional blocks. Actually, it is in light modes that the progress in the field of Intel GPUs is most noticeable - about twice in three years (there is no point in taking older developments seriously anymore). But this does not mean that over time, integrated graphics will be able to easily and naturally catch up with discrete graphics of comparable age. Most likely, "parity" will be established from the other side - bearing in mind the huge base of installed solutions of low performance, the manufacturers of the same games will be guided by it. Why haven't you done this before? Generally speaking, they did - if we consider not only 3D games, but the market in general, a huge number of very popular game projects were designed just to work normally and on fairly archaic platforms. But there has always been a certain segment of programs that "moved the market", and it was this segment that attracted maximum attention from the press and not only. Now the process is clearly close to the saturation point, since, firstly, the park of various computer equipment is already very large, and there are fewer and fewer people willing to engage in permanent upgrades. And secondly, "multiplatformity" now means not only specialized game consoles, but also a variety of smartphone tablets, where, obviously, the performance is even worse than that of "adult" computers, regardless of the degree of integration of the latter's platforms. But in order for this trend to prevail, it is necessary, nevertheless, as it seems to us, to achieve a certain level of guaranteed productivity. Which is not yet available. But all manufacturers are working on the problem more than actively and Intel is no exception.
Total
What do we see in the end? In principle, as has been said more than once, the last significant change in the processor cores of the Core family took place almost five years ago. At this stage, it has already been possible to reach a level that none of the competitors can “attack” directly. Therefore, Intel's main task is to improve the situation in, let's say, related areas, as well as to increase quantitative (but not qualitative) indicators where it makes sense. Moreover, the growing popularity of portable computers, which have long outstripped desktop computers in terms of this indicator and are becoming more portable (a few years ago, for example, a laptop weighing 2 kg, was still considered "relatively light", has a serious impact on the mass market, and now sales of transformers are actively growing. , in which case a large mass kills the whole raison d'être of their existence). In general, the development of computer platforms has long gone not along the path of best meeting the needs of buyers of large desktop computers. At best, not to the detriment of them. Therefore, the fact that in general in this segment the performance of systems does not decrease, but even grows a little, is already a reason for joy - it could be worse :) The only bad thing is that due to changes in peripheral functionality, the platforms themselves have to be constantly changed: this is Such a traditional advantage of modular computers as maintainability greatly undermines, but there is nothing to be done about it - attempts to maintain compatibility at any cost do not bring any good (those who doubt can look at, for example, AMD AM3 +).
In the process of assembling or buying a new computer, a question always arises before users. In this article, we will look at Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors, and also tell you what is the difference between these chips and what is better to choose for your computer.
Difference # 1. The number of cores and support for Hyper-threading.
Perhaps, main difference Intel processors Core i3, i5 and i7 are the number of physical cores and support for Hyper-threading technology, which creates two threads of calculations for each actually existing physical core. Creation of two computation threads for each core allows more efficient use of the processing power of the processor core. Therefore, processors with Hyper-threading support have a certain performance advantage.
Core count and Hyper-threading support for most Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors can be summarized in the following table.
| Number of physical cores | Hyper-threading technology support | Number of threads | |
| Intel Core i3 | 2 | Yes | 4 |
| Intel Core i5 | 4 | No | 4 |
| Intel Core i7 | 4 | Yes | 8 |
But, there are exceptions from this table.... First, there are Intel Core i7 processors from their Extreme line. These processors can have 6 or 8 physical processing cores. At the same time, they, like all Core i7 processors, have support for Hyper-threading technology, which means that the number of threads is twice the number of cores. Secondly, certain mobile processors (laptop processors) are exempt. So some mobile Intel Core i5 processors have only 2 physical cores, but at the same time they have support for Hyper-threading.
It should also be noted that Intel has already planned to increase the number of cores in its processors... According to the latest news, the Intel Core i5 and i7 processors with Coffee Lake architecture, which are scheduled for release in 2018, will have 6 physical cores and 12 threads.
Therefore, you should not completely trust the table below. If you are interested in the number of cores in a particular Intel processor, then it is better to check the official information on the website.
Difference # 2. The amount of cache memory.
Also, Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors differ in the amount of cache memory. The higher the processor class, the more cache memory it receives. Intel Core i7 processors get the most cache memory, Intel Core i5 processors get a little less, and Intel Core i3 processors even less. Specific values should be found in the characteristics of the processors. But for example, you can compare several processors from the 6th generation.
| Level 1 cache | Level 2 cache | Level 3 cache | |
| Intel Core i7-6700 | 4 x 32 KB | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB |
| Intel Core i5-6500 | 4 x 32 KB | 4 x 256 KB | 6 MB |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 2 x 32 KB | 2 x 256 KB | 3 MB |
It should be understood that a decrease in the amount of cache memory is associated with a decrease in the number of cores and threads. But, nevertheless, there is such a difference.
Difference # 3. Clock frequencies.
