Slashdot Mirror
Intel Core I7-5775C Desktop Broadwell With Iris Pro 6200 Graphics Tested
bigwophh writes: 14nm Broadwell processors weren't originally destined for the channel, but Intel ultimately changed course and launched a handful of 5th Generation Core processors based on the microarchitecture recently, the most powerful of which is the Core i7-5775C. Unlike all of the mobile Broadwell processors that came before it, the Core i7-5775C is a socketed, LGA processor for desktops, just like 4th Generation Core processors based on Haswell. In fact, it'll work in the very same 9-Series chipset motherboards currently available (after a BIOS update). The Core i7-5775C, however, features a 128MB eDRAM cache and integrated Iris Pro 6200 series graphics, which can boost graphics performance significantly. Testing shows that the Core i7-5775C's lower CPU core clocks limit its performance versus Haswell, but its Iris Pro graphics engine is clearly more powerful.
For all intents and purposes the "pro" part of Iris (bolting on EDRAM to the chip) does allow the GPU to do good graphics. It just isnt cost-competitive to buy a "pro" instead of buying a regular cpu with a discrete gpu card. These iris pro's are truly a ripoff.
"His name was James Damore."
So get a cheaper 4th Gen Core i whatever. Or go with an AMD APU or CPU and get a discrete GPU in the mean time.
Intel Iris Pro graphics might not be great for gaming, but it sure will help with various GPU accelerated tasks like compositing and so forth in non-gaming uses.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I saw the uncapped version of the chip showing it's layout.
Are there versions of this chip with less GPU and more cores?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I'd settle for a CPU that is faster than the last generation. Intel is throwing away CPU performance to compete on graphics and power consumption. For the ultrabook and tablet market, this is a good move but for desktops and high end laptops, it is a horrible idea. Some of us actually need more CPU and less GPU. For those of you who think the GPU counts, try implementing OpenCL on an open source operating system.
After reading this review, I'm sticking with my Core i7-4770. It's 1.5 years later and Intel only has a few products that beat it and they're all more expensive.
CPU/GPU integration is for farmers, to paraphrase Seymour Cray.
DO NOT buy a broadwell chip. Skylake desktop chips are expected to launch August 5th @ Gamescom.
So get a cheaper 4th Gen Core i whatever. Or go with an AMD APU or CPU and get a discrete GPU in the mean time.
I think you missed the point. GP expressed a wish for a 5-gen chip with more cores, and no graphics.
There's a lot to be said for that.
It's officially not released yet, and the seller linked to is in Japan and gouging anyone who can't wait another couple weeks. I'm not sure how or what stock they got a hold of.
According to Intel, list price is $377 boxed or $366 Tray. Not $540.
oops, replied to wrong post originally. this belongs here
It's hothardware, what do you expect. plenty of quality hardware sites out there to get decent reviews if your interested. As it is hothardware you can guarantee that they are at least a month behind the more reputable sites.
The point is that half the die area (plus the extra DRAM module) cost you major $$$ even if all you wanted was a top end 4 core processor. For quite a while now Intel has been working on the graphics and power consumption, which is great for mobile and low-end, but the higher end desktop folks are getting frustrated that performance is dead flat, if not dropping.
Anyone paying $300-540 for a processor is not likely to cheap out and ONLY use the integrated graphics. These i5 and i7 processors are turning into a pretty big disappointment. You can get far better graphics with just about the lowliest available sub $100 graphics card, but the options ditch the graphics and get a couple more cores explode in price.
Many just want some PC to do audio, photo or video, or perhaps some other uses while still running "light" games (be it any blizzard or valve ones, or some stuff where being compatible and not CPU/RAM starved is well good enough)
Within some parameters (perhaps moreso with i5 5675C), the CPU has its merits. No need to spend cash, size and weight on PSU and cooling either. Yes you can buy a 125W CPU and a 200W graphics card instead (going to the other extreme)
The elephant in the room is a $40 Celeron or a $50 AMD are über powerful for most people that don't run Crysis or video editing.
do not want new and improved somewhat tolerable intel graphics
This this and more this. Intel graphics are pretty much diabolical everywhere, In every situation.
Yeah, integrated graphics on an i7 seems silly. Now, bolt an Iris Pro GPU onto an i3 NUC and I've found my next HTPC.
