In short: these are the same Skylake chips, but with higher frequencies and an advanced hardware video processing engine. Still, some models are quite interesting. In addition, there is an unshakable rule: it is better to build a computer from scratch on the most modern hardware possible.
Briefly about the product: 2 cores but 4 threads, 4.1 GHz, 4 MB L3 cache, 51 W TDP
Peculiarities: very high default frequency - 4.1 GHz
Price: US$149
Budget for a gaming computer with this processor: 35-40,000 rubles
Initially, this place in the selection was given to the Core i3-7350K. He is unique. As the song of the Kino group says: our hearts demand change! Indeed, since 2011 Intel has had two overclockable processors. One Core i5 and one Core i7 (there was also an anniversary Pentium G3258, but this is the exception that proves the rule). Such patterns are easy to recognize. They are the fastest, they are the most expensive, they have the letter “K” in their name. The wind of change blew in 2017, precisely with the release of the Core i3-7350K. It's been a long time since Intel released overclocking budget processors. Naturally, you will have to pay extra for overclocking capabilities. The chip costs $168, but it is nevertheless cheaper than the slowest Kaby Lake quad-core Core i5-7400 ($182).
Core i3-7350K is fast without any overclocking. Operates at 4.2 GHz. It is quite possible to overclock it up to 4.8-5.0 GHz. Naturally, for this you will need to have a high-quality cooler in your arsenal. In general, overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard based on the Z170/Z270 Express chipset. Read about which devices are required for the seventh generation Core in this material. So saving is a moot point. As well as the possibility of overclocking. But 4.2 GHz out of the box is already serious. And the Core i3-7320 runs at 4.1 GHz. It's only 100 MHz less, but we save $19 right away.
Intel Core i3-7320
Briefly about the product: 4 cores, 3.0 (3.5) GHz, 6 MB L3 cache, 65 W TDP
Peculiarities: cheapest quad-core Kaby Lake
Price:$182
Gaming computer budget: 50-55,000 rubles
And Core i5 processors, as you know, have four full cores. And modern games love multithreading more and more. Perhaps the most obvious example is Battlefield 1. In it, any Core i5 is loaded at 100%. But such a chip is still enough to build a gaming computer with a powerful video card, including Radeon RX 480 and GeForce GTX 1060.
Let's not forget about one tempting feature of the new Kaby Lake. The chips have not very fast integrated graphics HD 630, but it has an advanced media block. As a result, all the power of the processor can be “thrown” into ensuring the operation of the video card, and the hardware units of the integrated GPU, for example, will ensure the operation of the OBS streaming program.
Intel Core i5-7400
Briefly about the product: 4 cores but 8 threads, 3.6 (4.2) GHz, 8 MB L3 cache, 65 W TDP
Peculiarities: fastest processor with 65W TDP
Price:$303
Gaming computer budget: 60-75,000 rubles
The capabilities of the Core i7-7700 are studied in detail in the review. The tricky part is that with a fairly low TDP for desktop processors (only 65 W), all four cores of the chip operate at 4 GHz under load. We get two things. Firstly, eight streams are useful, including in games. Secondly, high frequency. It will help both in work and in entertainment. The Core i7-7700 will make great friends with a video card of the GeForce GTX 1070 level. And the low level of typical heat generation will allow you to assemble a gaming computer of any complexity. Yes, even the size of a game console!
Intel Core i7-7700
Briefly about the product: 4 cores but 8 threads, 4.2 (4.5) GHz, 8 MB L3 cache, 91 W TDP
Peculiarities: accelerates to 5 GHz. If you're lucky.
Price: $339
Gaming computer budget: 100,000 rubles
The mainstream Intel platform, and LGA1151 is what it is, supports a maximum of quad-core Core i7 processors. Therefore, the Core i7-7700K differs from the Core i7-7700 only in frequency, the presence of an unlocked multiplier and, as a result, an increased TDP level. Overclocker model. With proper luck, it accelerates to 5 GHz using a good cooling system. The last time Sandy Bridge chips, released back in 2011, boasted such overclocking agility. It is clear that any modern video card can be used with the Core i7-7700K. Or even two.
05.07.2018 16:11
Who would have thought that in 2018 a new 6-core processor for a modern mainstream platform would cost less than $200? This is the reality that the 14 nm Coffee Lake CPU family has given us. And the most affordable solution of this format is the Intel Core i5-8400, which will be discussed today.
This " stone", like “ monsters" for Socket LGA 2066, saves time.
This stone not designed for overclocking, because it does not have an unlocked multiplier. But six physical cores and a high clock speed are enough to perform any tasks that a user of a multimedia computer faces. We have a universal product that will be useful to gamers, content creators (audio and video processing) and professionals.
Technical features
The 14 nm Intel Core i5-8400 processor has six physical cores (the same number of computational threads, the Hyper-Threading function is not used here) and 9 MB of cache. The nominal clock frequency is 2800 MHz (in automatic acceleration mode, one core operates at 4 GHz).
The maximum multiplier of the reviewed CPU is x40, however, all six cores at 4000 MHz do not start, but we will talk about this later.
| Core i5-8400 | Core i7-7800X | Core i7-6800K | Core i7-5820K | Core i7-3930K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical process | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Socket | LGA 1151 | LGA 2066 | LGA 2011-3 | LGA 2011-3 | LGA 2011 |
| Cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 6/12 |
| Clock frequency | 2800/4000 MHz | 3500/4000 MHz | 3400/3600 MHz | 3300/3600 MHz | 3200/3800 MHz |
| Cache | 9 MB | 8.25 MB | 15 MB | 15 MB | 12 MB |
| TDP | 65 W | 140 W | 140 W | 140 W | 130 W |
| Memory support | 2 channels, DDR4-2666 | 4 channels, DDR4-2400 | 4 channels, DDR4-2400/2133 | 4 channels, DDR4-1600/1866/2133 | 4 channels, DDR3-1066/1333/1600 |
| Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | No | No | No | No |
| PCI-E lanes | 16 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 40 |
| Intel Optane Memory | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Intel Turbo Boost | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Intel Hyper-Threading | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Launch date | 4th quarter 2017 | 2nd quarter 2017 | 2nd quarter 2016 | 3rd quarter 2014 | 4th quarter 2011 |
The declared TDP level of the Intel Core i5-8400 is 65 W, while stone quite hot. A Box format cooler will certainly be enough to remove heat, but you shouldn’t count on 100% silent operation and low operating temperatures. It is better to choose a full-format tower-type CO with a 120 or 140 mm fan that will rotate at low speeds.