Usually, higher-end processors come with higher clock speeds. But, everything is not so simple here. It is not uncommon for Intel Core i3 to have higher clock rates than Intel Core i7. For example, let's take 3 processors from the 6th generation line.
| Clock frequency | |
| Intel Core i7-6700 | 3.4 GHz |
| Intel Core i5-6500 | 3.2 GHz |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 3.7 GHz |
In this way, Intel tries to keep the performance of Intel Core i3 processors at the desired level.
Difference No. 4. Heat dissipation.
Another important difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the level of heat dissipation. A characteristic known as TDP or thermal design power is responsible for this. This characteristic tells how much heat should be removed by the processor cooling system. Let's take the TDP of three 6th generation Intel processors as an example. As you can see from the table, the higher the class of the processor, the more heat it produces and the more powerful the cooling system is needed.
| TDP | |
| Intel Core i7-6700 | 65 watts |
| Intel Core i5-6500 | 65 watts |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 51 Watt |
It should be noted that TDP has a downward trend. With each generation of processors, the TDP is getting lower. For example, the TDP of the 2nd generation Intel Core i5 processor was 95 W. Now, as we can see, only 65 watts.
Which is better than Intel Core i3, i5 or i7?
The answer to this question depends on what kind of performance you want. The difference in the number of cores, threads, cache memory and clock speeds creates a noticeable difference in performance between the Core i3, i5 and i7.
- Intel Core i3 processor - great for office or budget home computer... If you have a video card of the appropriate level, it is quite possible to play computer games on a computer with an Intel Core i3 processor.
- Intel Core i5 processor - Suitable for a powerful worker or gaming computer... A modern Intel Core i5 can handle any video card without any problems, so you can play any games on a computer with such a processor, even at maximum settings.
- The Intel Core i7 processor is an option for those who know exactly why they need such performance. A computer with such a processor is suitable, for example, for editing video or conducting game streams.
Nearly 3x the speed: 802.11ax 2x2 160 MHz allows you to reach a maximum theoretical data transfer rate of up to 2402 Mbps, almost 3 times (2.8 times) faster than the standard 802.11ac 2x2 80 MHz (867 Mbps ) as documented in the specs wireless standard IEEE 802.11. Required to use wireless router 802.11ax with a similar configuration.
Compared to other PC I / O technologies including eSATA, USB, and IEEE 1394 Firewire *. Actual performance figures may vary depending on the hardware and software used. Be sure to use a Thunderbolt ™ device. More information can be found on the website.
Best in class Wi-Fi technology 6: Intel® Wi-Fi 6 (Gig +) Adapters support additional 160 MHz channels, which achieves the maximum theoretical speed (2402 Mbps) for typical 2x2 802.11ax PC Wi-Fi adapters. Intel® Wi-Fi 6 (Gig +) Premium Adapters offer 2x to 4x theoretical maximum speed over standard adapters Wi-Fi 802.11ax PC 2x2 (1201 Mbps) or 1x1 (600 Mbps), which only support mandatory 80 MHz channels.
Comparison test results workload AIXprt for 10th Gen Intel® Core ™ i7-1065G7 Pre-production Processor and 8th Gen Intel® Core ™ i7-8565U Processor (INT8 results). Performance test results are based on testing as of May 23, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See the configuration description for details. No system can be completely secure.
Intel is a sponsor and member of the Benchmark XPRT developer community and the primary developer of XPRT benchmarks. Principled Technologies is the publisher of the XPRT family of benchmarks. You should consult other sources of information and performance tests to get a full assessment of the product you are planning to buy.
Changing the clock speed or voltage can damage or shorten the life of the processor and other system components, and can degrade system stability and performance. Product specifications may not be eligible for warranty service if processor specifications are changed. For more information, contact your system and component manufacturers.
Intel and the Intel logo are trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and / or other countries.
* Other names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. (if third party names and trademarks are used)
Intel has come a very long way of development, from a small chip manufacturer to the world leader in the production of processors. During this time, many technologies for the production of processors have been developed, the technological process and characteristics of devices have been greatly optimized.
A lot of the performance of processors depends on the location of the transistors on the silicon crystal. The technology for arranging transistors is called microarchitecture or simply architecture. In this article, we'll take a look at what Intel processor architectures have been used throughout the development of the company and how they differ from each other. Let's start with the most ancient microarchitectures and go all the way to new processors and future plans.
As I said, in this article we will not consider the bit capacity of the processors. By the word architecture, we mean the microarchitecture of a microcircuit, the location of transistors on a printed circuit board, their size, distance, technological process, all of this is covered by this concept. We will not touch the RISC and CISC instruction sets either.
The second thing to look out for is Intel processor generations. You've probably heard many times - this is the fifth generation processor, the fourth, and this is the seventh. Many people think that this is designated i3, i5, i7. But actually there is no i3, and so on - these are processor brands. And the generation depends on the architecture used.
