V-Ray CPU Comparison: New 14, 16, and 18-core Skylake-X Processors
Always look at the date when you read an article. Some of the content in this article is most likely out of date, as it was written on September 25, 2017. For newer information, see our more recent articles.
Table of Contents
Introduction
V-Ray, from Chaos Group, is widely used for creating realistic 3D graphics. When rendering those graphics, both the central processor (CPU) and graphics processors (GPUs) can be utilized to increase performance. On the CPU side, rendering generally scales well with both clock speed and core count – but those specifications cannot be directly compared across different brand or generations of processor. Here at Puget Systems we do real-world testing to ensure we provide our customers with the right computer for their needs.
Intel has just released a trio of new Core X series processors, with higher core counts than anything they have offered in this line to date: the Core i9 7940X, 7960X, and 7980XE – with 14, 16, and 18 cores respectively. We ran these chips through a few tests in V-Ray Benchmark 1.0.6 to see how they perform with rendering. We had recently put out an article using this same benchmark that covered a wider range of processors, and at the time AMD’s Threadripper CPUs were found to be the fastest single-CPU option. This time we will focus just on the Core X series in comparison to Threadripper, to see if the new models can take the performance title back for Intel. For reference we included a dual Xeon system as well, to show how it compares to these single chip configurations.
Test Setup
To see how these different CPUs perform in V-Ray, we ran the free benchmark in CPU mode on the following configurations:
The main focus here is on the three new Core X (formerly code named Skylake X) processors, and specifically how they compare to AMD’s Threadripper models. In our last round of testing we found that the 16-core 1950X took the lead in single-CPU performance with Keyshot, as well as many other CPU-based rendering engines.
Here are some details about how we conducted our testing, but if you just want to skip straight to the results then feel free to scroll past this section.
The results presented below are from V-Ray Benchmark 1.0.6, which is a free benchmark released by Chaos Group. It is designed to test CPU and GPU performance within V-Ray without requiring a full installation of that software. Since the focus of this article is on CPU performance we only ran the CPU portion of the benchmark, which gives a time in seconds for how long it took to render a single scene. The rendering can also be watched in real-time during the benchmark, and the benefit of additional cores can be seen visually that way.
It is also worth noting that there are some differences in the amount and speed of RAM across the various test platforms. We prefer to use the speed of memory that each CPU is rated for, according to its manufacturer. For the current crop of Core X and Threadripper processors that is DDR4-2666, while the older Xeon uses slightly slower 2400MHz memory.
Some of these platforms could be run with even faster RAM modules, but that is pushing the memory controller built into the CPU past its rated speed – overclocking it, effectively. That may lead to slightly increased performance but we have also found it to lead to stability issues and higher rates of memory failure. For that reason we stick with the manufacturer specs when it comes to selecting RAM for our systems.
Benchmark Results
Here are the results for the various CPUs we tested in V-Ray Benchmark 1.0.6. The new Intel processors are shown in light blue:
Since rendering in V-Ray is a heavily threaded application, there is a clear spread between the different processors based on core count. The dual Xeon, with a total of 28 cores, definitely wins out – but that is a much more expensive system and is really just included here as a point of reference. Among the single CPU workstations, the new 14 to 18-core models from Intel take back the lead that AMD’s 16-core Threadripper had since its own launch last month.
Intel has a 10-20% lead, depending on which Core i9 you look at, but it is worth noting that the 1950X is still less expensive… and outperforms the Intel processors which are in its price range.
It is also worth noting that AMD and Intel both have server-class processors with even more cores as well: up to 32 on AMD’s EPYC and up to 28 from Intel’s latest Xeon Platinum line. With their focus on the multi-CPU server segment those may not come into play for V-Ray, but if a manufacturer puts out a single-socket workstation motherboard that is compatible with either of those platforms then they may be worth a look.
Conclusion
Based on these results, it looks like the tables have turned since our last V-Ray CPU performance article. Intel took back the lead, but their new Core X processors are also substantially more expensive than AMD’s Threadripper. If you want the fastest single-CPU rendering speeds then go for the i9 7980XE – but if you want a great value, the 1950X has strong performance while costing $1000 less.
V-Ray Workstations
Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.
Configure a System!
Labs Consultation Service
Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.
Tags: AMD, Chaos, Core, CPU, Group, i9, Intel, Performance, Processor, Rendering, Threadripper, V-Ray
What is the difference between Mobile CPU and Desktop CPU?
For each new generation, Intel provides a Desktop version of the processor as well as a mobile version. We explain the difference between the two so you have all information in hand to make your choice!