To cool the Intel Core i5-8400, we used an Aerocool Verkho Plus cooler (TDP 90 W). Under load stone heated up to 89 degrees, and the propeller rotated at maximum speed (2000 rpm), creating acoustic discomfort.
Intel Core i5-8400 and DDR4-3066
Intel Core i5-8400 is compatible with fast RAM (DDR4-2666). If you have a platform based on the top-end Intel Z370 chipset, we recommend purchasing modules with a frequency of 3000 MHz and higher.
The reviewed processor has a built-in Intel UHD Graphics 630 graphics core. Integrated adapter is intended exclusively for displaying images on one or several displays (including in high resolution), it will not be possible to play normally on such a “video card”, it is too weak. For external graphics there are 16 standard PCI-E lines.
We remind you that the Core i5-8400 supports Intel Optane Memory technology, which is the basis for extremely powerful SSDs.
Test stand:
The 14 nm Intel Core i5-8400 processor has six physical cores and 9 MB of cache.
These products can be found at flea markets at an affordable price, but the problem can be a profile motherboard (with the exception of devices with Socket LGA 2066), which are becoming fewer and fewer (new ones are no longer produced).
Against this background, the affordable Intel Core i5-8400 looks great. IN battle it is practically not inferior to any of the above CPUs if we are talking about multimedia tasks. Although support for 4-channel RAM and additional computational threads in professional applications may be in great demand.
We never tire of repeating that the eighth generation of Intel Core is a device for growth. This is the flagship, locked, fast, and today's guest Core i5-8400. We recommend that only those who really know how to use six physical cores pay attention to it, and for light tasks it is better to look for something simpler.
Long-awaited models for the mass platform, but different
Just 15 years ago, the question of the number of cores in the central processors of typical personal computers simply did not arise - of course, there was only one core. True, there could have been two processors themselves, although in those (and earlier) years this could not be called a cheap pleasure, and for most users it was not at all useful. In essence, there was a standard chicken and egg problem: programmers did not take into account the possibility of having a second processor, since users rarely bought dual-processor computers, and they rarely bought them precisely because there were practically no programs capable of realizing the potential of multiple computing devices. In certain areas, SMP configurations were quite appropriate, but they remained niche solutions - in fact, the most popular operating systems of the Windows 9x line at that time did not support such “perversions” in principle.
Things started to change in 2005, when both AMD and Intel began shipping dual-core processors, but the change was slow because there was still too little mainstream software to take full advantage of the new capabilities. Of course, there was specialized software, and there were programs that could utilize a larger number of cores, but only in certain niches. However, the transition from one core to two was not even quantitative, but qualitative, and when using predominantly single-threaded software: the “extra” core remained free to ensure the normal functioning of the OS, so it became more difficult to “freeze” the computer even with “crooked” programs, which many I liked it. The beauty of the concept was spoiled by the fact that the first dual-core processor models were “glued together” from a pair of single-core processors, so that, other things being equal, they were more expensive or, at comparable prices, were not quite equal in technical characteristics (clock frequency, for example). This led to lower performance in mainstream software and, accordingly, low popularity of dual-core processors in general. In general, it turned out to be a kind of vicious circle.
It was possible to “unlock” it in the second half of 2006, when Intel introduced processors of the Core 2 Duo family. Firstly, they initially had a dual-core design, so the release of single-core models based on it was very limited and affected only the lowest segment (in other words, Celeron). Secondly, they themselves turned out to be very successful - both in desktop and mobile versions. At the same time, this led to a price war between AMD and Intel, as a result of which processor prices fell to the level we are accustomed to today. In general, two cores have become the “norm of life,” which programmers have begun to take into account, albeit with a slight delay. But four cores could not become widespread for a long time, although the company introduced Core 2 Quad in the same year: they were spinning in the same vicious circle “no software, they don’t take it, and if they don’t take it, no software.” Only a few users had such software, and they greeted these quad-core processors warmly, thinking about more cores. Sometimes they even bought dual-processor systems for old times' sake :)
But in order for such products to become widespread, it was necessary to prepare the market, which is what Intel did. In particular, the first Core processors at the end of 2008 added Hyper-Threading support to the four cores, which allowed them to execute eight threads of code. In 2010, the first six-core processors appeared, quickly falling in price from $1000 (which is not so much - the price of extreme Core 2 Quad reached one and a half thousand) to about $600. But all this preparation became especially noticeable in 2011 - with the release of Sandy Bridge for LGA1155. Then the company clearly limited the price niche of dual-core processors to $150, i.e. they definitely no longer found their way into expensive computers. And in general, the mass platform was “sandwiched” by the bar around $300 - quad-core Core i7 with HT were sold at these prices. In top-end systems, one could rather find six-core processors, which a little later (after the release of LGA2011-3) dropped in price to almost $400, i.e. the difference became minimal. Well, eight-core processors began to be prescribed in the most powerful systems - with a recommended price of “a buck,” but not long before that, models with only four cores were sold at the same (and even higher) prices.
In general, all these measures gradually led to the fact that the potential base for software capable of using eight or more computational threads became large. The efforts of AMD also made their contribution - the company tried to “show off its cores” in the competition more than once or twice (not very successfully, but largely due to the problems mentioned at the beginning). In addition, eight-core processors were firmly established in game consoles, albeit with weak cores - and as a result, game engine developers were simply forced to parallelize the code to the maximum extent: it was impossible to “run” on one or two fast threads due to the complete absence of them. As a result, they began to expect the next logical step from Intel - the introduction of at least six-core processors into the mass segment. Moreover, this event was expected along with the advent of Skylake and the LGA1151 platform, i.e. a couple of years ago, but it did not happen...