With each new generation, the architecture improved, processors became faster, more economical and smaller, they generated less heat, but at the same time they were more expensive. There are few articles on the Internet that would describe all this in full. Now let's look at how it all began.
Intel processor architectures
I say right away that you should not expect technical details from the article, we will consider only the basic differences that will be of interest to ordinary users.
First processors
First, let's briefly plunge into history to understand how it all began. Let's not go deep and start with 32-bit processors. The first was Intel 80386, it appeared in 1986 and could work at frequencies up to 40 MHz. Older processors also had a generational count. This processor belongs to the third generation, and here the 1500 nm process technology was used.
The next, fourth generation was the 80486. The architecture used in it was called the 486. The processor worked at a frequency of 50 MHz and could execute 40 million instructions per second. The processor had 8 KB of the first level cache, and for the manufacture was used the technical process of 1000 nm.
The next architecture was the P5 or Pentium. These processors appeared in 1993, the cache was increased to 32 kb, the frequency was up to 60 MHz, and the technical process was reduced to 800 nm. In the sixth generation P6, the cache size was 32 KB, and the frequency reached 450 MHz. The tech process has been reduced to 180 nm.
Then the company started producing processors based on the NetBurst architecture. It used 16 KB of the first level cache for each core, and up to 2 MB of the second level cache. The frequency increased to 3 GHz, while the technical process remained at the same level - 180 nm. 64-bit processors appeared here that supported addressing more memory. There were also many command enhancements, and Hyper-Threading technology was added, which allowed two threads to be created from a single core, which increased performance.
Naturally, each architecture has improved over time, increased frequency and decreased process technology. There were also intermediate architectures, but here everything was simplified a little, since this is not our main topic.
Intel Core
NetBurst was replaced in 2006 by Intel Core architecture. One of the reasons for the development of this architecture was the impossibility of increasing the frequency in NetBrust, as well as its very high heat dissipation. This architecture was designed for the development of multi-core processors, the cache size of the first level was increased to 64 KB. The frequency remained at the level of 3 GHz, but the power consumption, as well as the technical process, was greatly reduced to 60 nm.
Core processors supported Intel-VT hardware virtualization, as well as some command extensions, but did not support Hyper-Threading, as they were based on the P6 architecture, where this was not yet possible.
First generation - Nehalem
Further, the numbering of generations was started from the beginning, because all the following architectures are improved versions of Intel Core. The Nehalem architecture replaced the Core, which had some limitations, such as the inability to increase the clock speed. She appeared in 2007. It uses 45 nm process technology and added support for Hyper-Therading technology.
Nehalem processors have 64 KB L1 cache, 4 MB L2 cache and 12 MB L3 cache. The cache is available for all processor cores. It also became possible to embed a graphics accelerator into the processor. The frequency has not changed, but the performance and size of the PCB have increased.
Second generation - Sandy Bridge
Sandy Bridge appeared in 2011 to replace Nehalem. It already uses the 32 nm process technology, uses the same amount of the first level cache, 256 MB of the second level cache and 8 MB of the third level cache. Experimental models used up to 15 MB of shared cache.
Also, now all devices are available with integrated graphics accelerator. The maximum frequency has been increased as well as the overall performance.
Third generation - Ivy Bridge
Ivy Bridge processors are faster than Sandy Bridge and are manufactured using a 22nm process technology. They consume 50% less energy than previous models and also offer 25-60% higher performance. Processors also support Intel technology Quick Sync, which allows you to encode videos several times faster.
Fourth generation - Haswell
The Haswell generation of Intel processor was developed in 2012. Here, the same technical process was used - 22 nm, the cache design was changed, the power consumption mechanisms were improved and performance was slightly improved. But the processor supports many new sockets: LGA 1150, BGA 1364, LGA 2011-3, DDR4 technology and so on. Haswell's main advantage is that it can be used in portable devices due to its very low power consumption.
Fifth generation - Broadwell
This is an improved version of the Haswell architecture, which uses a 14nm process technology. In addition, several architectural improvements have been made to improve performance by an average of 5%.
Sixth Generation - Skylake
The next processor architecture intel core- the sixth generation of Skylake was released in 2015. This is one of the most significant updates to the Core architecture. To install the processor on the motherboard, an LGA 1151 socket is used, now DDR4 memory is supported, but DDR3 support is retained. Thunderbolt 3.0 is supported, as well as the DMI 3.0 bus, which gives twice the speed. And by tradition, there has been increased productivity, as well as reduced energy consumption.
Seventh generation - Kaby Lake
The new, seventh generation Core - Kaby Lake came out this year, with the first processors arriving in mid-January. There weren't many changes here. The 14 nm process technology is preserved, as well as the same LGA 1151 socket. Supports DDR3L SDRAM and DDR4 SDRAM, buses PCI Express 3.0, USB 3.1. In addition, the frequency was slightly increased, and the density of the transistors was also reduced. The maximum frequency is 4.2 GHz.
conclusions
In this article, we looked at the Intel processor architectures that were used in the past, as well as those that are in use today. Then the company plans to switch to the 10 nm process technology and this generation of intel processors will be called CanonLake. But so far Intel is not ready for this.
