June 2015 (CPUs Hierarchy Chart / Processors Hierarchy Chart)
What about this other CPU that’s not on the list? How do I know if it’s a good deal or not?
This will happen. In fact, it’s guaranteed to happen because availability and prices change quickly. So how do you know if that CPU you have your eye on is a good buy in its price range?
Here is a resource to help you judge if a CPU is a reasonable value or not: the gaming CPU hierarchy chart, which groups CPUs with similar overall gaming performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing gaming CPUs available and gaming performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there.
This hierarchy was originally based on the average performance each CPU achieved in our test suite. We have since incorporated new game data into our criteria, but it should be known that any specific game title will likely perform differently depending on its unique programming. Some games, for example, will be severely graphics subsystem-limited, while others may react positively to more CPU cores, larger amounts of CPU cache, or even a specific architecture. We also did not have access to every CPU on the market, so some of the CPU performance estimates are based on the numbers similar architectures deliver. Indeed, this hierarchy chart is useful as a general guideline, but certainly not as a one-size-fits-all CPU comparison resource. For that, we recommend you check out our CPU Performance Charts.
— See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html#sthash.69bkXp0H.dpuf
You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two processors, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance. — See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html#sthash.69bkXp0H.dpuf
Summary
There you have it folks: the best gaming CPUs for the money this month.
Now all that’s left to do is compare their performance to your budget before you decide which one is right for you. We even put in the work to help find the best prices.
Also remember that the stores don’t follow this list. Things will change over the course of the month and you’ll probably have to adapt your buying strategy to deal with fluctuating prices. Good luck!
— See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html#sthash.69bkXp0H.dpuf
Source: Tom’s Hardware
List CPUs: Core i7-2600, -2600K, -2700K, -3770, -3770K, -3820, -3930K, -3960X, -3970X, -4770, -4770K, -4790K, -5775C, -5820K, 5930K, -5960X, Core i7-965, -975 Extreme, -980X Extreme, -990X Extreme, Core i5-5675C, -4690K, 4670K, -4590, -4670, -4570, -4430, -3570K, -3570, -3550, -3470, -3450P, -3450, -3350P, -3330, 2550K, -2500K, -2500, -2450P, -2400, -2380P, -2320, -2310, -2300, Core i7-980, -970, -960, Core i7-870, -875K, Core i3-4370, -4170, -4160, -3250, -3245, -3240, -3225, -3220, -3210, -2100, -2105, -2120, -2125, -2130 FX-9590, 9370, 8370, 8350, 8320, 8150, 6350, 4350, Phenom II X6 1100T BE, 1090T BE, Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980, 975, Core i7-860, -920, -930, -940, -950, Core i5-3220T, -750, -760, -2405S, -2400S, Core 2 Extreme QX9775, QX9770, QX9650, Core 2 Quad Q9650, FX-8120, 8320e, 8370e, 6200, 6300, 4170, 4300, Phenom II X6 1075T, Phenom II X4 Black Edition 970, 965, 955 , A10-6800K, 6790K, 6700, 5800K, -5700, -7800, -7850K, A8-3850, -3870K, -5600K, 6600K, -7600, -7650K, Athlon X4 651K, 645, 641, 640, 740, 750K, 860K, Core 2 Extreme QX6850, QX6800, Core 2 Quad Q9550, Q9450, Q9400, Core i5-650, -655K, -660, -661, -670, -680, Core i3-2100T, -2120T, FX-6100, -4100, -4130, Phenom II X6 1055T, 1045T, Phenom II X4 945, 940, 920, Phenom II X3 Black Edition 720, 740, A8-5500, 6500, A6-3650, -3670K, -7400K, Athlon II X4 635, 630, Core 2 Extreme QX6700, Core 2 Quad Q6700, Q9300, Q8400, Q6600, Q8300, Core 2 Duo E8600, E8500, E8400, E7600, Core i3 -530, -540, -550, Pentium G3460, G3260, G3258, G3250, G3220, G3420, G3430, G2130, G2120, G2020, G2010, G870, G860, G850, G840, G645, G640, G630,Phenom II X4 910, 910e, 810, Athlon II X4 620, 631, Athlon II X3 460, Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Quad Q8200, Core 2 Duo E8300, E8200, E8190, E7500, E7400, E6850, E6750, Pentium G620, Celeron G1630, G1620, G1610, G555, G550, G540, G530, Phenom II X4 905e, 805, Phenom II X3 710, 705e, Phenom II X2 565 BE, 560 BE, 555 BE, 550 BE, 545, Phenom X4 9950, Athlon II X3 