In fact, already at the beginning of 2015, the company made it clear that on the new platform the distribution of roles and prices would be exactly the same as on the previous LGA1150 and even LGA1155. Of course, this was a disappointment to many desktop users who had acquired a quad-core processor in previous years and were starting to think about more. But “more” was available only on a more expensive platform, to which some were forced to migrate. The others saw no way out of the impasse. Moreover, it was not traced later, when a few months after Skylake appeared on the market it became known that the next generation Core (Kaby Lake) would differ slightly from Skylake: no obvious changes should be expected either in terms of performance characteristics or in the technical process. At the end of 2017, deliveries of 10-nanometer Cannonlake with unknown characteristics were planned.
Several months passed, and plans changed again: it turned out that there would be another version of processors, still using the 14 nm process technology - once again improved, but still quite old, since the first Broadwells based on it were released for another three years ago (naturally, these were mobile processors - less mass markets, including desktop ones, usually receive new models with some delay). And most importantly, the older Coffee Lake models should have received exactly the required six cores and the LGA1151 design that was already familiar by that time - what was expected from Skylake the fall before last. At the same time, prices had to remain unchanged, i.e., for the first time since 2011, all families had to “move down” one step. In any case, according to the first assumptions, Core i5 should have received Hyper-Threading, and Core i3 - four cores (the “2+HT” configuration remained only for Pentium, i.e., it “went” to the segment below $100, and this is it already did, starting with Broadwell laptops and Kaby Lake desktops). Then it turned out that the Core i5 will also have six cores. This is where the information Intel has about AMD Ryzen may have had an impact: both on the level of performance and the number of cores. Moreover, let us remind you (and we will tell someone for the first time), AMD Ryzen is not only a maximum of eight cores, but also models for the mass (including mobile) market with four cores paired with a video core. True, these processors never came out on time (they were expected back in the summer of this year), but these are minor technical details. In fact, Coffee Lake is aimed at the same niches and has a similar configuration (i.e. with an integrated GPU), so giving all models six cores is very convenient for competition. Moreover, Intel managed to cram four cores with support for Hyper-Threading into a 15 W thermal package - such are Kaby Lake-R, which also belongs to the eighth generation and uses similar optimizations, not only Core i7, but also Core i5. It is clear that AMD’s video core will (most likely) be more productive, but the processor component is of interest to many users no less, if not more. In the end, for those who are interested specifically in graphics, there are discrete video cards - IGP will always lag behind them anyway. So from this side everything is logical.
But with the “usual design of LGA1151” everything turned out to be not so smooth. For obvious reasons, new processors required new chipsets - everyone, in general, has long been accustomed to this situation. But the fact that new chipsets will be incompatible with old processors is something that everyone has become accustomed to since the days of LGA775. And even then, “official incompatibility” often turned into “unofficial compatibility” in practice. Will it work out this time? It is still difficult to reject this possibility, but at the moment old processors are physically installed in new boards, but cannot work. At the same time, there are no completely new 300-series chipsets yet, there is only the Z370, which is completely similar to the previous Z270 - this is a top-end “caliber for an hour”, since next year it should be replaced by the Z390 with support for USB 3.1 Gen2 and other improvements. A little earlier, other models of chipsets of the new family should be released, including the inexpensive B360 or H310, which will be sorely missed for some time for the younger Core i3-8100: the idea of installing an inexpensive non-overclockable processor on a board with an expensive overclocker chipset looks a bit strange. However, the new Core i3 does not fall into the first wave of shipments, but this also applies to the Core i5-8400 to some extent. In general, at first there may be distortions in the market, so a pair of an old “expensive” processor and an old cheap motherboard may cost the buyer less than a new “cheap” processor for which the corresponding motherboards have not yet been released. This will definitely have to be taken into account by those who are planning to buy new Intel solutions as soon as they become available. Well, we’ll check now how they work.
| CPU | Intel Core i5-8600K | Intel Core i7-8700K |
| Kernel name | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,6/4,3 | 3,7/4,7 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/12 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 9 | 12 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 |
So far we have got, one might say, the best pair - the Core i5-8600K and i7-8700K, which have unlocked multipliers, so the Z370 chipset may come in handy for them. In principle, these processors differ from each other in the same way as before: i5 have slightly lower official frequencies and lack Hyper-Threading support. That's all. Both models have six physical cores, plus a dual-channel memory controller with support for DDR4-2667 and an old video core, which, although now called UHD Graphics 630, is similar to the HD Graphics 630 in Kaby Lake (and it’s not too different from the HD Graphics 530 of the Skylake era ). However, we won’t touch the video core today - all tests were performed with a discrete video card based on the GTX 1070.
| CPU | Intel Core i5-7600K | Intel Core i7-7700K |
| Kernel name | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,8/4,2 | 4,2/4,5 |
| Number of cores/threads | 4/4 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 128/128 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4×256 | 4×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 6 | 8 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2400 | 2×DDR4-2400 |
| TDP, W | 91 | 91 |
| Price | T-1716356460 | T-1716356308 |
Without fail, we need to compare the new processors with their immediate predecessors of the seventh generation: Core i5-7600K and i7-7700K. It’s easy to see that this is almost the same thing - only there are four cores, not six. A familiar (and even boring) configuration for six years.
| CPU | Intel Core i7-6800K | Intel Core i7-7800X |
| Kernel name | Broadwell-E | Skylake-X |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,4/3,6 | 3,5/4,0 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 6/12 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×1024 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 15 | 8,25 |
| RAM | 4×DDR4-2400 | 4×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 140 | 140 |
| Price | T-13974485 | T-1729322998 |
We took four more processors from recent testing of HEDT platforms: the Core i7-6800K was recently the cheapest six-core Intel processor, and now it is being replaced by the i7-7800X (a direct comparison of it with the i7-8700K, it seems to us, is generally very interesting). Due to the specifics of the platform, these test subjects will now be working with twice the amount of memory compared to other testing participants, which, however, is not so important in practice (but it needs to be mentioned).
| CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X | AMD Ryzen 7 1800X |
| Kernel name | Ryzen | Ryzen |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3,6/4,0 | 3,6/4,0 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 8/16 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 384/192 | 512/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×512 | 8×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 16 | 16 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2667 | 2×DDR4-2667 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 |
| Price | T-1723154074 | T-1720383938 |
And a couple of AMD models. The Ryzen 5 1600X, when using a discrete graphics card, was a direct competitor to the Core i5-7600K, and now must fight the i5-8600K. The Ryzen 7 1800X, strictly speaking, does not directly interfere with anyone. But, unfortunately, we never got our hands on the younger Ryzen 7 1700, so it’s enough to evaluate the ends of the range - both it and the 1700X should be somewhere between 1600X and 1800X in terms of performance. 1700X, by the way, as we know, in terms of performance it is practically no different from 1800X, but it consumes more energy - so it’s cheaper for a reason. In general, we can consider that we gave AMD a slight head start by taking the Ryzen 7 1800X, and also testing both processors with slightly overclocked memory - DDR4-2933 instead of the standard 2667 MHz.