Therefore, in 2017 it is planned to release an improved version of SkyLake under the codename Coffe Lake. There may also be other microarchitectures of the Intel processor until the company fully masters the new technical process. But we will learn about all this over time. I hope this information was helpful to you.
about the author
Founder and administrator of the site site, I am fond of open software and operating room Linux system... I am currently using Ubuntu as my main OS. In addition to Linux, I am interested in everything related to information technology and modern science.
Marking, positioning, use cases
This summer Intel launched a new, fourth generation Intel Core architecture, codenamed Haswell (processor marking starts with the number "4" and looks like 4xxx). The main direction of development of Intel processors now sees the improvement of energy efficiency. Therefore, the latest generations of Intel Core show not such a strong increase in performance, but their total energy consumption is constantly decreasing - due to both architecture and technical process, and effective management of component consumption. The only exception is integrated graphics, whose performance has grown significantly from generation to generation, albeit at the expense of worsening power consumption.
This strategy predictably brings to the fore those devices in which energy efficiency is important - laptops and ultrabooks, as well as the only nascent (because in its former form it could be attributed exclusively to the undead) class of Windows tablets, the main role in the development of which should be played by new processors with reduced energy consumption.
We remind you that we recently came out short overviews Haswell architectures that are quite applicable to both desktop and mobile solutions:
In addition, the performance of quad-core Core i7 processors was examined in an article comparing desktop and mobile processors. The performance of the Core i7-4500U was also examined separately. Finally, check out Haswell laptop reviews that include performance testing: the MSI GX70 is actually powerful processor Core i7-4930MX, HP Envy 17-j005er.
This article will focus on Haswell's mobile line as a whole. IN first part we will consider the division of Haswell mobile processors into series and lines, the principles of creating indexes for mobile processors, their positioning and the approximate level of performance of different series within the entire line. In second part- we will consider in more detail the specifications of each series and line and their main features, and also move on to the conclusions.
For those who are not familiar with the Intel algorithm Turbo Boost, at the end of the article we have posted a brief description of this technology. We recommend with him before reading the rest of the material.
New letter indices
Traditionally, all Intel Core processors are divided into three lines:
- Intel Core i3
- Intel Core i5
- Intel Core i7
Intel's official position (which company representatives usually voice when answering the question why there are both dual-core and quad-core models among the Core i7) is that the processor is assigned to one or another line based on the overall level of its performance. However, in most cases, there are architectural differences between processors of different lines.
But already in Sandy Bridge, another division of processors has appeared, and in Ivy Bridge, another division of processors - into mobile and ultramobile solutions, depending on the level of energy efficiency, has become full. Moreover, today it is this classification that is basic: both the mobile and the ultramobile line have their own Core i3 / i5 / i7 with a very different level of performance. In Haswell, on the one hand, the division deepened, and on the other, they tried to make the ruler more slender, not so misleading by duplicating indices. In addition, another class has finally taken shape - ultramobile processors with the Y index.Ultramobile and mobile solutions are still marked with the letters U and M.
So, in order not to get confused, first we will analyze what letter indices are used in the modern line of fourth generation Intel Core mobile processors:
- M - mobile processor (TDP 37-57 W);
- U - ultra mobile processor (TDP 15-28 W);
- Y - processor with extremely low power consumption (TDP 11.5 W);
- Q - quad-core processor;
- X - extreme processor (top solution);
- H - processor for BGA1364 packaging.
Since we have already mentioned TDP (thermal package), we will dwell on it in a little more detail. It should be borne in mind that TDP in modern processors Intel is not "maximum", but "nominal", that is, it is calculated based on the load in real tasks when operating at the nominal frequency, and when Turbo Boost is enabled and the frequency is increased, heat dissipation goes beyond the declared nominal thermal package - there is a separate TDP for this. The TDP is also determined when operating at the minimum frequency. Thus, there are as many as three TDPs. In this article, the tables use the nominal TDP value.
- The standard nominal TDP for mobile quad-core Core i7 processors is 47W, for dual-core processors - 37W;
- Letter X in the name raises the thermal package from 47 to 57 W (now there is only one such processor on the market - 4930MX);
- Standard TDP for U-Series Ultra Mobile Processors - 15W;
- Standard TDP for Y-series processors is 11.5 W;
Digital indexes
The indices of the fourth generation Intel Core processors with the Haswell architecture begin with the number 4, which just indicates that they belong to this generation (for Ivy Bridge, the indices began with 3, for Sandy Bridge - with 2). The second digit denotes belonging to the line of processors: 0 and 1 - i3, 2 and 3 - i5, 5-9 - i7.
Now let's take a look at the last digits in the names of the processors.
