10 Years of Intel CPUs Benchmarked: i7-930, 2600K, 4790K, & Everything Since (2020)
video description
Date: 2020-05-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
HotaruHino
If you look at the performance of CPUs throughout the ages (at least with single core performance, you'll find that IPC accounts for a small fraction of performance boosts from generation to generation between major micro-architectures, as opposed to just process node shrinks. Most of the performance gains we were getting were simply from clock speed bumps. To put things in perspective, at the start of 1990, x86 processors were floating around maybe 50MHz. In 10 years, they were at 1 GHz. From 2000 to 2010, that jumped up to maybe the upper 3 GHz range. And from 2010 to 2020, we went from around mid 3 GHz or so on average to mid to upper 4 GHZ. I'm expecting AMD to hit a similar wall as far as single core improvement goes. The problem is that a lot of software we use isn't suitable for nice linear performance gains. It's not that they were implemented badly, but it's simply the fact that by design, they aren't predictable enough for smooth sailing or they're pipelined in a way that breaking that pipeline style would likely break everything else. I mean, maybe multiple cores and such would be useful in the future if Average Joe leaves a billion apps on his computer open, but that seems more of a problem with the software ecosystem than a lack of hardware performing.
reply
If you look at the performance of CPUs throughout the ages (at least with single core performance, you'll find that IPC accounts for a small fraction of performance boosts from generation to generation between major micro-architectures, as opposed to just process node shrinks. Most of the performance gains we were getting were simply from clock speed bumps. To put things in perspective, at the start of 1990, x86 processors were floating around maybe 50MHz. In 10 years, they were at 1 GHz. From 2000 to 2010, that jumped up to maybe the upper 3 GHz range. And from 2010 to 2020, we went from around mid 3 GHz or so on average to mid to upper 4 GHZ. I'm expecting AMD to hit a similar wall as far as single core improvement goes. The problem is that a lot of software we use isn't suitable for nice linear performance gains. It's not that they were implemented badly, but it's simply the fact that by design, they aren't predictable enough for smooth sailing or they're pipelined in a way that breaking that pipeline style would likely break everything else. I mean, maybe multiple cores and such would be useful in the future if Average Joe leaves a billion apps on his computer open, but that seems more of a problem with the software ecosystem than a lack of hardware performing.
reply
Kevin
The only way we'll see AMD surpass Intel in gaming is if the devs start optimizing for AMD like they do now for Intel. According to Steam AMD has hit about 22% of that gaming market, but they need to get much closer to 50% for the devs to invest the dollars into AMD efficiency. The only way that is going to happen is if AMD sustains their current performance/dollar lead over Intel for several years (maybe a decade, which would lead to greater OEM adoption which would certainly help as well. Last time AMD had a competitive product was the Ath 64-X2, and in just a couple years Intel had left them in the dust again. Let's hope AMD has some legs this time, and keeps thing competitive for a long time to come. If there's any letup in the AMD/Intel competition we'll all be swapping to ARM based PCs (just like Apple - ick, so there's some existential motivation there as well.
reply
The only way we'll see AMD surpass Intel in gaming is if the devs start optimizing for AMD like they do now for Intel. According to Steam AMD has hit about 22% of that gaming market, but they need to get much closer to 50% for the devs to invest the dollars into AMD efficiency. The only way that is going to happen is if AMD sustains their current performance/dollar lead over Intel for several years (maybe a decade, which would lead to greater OEM adoption which would certainly help as well. Last time AMD had a competitive product was the Ath 64-X2, and in just a couple years Intel had left them in the dust again. Let's hope AMD has some legs this time, and keeps thing competitive for a long time to come. If there's any letup in the AMD/Intel competition we'll all be swapping to ARM based PCs (just like Apple - ick, so there's some existential motivation there as well.
reply
White_Mask
I have my i7-5775C still! I really like it, but the base clock of 3. 7 GHz and enforced 65W TDP kind of gimped it out of the box. Mine does 4. 2 Ghz all core. I loved the concept of the L4 cache, and it is a shame Intel didn't pursue it. The CPU also cannot do DDR3 speed higher than 2400 Mhz, so you wanted the lowest latency DDR3 you could afford. The iGPU is wonderful though. It was my first APU. Got a nice preview of what a Ryzen 4c8t APU would feel like. It also is supported in MacOS, making it a wonderful Hackintosh. edit: The worst part of the 5000 series for Z97 is the spotty BIOS support from various OEMs. The best support has L4 Cache overclocking, iGPU overclocking, 2400 Mhz DDR3, and CPU core/cache overclocking. Some are missing one or a few of those features to this day.
