Will a 1156 to 1155 processor fit? Intel processor sockets

If you asked yourself this question, you are probably upgrading the system. Or collect a new one. Or have you been given too much detailed description already assembled system units, and you don’t know where to stop. In this case, knowledge is the best advisor, so let's see what is hidden behind the numerical designations with a difference of one unit.

Typically, the transition to a new socket coincides with the release of a new line of processors. Intel is no exception in this case: first LGA775 gave way to LGA1156, which, in turn, gave way to LGA1155. Today motherboards for Intel processors are available with sockets LGA2011, LGA1150, and LGA1155 is becoming a thing of the past. However, most home systems on Intel processors are still built on the latter.

Definition

Socket LGA1156— a connector on the motherboard designed for Intel processors labeled Core i3, i5, i7, Pentium G69x0, Intel Celeron G1101 and Intel Xeon X,L (Clarkdale and Lynnfield cores). Supports dual-channel DDR 3 memory, PCI-E 2.0 bus, as well as a graphics core integrated into the processor. LGA1156 motherboards were launched into production in 2009.

Socket LGA1155- a connector on the motherboard that replaced LGA1156 and is intended for Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors. LGA1155 motherboards were launched into production in 2011.

Comparison

Physically, both sockets are very similar to each other, practically indistinguishable in appearance. The abbreviation LGA (Land Grid Array) itself refers to design feature processor case - presence of a matrix of contact pads. In this case, the processor pins are soldered into a socket on the motherboard. This allows the processors to be transported and installed without the need for additional security measures. Fastening is provided by a clamping lever.

We can say that the difference between the two sockets lies in the name, or rather, in its digital expression. 1156 and 1155 are the number of pins. Another design difference of the LGA1155 is that the key recess is located to the right of the conditional central axis of the case - instead of 9 mm, the distance is 11.5 mm. This was done so that deft hands would not try to make friends with the LGA1156 socket with a processor of the Save Bridge family, for example.

Despite the physical similarity of the sockets, there is no and cannot be cross-platform in our case. Under no circumstances will it be possible to transfer processors from one to another. Technologically, the difference between LGA1155 and 1156 lies in the former’s support for the DMI 2.0 bus, which is faster than DMI. In practice, this gives high bandwidth “bridge” between the processor and the chipset, which provides support for new controllers.

Despite the difference between the processors installed in the sockets (and, as a result, different heat dissipation indicators), the cooling systems for LGA1155 and 1156 are fully compatible, therefore, when moving from one platform to another, it is possible to save at least on this. With the replacement of some technologies by others (even with such minor differences), outdated options quickly leave the market, which is why today it is almost impossible to find motherboards with the LGA1156 socket on sale. Intel stopped producing processors for this socket in 2012, and accordingly, technical support is not provided. However, the market share of LGA1155 is also decreasing.

Conclusions website

1. LGA1155 appeared in 2011, LGA1156 in 2009.
2. LGA1156 is intended for processors of the Core line and a number of others, LGA1155 - for the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge line.
3. LGA1156 has one more output pin.
4. The key recess for LGA1155 is located to the right.
5. LGA1155 supports DMI 2.0 bus (ensures adequate operation of Sata 3.0 and USB 3.0).
6. LGA1155 is a newer option, LGA1156 is outdated and discontinued.

Until relatively recently, one could observe an abundance of solutions based on the x86 architecture from various manufacturers. AMD, Cyrix, Intel, VIA, NEC, NexGen, Transmeta, SiS, UMC - they all produced integrated circuits, suitable for a certain range of tasks. Today we can note only two players on the market, who, however, do not need any introduction.

Despite the overly modest list of manufacturers of central processors for desktop systems, the user’s head is now dizzying with the number of models of finished devices. Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 - this is just a list of the lines of modern Intel solutions. How not to get lost in the maze of all these names?

Modern central processors and platforms

Intel Haswell (LGA1150)

Processors built on the Haswell microarchitecture, based on this moment are the crowning achievement of Intel. The chips are produced using a 22nm process technology. The architecture itself, in comparison with Ivy Bridge, has received a number of significant changes and improvements:

• new instruction sets AVX2.0 and FMA3 are used;
• increased throughput CACHE;
• the buffer and queues have been increased, including the reordering buffer;
• iVR voltage regulator is built directly into the processor;
• the number of launch ports has been increased from six to eight, and new actuators have been added;
• added new energy-saving modes;
• virtualization speed has been increased.

Intel with built-in DDR-III memory controllers (two channels) and PCI-E 2.0 bus (16 lanes), as well as support for processors with integrated graphics adapter, replacement for Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA775. In the future, up to eight cores will be released for this socket.