Methodology. Let us briefly recall here that it is based on the following four pillars:
Detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with results (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). In our articles, we use already processed data. This especially applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (AMD FX-8350 with 16 GB of memory, GeForce GTX 1070 video card and Corsair Force LE 960 GB SSD) and grouped by computer application.
Eight cores are, of course, eight, but Intel’s new six-core processors are not too far behind the Ryzen 7 1800X, and are cheaper. Particularly good, of course, is the i7-8700K, which works even a little faster than the 7800X. In principle, the i5-8600K did not disappoint us: it easily beat the Core i7-7700K. True, it still lags behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, but this is not the same defeat that was observed in the case of the i5-7600K. By the way, it’s worth paying attention to the fact that the advantage over its predecessor is more than one and a half times, i.e. we’re not just talking about an additional pair of cores. And the Core i7 also “scaled” almost linearly.
The situation is almost the same, only here the Core i7-8700K is not behind the 1800X. Excellent result in the upper segment! And worse - on average: the Ryzen 5 1600X continues to be attractive when used with a discrete graphics card. On the other hand, you can count on the fact that after the appearance of inexpensive motherboards, some Core i5-8400 will be perfect for those who do not need fast graphics - in fact, they will have no one to compete with in this situation :)
As we already know, in this group, increasing the number of cores from six to eight does not have a very big effect, and the benefit of SMT (naturally) in such conditions is minimal. Therefore, today's pair of newcomers can simply be considered winners.
Photoshop continues to do weird things: the program clearly doesn’t like not only the lack of Hyper-Threading, since the performance of the Core i5-8600K here is only at the level of the i5-7400, not even 7600K. The remaining two programs in the group "pull" the beginner higher, but still we get an excellent illustration of how software problems can ruin anything. But the Core i7-8700K does not have such problems, so in the overall standings it lost only to the i7-7800X.
And again flows are everything, so the Core i5-8600K failed to catch up with the Core i7-7700K. On the other hand, it’s cheaper - it’s okay :) But of course, it wasn’t worth it to lag behind the Ryzen 5 1600X, and even so noticeably, but it’s difficult to break the laws of physics. Quality doesn't always outweigh quantity, and the Core i7-8700K only looks like the fastest six-core processor (which it is). No more. But no less.
There is a feeling that the four-channel memory controller “played” once - in any case, it is difficult to explain such a success of the i7-6800K with anything else. But the i7-8700K lags behind it slightly, but it itself is quite noticeably ahead of the Ryzen 7 1800X, which closes the top three. This program may have room to improve its work with new processors, which will allow the i7-7800X and Ryzen to demonstrate better results. However, the state of affairs with archiving is already favorable for newcomers, although they are not too ahead of their immediate predecessors.
The main thing in this group is a noticeable increase in performance compared to its predecessors, and at the same prices. A very good level, although not a record, but six cores by today’s standards is not the maximum. But with such proximity to the mass price segment, the result is a record one.
In general, a very serious application, especially in the case of the new Core i7, which can perfectly compete with both Ryzen 7 and its namesake for the HEDT platform. The Core i5 is a little less pleasing, but it is already reaching the level of the recent Core i7 and is noticeably ahead of its predecessor. At the same time, the new Core i5 is not supposed to lag behind the Ryzen 5 1600X. And the problem is not only in Photoshop - the situation is similar in many other programs. However, the presence of a built-in video core allows you to build small and energy-efficient (and inexpensive) computers on the new Core i5, but this is more difficult for Ryzen. But if you still need to use a discrete video card, then AMD remains superior in this segment, and you don’t have to buy a 1600X - you can slightly overclock a very inexpensive 1600. But “from above” the situation has been radically corrected in favor of Intel.
However, performance and price are not the only characteristics of the processor, and in terms of power consumption, the Core i5-8600K looks great: it is almost identical to its predecessor. The energy consumption of the Core i7-8700K is slightly higher than we would like.
This is especially noticeable if you evaluate only the energy consumption of the processor, without taking into account the platform: after all, a hundred watts is a bit much for mass solutions. Maybe Intel tried to “squeeze” maximum performance out of the top model (it’s no secret that such flagship processor races are carefully studied by those who will only buy a Celeron anyway), or maybe we didn’t get a very successful copy. But in general, we would like more... More precisely, less: the result of the new flagship is only at the level of the Ryzen 5 1600X, which is not bad for AMD, but not for Intel. However, at least the new product cannot be compared with the i7-7800X - and that’s good.
But we would like higher performance from the Core i5-8600K, since now the energy efficiency of the new pair of processors is approximately equal. And yet, the Core i5 has a slightly better performance, which also indirectly hints at certain problems with this Core i7 model (or our sample) - previously, the use of SMT improved it, and not vice versa. However, these are nitpicks - anyway, both of these processors are the absolute leaders among those tested at the moment. And there are no competitors... :)
Today we will once again present all the diagrams first, and then a general commentary for them.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
As you can see, the results of all subjects fall within a very small range - as expected. There are a couple of games where the Core i5-7600K lags behind its competitors (in one it is very noticeable), but it is the only “only” quad-core processor here, and even with a high core frequency this can sometimes not be enough. However, most often the difference, if there is one, is small. It is clear that when using a more powerful video card, such situations may occur more often, but there are not so many more powerful video cards, and compared to their prices, saving on a processor looks strange - unless, of course, it is a faithful overclocked Core i5-2500K, which has been around for many years I coped with any games and with any video card without any questions at all :) And only today a gamer might want to change it - fortunately there is already something for it.