455, 450, 445, 440, 435, 425, Core 2 Duo E7200, E6550, E7300, E6540, E6700, Pentium Dual-Core E5700, E5800, E6300, E6500, E6600, E6700, Pentium G9650, Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600, Phenom X3 8850, 8750, Athlon II X2 265, 260, 255, 370K, A6-5500K, A4-6400K, 6300, 5400K, 5300, 4400, 4000, 3400, 3300, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, Core 2 Duo E4700, E4600, E6600, E4500, E6420, Pentium Dual-Core E5400, E5300, E5200, G620T, Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e, Phenom X3 8650, 8600, 8550, 8450e, 8450, 8400, 8250e, Athlon II X2 240, 245, 250, Athlon X2 7850, 7750, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+, Core 2 Duo E4400, E4300, E6400, E6320, Celeron E3300, Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e, Athlon X2 7550, 7450, 5050e, 4850e/b, Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 5200+, 5000+, 4800+, Core 2 Duo E5500, E6300, Pentium Dual-Core E2220, E2200, E2210, Celeron E3200, Athlon X2 6550, 6500, 4450e/b, Athlon X2 4600+, 4400+, 4200+, BE-2400, Pentium Dual-Core E2180, Celeron E1600, G440, Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 3800+, Athlon X2 4050e, BE-2300, Pentium Dual-Core E2160, E2140, Celeron E1500, E1400, E1200
comparison of 10th and 9th generation Intel
In October 2021, Intel introduced Coffee Lake Refresh (CFL-R), the ninth generation of the Core architecture.
The CFL-R has some differences from the previous generation CFL, but they are few and none of them can be called a breakthrough. It is impossible not to say a few words on the topic “Intel is not the same anymore”. For several generations in a row, the architecture of processors has remained virtually unchanged. In fact, Coffee Lake Refresh is the third update, scary to say, of Skylake. The technological process is the same as that of the eighth generation Coffee Lake. Intel is about to move to the intermediate, as they called it in 2015, 10 nm technology — but this is still not happening. And about 7 nm, Intel has not said anything for a long time. They are not all right now, they are going through hard times in their history — this is a fact, but enough about that. Not the best times, sooner or later, one way or another, they end. nine0003
The latest Intel processors are used in Apple computers
So, Coffee Lake Refresh. In their numerical indexes, at the beginning is the prestigious and respectful figure “9”.
For example, i9-9900KF or i3-9100T. In the current conditions, this is bread. On October 9, 2021, the Intel Desktop Launch Event took place in New York. As the name of the event suggests, it was dedicated to desktop computers. The star of this event was the Intel Core i9 9900K, the most powerful gaming processor in the world, the world record holder for overclocking. Introduced several more generation 9 desktop processorsbut he was the center of attention. Other topics — Intel Xeon W-3175X, and what should be a desktop computer for professionals and fans of resource-hungry games. Six months later, Intel introduced CFL-R processors for laptops and added a few more desktop ones.
Intel Comet Lake vs. Coffee Lake: Generational Changes
All 10th Gen Intel Comet Lake processors feature an updated platform controller hub with CNVio2 controller (connectivity integration), Wi-Fi 6, and support for the AX201 CRF external module. nine0003
Comet Lake-S compared to Coffee Lake-S upgrade, up to 10 cores, hyper-threading on all models, single-core turbo boost up to 5.
3GHz, up 300MHz, all-core turbo boost up to 4.9GHz, DDR4- Support for 2933 memory for i7 and i9 and DDR4-2666 for i3, Pentium Gold and Celeron.
Comet Lake-H upgrade over Coffee Lake-H features higher turbo frequencies up to 500 MHz, DDR4-2933 memory support, and increased thermal speed for i7 and i9 processors0003
As previously mentioned, hyperthreading has been added to all 10th generation Intel processors. This closes the gap in AMD’s absolute dominance a bit, but the launch leaves a lot to be desired. Benchmarking showed that the Intel i9 still performs well in a lot of tests and at the same price as the older Coffee Lake i9. The Intel i9-10900K competed against the AMD 3900X and outperformed slightly when overclocked to 5.1GHz. It wasn’t all that surprising, but what was interesting was that the performance surpassed Coffee Lake Champion, 9900K.