What is Socket LGA1156?
Socket for Intel desktop processors with built-in DDR-III memory controllers (two channels) and PCI-E 2.0 bus (16 lanes), as well as support for processors with an integrated graphics adapter, replacing Socket LGA775. Currently, the Core i3, i5 and i7 8XX families, as well as cheap processors under the Pentium brand, are produced for this processor socket.

What is Socket LGA1366?
Socket for new desktop and server Intel processors, with built-in DDR-III memory controllers (three channels) and QPI bus (one channel for desktop processors and two for server processors), replacement for both Socket LGA775 (for high-performance single-processor systems) and Socket LGA771. Currently, processors of the Core i7 9XX and Xeon 55XX families are produced for this processor socket. The key difference between the latter is the support for dual-processor configurations.

What is the difference between Socket LGA1155 and Socket LGA1156 connectors and processors for them? Are they compatible with each other?
Despite the external similarity of the connectors, they are completely incompatible with each other, i.e. LGA1155 processor cannot be installed in LGA1156 board and vice versa, besides, this is mechanically prevented by a different arrangement of keys in the connector. Also, the main difference between LGA1155 processors and chipsets compared to LGA1156 analogues is a twice faster version of the DMI bus, which communicates with the chipset, which eliminates the bottleneck when using SATA 6Gb/s and USB3.0 controllers.

What is the difference between Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 connectors and processors for them? Are they compatible with each other?
An LGA1156 processor cannot physically be installed in an LGA1366 socket and vice versa, despite the similar processor names for both sockets.

The key differences between all three sockets are summarized in the table:

What memory can be used with Socket LGA1155, Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 processors?
Since the memory controller is integrated into the corresponding processors, support various types memory also depends on the type installed, currently all boards and processors with these sockets are designed to work with DDR-III type memory, the maximum officially supported module frequency depends on specific model processor, however, some patterns are observed - all LGA1155 and LGA1156 processors (Core i5 and Core i7 8XX) and all LGA1366 Core processors i7s only support unbuffered (“regular”) DDR-III up to PC10600 (1333MHz), while Xeon processors for Socket1366, in combination with appropriate boards, also support ECC and ECC+Registered modules, and unbuffered modules also work in them.
To achieve optimal performance, the number of memory modules in LGA1155 and LGA1156 systems should be a multiple of two, in a single-processor LGA1366 system - three, and in a dual-processor system - six.

What coolers can be used with Socket LGA1155, Socket LGA1156, and Socket LGA1366 processors?
The cooler mounts for LGA1155 and LGA1156 sockets are identical and are not compatible with LGA1366, and both of these types of mounts are not backward compatible with any of the previously released sockets. However, for some expensive coolers, sets of mounts have been released that allow them to be installed on such, and most new universal coolers already support such connectors.

The list of compatible coolers in the NICS range can be found here: , .

What power supplies can be used with Socket LGA1155, Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 processors?
Boards with these sockets do not impose any specific requirements on the power supply; the selection of the power supply is carried out according to the same principles as for Socket LGA775 and Socket LGA771 systems based on the requirements of a specific configuration.

How does the performance of processors with the Nehalem architecture for Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 compare with each other and with processors with the architecture Intel Core for SocketLGA775?
As a rule, with the same nominal clock frequency and number of cores, LGA1366 processors are slightly faster than LGA1156 processors, but both are significantly (up to 40%) superior to their LGA775 predecessors from the Core 2 Quad family.

How does the performance of processors with the Nehalem architecture for Socket LGA1156 compare with processors with the Sandy Bridge architecture for Socket LGA1155?
As a rule, with the same nominal clock frequency and number of cores, LGA1155 processors are approximately 15-17% faster than LGA1156 processors due to architectural differences themselves.

To connect the computer processor to the motherboard, special sockets are used. With each new version processors received more and more features and functions, so usually each generation used a new socket. This negated compatibility, but made it possible to implement the necessary functionality.

Over the past few years, the situation has changed a little, and a list of Intel sockets has formed that are actively used and supported by new processors. In this article, we have collected the most popular 2017 Intel processor sockets that are still supported.

Before we look at processor sockets, let's try to understand what they are. A socket is the physical interface connecting the processor to the motherboard. The LGA socket consists of a series of pins that align with the plates on the underside of the processor.

New processors usually need a different set of pins, which means a new socket. However, in some cases, processors remain compatible with previous ones. The socket is located on the motherboard and cannot be upgraded without completely replacing the board. This means that upgrading the processor may require a complete rebuild of the computer. Therefore, it is important to know which socket is used on your system and what you can do with it.