Summing up our testing, we can say: the new processors turned out to be successful, they can be used wherever their predecessors worked, the price has remained virtually unchanged. Among the objective shortcomings, the power consumption of the Core i7-8700K could be lower. But it is clear that this can easily be “treated” by lowering the frequencies, so on the basis of this crystal it is possible to produce laptop processors even tomorrow, applicable not only in bulky “gaming” models. And this is also a plus, and for Intel, perhaps even more significant than the good results of desktop modifications. In fact, nothing fundamentally new has happened to the desktop processor market, because six-core models have been here for a long time. Now they have fallen in price a little more - that’s all. Here’s a laptop (a full-fledged one, not the strange DTR modifications based on desktop or server processors) with a six-core processor—already a new product that can somewhat change the market.
One of the disadvantages of Coffee Lake is the appearance of two incompatible LGA1151 platforms. And if in one direction compatibility is not really a pity (except for owners of two-year-old motherboards, who were cynically cut off from the possibility of inexpensive upgrading), then in the other... In fact, it turns out that for the new platform at the moment there are not only inexpensive motherboards, but also cheap processors. And the transfer of the same Pentiums to a new version will most likely “hit” hard on shipments of the old one. In general, this is a problem about which large manufacturers, it seems to us, have probably already expressed their dissatisfaction to Intel. No other problems have been identified at this time. These are the processors that many have been waiting for for a long time - and now they finally got it :) It only seems to us that if these processors had come out instead of Kaby Lake, there would have been more satisfied people, even with the same compatibility problems (or rather, lack thereof) between the two versions of the platform . 
Results of the first tests of Intel Coffee Lake processors. Increasing the number of cores significantly increases the performance of chips even without deep improvements at the internal microarchitecture level. Core i7-8700K expectedly became the fastest, but also the most expensive chip for the updated LGA1151 platform. It's time to look at the capabilities of the Core i5-8600K, which also has 6 cores, has an unlocked multiplier, and is priced by the manufacturer at $250.
The new Core i5 processors use the same silicon as the Coffee Lake processors of the older Core i7 line. Surprisingly, the chips also have six processing cores. Traditionally for desktop models, Core i5 does not have support for Hyper-Threading logical multithreading technology. Compared to the Core i7, the cache memory size is reduced from 12 MB to 9 MB, and less aggressive frequency formulas are used. But all these are simplifications in the context of Coffee Lake; if we talk about comparison with predecessors, then the progress is obvious.
Six-core Core i5 is perhaps the biggest surprise in the history of the release of 8th generation Core chips. If an increase in the number of computing units for the Core i7 was brewing and was predictable after the launch of AMD Ryzen, then in the case of the Core i5, the manufacturer could, for example, limit itself to unlocking Hyper-Threading. However, Intel didn't take the easy route here. In general, the decision is correct. Additional physical cores should provide a guaranteed performance increase in multi-threaded tasks.
At the start, the range of the new family includes two models – Core i5-8600K and Core i5-8400. The older one works with a frequency formula of 4.3/3.6 GHz and, as you can easily guess from the “K” index in the name, has an unlocked multiplier, which allows you to experiment with overclocking. Core i5-8400 received a 4.0/2.8 GHz formula. Both processors are six-core and equipped with 9 MB of L3 cache. The thermal package of the Core i5-8600K is stated at 95 W, and the younger one should fit within the TDP of 65 W.
Surely you have already been alerted by the rather low base values of operating frequencies. However, there is no cause for concern here. 6-core Coffee Lake received very aggressive algorithms for the Turbo Boost 2.0 mechanism, seriously accelerating the CPU even when all computing units are under load. So in multi-threaded tasks, when all 6 cores are loaded, the frequency of the Core i5-8600K does not drop below 4100 MHz, while the Core i5-8400 units are accelerated to at least 3800 MHz.
| Core i5-8600K | Core i5-8400 | Core i5-7600K | Core i5-7600 | Core i5-7500 | Core i5-7400 | |
| Family | Coffee Lake | Coffee Lake | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake | Kaby Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/6 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| Frequency formula | 3.6/4.3 GHz | 2.8/4.0 GHz | 3.8/4.2 GHz | 3.5/4.1 GHz | 3.4/3.8 GHz | 3.0/3.5 GHz |
| L3 cache size | 9 MB | 9 MB | 6 MB | 6 MB | 6 MB | 6 MB |
| Thermal package (TDP) | 95 W | 65 W | 91 W | 65 W | 65 W | 65 W |
| Recommended price | $257 | $182 | $242 | $213 | $192 | $182 |
The processors come in colorful, redesigned boxes. There are no changes in terms of equipment. The retail version of the Core i5-8600K is still offered without a standard cooling system. The manufacturer believes that if you are already choosing an enthusiast version with an unlocked multiplier, then you are probably ready to spend money on the corresponding CO. The Core i5-8400 will come with a cooler, which will certainly be enough to cool the CPU operating in normal mode.
Both presented Core i5 models are interesting in their own way. The Core i5-8600K opens up overclocking possibilities. An unlocked multiplier makes it very easy to increase the processor frequency if you have an Intel Z370 motherboard and a cooler with good heat dissipation efficiency. The recommended cost of the Core i5-8600K is $257, while the Core i5-7600K is estimated by the manufacturer at $242. The extra $15 seems more than justified given the increased number of cores and cache.
In turn, the Core i5-8400 is the most affordable 6-core Intel processor. The stated price of $182 is completely identical to that for the previous model – Core i5-7400. This chip actually looks like an offer you can’t refuse. The Core i5-8400 also has 6 cores and 9MB of L3 cache. If we talk about the working formula, then the core frequency of this processor in all modes is only 300 MHz lower than that of the Core i5-8600K.
Despite the seemingly modest initial range of Core i5 from the Coffee Lake family, the proposed models cover the basic needs. There is a chip for experiments and there is the most affordable 6-core processor.
We received an engineering sample of the Core i5-8600K for testing. As we already noted, this is a 6-core processor using the same silicon die as the new Core i7.
Despite the standard formula of 3.6/4.3 GHz, the actual operating frequency, thanks to the active operation of Turbo Boost 2.0, does not fall below 4100 MHz. At the same time, the chip operates at 4200 MHz with a load of 2-3-4 cores and accelerates to 4300 MHz with a single-threaded task. That is, initially everything is very good with frequencies here.