The E series (6 core, no graphics) tends to trail the regular release by almost a year. The 6-core Haswell chips just came out last September, whereas Haswell launched in the summer of 2013. We probably won't see the first 14 nm 6-core parts until Broadwell comes out. Anyone who's looking to buy high-end Intel CPUs is probably well aware of this.
Yup, imagine how easily another four cores would fit in there.
However that would compete with Xeons. Can't have that, it's where the money is.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Totally. I'll be running Titan X on my gaming rig, but a small NUC/media/remote to stream box? Sure, tweak up the gfx a bit for lightweight gaming. Having this as the 'bottom end' of gfx, will at least let game devs know what's likely to be out there for the huge amount of dell boxes being shifted. I'm also curious how having these sorts of gfx chips will let DX12 + higher end gfx card work. Can they add a few extra frames per second without judder?
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Isn't that the only reason to care about this particular part? The laptop version is of interest because it has the distinction of being the fastest GPU(and probably pretty close to the fastest CPU) you can buy in any laptop too small/thin/etc. for a discrete GPU. The desktop version is just a solution looking for a problem unless the extra cache makes it better than other i7s.
A better choice for an HTPC would be the AMD Athlon 5350. Its only $49, has a max TDP of only 25w, and it has enough GPU power to run Battlefield 4 so it has more than enough GPU to perform any task you'd want an HTPC to do. The AMD drivers come with a set of codecs so pretty much any video will be hardware accelerated, great for HTPCs which is why I've been using these a LOT in the shop. Cheap, low heat, great graphics, whats not to like?
Linux support for the AMD APUs has been getting pretty damned good lately (thanks to AMD opening their docs and hiring devs) so the Linux guys can pair that chip with a copy of OpenELEC and make themselves an insanely cheap HTPC, we're talking sub $150 if you hit the sales. Personally I like to use Windows 8 on 'em, as IMNSHO the only place the Metro UI works really well is as a 10 foot UI, just pair it with this remote keyboard and voila! Badass HTPC that can even do light gaming for crazy cheap.
As for TFA? Costs $540 and is less powerful than cheaper previous releases.....sounds like a pass. Of course the elephant in the room for both AMD and Intel is their chips became too powerful years ago and with the exception of a teeny tiny niche that uses every cycle on their PC the chips are just too powerful compared with the work the average user has for 'em to do. To use a /. car analogy its like selling everybody funny cars just to go to the store, then being surprised they aren't all lining up to buy the new funny cars with JATO boosters.
Hell even the gamers don't have to buy like they once did, I used to have to buy every other year, now? The PC I replaced was over 6 years old and was still playing games just fine, only reason I replaced it was the oldest needed a PC so I figured I'd use it as an excuse to pass down my Phenom II X6 and grab myself an FX8320E...fricking kicks ass BTW, paired with an R9 280 it plays everything I want in glorious 1080P....but so does my X6, since the oldest has the exact same GPU and his games are just as smooth and look just as good as mine does!
You look at what the AVERAGE, not hardcore gamer, does with their PC? They play casual games like FB games, watch videos, check email....shit that a Pentium dual laptop from 2008 has NO problems doing. Hell even the Intel shrinks for power savings really aren't that big a draw for most because at the shop I've found the average user is away from the plug for a max of 3 hours, a feat my 2011 AMD netbook has zero problems pulling off with a 4 year old battery!
This is why I have no problems staying an AMD shop despite AMD staying at 28nm, because even at 28nm they are still vastly overpowered compared to what the average user does (especially when you look at non rigged benchmarks) because once we went multicore chips went from "good enough" to so insanely powerful it isn't even funny.
Hell if I could still get the boards cheap I would probably have no problem selling Phenom I quads, just as I have no problem selling those cheap Athlon quads now for everything from office boxes to HTPCs, they are just more powerful than anything the average person does by a pretty large measure.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Fine. Go have a ball in your own playpen then. I won't even consider any system except Intel with Intel graphics. It works aces for me. So we cancel each other out.
Anyone paying $300-540 for a processor is not likely to cheap out and ONLY use the integrated graphics. These i5 and i7 processors are turning into a pretty big disappointment. You can get far better graphics with just about the lowliest available sub $100 graphics card, but the options ditch the graphics and get a couple more cores explode in price.