The number 8 at the end means that this processor model has an increased TDP (from 15 to 28 W) and a significantly higher nominal frequency. Another distinguishing feature of these processors is the Iris 5100 graphics. They are aimed at professional mobile systems that require consistent high performance in all conditions for continuous work with resource-intensive tasks. They also have overclocking with Turbo Boost, but due to the greatly increased nominal frequency, the difference between nominal and maximum is not too great.
The number 2 at the end of the name speaks of the reduced TDP from 47 to 37 W for the processor from the i7 line. But for reducing TDP you have to pay with lower frequencies - minus 200 MHz to the base and overclocking frequencies.
If the second digit from the end in the name is 5, then the processor has a GT3 graphics core - HD 5xxx. Thus, if the last two digits in the name of the processor are 50, then the graphics core GT3 HD 5000 is installed in it, if 58 - then Iris 5100, and if 50H - then Iris Pro 5200, because Iris Pro 5200 is only available for processors in the version BGA1364.
For example, let's take a look at the processor with the 4950HQ index. The processor name contains H, which means the packaging is BGA1364; contains 5 - this means the graphics core is GT3 HD 5xxx; combination of 50 and H gives Iris Pro 5200; Q is quad-core. And since quad-core processors are only found in the Core i7 line, this is the mobile Core i7 series. Which is confirmed by the second digit of the name - 9. We get: 4950HQ is a mobile quad-core eight-thread processor of the Core i7 line with a TDP of 47 W with GT3e Iris Pro 5200 graphics in BGA performance.
Now that we have figured out the names, we can talk about dividing processors into lines and series, or, more simply, about market segments.
4th Generation Intel Core Series and Lines
So, all modern Intel mobile processors are divided into three large groups depending on power consumption: mobile (M), ultramobile (U) and ultramobile (Y), as well as three lines (Core i3, i5, i7), depending on productivity. As a result, we can create a matrix that will allow the user to choose the processor that best suits his tasks. Let's try to bring all the data into a single table.
| Series / ruler | Parameters | Core i3 | Core i5 | Core i7 |
| Mobile (M) | Segment | laptops | laptops | laptops |
| Cores / Threads | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4, 4/8 | |
| Max. frequency | 2.5 GHz | 2.8 / 3.5 GHz | 3 / 3.9 GHz | |
| Turbo Boost | No | there is | there is | |
| TDP | high | high | maximum | |
| Performance | above the average | high | maximum | |
| Autonomy | below the average | below the average | low | |
| Ultramobile (U) | Segment | laptops / ultrabooks | laptops / ultrabooks | laptops / ultrabooks |
| Cores / Threads | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4 | |
| Max. frequency | 2 GHz | 2.6 / 3.1 GHz | 2.8 / 3.3 GHz | |
| Turbo Boost | No | there is | there is | |
| TDP | average | average | average | |
| Performance | below the average | above the average | high | |
| Autonomy | above the average | above the average | above the average | |
| Supermobile (Y) | Segment | ultrabooks / tablets | ultrabooks / tablets | ultrabooks / tablets |
| Cores / Threads | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4 | |
| Max. frequency | 1.3 GHz | 1.4 / 1.9 GHz | 1.7 / 2.9 GHz | |
| Turbo Boost | No | there is | there is | |
| TDP | short | short | short | |
| Performance | low | low | low | |
| Autonomy | high | high | high |
For example, a customer wants a laptop with a high processor performance and a moderate price tag. Since a laptop, and even a productive one, then an M-series processor is needed, and the requirement of a moderate cost forces you to stop at the Core i5 line. We emphasize once again that first of all, you should pay attention not to the line (Core i3, i5, i7), but to the series, because each series may have its own Core i5, but the performance level of a Core i5 from two different series will be significant differ. For example, the Y-series is very economical but has low frequencies work, and the Core i5 Y-series processor will be less efficient than the Core i3 U-series processor. And the mobile Core i5 processor may well be more powerful than the ultra-mobile Core i7.
Approximate level of performance, depending on the line
Let's try to go one step further and make a theoretical rating that would clearly demonstrate the difference between processors of different lines. For 100 points, we will take the weakest processor presented - a dual-core, four-thread i3-4010Y with a clock speed of 1300 MHz and a L3 cache of 3 MB. For comparison, the highest-frequency processor (at the time of this writing) from each line is taken. We decided to calculate the main rating by the overclocking frequency (for those processors that have Turbo Boost), in brackets - the rating for the nominal frequency. Thus, a dual-core, four-thread processor with a maximum frequency of 2600 MHz will receive 200 conditional points. An increase in the cache of the third level from 3 to 4 MB will bring it 2-5% (data obtained on the basis of real tests and research) an increase in conditional points, and an increase in the number of cores from 2 to 4 will accordingly double the number of points, which is also achievable in reality with a good multi-threaded optimization.