Comparing Mobile CPU vs Desktop CPU
A desktop version will have a higher speed processing and better cache than a mobile CPU which will feature a reduced speed. Compare the two models below: the mobile core i7 CPU has the same clock rate as the Desktop i5 core. The Desktop has twice more cores than the mobile core i7 and a small improvement on the GPU Clock rated speed.
|
Type |
Processor |
Model |
Cores |
Clock Rate |
GPU |
GPU Clock |
TDP |
|
Desktop |
Intel Core i5 |
7500T |
4 |
2.7 GHz |
HD 620 |
1100 MHz |
35W |
|
Mobile |
Intel Core i7 |
7500U |
2 |
2. |
HD 620 |
1050 MHz |
15W |
7 GHzIt means that Desktop CPUs are more powerful. They can handle more devices: that’s why they are designed for full size PC or workstations like our Airtop.
Heat and Power Consumption
Due to their higher number of cores, computers with Desktop CPU are usually more powerful but therefore generate more heat and have a bigger power consumption than PCs powered by mobile processors.
As an example, our Airtop with desktop CPU draws from 65W whereas our fanless computers with mobile processors like Intense PC3 draws from 25W and Fitlet RM from 10W only.
Because computers with mobile CPUs generate little heating, it is easier to get a fanless design with smart passive cooling.
Fanless computers using desktop CPU can also be cooled but they will require a different design as more heat is generated.
Mobile CPU for which applications?
We recommend mobile CPUs for applications requiring low processing performance such as firewall, CCTV client, thin clients, remote controlling, M2M communication, real-time monitoring, SOHO…
Of course, it depends on your overall requirements and needs: Ask our Team!
Articles related to this topic:
Operating System: the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit
Introducing Airtop! Desktop PC just got “cool” again
What is the Function of the BIOS on a mini PC?
Performance comparison of PCs and smartphones, including iPhone 11 / Sudo Null IT News
After the release of the iPhone 11 with SoC Bionic A13, once again there was a desire to compare its performance with a PC.
A couple of years ago, Apple’s chips already outperformed the mid-range notebook segment. And since there is practically no progress in performance there, the new pocket gadget should now bypass the entire laptop fraternity and have a good “bite” on desktop systems.
Bypassed in many ways. Bitten. Details under the cut.
When looking at opinions about who is faster (smartphones or laptops), the most common option turned out to be: “how can a smartphone for 60 thousand be slower than a PC that is cheaper?” True, these opinions were not expressed on Habré. But technically savvy people, on the contrary, asked, they say, how can a baby with a TDP of 3-5 W get around monsters with a TDP of 65 W or more, despite the fact that they are produced according to similar technical processes?
Two different camps formed. I myself, being a systems engineer in the first VO, belong to the second. And I have an answer to the question about watts. But let’s get to the heart of the matter.
What ruler will measure
We will compare performance in the Geekbench 5 cross-platform test, which emulates the work of real user tasks such as archiving and encryption. How legitimate it is to compare different platforms in it is a good question. Let’s take it a little lower. And now I’ll just say that the creators of the test are pushing hard on this:
I use this test periodically. But the results for this post were taken from the official charts. In them, the creators put the average values from what gets into the database from users. Most often, such results turn out to be slightly underestimated, because users are not professional testers. During the test, some software may be running in the background, or power saving mode is enabled. However, we don’t care. The extreme lower values are already discarded there anyway. In addition, I do not have the goal of obtaining precision data. It is enough to outline a certain general picture.
Test results
First — Apple is cool, and over the past couple of years it has increased its lead over Qualcomm and Samsung with their licensed and finished armaments.
Second, the performance of top smartphones in office-consumer tasks has caught up with advanced laptops and good office PCs (see caveats below).
The third is single-core performance. It is she who is responsible for the responsiveness of the interface and the speed of applications, most of which are poorly adapted to parallelization.
Who’s who on the chart
Now let’s take a look at the interior of the test subjects. For convenience, I have collected everything in one plate.
If we combine these data with the performance chart, we can see that the limited thermal package does not allow all cores of mobile chips to thresh to their fullest. Additional restrictions are introduced by the big.LITTLE architecture, within which it is not always possible to simultaneously operate a high-performance on-chip cluster and an energy-efficient one.
Is it possible to compare different architectures?
A full-fledged comparison of processor architectures is extremely difficult, and I have no idea how to do it competently.