Well if you are gaming when are you ever CPU limited with a 4+ GHz quad core? It would be nice if they dropped the integrated graphics and sold it for less, but the six/eight core processors are typically for people who do video encoding, 3D rendering, lots of VMs or some other semi-pro use. Even GTX 980 Ti in SLI should run fine on an i7-4790k, I guess for triple/quad-SLI you need the extra PCI lanes but then you're extremely far out of the mainstream even for gamers.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is why I have no problems staying an AMD shop despite AMD staying at 28nm, because even at 28nm they are still vastly overpowered compared to what the average user does (especially when you look at non rigged [youtube.com] benchmarks [phoronix.com]) because once we went multicore chips went from "good enough" to so insanely powerful it isn't even funny.
While much of what you said is true, AMD's single biggest problem is power consumption.
No, not for laptops, desktops...
What? Why does that matter?
Because power costs money, some places more than others, but generally consuming lots of power is bad for the planet. Even if your power is hydro, wind, or solar, that power could have been sent somewhere else and been used to replace coal or natural gas, so it is still wasted.
The modern Haswell chips are so much more power efficient than AMD it is sad. Compare equal CPU powered chips and some of the "modern" AMD chips consume three times the power of Intel.
The 5350 APU has worse gaming oerformance than an intel with HD Graphics 4600. It's an utter fail http://www.guru3d.com/articles...
Depends on the AMD chip. I have a box that serves as a NAS and HTPC with an AMD Fusion E-350, which is one of their lower-power chips. Maximum power consumption is 18W for the CPU and GPU. The GPU works fine for decoding HD video (on FreeBSD, presumably it's as good on Linux). It's now around 4-5 years old and the only reason that I'm considering replacing it is that the motherboard can only handle 8GB of RAM, which isn't enough for ZFS deduplication with a 12TB pool.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm considering getting a PC/laptop for SteamOS. I'll probably go w/ the Intel graphics, instead of either AMD or NVIDIA. If the Iris Pro has caught up w/ these other 2, good, but even otherwise, I'd want to avoid the fiasco of bad or incompatible drivers from either AMD or NVIDIA. Intel's graphics works w/ even BSD, so that's what I'd use.
Had I been shopping for another Windows 10 box, I'd go w/ an AMD. But as one poster observed, power consumption of those things is still an issue
Ultra mobile? I don't think I've ever seen it in that configuration. It's in the same space as Intel's Atom, but unlike the Atom, AMD doesn't try to artificially segment the market too much so you can actually buy one with enough SATA slots for a NAS.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Intel integrated for you desktop and PCI passthrough your discrete GPU to your guest Windows VM while your host runs Linux. Now you can play your games in Linux.
Fair enough, that might be an edge case...
However, one thing that you should keep in mind is that 18W is a whole lot more than 1W.
What does that mean? Intel has learned in recent years that rather than slow down the CPU and let it run tasks over time, it actually saves more power most of the time to run at full speed, get done quickly, then go to sleep mode.
Even if this happens every second or two, it saves more power most of the time.
Consider that a 35W Haswell chip might actually pull less total power than that 18W AMD chip, because it can get done so much faster and go to sleep.
Note: I get that your application might seem busy all the time, but Intel's newest chips look at it in very small slices. So it may be working really hard for half a second, then going to sleep for half a second, then back awake, etc.
That really cuts down on power use.
I recently replaced a Sandy Bridge machine with Haswell for just that reason. It isn't really faster, but it does use less power, enough to be noticed. For a 24/7 machine, the chip becomes free after about 3 years, and that doesn't take into account less AC requirements from lower power.
Sorry friend but you've been bamboozled as it would take SEVENTEEN YEARS to save enough power to make up the price difference between an AMD and an Intel and that is with picking the 125w on the AMD side. Now are you seriously gonna argue you are keeping your chip for nearly 20 years?
I can back this up using kill-a-watt and the excellent board monitoring in my Asus my FX8320 (a "95w" part which I have yet to see go above 60w) uses between 8w-16w on basic tasks like youtube and surfing and right now I'm slamming 3 cores to 100% converting a video to MP4, power usage Johnny? that would be...drumroll...37.19w. So .....yeah, kinda bullshit about the power draw. Its really simple, Intel bases their numbers on "theoretical load" which of course in practice you will never hit, while AMD runs a load of different software on their chips to come up with a worst case scenario draw and bases their numbers on that. They also give higher numbers on their black chips figuring you might OC the shit out of it to allow plenty of headroom but I have yet to see an AMD get even close to the TDP and I've run everything from 939 Athlon to the latest FX and AM1 in the shop. Highest I have ever seen was 68w for an OCed Phenom II X6 with all 6 cores slamming.