1. LGA 1151

LGA 1151 is the latest Intel socket. It was released in 2015 for the Intel Skylake generation of processors. These processors used the 14 nanometer process technology. Since the new Kaby Lake processors haven't changed much, this socket is still relevant. The socket is supported by these motherboards: H110, B150, Q150, Q170, H170 and Z170. The release of Kaby Lake brought the following boards: B250, Q250, H270, Q270, Z270.

Compared with previous version LGA 1150, USB 3.0 support has appeared here, the operation of DDR4 and DIMM memory modules has been optimized, and SATA 3.0 support has been added. DDR3 compatibility was still maintained. For video, DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort are supported by default, while VGA support can be added by manufacturers.

LGA 1151 chips only support GPU overclocking. If you want to overclock the processor or memory, you will have to choose a higher-end chipset. In addition, support for Intel Active Management, Trusted Execution, VT-D and Vpro has been added.

In tests, Skylake processors show better results than Sandy Bridge, and the new Kaby Lake is even several percent faster.

Here are the processors that are currently running on this socket:

SkyLake:

• Pentium - G4400, G4500, G4520;
• Core i3 - 6100, 6100T, 6300, 6300T, 6320;
• Core i5 - 6400, 6500, 6600, 6600K;
• Core i7 - 6700, 6700K.

Kaby Lake:

• Core i7 7700K, 7700, 7700T
• Core i5 7600K, 7600, 7600T, 7500, 7500T, 7400, 7400T;
• Core i3 7350K, 7320, 7300, 7300T, 7100, 7100T, 7101E, 7101TE;
• Pentium: G4620, G4600, G4600T, G4560, G4560T;
• Celeron G3950, G3930, G3930T.

2. LGA 1150

The LGA 1150 socket was developed for the previous fourth generation of Intel Haswell processors in 2013. It is also supported by some fifth-generation chips. This socket works with the following motherboards: H81, B85, Q85, Q87, H87 and Z87. The first three processors can be considered entry-level devices: they do not support any advanced Intel features.

The last two boards added support for SATA Express, as well as Thunderbolt technology. Compatible processors:

Broadwell:

• Core i5 - 5675C;
• Core i7 - 5775C;

Haswell Refresh

• Celeron - G1840, G1840T, G1850;
• Pentium - G3240, G3240T, G3250, G3250T, G3258, G3260, G3260T, G3440, G3440T, G3450, G3450T, G3460, G3460T, G3470;
• Core i3 - 4150, 4150T, 4160, 4160T, 4170, 4170T, 4350, 4350T, 4360, 4360T, 4370, 4370T;
• Core i5 - 4460, 4460S, 4460T, 4590, 4590S, 4590T, 4690, 4690K, 4690S, 4690T;
• Core i7 - 4785T, 4790, 4790K, 4790S, 4790T;

• Celeron - G1820, G1820T, G1830;
• Pentium - G3220, G3220T, G3420, G3420T, G3430;
• Core i3 - 4130, 4130T, 4330, 4330T, 4340;
• Core i5 - 4430, 4430S, 4440, 4440S, 4570, 4570, 4570R, 4570S, 4570T, 4670, 4670K, 4670R, 4670S, 4670T;
• Core i7 - 4765T, 4770, 4770K, 4770S, 4770R, 4770T, 4771;

3. LGA 1155

This is the oldest supported socket on the list for Intel processors. It was released in 2011 for the second Intel generation Core. Most processors Sandy architecture Bridge work exactly on it.

The LGA 1155 socket has been used for two generations of processors in a row, and is also compatible with Ivy Bridge chips. This means that it was possible to upgrade without changing the motherboard, just like now with Kaby Lake.

This socket is supported by twelve motherboards. The senior line includes B65, H61, Q67, H67, P67 and Z68. All of them were released along with the release of Sandy Bridge. The launch of Ivy Bridge brought the B75, Q75, Q77, H77, Z75 and Z77. All boards have the same socket, but some features are disabled on budget devices.