ARM belongs to the RISC type, and x86 belongs to the CISC. With fewer instructions and fewer blocks, the ARM chip must execute individual instructions faster and more energy-efficiently. But as soon as it comes to performing complex functions, for which the x86 has prepared hardware blocks and instruction sets, ARM will smoke on the sidelines. But that’s in theory.
And there are different operating systems, different compilers. And it seems to me that the developers of Geekbench slightly scored on all this, simplifying everything to monitoring the performance of some typical tasks by the system, such as decoding jpg or assembling cached web pages. At the same time, they tried to optimize the code of these tasks for each system separately.
As a result, the happy owner of the latest iPhone can proudly say that his smart phone is able to open photos from the gallery as quickly as the top-end five-gig “stove” from Intel. But Geekbench no longer allows you to make more serious statements.
However, for most everyday situations this is quite enough.
More details on their tests can be found in this pdf.
What are these comparisons for?
Three years ago, I was struck by the idea that with the growth in performance of mobile chips, they could encroach on the segment of inexpensive netbooks, a third of the price of which, at times, is Microsoft’s OS. With Google distributing its OS for free and only $1 per device to add Google Play services and more, the idea of capturing the lower segment looked quite realistic.
However, Qualcomm’s marketers have gone the other way, and for the past couple of years they have been trying to surprise the world with $1000 systems in which their top chips get along with Windows 10…
Links to charts
If you are interested in the average results of other systems, you can use the Gikbench online database. Here are direct links to automatically updated charts for Android, iOS and PC. In the same place, you can enter any keywords in the search (models of chips, smartphones) and see the results obtained by other users for these devices.
The only thing is that you will have to filter inadequate options yourself.
and yes, the owners of top smartphones can be proud that they carry in their pocket a thing more powerful than most modern laptops. At least if we compare them in terms of work in everyday applications.
desktop models with notebook heat pack
Some say that it is human nature to forget the bad, some that it is good, but in general it is true that it is human nature to forget. Whether it’s bad or good, it doesn’t matter. Even what was just a given, but ceased to be such. This applies to all areas of activity, so it also applies to computer technology. For example, in a fairly short time we got used to the fact that processors in desktop computers need serious active cooling, since they dissipate 50 W of heat, or even more.
Here, of course, one can object that this only caused problems during the reign of NetBurst, when many people seriously discussed the total transition to liquid cooling in the future, and today an ordinary “air” cooler is quite enough, however .
.. However The first mass-produced (and mass-produced) liquid-cooled computer was the Apple PowerMac G5, based on processors of a completely different architecture. The problem is common: for a long time, the computing power of personal computers has been constantly growing, since it was not enough for users, so it was generally not customary to pay attention to such “little things” as an increase in heat generation. When it became inconvenient, manufacturers took care to limit the appetites of their devices, which led to a decrease in the rate of increase in performance, but stabilized the requirements for cooling systems at the level of the need to drain 50–100 W in mass desktops and 100–150 in extreme ones. But who said that it should stop there? Moreover, the number of users who believe that the performance of modern processors is already “enough” is constantly increasing. Consequently, the number of potential buyers who will not buy a new computer just because it is faster than the old one is growing.
But if it is more compact than the old one and easier to maintain, that’s another matter.
Note that the above only applies to desktop computers. If the latter still accounted for the bulk of the market, perhaps there would be nothing to talk about. But the growing popularity of portable computers, where the requirements for cooling (and energy savings) are higher, led to the fact that processor manufacturers had to seriously think about these issues «as a whole.» Now desktop and mobile processors, in fact, have become the same in terms of device, which means that “desktop” platforms with power consumption and heat dissipation of mobile ones are quite possible.
What levels can be expected? For the first time, they started talking about problems with cooling after the appearance of the Pentium 66, whose TDP was only 16 watts. Today, this is already the level of ultra-mobile solutions, which, however, have begun to be “registered” in desktops as well. The most compact desktops, of course — such as NUC and the like — but not very productive.
If the performance is not important at all, but you want to get a silent passive cooling system (even if at the cost of some increase in computer dimensions to a typical Mini-ITX or even microATX case), Bay Trail or Braswell come to the rescue: here the cooling requirements are generally at the level of the old 486 -X. What if you want to go faster? Moreover, while maintaining the modular structure of the computer? Then you will have to use an active cooler and Mini-ITX, but a more powerful processor will be available. For example, you can stop at 35 watts. Which, by the way, is not so little: remember that the GHz Pentium III had a TDP of 29Tue However, such a comparison is not very correct: the Pentium III also needed some kind of video adapter, and the chipset also contributed to the amount of heat in the case, so we will consider 35 W a reasonable and sufficient minimum level.