The latest 10th generation chips were released with the new LGA 1200 socket which means they are not compatible with Z390 motherboards.
The newly released Z490 boards are now the best case for your Comet Lake chips. This was another blow to AMD and Intel is fighting as AMD processors and motherboards made for them allow older generations to run on the same chipset, which is excellent for the average consumer.
Overclocking
Considering motherboards based on Intel Z370, we evaluated the frequency potential of our Core i7-8700K sample in express mode. The result, perhaps, exceeded expectations. The chip not only hit the 5000 MHz mark, but also remained stable at 5100 MHz with an air-cooled system.
Yes, the supply voltage needed to be increased to 1.34 V, but in any case, this is a very good result, which was not often achieved on 4-core Kaby Lake. Let’s not rush to final conclusions, nevertheless, we had an engineering sample of the processor for testing, but if retail copies of 6-core chips turn out to be also malleable in private terms, then this will be another argument «for».
nine0003
Test results
First, about games. I’ll start with the last part of FarCry, the fifth.
In QHD, everything depends on the video card, only a drawdown at 7100 is clearly visible — two cores are not enough for a modern game that can use at least 4 cores. However, the frame rate is in the «comfort zone», regardless of the detail. When switching to FullHD, more depends on the processor, and the main «preferences» of the game are better visible — clock speed in the first place, the number of cores — in the second, if there are at least four of them. Outsider — 7100 for obvious reasons, the second from the end — 7820X because of 3.3 GHz. Two leaders are also clearly visible — 8600K and 8700K with a significant margin. Hyper-Threading does not affect performance. nine0003
Heavy shooter from Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands series stands out for its serious demands on the video subsystem. How are the processors?
In QHD, everything is literally “exactly”, only one drawdown at 7100 and a small peak at 7600 at medium quality settings.
In FullHD, the influence of the weakest processor is noticeable in Ultra settings, and at medium settings, the triple i9 and a couple of eight thousandths stand out — 8600K and 8700K. They have six or more cores, the maximum frequency varies from 3.2 to 4.3 GHz with even load. From this we can conclude that Wildlands has a core priority, and their frequency is in second place. nine0003
Another fresh game is Assassin’s Creed Origins.
Here the situation with priorities is reversed: the more cores, the better, and the frequency is a secondary matter. Therefore, already in QHD, the difference between the processors is better seen than in FarCry, and in FullHD, the top five showed up even better. The first is the 7960X with 16 cores and 36 threads, followed by the remaining i9s as the “core” decreases, then 8700K and 8600K. The 8400 lags behind due to the frequency — 3-3.2 GHz is not enough, even if six cores and the cache are not cut. But, which is typical, even 7100 produces fps acceptable for a comfortable game.
nine0003
Next — PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, popular in Russia.
The game, frankly, is not picky about processors, it produces an acceptable refresh for the game on any processors. The frame limit does not allow you to see the real state of affairs, only in QHD at maximum quality the “ceiling” is still far away, but the difference of 12 frames between the minimum and maximum is a trifle with a hundred average frames per second.
Released in 2021, the simulator of the medieval gop company For Honor got into the tests for its interesting gameplay and beautiful graphics. nine0003
In QHD, the clear favorites among processors are invisible — between 124 and 134 fps the difference is small, as well as between 146 and 170. The game runs smoothly, without jerks and freezes even on a dual-core 7100. When switching to FullHD, smoothness and high refresh are preserved, but look at the numbers — maximum on quad- and six-core stones, of the i9, only the weakest 7820X showed decent results.
Ten and sixteen-core models have merged against the background of other processors.
There are two general conclusions about the games. First, even a cheap dual-core is able to provide comfortable fps with a powerful video card. Esportsmen and Candidates for eSportsmen will most likely require 100 or more average frames per second, but 50-60 is enough for evening entertainment battles. The second is that the choice of a processor for games is gradually moving away from the canon “4 cores and 4+ GHz”, but not far. Now it sounds like this: «6 cores and 4+ GHz.» Modern engines have taught how to effectively use more than 4 cores, the frequency dependence has become less, but not so much that 3-3.5 GHz on 10-16 cores is enough for total dominance. nine0003
Now the processor tests. I’ll start with archivers, 7zip and WinRar.