reply
I have my i7-5775C still! I really like it, but the base clock of 3. 7 GHz and enforced 65W TDP kind of gimped it out of the box. Mine does 4. 2 Ghz all core. I loved the concept of the L4 cache, and it is a shame Intel didn't pursue it. The CPU also cannot do DDR3 speed higher than 2400 Mhz, so you wanted the lowest latency DDR3 you could afford. The iGPU is wonderful though. It was my first APU. Got a nice preview of what a Ryzen 4c8t APU would feel like. It also is supported in MacOS, making it a wonderful Hackintosh. edit: The worst part of the 5000 series for Z97 is the spotty BIOS support from various OEMs. The best support has L4 Cache overclocking, iGPU overclocking, 2400 Mhz DDR3, and CPU core/cache overclocking. Some are missing one or a few of those features to this day.
reply
PotatoPlayer
They say intel is dead I say my i7 4790k still rocks. If I would buy any cup now will be intel cpu i9 9900k and keep it for 10 yers. rock strong good drivers yeah AMD sells 2x core for the same price but software works so much smoother and faster with intel don't need an amd cpu which needed lots of additional driver installation to use some programs that work just fine with intel with no need for crappy chinese drivers that can't install 9n Windows unless yo do 5 different things to make it work AMD IS A PAIN IN THE ASS TO INSTALL AN MOTHERBOARDS COMPARED WiTH INTEL AND INTEL WORKS ALWAYS AMD IN EXCHANGE REQUIRE PAINFULL TO GET DRIVERS AND THEIR DRIVERS ARE LIKE MEH. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. AMD IS CHEAPER MORE VALUE FOR THE MONEY BUT A PAIN IN MY REAR END TO DEAL WITH.
reply
They say intel is dead I say my i7 4790k still rocks. If I would buy any cup now will be intel cpu i9 9900k and keep it for 10 yers. rock strong good drivers yeah AMD sells 2x core for the same price but software works so much smoother and faster with intel don't need an amd cpu which needed lots of additional driver installation to use some programs that work just fine with intel with no need for crappy chinese drivers that can't install 9n Windows unless yo do 5 different things to make it work AMD IS A PAIN IN THE ASS TO INSTALL AN MOTHERBOARDS COMPARED WiTH INTEL AND INTEL WORKS ALWAYS AMD IN EXCHANGE REQUIRE PAINFULL TO GET DRIVERS AND THEIR DRIVERS ARE LIKE MEH. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. AMD IS CHEAPER MORE VALUE FOR THE MONEY BUT A PAIN IN MY REAR END TO DEAL WITH.
reply
dr.
i remember my i7-860 4 ghz, awesome chip at the time. then i-7-3770k 5 ghz few years later, lasted me for many years really (no competition and chip was somewhat golden, so no need to upgrade. it lasted me till ryzen 2700 4. 2 ghz but then i got a nice offer on i9-9900k i could not resist (as in 50% off cpu, board and memory. running this chip at 5 ghz all-core, no avx offset, till something really awesome releases. will probably hold on to this chip for years. i mainly do high fps gaming and emulation on this rig, and it won't get much better than this. i could try and push for 5. 1 tho but it looks off and i can get 5 ghz with 1. 35v so im probably not going to bother. the ryzen parts went to my server and replaced an old i3 xD
reply
i remember my i7-860 4 ghz, awesome chip at the time. then i-7-3770k 5 ghz few years later, lasted me for many years really (no competition and chip was somewhat golden, so no need to upgrade. it lasted me till ryzen 2700 4. 2 ghz but then i got a nice offer on i9-9900k i could not resist (as in 50% off cpu, board and memory. running this chip at 5 ghz all-core, no avx offset, till something really awesome releases. will probably hold on to this chip for years. i mainly do high fps gaming and emulation on this rig, and it won't get much better than this. i could try and push for 5. 1 tho but it looks off and i can get 5 ghz with 1. 35v so im probably not going to bother. the ryzen parts went to my server and replaced an old i3 xD
reply
Andrey
Sandy Bridge was so good because of architectural changes. At the same core counts as Nehalem, it showed much better performance across the board. And it overclocked so well. Comet Lake is basically the same architecture as the good old Skylake. Its performance gain will come from the additional cores, so it will only be beneficial in workloads that utilize those cores. And because of factory overclock and already high power consumption, it'll likely not overclock so well (aside from extreme OC. So no, Comet Lake is definitely not the new Sandy Bridge. Rocket Lake may be, although word has it Intel will have to back off in core counts to keep the power consumption down. And we obviously don't know the prices yet.
reply
Sandy Bridge was so good because of architectural changes. At the same core counts as Nehalem, it showed much better performance across the board. And it overclocked so well. Comet Lake is basically the same architecture as the good old Skylake. Its performance gain will come from the additional cores, so it will only be beneficial in workloads that utilize those cores. And because of factory overclock and already high power consumption, it'll likely not overclock so well (aside from extreme OC. So no, Comet Lake is definitely not the new Sandy Bridge. Rocket Lake may be, although word has it Intel will have to back off in core counts to keep the power consumption down. And we obviously don't know the prices yet.