We have already tested some processors with such a thermal package, but today we decided to close the issue by adding three more models to the list, which will allow us to look at almost the entire line of economical Intel solutions for LGA1150 (except for Celeron).
In principle, the results will be of interest not only to those who plan to purchase one of the tested processors, but not so much to them. The fact is that TDP is in many ways a term not so much technical as legal: compliance with the manufacturer’s requirements only means that he will be responsible in case of problems with overheating of his products. And non-compliance, accordingly, closes all the problems of the user to the supplier of the ready-made solution. However, in the DIY market, the user and supplier are usually the same person, so at your own risk and responsibility you can not follow the manufacturer’s recommendations by «cramming» the top-end Core i7 into a pizza box. Moreover, the level of the expected computational load is also best known to the user, who, based on his own forecast of the application, may not care that the system he has assembled will not cope with some “heavy” tasks — this is during development computers for sale have to take care of the worst case 🙂 So for yourself is not forbidden to use in harsh conditions and processors of «regular» series with a higher TDP than suitable for the selected cooling system.
But for insurance, of course, you can reduce the frequency and voltage of the supply, which many people use with success — the resulting processor «legally» will remain what is written on it, but «physically» will work as one of the models of the T-family, similar in design and received frequencies. And the performance, of course, will be similar, which is what we plan to measure today.
Test bench configuration
| Processor | Intel Pentium G3260T | Intel Core i3-4170T | Intel Core i3-4370T | Intel Core i7-4785T |
| Core name | Haswell | Haswell | Haswell | Haswell |
| Technology | 22 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm | Core frequency std/max, GHz | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.2/3.2 |
| Cores/Threads | 2/2 | 2/4 | 2/4 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB 8 | ||||
| L2 cache, KB | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×256 | 4×256 |
| L3 Cache, MiB | 3 | 3 90 079 | 4 | 8 |
| RAM | 2×DDR3-1333 | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-1600 90 079 | 2×DDR3-1600 |
| TDP, W | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Graphics | HDG | HDG 4200 | HDG 4400 9007 9 | HDG 4600 |
| Qty EU | 10 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Frequency std/max, MHz | 200/1100 | 200/1150 | 200/1150 | 350/1200 |
| Price | T-12649834 | T-12515778 | T-12515785 | T-10820116 |
With four out of seven processors (Pentium G3260T, Core i3-4170T and 4370T, as well as Core i7-4785T) we have already met in the articles of the section, so now we will dwell on three newcomers in more detail.
| Processor | Intel Core i5-4570T | Intel Core i5-4590T | Xeon E3-1265L v4 |
| Core name | Haswell | Haswell | Broadwell |
| Technology | 22 nm | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency std/max, GHz | 2.9/3.6 | 2.0/3.0 | 2.3/3.3 |
| Quantity in cores/threads | 2/4 | 4/4 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 64/64 | 128/128 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 2×256 | 4×256 | 4×256 |
| L3 cache (L4), MiB | 4 | 6 | 6 (128) |
| RAM | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3 -1600 | 2×DDR3-1866 |
| TDP, W | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Graphics | HDG 4600 | HDG 4600 | IPG P6300 |
| Col — EU | 20 | 20 | 48 |
| Frequency std/max, MHz | 200 /1150 | 350/1150 | 300/1050 |
| N/A |
The most interesting of these is the Xeon E3-1265L v4 microarchitecture based Broadwell, which you can read about in more detail in the corresponding material.
Why Xeon? Because so far in the fifth Core family there is exactly one processor with a TDP of 35 W, and it is this one — even the notebook BGA family has a TDP of 47 W, which is not interesting to us today. The use of Xeon as a «civilian» processor is not forbidden, models of the E3 family are supported by many motherboards with LGA1150 (including Mini-ITX) — if only Broadwell worked on them at all — so this processor can be considered a wealthy buyer as an alternative to the Core i7 T-family. Moreover, “desktop” C’s allow you to flexibly adjust all the multipliers, so you can also “drive” the Core i7-5775C into the right frame — you don’t have to purchase Xeon.
And the main serious struggle will unfold today between the two Core i5 and the older Core i3. Please note: 4570T is a dual-core processor, but 4590T is a quad-core processor. At the same time, they cost almost the same, but appeared at different times. The use of the «laptop approach» did not arise from scratch: at the time of Sandy Bridge, it was impossible to «shove» four cores into 35 W — only 45 W, and no less, but release processors at a higher level (both in terms of performance and functionality), than Core i3, I wanted to.