Supported processors:

Ivy Bridge

• Celeron - G1610, G1610T, G1620, G1620T, G1630;
• Pentium - G2010, G2020, G2020T, G2030, G2030T, G2100T, G2120, G2120T, G2130, G2140;
• Core i3 - 3210, 3220, 3220T, 3225, 3240, 3240T, 3245, 3250, 3250T;
• Core i5 - 3330, 3330S, 3335S, 3340, 3340S, 3450, 3450S, 3470, 3470S, 3470T, 3475S, 3550, 3550P, 3550S, 3570, 3570K, 3570S, ;
• Core i7 - 3770, 3770K, 3770S, 3770T;

Sandy Bridge

• Celeron - G440, G460, G465, G470, G530, G530T, G540, G540T, G550, G550T, G555;
• Pentium - G620, G620T, G622, G630, G630T, G632, G640, G640T, G645, G645T, G840, G850, G860, G860T, G870;
• Core i3 - 2100, 2100T, 2102, 2105, 2120, 2120T, 2125, 2130;
• Core i5 - 2300, 2310, 2320, 2380P, 2390T, 2400, 2400S, 2405S, 2450P, 2500, 2500K, 2500S, 2500T, 2550K;
• Core i7 - 2600, 2600K, 2600S, 2700K.

4. LGA 2011

The LGA 2011 socket was released in 2011 after LGA 1155 as a socket for high-end Sandy Bridge-E/EP and Ivy Bridge E/EP processors. The socket is designed for six-core processors and all Xenon processors. For home users, the X79 motherboard will be relevant. All other boards are designed for enterprise users and Xenon processors.

In tests Sandy processors Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E show pretty good results: productivity is 10-15% higher.

Supported processors:

• Haswell-E Core i7 - 5820K, 5930K, 5960X;
• Ivy Bridge-E Core i7 - 4820K, 4930K, 4960X;
• Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 - 3820, 3930K, 3960X, 3970X.

These were all modern intel processor sockets.

5. LGA 775

It was used to install Intel Pentium 4, Intel Core 2 Duo, Intel Core 2 Quad and many others processors, up to the release of LGA 1366. Such systems are outdated and use the old DDR2 memory standard.

6. LGA 1156

The LGA 1156 socket was released for the new line of processors in 2008. It was supported by the following motherboards: H55, P55, H57 and Q57. New processor models for this socket have not been released for a long time.

Supported processors:

Westmere (Clarkdale)

• Celeron - G1101;
• Pentium - G6950, G6951, G6960;
• Core i3 - 530, 540, 550, 560;
• Core i5 - 650, 655K, 660, 661, 670, 680.

Nehalem (Lynnfield)

• Core i5 - 750, 750S, 760;
• Core i7 - 860, 860S, 870, 870K, 870S, 875K, 880.

7. LGA 1366

LGA 1366 is a version of 1566 for high-end processors. Supported motherboard X58. Supported processors:

Westmere (Gulftown)

• Core i7 - 970, 980;
• Core i7 Extreme - 980X, 990X.

Nehalem (Bloomfield)

• Core i7 - 920, 930, 940, 950, 960;
• Core i7 Extreme - 965, 975.

conclusions

In this article, we looked at generations of Intel sockets that were used before and are actively used in modern processors. Some of them are compatible with new models, while others are completely forgotten, but are still found on users’ computers.

Latest Intel socket 1151, supported by Skylake and KabyLake processors. We can assume that the CoffeLake processors that will be released this summer will also use this socket. There used to be other types of Intel sockets, but they are already very rare.

Finally, the long-awaited moment for many has arrived when you can get acquainted with the performance of Intel processors for the new LGA1155 platform! True, like last year, it fell right on the holidays, but nothing - having recovered from the holiday, it’s all the more interesting to go to the store :) By the way, it’s not only the date that today’s event has in common with the announcement of processors based on the Clarkdale core a year ago. The fact is that the story with LGA1156 is essentially repeating itself - the announcement of new processors will be extended over several stages. Today we will learn all the details about the quad-core models of the Sandy Bridge architecture, but we will have to wait almost another month and a half for more affordable dual-core models. “People’s” Pentiums don’t even make it into the first quarter.

But still, one and a half is not four, there will be much more than one Pentium, the prices for them are expected to be more humane than for the only processor (well, one and a half) of this family for LGA1156, and Celeron is also visible on the horizon: in a word, the company took into account experience “stretched start” LGA1156 and similar mistakes Most likely they won't do it. Thus, LGA1155, starting somewhere in the second or third quarter of this year, will finally make it possible to abolish the well-worn LGA775 design, and by the end of the year it will do away with LGA1156. But for some time these three platforms will exist in parallel, which, coupled with the surviving LGA1366 (and it will definitely live until the end of the year), will only increase the confusion in the market. However, these are the harsh realities of the modern market and it is unlikely that we can change them in any way. All you have to do is study everything carefully and always make the right choice :)

There will be no theoretical part today. The fact is that we already had materials on this topic, and more detailed studies of microarchitecture are just around the corner. In general, let's not beat theorists' bread :) Also, for now, let's leave behind the scenes the issue of performance and functionality of the graphics core - this is also a separate and serious topic, which we will return to in the near future for a detailed study. At the moment, the main thing is to study the performance of the processor part itself and compare it with competing products from both Intel and AMD. What do we suggest and move on to?