reply
PHOENIXZERO
Have been holding out for Zen 3 since 2017 to finally retire my overclocked to 4. 5GHz 2500K, this year or early next is finally going to be the time I do that but having built this PC back in late May of 2011 and obviously it's seen upgrades to the GPU where I went from a GTX460 to SLI'd 460s to a 970 and finally a 1070, as well memory going from 4GB (2GBx2, 8GB (2GBx4) then to 16GB (8GBx2) and finally moving away from HDDs for apps/games to 500GB and 1TB 850EVOs. Going to keep those as secondary storage and at least my 4TB 2. 5 HDD/media drive to my new build when I do it. My 2500K has had an amazing run even if it started slipping in decent gaming/frame rate performance back in late 2016 in newer games.
reply
Have been holding out for Zen 3 since 2017 to finally retire my overclocked to 4. 5GHz 2500K, this year or early next is finally going to be the time I do that but having built this PC back in late May of 2011 and obviously it's seen upgrades to the GPU where I went from a GTX460 to SLI'd 460s to a 970 and finally a 1070, as well memory going from 4GB (2GBx2, 8GB (2GBx4) then to 16GB (8GBx2) and finally moving away from HDDs for apps/games to 500GB and 1TB 850EVOs. Going to keep those as secondary storage and at least my 4TB 2. 5 HDD/media drive to my new build when I do it. My 2500K has had an amazing run even if it started slipping in decent gaming/frame rate performance back in late 2016 in newer games.
reply
custume
This is not a good video. This metrics are faulty, some CPU's are not OC and mention the 7700K that can go a lot better, you don't have any chart with the 7700K OC. I have my 7700K 5. 0Ghz on 1. 2V and it will work better that most of the CPU's ( even 8700K because 2 more cores make less headroom for OC, my 77K can go to 5. 1Ghz but I don't need it. Sure I got a golden 77K but most of the ones I build can hit 4. 8Ghz or better with no problem, also the 6700K can do similar results but at 4. 8Ghz. if you skip half of the CPU's (talking about the last 4/8 CPU's) them your test/metrics are wrong, sure the new CPU's are slightly faster because they have more cores but also over heat faster and have no OC value.
reply
This is not a good video. This metrics are faulty, some CPU's are not OC and mention the 7700K that can go a lot better, you don't have any chart with the 7700K OC. I have my 7700K 5. 0Ghz on 1. 2V and it will work better that most of the CPU's ( even 8700K because 2 more cores make less headroom for OC, my 77K can go to 5. 1Ghz but I don't need it. Sure I got a golden 77K but most of the ones I build can hit 4. 8Ghz or better with no problem, also the 6700K can do similar results but at 4. 8Ghz. if you skip half of the CPU's (talking about the last 4/8 CPU's) them your test/metrics are wrong, sure the new CPU's are slightly faster because they have more cores but also over heat faster and have no OC value.
reply
Rob
Still extremely happy with my 6700k. I only really use my pc for gaming and youtube, etc. With 980ti, 16gb ram, 1tb split btw nvme, and ssd. Corsair 240mm AIO. OCs to 4. 6GHz stable with relative low voltage. The monitor I use is 1080p 144hz. Runs everything great on ultra. But above 1080p I believe it might struggle. But I'll get a new GPU when things aren't so weird. Atleast waiting on the next set of GPUs. Would love a 20 series card. But I just can't think of why the price would be worth the performance gain over my 980ti. I could definitely be wrong. But say the witcher 3 on ultra, It never drops below 55 fps. Average around 80 fps.
reply
Still extremely happy with my 6700k. I only really use my pc for gaming and youtube, etc. With 980ti, 16gb ram, 1tb split btw nvme, and ssd. Corsair 240mm AIO. OCs to 4. 6GHz stable with relative low voltage. The monitor I use is 1080p 144hz. Runs everything great on ultra. But above 1080p I believe it might struggle. But I'll get a new GPU when things aren't so weird. Atleast waiting on the next set of GPUs. Would love a 20 series card. But I just can't think of why the price would be worth the performance gain over my 980ti. I could definitely be wrong. But say the witcher 3 on ultra, It never drops below 55 fps. Average around 80 fps.
reply
oiSnowy
I wouldn't say Intel was merely content. the EUV lithography machines needed for smaller processing nodes have been very late to arrive on the scene. The non-EUV machines can only make the details so small. Hyper-threading was only removed for a short while because of all the security issues. While I love AMD (most of my pc's have been AMD, also Cyrix). I kind of didn't even expect them in this video. No love for the i7 Ivy Bridge? Too bad. What I also find missing is power consumption. While it would be hard to compare, I think the last few generations really upped the amps wastage.
reply
I wouldn't say Intel was merely content. the EUV lithography machines needed for smaller processing nodes have been very late to arrive on the scene. The non-EUV machines can only make the details so small. Hyper-threading was only removed for a short while because of all the security issues. While I love AMD (most of my pc's have been AMD, also Cyrix). I kind of didn't even expect them in this video. No love for the i7 Ivy Bridge? Too bad. What I also find missing is power consumption. While it would be hard to compare, I think the last few generations really upped the amps wastage.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