So the Core i5-239 was born0T, which we wrote about a long time ago. In the third generation, quads with a TDP of 35 W appeared, but all went to laptop manufacturers, so desktop computers continued to use the same approach, only the corresponding model was called the Core i5-3470T. With the advent of the LGA1150 platform, the Core i5-4570T saw the light. And a year later, Intel managed to slightly improve Haswell’s energy efficiency, which finally allowed the «real» Core i5-4460T and 4590T to be released. Note that the first of them is even cheaper than the dual-core 4570T, but it has very obscene clock speeds, so we are not interested in it. But, by the way, the frequency of the 4570T also depreciated somewhat during the journey: the maximum 3.6 GHz is achieved only when one core is loaded. When two are working, the frequency cannot exceed 3.3 GHz, but this is exactly the frequency of the much cheaper Core i3-4370T. Therefore, we believe that the battle in this trinity will be the same.
As for the other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of the RAM was the maximum supported by the specifications, but they are slightly different. But the amount of memory (8 GB) and system drive (Toshiba THNSNh356GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects.
Test methodology
To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all test results in the first benchmark against 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 compare and choose:
| Processor | Intel Core i5-3317U |
| Chipset | Intel HM77 Express |
| Memory 90 079 | 4 GB DDR3-1600 (Dual Channel) |
| Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
| Drive | SSD 128 GB Crucial M4-CT128M4SSD1 |
| Operating system | Windows 8 (64-bit) |
| Intel graphics driver version | 9. 18.10.3186 |
iXBT Application Benchmark 2015
Both programs are “interested” in multi-threaded processors, and the second is also interested in a fast video core, so the situation is predictable: the spread of results is three times and the first place is Broadwell by a wide margin investigators. The i3-4370T and i5-4570T demonstrate almost the same performance, since they have the same clock speed under such a load, the i5-4590T convincingly shows the usefulness of «real» four cores. In a word, nothing unexpected. But a lot of revealing 🙂
As we have already noted more than once, the efficiency of Hyper-Threading technology is lower in this program, so the i5 and i7 based on Haswell (with the same number of cores, of course) are very close to each other. The only way to drastically increase performance is with a powerful graphics core and L4 cache.
An obvious outsider of the Pentium, since it has a weak GPU, few cores, and limited support for an extended set of SIMD instructions.
Things are better for others, but here the difference between dual- and quad-core Cores of the same generation is already small. Although, of course, from which side to look — after all, the i5-4590T and higher, even the maximum frequencies in Turbo Boost mode are not high, and at least they do not lose to older dual-core processors. But only Broadwell can win weightily once again.
As we’ve said more than once, this application changes version numbers briskly, but the program code has remained in the days of Core 2 Duo. Moreover, two cores are not too necessary — the performance of the i3-4370T and i5-4570T differs almost in proportion to the clock frequency when only one core is loaded. The quad-core models also look the same — everything is proportional to the clock frequency, and there are no advantages in it over the Core i3 (even not the oldest ones). Video core? Cache? No, have not heard.
Audition is not very sensitive to the flow of «traditional» code, but it can shift something to the GPU.
In general, it’s not the case when processors higher than Core i3 are too justified, but the E3-1265LV4 (where both of the above effects are summed up) breaks away from them at least a little.
The case when the efficiency of Hyper-Threading is maximum — the dual-core Core i3 / i5 are almost identical to the i5-4590T, since the reduction in the number of cores made it possible to work at higher clock frequencies with a severe limitation of the heat pack. Also, it seems that at such a load, the cache memory capacity is important, which is why we see a greater superiority of the i7-4785T over the others, except … Except for Xeon on Broadwell: where the same «computing capabilities» are slightly less than L3, but there is L4.
And here, too, only «full» quad-core models stand out. Which, by the way, confirms the correctness of Intel’s attitude towards notebook processors — four cores are available only with Hyper-Threading. Why did the desktop Core i5 make sense? There was no limit on the heat pack, so for a long time it was possible to keep the clock speeds of these processors comparable to dual-core ones.
But in laptops, we are talking about a TDP of 35/45 W, or even lower — it’s a pity to spend expensive quad-core crystals on finished products that are not too «convincing» without HT 🙂
Moreover, «quads» still do not always have time to quickly exit the energy-saving mode, which, for obvious reasons, is more severe than that of dual-core models.