Once again, we strongly draw your attention to the fact that the rating is theoretical and is based mostly on the technical parameters of the processors. In reality, a large number of factors are combined, so the performance gain relative to the weakest model in the line is almost certainly not as large as in theory. Thus, you should not directly transfer the resulting ratio to real life - you can only draw final conclusions based on the test results in real applications. Nevertheless, this estimate allows you to roughly estimate the place of the processor in the lineup and its positioning.
So, some preliminary notes:
- The Core i7 U-series processors will be about 10% faster than the Core i5 due to slightly higher clock speeds and more L3 cache.
- The difference between the Core i5 and Core i3 U-series processors with a TDP of 28 W excluding Turbo Boost is about 30%, i.e., ideally, performance will also differ by 30%. If we take into account the capabilities of Turbo Boost, then the difference in frequencies will be about 55%. If we compare the Core i5 and Core i3 U-series processors with a TDP of 15 W, then with stable operation at the maximum frequency, the Core i5 will have a frequency 60% higher. However, the nominal frequency is slightly lower, that is, when operating at the nominal frequency, it may even be slightly inferior to the Core i3.
- In the M-series, the presence of 4 cores and 8 threads in the Core i7 plays an important role, but here we must remember that this advantage manifests itself only in optimized software (as a rule, professional). Core i7 processors with two cores will have slightly better performance due to higher overclocking frequencies and slightly larger L3 cache.
- In the Y series, the Core i5 processor has a base frequency of 7.7% and an overclocking rate of 50% higher than the Core i3. But in this case, there are additional considerations - the same energy efficiency, the noise of the cooling system, etc.
- If we compare the processors of the U and Y series, then only the frequency gap between the U and Y processors of the Core i3 is 54%, and for the Core i5 processors - 63% at the maximum overclocking frequency.
So, let's calculate the score for each ruler. Recall that the main score is based on the maximum overclocking frequencies, the point in parentheses is based on the nominal ones (i.e. without Turbo Boost overclocking). We also calculated the performance factor per watt.
¹ max. - at maximum acceleration, nom. - at rated frequency
² coefficient - conditional performance divided by TDP and multiplied by 100
³ overclocking TDP data for these processors is unknown
From the table below, the following observations can be made:
- The dual-core Core i7 processors in the U and M series are only marginally faster than the Core i5 processors in the same series. This applies to comparison for both base and overclocking frequencies.
- The Core i5 processors of the U and M series, even at the base frequency, should be noticeably faster than the Core i3 of the same series, and in Boost mode they will go far ahead.
- In the Y-series, the difference between processors at minimum frequencies is small, but with Turbo Boost overclocking, the Core i5 and Core i7 should go far ahead. It's another matter that the magnitude and, most importantly, the stability of overclocking are very dependent on the cooling efficiency. And with this, given the orientation of these processors to tablets (especially fanless ones), there may be problems.
- The Core i7 U-series almost reaches the level of the Core i5 M-series in terms of performance. There are other factors (it is more difficult to achieve stability due to less efficient cooling, and it costs more), but overall this is a good result.
As for the ratio of power consumption and performance rating, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- Despite the increase in TDP when the processor enters Boost mode, energy efficiency is improved. This is because the relative increase in frequency is greater than the relative increase in TDP;
- The ranking of processors of various series (M, U, Y) occurs not only in terms of decreasing TDP, but also increasing energy efficiency - for example, Y-series processors show more energy efficiency than U-series processors;
- It is worth noting that with an increase in the number of cores, and therefore threads, energy efficiency also increases. This can be explained by the fact that only the processor cores themselves are doubled, but not the accompanying DMI, PCI Express and ICP controllers.
An interesting conclusion can be drawn from the latter: if the application is well parallelized, then a quad-core processor will be more energy efficient than a dual-core one: it will finish computations faster and return to idle mode. As a result, multicore could be the next step in the fight to improve energy efficiency. In principle, this trend can be noted in the ARM camp as well.
So, although the rating is purely theoretical, and it is not a fact that it accurately reflects the real alignment of forces, even it allows us to draw certain conclusions regarding the distribution of processors in the lineup, their energy efficiency and the ratio of these parameters to each other.
Haswell vs. Ivy Bridge
Although Haswell processors have been on the market for quite some time, the presence of Ivy Bridge processors in turnkey solutions remains quite high even now. From the point of view of the consumer, there were no special revolutions during the transition to Haswell (although the increase in energy efficiency for some segments looks impressive), which raises questions: is it worth choosing the fourth generation, or can you do with the third?
It is difficult to directly compare the fourth-generation Core processors with the third, because the manufacturer has changed the TDP boundaries:
- the M series of the third generation Core has a TDP of 35 W, and the fourth - 37 W;
- the U series of the third generation Core has a TDP of 17 W, and the fourth - 15 W;
- the Y series of the third generation Core has a TDP of 13W, while the fourth has a TDP of 11.5W.