Test bench configuration

In the family of processors for LGA1156, two processors of the Core i7 line and only one Core i5 appeared at first, but now the ratio is the opposite - one to three. The explanation is simple: older Core i7-800s are still on the market and have adequate performance, so you shouldn’t interfere with them too much. But the Core i5 is too much of a motley bunch, which includes fast but graphics-less 700-series processors and graphics-equipped but rather weak (due to only two cores) Core i5-600. It was this imbalance that Intel decided to eliminate first. Note that now Core i5 is Always four cores, and the “old” version of “two cores/four threads” is present only in the cheaper Core i3 family. But these processors will come out a little later, fortunately now the Core i3-500 is not so bad.

What the comparison shows technical characteristics? If previously the Core i5-700 and Core i7-800 differed only in the presence/absence of Hyper-Threading support and frequencies, now the differences have become a little deeper: the i5 also has less cache memory. Moreover, the line is constructed in an interesting way - the step of the starting clock frequencies is uneven, but in terms of the maximum frequency in the boost mode, “everything is as it should”: a hundred in the index is equal to 300 MHz clock frequency. A very serious difference, since both Intel and AMD have already accustomed us to the fact that neighboring processors in the line differ only by one multiplier. It’s difficult to say for now whether the concept will be preserved in the future or whether the company will begin to tighten its ranks, so we will postpone this issue for the future. In our opinion, “not partial” is very useful - there are already too many processors on the market, in which it is too easy to get confused. But there may be some progress - otherwise the Core i5-2300 looks a little strange, its price is only slightly lower than that of the 2400, but the lag in clock frequency is greater than the difference between the older models. Is that in one or two-threaded applications it is reduced, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Moreover, the presence of background processes, which sometimes require quite a bit of computing resources (and some of these background applications also became multi-threaded).

But somehow with the Turbo Boost mode itself... More was expected. And the maximum increase decreased to 400 MHz (do not forget that one “new” step is equal to 3/4 of the old one), and the dependence on the number of working cores has not gone away, although there were rumors that it was now possible to increase the frequency of all cores to the maximum. The only significant change is that now processors have the right to overclock “to the last”: the boost mode is allowed up to the TDP level (previously it was turned off at a lower limit), and, if necessary, for a short time - even higher. Thus, a certain increase in performance under heavy load should be observed. Let's check which one.

The main thing for overclocking enthusiasts is that Turbo Boost in its new incarnation also supports such a function as “Limited Unlocked Core” - the ability to set multipliers to the value “Max Turbo +4”. That is, in other words, according to Intel documentation, a completely ordinary Core i7-2500 will be able to operate at a frequency of 3.9 GHz when all cores are loaded, and when only one is loaded, it will even reach a frequency of 4.1 GHz! The reality turned out to be even more interesting - Gigabyte board, on which we tested the new family, the multipliers, of course, were limited, but... But for the 2600, for example, the maximum value (namely 42) could be set for any number of active cores, i.e., with a slight movement of the hand, a processor with The 3.4 GHz clock becomes a 4.2 GHz model. And we have strong suspicions that other boards based on the P67 chipset (with the possible exception of those produced by Intel itself) will behave in the same way.

P67 boards also support “Fully Unlocked Core,” which allows you to use a multiplier of up to 57 in any mode. However, this requires a K-series processor. Note that they are interesting not only to overclocking enthusiasts (and maybe not so much to them: as shown above, you can add 700-800 MHz on conventional processors): the K-series uses an HD 3000 series video core, but in conventional models - only only HD 2000, in which half of the executive modules are disabled. Thus, these processors will also be extremely useful for fans of integrated graphics, who will use them on boards based on the H67 chipset. But on the P67 it will not be possible to use the built-in video core (since it does not have an FDI link), but it will be possible to fully “have fun” during overclocking, as mentioned above. Moreover, when overclocking not only cores, but also memory: despite the fact that the officially supported maximum mode is DDR3-1333, this is only true for H67. On the P67, higher multipliers are also available, which gives memory frequencies up to 2133 MHz. And the TDP level on these boards can be adjusted manually, increasing it during overclocking or, conversely, decreasing it to save energy (which was previously only available for extreme processors). In general, when developing processors and chipsets for LGA1155, Intel took into account all past experience, putting things in order comparative positioning:)