And sometimes they don’t even seem to try to get out of it. It is clear that this is not the type of load that requires high processor power, but the owner of a laptop (or compact desktop) can be discouraged by the low “responsiveness” of expensive models of the latter compared to cheap PCs. Although there is nothing inexplicable in it.
In general, we see several groups, the difference between which is significant. Pentium (and Celeron should also behave the same way) are the slowest, because they have a weak video core and only two computation threads are supported at the same time. Core i7 are the fastest. However, today we have the fastest Xeon, but this is a matter of product distribution by niche.
Yes, and he bypassed the equal-frequency Core i7, largely due to the fact that this is the next generation, moreover, with a fourth-level cache and the most productive video part. If we talk about Haswell, then, as we can see, all Core i3 and i5 are somewhere between Pentium and Core i7, regardless of the number of cores. Why did it happen? In the “conventional” segment, the lack of strict cooling requirements allows dual- and quad-core models to operate at comparable frequencies, which provides the Core i5 with parity with the Core i3 at worst, and at best an advantage, since four cores are better than four threads. But in the segment of economical solutions, everything is different: even in the best cases, Core i5 operate at lower frequencies, which ultimately leads only to parity. Actually, for this very reason, until now, most laptop processors are dual-core (including even part of the Core i7): the question of working with a limited TDP has been there for a long time. Why were desktop quad-core models released? First, for solidity.
Secondly, in some tasks the difference between these processors is noticeable, to the great joy of those who use such programs.
Gaming applications
For obvious reasons, for computer systems of this level, we limit ourselves to the minimum quality mode, 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 gamer demanding picture quality. But if you voluntarily agree to the «minimal wages», you can save a lot. We already know this well from previous tests, but today we’ll just see how our updated gaming set works on these processors.
GT1 (that is, Pentium and Celeron graphics) is simply not enough, GT2 is already enough for HD resolution (by the way, pay attention to how 4570T and 4590T differ in this case, although their GPU is formally the same), but GT3e in Xeon on Broadwell allows you to play at normal resolution, and there is a small margin to improve the quality of the picture.
The game is heavily dependent on the processor, but all the Haswells we took «rested» against their own video cores. Let it be at a decent level — you can twist the quality of the picture a little. Well, on the E3-1265LV4 (or one of the desktop Broadwell-Cs slowed down to such a state), that “reserve” has become one and a half times more 🙂
You can play on everything and in full resolution (perhaps not in full resolution on a Pentium, but it’s difficult to determine more precisely, since the benchmark does not work there), but, of course, it’s better to do it fully and without questions if you have either a GT3e or a discrete video card. In a compact case, the first is easier to provide.
In general, we can assume that dual-core Haswells are not enough at all, quad-cores are suitable for HD, and Broadwell-C (including especially economical ones) are also suitable for Full HD.
GT3e allows you to play at least in low resolution, the rest and it is far beyond the power.
Even a Pentium can handle HD resolution, but FHD again requires a quad-core processor. Not because of the cores, of course, but that’s how it works 🙂 Broadwell with GT3e in FHD is faster than Haswell-GT2 in HD.
As in Thief — one pulls at least somehow, the rest do not.
And this is not the first time that HD has been exchanged for FHD.
In general, it seems to us that detailed comments are unnecessary here — the diagrams speak for themselves. Such opportunities with a limited heat pack are expensive. True, they are literally expensive, but you can earn money. But it is impossible to buy something that is not for sale at all, because it does not exist.
Total
If the progress in the top segment is regularly heard dissatisfied babble part of the buyers, then as for the transfer of computers to «economical» rails… This process is more fun. Let’s start, for example, with the fact that the class of processors under consideration today (that is, desktop models with a TDP of 35 W) was born less than five years ago — along with the LGA1155 platform.
It didn’t exist before! There were, of course, single-core Celerons for LGA775, but you should not directly compare them with modern models — memory controllers, PCIe buses and a graphics core were then in the chipset, which itself could produce 20 W of heat or more.
And the most powerful processor in that generation was the already mentioned Core i5-2390T: with a clock speed of up to 3.5 GHz and an HDG 2000 graphics core. Then 3470T appeared, where formally the frequency increased by only 100 MHz, but in fact the processor finally I started using these theoretical possibilities 🙂 In the first models for LGA1150, the frequencies were left the same, but the graphics core was improved, and later, as we see, quad-core models were “introduced” into this segment. This Core i5 did not inspire us, but if used correctly, it will be quite good. It is important that the cheaper Core i3 also pulled up quite well.
Well, the maximum, of course, can be «squeezed out» when switching to a new process technology.