Remember to always look at the site you are getting your "news" from without adblock at least once to see where their bread is buttered, are they taking ad revenue from a certain company? This is why you can't believe a damned thing Tom's Hardware says for instance, as even when their own reviewer admitted that "for most games being released today quad cores are a minimum" they recommended an Intel dual core over a cheaper AMD hexacore and then you turn off adblock and wadda ya know, the page is filled with ads for Intel i5s. Hmmm, biased much?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
My dad is in his mid 70s. He's stopped going to the local computer places because they won't stop hassling him about how he needs a new PC etc. His computer is about 7 years old. It's a Core2Duo E8600 (3.33 GHz), 2 GB of DDR2 and a SATA hdd (250 GB I think) with integrated graphics. He uses it for email, typing things up in Office, doing his income tax, looking at youtube videos, and occasionally (once a month or so) converting video footage my mom took with their video camera to DVD so he can burn it and watch it on the big tv.
The last time I was over there I fired up task manager and showed him that, other than when he was encoding or when he first started a program, it used 10% of less of his CPU's total processing power. That's one of the reasons he's so happy about getting an upgrade from 7 to 10 for free. He doesn't need to buy a new computer.
Your average user off the street just doesn't need and won't notice the difference in OOMPH if they get a new high-end computer. Wayyy back in my last year of high school (95/96) the school division gave every school a new high-end computer. My school was given a 486 DX4/100.. with I believe 8 MB of RAM. Our previous best computer was a 486DX/25. That new computer was a beast. You could boot to DOS 6.22 and be in Win 3.11 firing up the programs you needed in less time than it took your classmates to even boot up. And the high-school level stuff we did with databases, spreadsheets, etc went from "Oh geez how long is this stupid thing going to take?" to blink-and-you-miss-it.
That's the problem with how far technology has gone. As you said, it's gone PAST what your average slob needs or would notice in their day to day use. Isn't the supposedly magic number 15%? That an improvement has to be a MINIMUM of 15% over the previous for your average user (without prompting or telling them the upgrade is there) to notice the change and go "Wow"?
Sorry friend but you've been bamboozled as it would take SEVENTEEN YEARS to save enough power to make up the price difference between an AMD and an Intel and that is with picking the 125w on the AMD side. Now are you seriously gonna argue you are keeping your chip for nearly 20 years?
That is a cute video, but it doesn't show anything but a guy talking.
Frankly, my own testing shows otherwise, the AMD chip uses twice the power as the Intel chip at load and 50% more at idle.
For a computer that is on 24/7, that has stuff often running for hours (I often set it to run overnight tasks, so it spends many hours at 100% load), the difference adds up.
He also doesn't take into account the needed cooling for the extra heat. I'm in Texas, I pay to AC my home. The extra power is nearly doubled due to the need to cool the room the computers are in.
Finally, there is performance to consider. He only looked at the two computers running for 4 hours at 100%. Fine, but what happens when the Intel chip gets the same job done in 3 hours and can go idle, while the AMD chip runs 100% for an extra hour.
The video is terrible, it doesn't take into account multiple factors.
Payback is about 3 years, give or take. I've done the math, AMD makes no sense for high end computers. It can make sense for the low end stuff, but if you have data crunching to do, there is nothing but Intel to consider.
The peak power consumption is important for one other reason: heat. The machine that I was talking about is in a small NAS case (4 drive bays, slimline optical drive, power distribution board, mini-ITX motherboard, no other spare space). It also on has a (fanless) 120W PSU, so it's quite easy to go over the available power if the CPU can spike up to a high peak. I'll keep the newer Intel chips in mind when I upgrade, but it looks as if most of the mini-ITX motherboards are still limited to 16GB of RAM and being able to upgrade to 32GB would be the main thing that would prompt me to replace the motherboard. Oh, and Haswell still doesn't have working FreeBSD drivers, so that wouldn't be an option yet.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News