Left - Core i5-7600K (Kaby Lake), right - Core i5-8600K (Coffee Lake) Considering the use of the same LGA1151 processor socket, there are minimal visual differences from its predecessor. All that can be distinguished is a slightly larger accumulation of surface-mount elements next to the contact pads.
Let us remind you that for any Coffee Lake processor to work, you will need a motherboard based on Intel 300 series chipsets. Due to the strengthening of the power subsystem, compatibility with previous generation motherboards is not maintained, unfortunately. For the updated platform, only models based on Intel Z370 are currently available. In the case of chips with an unlocked multiplier, this is an obvious choice, but owners of ordinary models without the “K” index will also have to buy boards with a top-end chipset. At least until the first quarter of 2018, when the more affordable Intel 300 series PCHs should appear.
Coffee Lake processors are manufactured using an improved 14nm process technology. Intel already has extensive experience in producing crystals according to these standards, so it is not surprising that the manufacturer managed to improve the technology, even without a nominal transition to the next stage - 10 nm.
The improvements allowed Intel to relatively painlessly increase the number of processing cores from 4 to 6, as well as increasing the amount of L3 cache memory, while practically maintaining power consumption at the same level. The thermal package of 6-core Coffee Lake chips with an unlocked multiplier falls within 95 W, while for 4-core Kaby Lake TDP was up to 91 W.
You shouldn't expect any noticeable frequency progress from Coffee Lake. However, processors have increased the number of computational units, which partly compensates for the improvement in manufacturing technology at the silicon level.
During experiments with the Core i5-8600K in express mode, we were able to achieve 4800 MHz at a supply voltage of 1.32 V. That is, the overclocking level is close to what was achieved for Kaby Lake processors. We can also assume that Core i5 chips will have a lower frequency potential than Core i7. We assume that the crystals undergo additional selection and the most “mature” plates are subsequently used for processors of the older line.
| CPU | Intel Core i7-7700K (4.2/4.5 GHz), Core i5-7600K (3.8/4.2 GHz) | Intel, www.intel.ua |
| AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (3.4/3.8 GHz) | AMD, www.amd.com | |
| Cooler | Thermalright Archon Rev.A | Thermalright, www.thermalright.com |
| Video card | GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming 8G (1759/10200 MHz) | GIGABYTE, www.gigabyte.ua |
| Motherboard | ASUS Z370 PRIME Z370-A (Intel Z370) | ASUS, www.asus.ua |
| MSI B350 Gaming Pro Carbon (AMD B350) | MSI, ua.msi.com | |
| ASUS PRIME Z270-A (Intel Z270) | ASUS, www.asus.ua | |
| Memory | HyperX FURY HX426C15FBK2/16, DDR4-2666, 15-17-17, 16 GB (2×8 GB) | HyperX, www.hyperxgaming.com |
| Storage device | HyperX Savage 960 GB (SHSS37A/960G) | HyperX, www.hyperxgaming.com |
| power unit | Thermaltake Toughpower Grand TPG-1200M (1200 W) | Thermaltake, www.thermaltakeusa.com |
| Monitor | Acer Predator XB271HK (27″, 3840×2160) | Acer, www.acer.ua |
To evaluate the performance of the Core i5-8600K, we used the Core i5-7600K chip. It will be very interesting to see how much more productive the new processor will be than its predecessor. The results of the previous Core i7-8700K test will also come in handy here. In this case, we can evaluate the benefits of using Hyper-Threading, but perhaps even more interesting will be a head-to-head match between the Core i5-8600K and the Core i7-7700K, allowing us to understand what the balance of power between a “pure” 6-core processor and a top 4-core processor will be. previous generation nuclear chip, which has support for Hyper-Threading and allows you to process up to 8 data streams simultaneously. The AMD Ryzen 7 1700X results will also be useful.
The mandatory stage of the processor test - Cinebench R15 - once again demonstrates the advantages of multi-core processors even in conditions where the performance of a single unit cannot boast of high efficiency. In two charts, the Ryzen 7 1700X occupies diametrically opposite positions - the leader in multi-threaded mode and the laggard in single-threaded processing. The Core i5-8600K turned out to be faster than the Core i5-7600K by as much as 53%. How so? The number of cores has increased by one and a half times, that is, even according to the most daring assumptions, performance should have increased by a maximum of one and a half times. The fact is that in normal mode, the frequency of the Core i5-8600K when all cores are loaded is 4100 MHz, but the Core i5-7600K in this case runs at 4000 MHz.
It is significant that six full-fledged cores allowed the Core i5-8600K to outperform the Core i7-7700K by 5%. Hyper-Threading technology in such tasks certainly significantly increases performance, but the option of 4 cores and 8 threads here turned out to be less preferable than 6 cores.
The results in WinRAR are influenced by many factors, including the number of threads, cache sizes, and the operation of the memory subsystem. The Core i5-8600K was able to significantly improve the performance of the Core i5-7600K, but nevertheless was inferior to the Core i7-7700K by almost a quarter. At the same time, in 7-Zip the processors turned out to be almost equal, again with a 53% advantage over the Core i5-7600K. At the same time, the Core i7-8700K is 40% faster than the Core i5-8600K. HT support, an increased L3 cache and a higher operating frequency when all cores are loaded (4300 MHz vs. 4100 MHz) have an impact.
In Blender and Fryrender the situations are very similar. The Core i5-8600K took a little longer (5-7%) to complete rendering the scene than the Core i7-7700K. At the same time, the new product has more than a one and a half times increase in performance compared to the Core i5-7600K.
When transcoding 4K video to Full HD with the H.265 codec, the Core i5-8600K and Core i7-7700K chips show almost identical results with a slight advantage over the daring 6-core Coffee Lake.
But during the final rendering of the video in Adobe Premier Pro CC, the newcomer already had a quite perceptible 10% advantage over the top-end quad-core processor of the previous generation. At the same time, the Core i5-8600K even almost managed to overtake the Ryzen 7 1700X. Using a Core i7-8700K in any case provides an additional performance boost, but its magnitude varies significantly depending on the task. During video processing, we see an advantage of 18–35%.