And if for ultramobile lines the TDP dropped, then for the more productive M series it even increased. Nevertheless, let's try to make an approximate comparison:
- The top-end quad-core processor Core i7 of the third generation had a frequency of 3 (3.9) GHz, in the fourth generation - the same 3 (3.9) GHz, that is, the difference in performance can only be due to architectural improvements - no more than 10%. Although, it is worth noting that with heavy use of FMA3, the fourth generation will outstrip the third by 30-70%.
- The top dual-core processors Core i7 of the third generation of the M-series and U-series had frequencies of 2.9 (3.6) GHz and 2 (3.2) GHz, respectively, and the fourth - 2.9 (3.6) GHz and 2, 1 (3.3) GHz. As you can see, even if the frequencies have increased, it is insignificant, so the performance level can only grow minimally due to the architecture optimization. Again, if the software knows about FMA3 and knows how to actively use this extension, then the fourth generation will have a solid advantage.
- The top dual-core processors Core i5 of the third generation M-series and U-series had frequencies of 2.8 (3.5) GHz and 1.8 (2.8) GHz, respectively, and the fourth - 2.8 (3.5) GHz and 1.9 (2.9) GHz. The situation is similar to the previous one.
- The top-end third generation dual-core processors Core i3 M-series and U-series had frequencies of 2.5 GHz and 1.8 GHz, respectively, and the fourth - 2.6 GHz and 2 GHz. The situation repeats itself again.
- The top dual-core processors Core i3, i5 and i7 of the third generation of the Y-series had frequencies of 1.4 GHz, 1.5 (2.3) GHz and 1.5 (2.6) GHz, respectively, and the fourth - 1.3 GHz, 1.4 (1.9) GHz and 1.7 (2.9) GHz.
In general, the clock speeds in the new generation have practically not increased, so a slight performance gain is obtained only due to architecture optimization. The fourth generation Core will get a noticeable advantage when using software optimized for FMA3. Well, do not forget about a faster graphics core - there optimization can bring a significant increase.
As for the relative difference in performance within the lines, the third and fourth generations of Intel Core are close in this indicator.
Thus, we can conclude that in the new generation Intel decided to lower the TDP instead of increasing the operating frequencies. As a result, the increase in operating speed is lower than it could have been, but it was possible to achieve an increase in energy efficiency.
Suitable Tasks for Different 4th Generation Intel Core Processors
Now that we have figured out the performance, we can roughly estimate what tasks this or that fourth-generation Core line is best suited for. Let's summarize the data in a table.
| Series / ruler | Core i3 | Core i5 | Core i7 |
| Mobile M |
| All the previous plus:
| All the previous plus:
|
| Ultra Mobile U |
| All the previous plus:
|
|
| Super-mobile Y |
|
|
|
It is also clearly seen from this table that first of all it is worth paying attention to the processor series (M, U, Y), and only then to the line (Core i3, i5, i7), since the line determines the ratio of processor performance only within the series, and performance differs markedly between series. This is clearly seen in the comparison of the i3 U-series and i5 Y-series: the first in this case will be more productive than the second.
So what conclusions can be drawn from this table? Core i3 processors of any series, as we have already noted, are interesting primarily for their price. Therefore, it is worth paying attention to them if you are strapped for funds and are ready to accept a loss in both performance and energy efficiency.
The mobile Core i7 stands out due to architectural differences: four cores, eight threads and noticeably more L3 cache. As a result, it is able to work with professional resource-intensive applications and show an extremely high level of performance for a mobile system. But for this, the software must be optimized for use a large number cores - it will not reveal its merits in single-threaded software. And secondly, these processors require a bulky cooling system, that is, they are installed only in large laptops with a large thickness, and their autonomy is not very good either.
Core i5 mobile series provide a good level of performance, sufficient for performing not only home-office, but also some semi-professional tasks. For example, for photo and video processing. In all respects (energy consumption, heat generation, autonomy), these processors occupy an intermediate position between the Core i7 M-series and the ultra-mobile line. All in all, this is a balanced solution for those who value performance over a thin and light chassis.
Dual-core mobile Core i7 is about the same as the Core i5 M-series, only slightly more productive and, as a rule, noticeably more expensive.
Ultramobile Core i7s have about the same level of performance as mobile Core i5s, but with caveats: if the cooling system can withstand prolonged operation at an increased frequency. Yes, and they heat up pretty well under load, which often leads to strong heating of the entire laptop case. Apparently, they are quite expensive, so their installation is justified only for top models. But they can be installed in thin laptops and ultrabooks, providing a high level of performance with a thin body and good battery life. This makes them a great choice for the frequent traveler of professional users who value energy efficiency and light weight, but often require high performance.
Ultramobile Core i5 show lower performance compared to the "big brother" of the series, but cope with any office load, while having good energy efficiency and much more affordable price. In general, this is a universal solution for users who do not work in resource-intensive applications, but are limited to office programs and the Internet, and at the same time would like to have a laptop / ultrabook suitable for travel, i.e. lightweight, lightweight and long-lasting. batteries.