As is expected when testing a new family of processors, there will be more competitors than test subjects. Especially competitors produced in the same factories. The company of Intel processors we selected at first glance looks too diverse, but the selection logic is simple - the table (from left to right) shows:

1. The fastest LGA1156 processor equipped with a graphics core (by the way, it costs the same as Core i7-2600)
2. The fastest Core i5 of the previous generation (has the same starting frequency as the new Core i5-2300, and the selling price is the same as the Core i5-2500)
3. Fastest Core i7 for LGA1156
4. The fastest quad-core x86 processor
5. Generally the fastest x86 processor :)

The last two models, of course, we need mainly out of curiosity - any processor announced today for LGA1155 is not ashamed to lose to them :) However, there are serious suspicions that the Core i7-2600 will not be able to lose to the “extreme” i7-975 Extreme (how no matter how hard he tries), but a comparison with the i7-980X on a wide range of applications is of considerable interest.

Now let's move on to AMD. It is obvious that when the heavy equipment of the “blues” enters the battlefield, the “greens” are left only with guerrilla warfare and ambush operations. In any case, this situation will last until Superwaffe, codenamed “Bulldozer,” rolls out of the laboratories, but there is quite a lot of time left until that moment. Today we will not touch the “green partisans”, in the form of hordes of various Athlon IIs, but we will look at a couple of “tank ambushes”. The first will be the Phenom II X4 970, already familiar to our readers, a processor with the highest guaranteed clock frequency of the quad-core ones on the market (Core i7-2600 reaches 3.5 GHz only in boost mode, while others are not capable of this). The second one is the Phenom II X6 1090T. The entry of this line into the market last spring allowed the company to once again return to the “$200-300” market segment, since the processors very successfully occupied a niche between the older Core i5 and the younger Core i7 - let’s see if they will be able to maintain their positions taking into account the update of the product range Intel. To be fair, both the X4 and X6 families are expected to be replenished in the near future (more precisely, the 1100T appeared at the end of last year, and the 975 - now), but since we are talking about only a slight increase in clock frequency, it is obvious that the qualitative picture is a little more productive than used, Phenom II will not change.

Testing

The performance testing methodology (list of software used and testing conditions) is described in detail in a separate article. For ease of perception, the results in the diagrams are presented as percentages (the result is taken as 100% AMD Athlon II X4 620 in each of the tests). Detailed results in absolute values ​​are available as a table in Microsoft format Excel.

3D visualization

The very first group of programs - and the first discoveries. As we already know, these tasks do not require a large number of computation threads, so what comes first is the speed with which these same threads (two or three) are “run” through the processor. That is, in other words, this is exactly the area where architectural optimizations can have the best impact. And they had an effect - the Core i5-2300 (the youngest and cheapest) has already outperformed all the processors that we tested earlier. Including the extreme Core i7-975, which no one has ever managed to beat in this test. The rest of the representatives of the new architecture, for obvious reasons, are even faster, so they simply have no one to compete with.

3D rendering

It seems to us that Sandy Bridge will have the last word on these tasks when support for the new set appears in the programs vector instructions AVX. In the meantime, this is “pure” mathematics, and it is very well parallelized, so the more computation threads, the better: strength breaks straw. However, the high efficiency of each computation thread is reflected here as well. In particular, the new Core i5 is faster than the old ones with the same number of cores and at a comparable clock frequency by 10 percent (looking at the diagram, do not forget that the i5-760 in boost mode operates at a frequency of 2.93 GHz, and the i5-2300 - only 2.9 GHz). But the transition to a thinner process technology allows new processors to operate at higher speeds. high frequencies, as a result of which they can compete with both the old Core i7 and the six-core Phenom II X6. Moreover, with the latter - even despite their higher frequency;) However, miracles do not happen in the world, so six-core Core i7s are out of reach, but they are much more expensive. Therefore, the second place of the Core i7-2600 is in fact not a defeat, but a brilliant victory.

Scientific and engineering computing

Another basically low-thread group with small multi-threaded inclusions, which distinguishes it from the first. But not much - the first two places were taken by processors for LGA1155 (the first was shared by as many as two, which once again shows that Hyper-Threading technology is still far from “free”), and the “penny” Core i5-2300 was second only to “multi-ruble” ones extreme processors of previous families.