Synthetic tests Performance Test 9 and GeekBench 4.1.3 generally show a similar picture. The Core i5-8600K has a 40% advantage over the Core i5-7600K and a 6-13% advantage over the Core i7-7700K. The additional HT support and larger L3 puts the Core i7-8700K out of reach of mid-range chips. At least when it comes to normal CPU operating modes.
In the presented environment, the Core i5-7600K looks like a poor relative at someone else's celebration of life. These are the realities. Processors with similar characteristics within the 8th generation Intel Core chips have been downgraded and will be referred to as Core i3.
Gaming disciplines are also important when it comes to a powerful home system. It is generally accepted that in this case the video card plays the main role. This is true, but only partly. Game developers are increasingly beginning to adapt to multi-threaded algorithms, simultaneously increasing the complexity of tasks solved using the CPU. There are already examples where a 4-core processor is not a panacea or a guarantee of comfortable gaming. There are still isolated cases, but these are no longer exceptions, but a systematic shift in emphasis.
It’s interesting to start the gaming pool with synthetics. Two tests from the 3DMark suite do not reveal the winner of the most interesting pair - Core i5-8600K vs. Core i7-7700K. The latter scores more points in processor calculations from the Fire Strike stage, while in Time Spy the already 6-core Core i5 has an advantage. In both cases, the difference is within 5–10%. If we think about the Core i5-7600K, then it remains far behind. But these are still the potential capabilities of the chips. Game reality is different.
Even when using medium graphics quality settings, the video card remains the limiter in many projects. However, even in these cases, processors of the same architecture with a large number of cores allow you to get slightly higher minimum fps values.
However, 100% GPU utilization does not mean that processor performance does not play a role. For example, Far Cry Primal has frankly weak optimization for multi-threading. At the same time, the previous generation Core i5 here looks more modest than older models, not to mention the Ryzen 7 1700X. The situation is similar in Dirt Rally, with the only difference being that the autosim received Coffee Lake very warmly.
Already old by gaming standards, Thief is well optimized for multi-threaded execution. The Core i5-8600K managed to outperform the Core i7-7700K here, while the Core i5-7600K has a weaker position.
The Witcher: Wild Hunt has a very uneven CPU load. In open desert locations, the load on a 4-core processor may not exceed 40%, and during tests within the city, all computing units can be loaded at 100%. This does not affect the comfort of the game, but it is a reason to think about a larger performance reserve.
The second part of the strategic “Wakhi” became a successful series of total war. Total War: Warhammer II will torture your video card and storage device in every possible way, but in terms of processor requirements, the game turned out to be very flexible. Even in low graphics quality mode, when passing the built-in battle benchmark test, the 4-core Core i5-7600K is loaded by only 50–60%, and the 16-thread Ryzen 7 1700X is loaded by 25%. And this is at maximum GPU load. As a result, we have equal fps rates for all Intel chips and minimal lag for the AMD processor.
Fans of maximum graphics quality for Total War: Warhammer II will need a top-end video card, especially for modes above Full HD. We also strongly recommend installing the game on an SSD. In principle, like everyone else, but here the wishes are special.
In the list of test stages we also included the game Watch Dogs 2, which is famous for multi-threaded optimization. And it must be said that in this regard it did not disappoint. To increase the impact of the processor on performance, we used a general preset with average graphics quality, but with adjustments for maximum detail of object geometry and model quality.
Unfortunately, the game does not have a built-in benchmark that allows you to repeat the sequence of scenes on a test segment with perfect accuracy. To get an idea of the capabilities of the systems in this game, we had to spend 5-minute sessions non-stop riding a bike around San Francisco, simultaneously engaging in relatively honest ways of taking money from the population, undermining sewer foundations and brawling at traffic lights. Three sessions were conducted on systems with each processor, and the results were averaged. This method, although not perfect, still gives a general idea of the performance of systems and values that can be compared.
Watch Dogs 2 is very well optimized for multi-threading. In this context, it was unusual to see an 80–90% load on all 16 threads of the available Ryzen 7 1700X. In the mode used, the AMD processor, although it has a not very noticeable advantage over the Core i5-7600K in terms of average fps, but according to subjective feelings, the responsiveness of the platform was noticeably better. This is partly confirmed by higher minimum fps. The Core i5-8600K turned out to be more interesting here than the Core i7-7700K, and the new top – Core i7-8700K – provided maximum gaming comfort.
The processor subtest from Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation shows a noticeable advantage of the Core i5-8600K over its predecessor, but these efforts were not enough to overtake the Core i7-7700K. The top 4-core with HT is 5% ahead.
The so-called artificial intelligence test is highlighted as a separate item in Civilization VI. The time required by the system for one step depends on the speed of calculations. It would seem that this is the ideal task for parallel processing. But, alas, the developers still have not come to such a decision. The load on even a 4-core processor here ranges from 50–80%, and 6-core processors do not bring a noticeable increase, although they have a minimal advantage over 7th generation models. The Ryzen 7 1700X, with all its hidden reserves, is 20–25% more thoughtful than Intel chips. If human civilization had progressed at the same pace as the multi-threading support in the Civilization series, we would still be tying rocks to sticks.
Pros: Excellent performance in multi-threaded applications; 6 cores; aggressive Turbo Boost operation; 9 MB L3 cache; overclocking capability
Minuses: Availability on sale; Need a new motherboard for Intel Z370
Conclusion: The new Intel Core i5 in general and the Core i5-8600K in particular are becoming a very good solution for mid-range systems. An increase in the number of cores, as expected, improves the capabilities of chips in multi-threaded tasks, and the latter can increasingly include resource-intensive games. The new 6-core model often manages to get closer or even beat the top chip of the previous generation – Core i7-7700K. Six cores, increased L3 capacity, an aggressive Turbo Boost algorithm and additional frequency potential for overclocking make the Core i5-8600K an attractive option for those planning to build a powerful desktop system. And even the need to buy a motherboard based on the Intel Z370 chipset seems logical here. The only question is how quickly the manufacturer will be able to cope with the shortage of older Coffee Lake models, which at the start occurs not only in Ukraine, but even in the American market.