I put the graphs side by side — the units of measurement are different, but the general trend is the same: the more cores the processor has, the faster the information is packed.
There are also differences. WinRar responds well to frequency and Hyper-Threading, while 7zip values physical cores more. By the way, the speed of archiving in practice (not in the benchmark) often rests on the capabilities of the disk subsystem. This is especially noticeable when archiving data within a single physical disk. nine0003
V-Ray Benchmark is a good utility for evaluating rendering times in a V-ray system. It is used in Cinema 4D, 3ds Max, Maya and other 3D editors. So this is not a synthetic test, but a benchmark based on a real task.
Rendering is very well parallel due to specifics, so quite expectedly, 7960X turned out to be the fastest, and 7100 the slowest: it “painted” the scene 6.6 times longer than the leader. The remaining processors were distributed in groups according to the number of cores. This is the main characteristic of the stone, affecting the rendering time. The second is the frequency, it is because of it that the eight-core 7820X «made» 7900X.
Things are so-so with Hyper-Threading, but there is some plus, calculated in units of percent.
3ds Max needs no introduction, one of the most famous 3D editors.
The picture is very similar to the V-ray benchmark, albeit a different render. There is nothing to add to the above except the superiority of the 7600 over the 8100. They have similar characteristics, except for the frequency — the seven-thousander is limited to 3.9 gigahertz, and the eight-thousander is 3.6. Apparently, this moment added its own 6.6%.
Cinebench R15 is a benchmark program based on the Cinema 4D engine. nine0003
Again, a task that is very easy to «scatter» among the cores, and therefore the triple i9 is ahead of the rest of the processors by a significant margin. Clock speed is a big deal, which is why the 7900X gets the job done 20% slower than the 7820X. And Hyper-Threading is in high esteem, clearly seen in the 8600K and 8700K. The weakest is 7100, followed by 8100; The 7600 again pulled out a victory due to the frequency.
Video encoding is next — Adobe Media Encoder. Uncompressed MPEG2 4K codec H.264 was recoded to FullHD, without sound track. nine0003
Processors The i9 ranks in the top three places, the 8100 overtakes the 7600, and the 8700K is the fastest of the gems under 1151 due to Hyper-Threading and clock speed.
For a snack — three synthetic tests, for lovers of such benchmarks and those who want to evaluate their stone with those tested at the touch of a button. The first one is from the 3D Mark package, Time Spy, the results are in points for the processor (I don’t give the general result, it is significantly influenced by the video card). nine0003
The picture is familiar, comments are superfluous.
Second — PC Mark10. It seems that the capabilities of processors do not care at all, except for the frequency — the top six-core processors deserve high praise.
The third is GeekBench. A more informative analogue of PC Mark, a comprehensive test of the capabilities of the PC computing part with a detailed display of the results.
I took two common ones — Single-core and Multi-core
A typical picture for a multi-threaded load — the more cores, the better the result, and even the frequency is not so important. nine0003
For a snack — energy consumption.
In idle, the most voracious — i9, even after reducing the frequency, the system consumes 40% more energy than with a six-core. The most economical are 7100 and 8100, 60 watts each. Under load, power consumption rises many times, and it depends not only on the number of cores, but also on the frequency. This is clearly seen when comparing the 7820X and 7900X, as well as the 8400 and 8600K. The benefits of optimization are also visible — the quad-core 8100 consumes less than the dual-core 7100 with greater efficiency in operation. nine0003
Modern games load the system well, but everything is different. Therefore, the maximum indicator for the entire time of gaming tests with a specific processor was entered into the table. Yes, it is the maximum, since the average in this case will not really show anything, but you can immediately calculate the power of the power supply and the cost of electricity during many hours of battles.
And the power of the air conditioner for the summer period, since a 400-500 watt heater raises the temperature in the room by 20 sq.m. by 2-3 degrees after an hour of work, and then with forced ventilation! Regarding the numbers, I note that i9and six-core processors are clearly not fully loaded, otherwise the wattmeter would have been no less than 550 watts. More than a quarter of a kilowatt should be written to the 1080 Ti account, and when calculating the power of the PSU, feel free to round up to 300, because a margin of 20-25% never harmed, but often saved from trouble.