Graphic editor

As we have written more than once, applications included in this group have very different preferences: Adobe Photoshop“loves” many computation threads, but three “amateur” programs do not need them (and even sometimes interfere). Well, since there are three of them for one, it is not surprising that previously the dual-core (but high-frequency) Core i5-600 showed very good overall results. Only extreme sports, where there are a lot of cores and high frequencies, produced more. “Family 2000” suits these programs even better, and its results in Photoshop are very good - here are the new leaders. I was especially shocked by the Core i7-2600, which in the Adobe software package almost caught up with the much more expensive six-core Core i7-970, and in the three remaining applications it simply has no competitors. The Core i5-2400 in them showed similar performance to the Core i5-680 (previously the leader), but outperformed it in Photoshop by almost one and a half times, which allowed this inexpensive model to take its place among the former leaders in terms of total results. The Core i5-2500 is understandably faster than them and is only behind the Core i7-2600. In general, only the youngest Core i5-2300 did not blow our minds. Although if you remember that its wholesale price is only $177, and it didn’t “shock” against the background of processors worth a whole hundred (or even all four - if you remember how much the Core i7-880 costs, to which the “baby” from the new line somewhat closer than the equivalent-frequency Core i5-760) dollars more expensive, this is also just a wonderful result.

Archivers

7-Zip is capable of using as many cores as it can find, all three subtests are very fond of a large amount of cache memory, and the latter seems to be only interested in it - in general, it’s not surprising that the new Core i5 performed not so perfectly here , as in previous groups: only four threads and a cache reduced to 6 MB make themselves felt. But “not ideal” does not mean bad - they easily bypassed everything AMD processors and managed to reach approximately the level of the old Core i7, which cost about a hundred more. But the new Core i7-2600 has support for Hyper-Threading and an 8 MB cache, so its only competitor is the extreme Core i7-980X (even 975 is slower).

Compilation

Visual Studio turned out to be not the most friendly application to new processors - apparently due to the fact that the compilation task was already one of the best optimized ones. However, the Core i5-2300 slightly beats the Core i5-760: taking into account the smaller cache memory capacity (and it is of considerable importance in this test) of the new product, this deserves a positive assessment. The increase (albeit small) is actually of strategic importance - as we remember, earlier in this program the Phenom II X6 was very good, located above the Core i5 and with older models reaching up to the younger Core i7. And now? And now with the compilation quad core(and “honest” - without any Hyper-Threading) Core i5-2400 copes at exactly the same speed as six-core Phenom II X6 1055T (albeit the youngest in the family, but more expensive)! And the next model with the 1075T index is not far behind, beating the Core i5-2500 by only one point. The older models, as we see, are still faster than even the new Core i5 and can already be compared with the old Intel processor at $294, but the new one for the same money has jumped far ahead and is only behind six-core processors Intel itself. Moreover, it cannot be said that it is very noticeable - only 10% separates it from the current extreme Core i7-980X.

Java

But SPECjvm surprised me a little, since we are already accustomed to presenting this test as good example multi-core optimization. However, apparently, its capabilities extend to an area with eight to ten threads, but no more. While processors with different numbers of cores, but based on similar architectures, were competing, this gave obvious priority to more multi-threaded models, but as soon as we started comparing models with different efficiency per thread... In general, the Core i7-980X is still the fastest, but the superiority over the Core i7-2600 has become purely formal. Well, the Core i5-2400 somehow “didn’t notice” that the Core i7-880 supports twice as many computation threads and has close clock frequency, and almost caught up with him :)

Such an increase turned into a complete defeat for AMD processors - previously the Phenom II X4 970 was faster than all Core i5s, and the Phenom II X6 1090T outperformed any Core i7-800. Now the Phenom II X4 970 slower all Core i5 for LGA1155, and Phenom II X6 1090T lags behind Core i5-2500. And it’s not surprising that with the new Core i7 for LGA1155, AMD’s six-core processors, in principle, can no longer compete in performance.

Internet browsers

Previously, this group of applications was the most loyal to the Phenom II X4, since even the model with index 965 outperformed all Intel processors. Now, as we see, even the Core i5-2300 can repeat the results of the former tops, the Core i5-2400 outperforms the Phenom II X4 965 and is only slightly short of 970, and the 2500 and 2600 are simply the fastest on the market. Without any reservations :) However, as we have said more than once, it makes no sense to attach great importance to the results of these tests on top processors from a practical point of view, but from a research point of view, we tick off the fact that perhaps the last group has disappeared, where AMD processors held the lead.

Audio encoding

Another group of applications that over time could benefit a lot from the introduction of AVX, but for now operates only with “old” code. In addition, as has been said more than once, testing conditions most favor processors that can simultaneously perform a large number of computation threads. Therefore, at first glance, the new Core i5s are not that good here. But if you look closely, it becomes obvious that this is the level of the “old” Core i7 or Phenom II X6, i.e., more expensive CPUs. In any case, previously not a single quad-core crystal here scored 150 points, but now three at once score even more. The Core i7-2600, as one would expect, takes an honorable second place, behind only the six-core (and twelve-thread) Core i7-980X.