Finally, the Y-series also stands out. In terms of performance, its Core i7, with luck, will reach the ultra-mobile Core i5, but this, by and large, no one expects from it. For the Y series, the main thing is high energy efficiency and low heat generation, which makes it possible to create, among other things, fanless systems. As far as performance is concerned, the minimum acceptable level is sufficient, which does not cause irritation.
Turbo Boost at a glance
In case some of our readers have forgotten how Turbo Boost technology works, here's a short description of how it works.
To put it bluntly, the Turbo Boost system can dynamically increase the frequency of the processor over the set due to the fact that it constantly monitors whether the processor is out of normal operation.
The processor can operate only in a certain temperature range, that is, its performance depends on heating, and heating depends on the ability of the cooling system to effectively remove heat from it. But since it is not known in advance with which cooling system the processor will work in the user's system, two parameters are indicated for each processor model: the operating frequency and the amount of heat that must be removed from the processor at maximum load at this frequency. Since these parameters depend on the efficiency and correct operation of the cooling system, as well as external conditions (first of all, the ambient temperature), the manufacturer had to lower the frequency of the processor so that it would not lose stability even under the most unfavorable operating conditions. Turbo Boost technology monitors the internal parameters of the processor and allows it to operate at a higher frequency if external conditions are favorable.
Intel originally explained that Turbo Boost technology takes advantage of the "thermal inertia effect". Most of the time, in modern systems, the processor is idle, but from time to time it needs maximum output for a short period. If at this moment the processor frequency is raised strongly, then it will cope with the task faster and return to the idle state earlier. At the same time, the processor temperature does not rise immediately, but gradually, therefore, during short-term operation at a very high frequency, the processor will not have time to heat up so as to go beyond the safe limits.
In reality, it quickly became clear that with a good cooling system, the processor is capable of operating under load even at an increased frequency for an unlimited time. Thus, long time the maximum overclocking frequency was absolutely working, and the processor returned to the nominal only in extreme cases or if the manufacturer made a low-quality cooling system for a particular laptop.
In order to prevent overheating and failure of the processor, the Turbo Boost system in the modern implementation constantly monitors the following parameters of its operation:
- chip temperature;
- consumed current;
- power consumption;
- number of loaded components.
Modern systems based on Ivy Bridge are capable of operating at an increased frequency in almost all modes, except for the simultaneous serious load on the central processor and graphics. As for Intel Haswell, we do not yet have sufficient statistics on the behavior of this platform under overclocking.
Approx. author: It is worth noting that the temperature of the chip also indirectly affects the power consumption - this effect becomes obvious upon closer examination physical device the crystal itself, since the electrical resistance of semiconductor materials increases with increasing temperature, and this in turn leads to an increase in electricity consumption. Thus, the processor at 90 degrees will consume more power than at 40 degrees. And since the processor "warms up" the textolite motherboard with the tracks, and the surrounding components, then their energy losses to overcome the higher resistance also affect energy consumption. This conclusion is easily confirmed by overclocking both "in the air" and extreme. All overclockers know that a more efficient cooler allows you to get additional megahertz, and the effect of superconductivity of conductors at temperatures close to absolute zero, when the electrical resistance tends to zero, is familiar to everyone from school physics. That is why, when accelerating with cooling with liquid nitrogen, it turns out to reach such high frequencies. Returning to the dependence of electrical resistance on temperature, we can also say that to some extent the processor also heats itself up: when the temperature rises, when the cooling system fails, the electrical resistance also increases, which in turn increases the power consumption. And this leads to an increase in heat dissipation, which leads to a rise in temperature ... Besides, do not forget that high temperatures shorten the life of the processor. Although manufacturers claim high maximum temperatures for chips, it is still worth keeping the temperature as low as possible.
By the way, it is quite probable that turning the fan at a higher speed, when it increases the power consumption of the system, is more advantageous in terms of power consumption than having a processor with a high temperature, which will entail power losses due to the increased resistance.
As you can see, temperature may not be a direct limiting factor for Turbo Boost, that is, the processor will have a perfectly acceptable temperature and not go into throttling, but it indirectly affects another limiting factor - power consumption. Therefore, you should not forget about the temperature.
To summarize, the Turbo Boost technology allows, under favorable operating conditions, to increase the processor frequency beyond the guaranteed rating and thus provide a much higher level of performance. This property is especially valuable in mobile systems where it strikes a good balance between performance and heat.
But it should be remembered that the reverse side of the coin is the impossibility of assessing (predicting) the pure performance of the processor, since it will depend on external factors. Probably, this is one of the reasons for the appearance of processors with “8” at the end of the model name - with “raised” nominal operating frequencies and increased TDP because of this. They are designed for those products for which consistent high performance under load is more important than energy efficiency.
The second part of the article contains detailed description all modern series and lines of Intel Haswell processors, including specifications all available processors. And also conclusions were made about the applicability of certain models.