Test participants
Ten processors participated in the race, seven of them under LGA 1151, the remaining three under LGA 2066. The selection criterion is simple — popular and top models of the seven thousand and eight thousand series. I’ll go through the list briefly. nine0003
The two seven-thousanders, 7100 and 7600, are given as benchmarks for desktop processors. The first is the most popular stone in 2016-2017 for assembling budget configs for work and games, the second is a good option for mid-range systems.
The i9 series, presented in the test with three processors with 8, 10 and 16 cores, is positioned as an excellent solution for resource-intensive tasks. They charge serious money for them. The appearance of processors on the Coffee Lake core raises the question of the expediency of spending on the LGA 2066 platform in 2021 — today the price is 7960X equals a budget 8700K system with a decent graphics card.
And five stones of the eight thousandth series. The 8100 comes as a bargain replacement for the 7100 in budget first-build systems: twice as many cores, and the price has increased by only 15 percent. An unlocked 8350K is a great base for creating gaming and work systems, especially after scalping. 8400 — percent for those who do not want to overclock, but want to assemble a working machine of average performance on a multi-core stone without frills. Well, 8600K and 8700K, two unlocked stones with an eye on productive work-game configs, globally differ only in enabled Hyper-Threading and cache volumes.
nine0003
Power consumption
The power consumption of the Core i7-8700K is higher than that of the Core i7-7700K, but under load the difference is within 10-15 watts.
A very reasonable price to pay for the extra two physical cores, more cache, and the performance boost they provide.
The power consumption of the Ryzen 7 1700X is higher, but we must admit that in normal mode, without additional overclocking, the performance of the AMD chip is quite acceptable. 14nm chips are much better than 32nm AMD FX in this respect. nine0003
Volume encryption with FileVault on macOS
Mac computers have a built-in encryption feature called FileVault that protects all data stored on the computer. FileVault uses the AES-XTS data encryption algorithm to protect the entire volume on internal and removable storage devices.
FileVault on a Mac with an Apple chip is implemented using Class C data protection technology and volume key. On a Mac with an Apple T2 security chip and a Mac with an Apple chip, encrypted internal storage devices that are directly connected to the Secure Enclave use the hardware security features that this coprocessor provides, as well as the corresponding features of the AES module. If the user has enabled FileVault on the Mac, they will be prompted for credentials during upload. nine0003
Internal storage with FileVault enabled
Without valid login credentials or a cryptographic recovery key, internal APFS volumes will remain encrypted and tamper-proof even if you remove the physical storage device from your computer and connect it to another computer. In macOS 10.15, this applies to both the system volume and the data volume. Starting with macOS 11, the Signed System Volume (SSV) feature is used to protect the system volume, but encryption is still used to protect data volumes. Encryption of the internal volume on a Mac with an Apple chip and on a Mac with a T2 chip is done by building and controlling a key hierarchy, and is based on hardware-based encryption technologies built into the chip. This hierarchy of keys is designed to accomplish the following four tasks simultaneously:
-
require user password for decryption;
-
protect the system from a brute-force attack performed directly on a storage medium that was ejected from a Mac;
-
providing the ability to quickly and securely erase data by removing the necessary cryptographic keys;
-
allowing a user to change their password (and, in turn, the cryptographic keys used to protect their files) without having to re-encrypt the entire volume. nine0003
On a Mac with an Apple chip and a Mac with a T2 chip, all FileVault key processing is done in the Secure Enclave; encryption keys are never exposed directly to the Intel processor. When any APFS volume is created, it is assigned a volume encryption key by default. The contents of the volume and metadata are encrypted using this volume encryption key, which is protected by the class key. When FileVault is enabled, the class key is protected with a user password and a hardware UID. nine0003
Internal storage with FileVault disabled
On a Mac with an Apple chip or a Mac with a T2 chip, if FileVault is not enabled during the initial setup in the Setup Assistant, the volume will still be encrypted, but the volume encryption key in the Secure Enclave will be protected only with a hardware UID.
If you enable FileVault later (which will happen instantly because the data is already encrypted), the anti-replay mechanism prevents the old key (based on the hardware UID only) from being used to decrypt the volume. The volume will be secured using the combination of user password and hardware UID as described earlier. nine0003
Removing FileVault volumes
When a volume is removed, the Secure Enclave coprocessor securely removes its volume encryption key. This measure allows you to prevent further access using this key (even for the Secure Enclave coprocessor). In addition, all volume encryption keys are packaged as a media key. The bearer key does not provide additional data privacy.