Video encoding

A similar picture to the previous one. Only now the gap between the 2600 and the 980X has become greater, but it is possible - after all, the devices are of completely different price classes. The main thing is that new devices are capable of defeating not only direct competitors, but also processors located one step higher.

Games

Even this group of applications has ended the stagnation. After which we began to run into a video card that was far from the slowest - for example, in Stalker and Resident Evil 5, all new processors showed the same results :) Which, it should be noted, turned out to be much higher than all the old ones. In general, the question of finding the best gaming processor should probably be considered resolved in all cases where you can spend more than $150 on a purchase - such is the Core i5-2300. Or, if finances are not so bad, then the Core i5-2400, which costs not much more, but “keeps up” at the level of former extreme sports enthusiasts. Top-end video cards or multi-GPUs remain behind the scenes, but here, it seems to us, the issue of processor price is not decisive. Moreover, even the Core i7-2600 is not too expensive. And you can overclock it to 400-800 MHz if desired... Or pay just a little extra for 2600K and overclock it even more. Or save a hundred and do the same procedure with the Core i5-2500K :) In general, the question of choice will only be faced by those who need a fast processor for games for $100 or who, on principle, want to take something very expensive.

Total

There was a time when older Phenom II X4 models sold for about $300, but the emergence of the Core i5-750 “driven” all AMD processors into the “under $200” price niche. The company was able to get out of it only by releasing the Phenom II X6. Now, it seems, history is repeating itself: even six-core Phenom IIs need to be sold at prices not exceeding $200 - to the delight of some fans, but to the horror of shareholders. (It is obvious that quad-core processors produced using the 32 nm process technology are cheaper to manufacture than six-core processors at 45 nm, despite the fact that the former have a video core.) So it will be interesting to see how the “green” ones will get out of this situation - before the release of Bulldozer- there is still quite a lot of time left.

Another family of processors was much more unlucky. Yes, in fact, the Core i5-600 can be consigned to the dustbin of history in its entirety. While it was necessary to make a choice: “four cores or integrated graphics?”, there was something to talk about. However, now the choice is obvious - four cores (faster than the old ones) And integrated graphics (faster than old ones) simultaneously. The new Core i5s are definitely better than the old ones. The current pricing policy looks a little strange: the 2400 differs from the 2300 by as much as 300 MHz and only 7 dollars, and from the 2500 by only 200 MHz and as much as 20 dollars, but this is quite understandable due to the premium for steepness. Moreover, perhaps, after the release of the new i3 (which will finally write off all processors based on the Clarkdale core) the “ladder” will be converted into 155-177-204, which will be more logical.

If the new i5 turned out to be so good, then what can we say about the Core i7-2600? An excellent processor, the absolute triumph of which was spoiled only by the extreme Core i7-980X. But even then only in the overall standings - it’s easy to notice that in half of the test groups even this expensive device can now compete only with the new Core i5, significantly getting ahead only in a few cases. Yes, this is still the difficult share of six-core processors in a desktop environment: an extremely small percentage software can make good use of their potential. Intel, it seems to us, very correctly decided that the time for multi-core processors on the desktop has already come, but “many” still means “four”. For extreme sports enthusiasts, more is possible, but only if they are willing to pay for it :) And pay regularly - previously the same 980X competed only with the same extreme models, but now it does not always outperform budget ones. And the previous extreme one lost miserably everywhere to the regular Core i7-2600. Top, but ordinary. In general, it is standard practice for Intel - the new family of processors is unconditionally better than the old one, and the older models in it are no worse than the old extreme ones. Moreover, what is gratifying is that even fans of overclocking and other optimizations now do not have to prepare another thousand dollars: there are not so expensive Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K. And even more versatile than their K-series predecessors, since they are interesting not only with fully unlocked multipliers, but also with a more powerful graphics core.

To summarize, should the release of new processors be considered a success? Yes, count. Even despite the changed design, which will once again force upgrade enthusiasts to change boards: the new processors are good enough that even owners of systems with LGA1366 will be tempted to do this procedure (if only because they can replace some i7-920 with The i7-970 will be more expensive and less interesting than taking the i7-2600K on a new board) or LGA1156. Not to mention those who are still clinging to LGA775 - the time has come to finally retire any Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Quad too. Well, those who buy assembled computers simply receive a small gift from the company - for the same money as in December last year, they can buy about 20 percent more processor power :)