This article will test new Intel Haswell processors, which were announced in early summer 2013:
The following models were chosen as their competitors:
Tests were carried out on the following stand:
Processors:
Software:
For a more clear comparison of processors, all games used as test applications were launched at a resolution of 1680x1050.
Built-in benchmarks, FRAPS 3.5.9 Build 15586 and AutoHotkey v1.0.48.05 utilities were used as performance measurement tools. List of gaming applications:
Measured in all games minimum And average FPS values. In tests in which there was no possibility to measure minimum FPS, this value was measured by the FRAPS utility. VSync was disabled during testing.
To avoid errors and minimize measurement errors, all tests were performed three to five times. When calculating the average FPS, the arithmetic mean of the results of all runs (three non-idle runs) was taken as the final result. The minimum value of the indicator based on the results of three runs was chosen as the minimum FPS.
The processors were overclocked as follows. The stability of overclocking was checked using the OSST 3.1.0 “Perestroika” utility by running the CPU for half an hour on the maximum matrix with a forced 100% load. I agree that overclocking the tested CPUs is not absolutely stable, but for any modern game it is one hundred percent suitable.
With maximum overclocking for all AMD processors, the memory controller frequency was raised to 2400-2800 MHz.
Core i7-4770K
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3500 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x35), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.08 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled, Hyper Threading – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4500 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 45 (100x45), DDR3 frequency - 2133 MHz (100x21.33), supply voltage - up to 1.25 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Boost - off, Hyper Threading - off.
Core i7-4770
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3400 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x34), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.08 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled, Hyper Threading – enabled.
Core i5-4670K
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4500 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 45 (100x45), the DDR3 frequency was 2133 MHz (100x21.33), the supply voltage was up to 1.25 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V, Turbo Boost was turned off.
Core i5-4670
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3400 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x34), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.07 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
Core i5-4570
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3200 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x32), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.06 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
Core i5-4430
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3000 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x30), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.06 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
Core i7-3770K
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3500 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x35), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.11 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled, Hyper Threading – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4600 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 46 (100x46), DDR3 frequency – 2133 MHz (100x21.33), supply voltage – up to 1.2 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – off, Hyper Threading – off.
Core i7-3770
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3400 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x34), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.1 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled, Hyper Threading – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4200 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 40 (105x40), DDR3 frequency - 2240 MHz (105x21.33), supply voltage - up to 1.2 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Boost - on, Hyper Threading - off.
Core i5-3570K
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3400 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x34), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.08 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4600 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 46 (100x46), the DDR3 frequency was 2133 MHz (100x21.33), the supply voltage was up to 1.2 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V, Turbo Boost was turned off.
Core i5-3570
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3400 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x34), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.1 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4200 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 40 (105x40), the DDR3 frequency was 2240 MHz (105x21.33), the supply voltage was up to 1.2 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V, Turbo Boost was enabled.
Core i5-3550
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3300 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x33), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.1 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4100 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 39 (105x39), DDR3 frequency - 2240 MHz (105x21.33), supply voltage - up to 1.125 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Boost - enabled.
Core i5-3470
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3200 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x32), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.11 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4000 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 38 (105x38), the DDR3 frequency was 2240 MHz (105x21.33), the supply voltage was up to 1.125 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V, Turbo Boost was enabled.
Core i5-3450
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3100 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x31), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.09 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 3900 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 37 (105x37), DDR3 frequency - 2240 MHz (105x21.33), supply voltage - up to 1.125 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Boost - enabled.
Core i5-3330
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3000 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x30), DDR3 frequency – 1600 MHz (100x16), supply voltage 1.1 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Boost – enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 3600 MHz. To do this, the multiplier was raised to 34 (105x34), DDR3 frequency - 2240 MHz (105x21.33), supply voltage - up to 1.125 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Boost - enabled.
Core i3-3250
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3500 MHz, base frequency 100 MHz (100x35), DDR3 frequency – 1333 MHz (100x13.3), supply voltage 1.1 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Hyper Threading – enabled.
FX-8350BE
Regular mode. Clock frequency 4000 MHz, system bus frequency 200 MHz (200x20), DDR3 frequency - 1866 MHz (200x9.33), core supply voltage 1.28 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Core and APM - included.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4700 MHz. To do this, the processor multiplier was raised to 23.5 (200x23.5), the core supply voltage was up to 1.54 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V. The DDR3 frequency was 2133 MHz (200x10.67), Turbo Core and APM were turned off.
FX-6350BE
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3900 MHz, system bus frequency 200 MHz (200x19.5), DDR3 frequency - 1866 MHz (200x9.33), core supply voltage 1.28 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Core and APM - included.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4700 MHz. To do this, the processor multiplier was raised to 23.5 (200x23.5), the core supply voltage was up to 1.53 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V. The DDR3 frequency was 2133 MHz (200x10.67), Turbo Core and APM were turned off.
A10-6800K
Regular mode. Clock frequency 4100 MHz, system bus frequency 100 MHz (100x41), DDR3 frequency – 2133 MHz, core supply voltage 1.31 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Core and APM are included.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4700 MHz. To do this, the processor multiplier was raised to 47 (100x47), the core supply voltage was raised to 1.5 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V. The DDR3 frequency was 2133 MHz, Turbo Core and APM were turned off.
A10-5800K
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3800 MHz, system bus frequency 100 MHz (100x38), DDR3 frequency – 1866 MHz, core supply voltage 1.32 V, DDR3 supply voltage – 1.5 V, Turbo Core and APM are included.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4500 MHz. To do this, the processor multiplier was raised to 45 (100x45), the core supply voltage was up to 1.45 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V. The DDR3 frequency was 2133 MHz, Turbo Core and APM were turned off.
Phenom II X6 1100T BE
Regular mode. Clock frequency 3300 MHz, system bus frequency 200 MHz (200x16.5), DDR3 frequency - 1600 MHz (200x8), core supply voltage 1.34 V, DDR3 supply voltage - 1.5 V, Turbo Core - enabled.
The processor was overclocked to a frequency of 4100 MHz. To do this, the processor multiplier was raised to 20.5 (200x20.5), the core supply voltage was up to 1.5 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.5 V. The DDR3 frequency was 1600 MHz (200x8), Turbo Core was turned off.
Let's move directly to the tests.
