Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core to core differences between i3/i5/i7

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Intel i7
  • Intel i5
  • Turbo Boost
  • Performance
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 5, 2013 3:48:26 PM

Hello,

I've done a bit of research and as far as I can find the main performance difference between each tier of intel processors derives from either having a higher clock speed(w/ or w/o turbo boost), more cores, and/or hyperthreading. My queston is whether or not there is any diffrence in performance between the individual cores across the i3/i5/i7 range.
In other words
If you were to take an single physical core from an i7-3770, disable the hyperhreading and turbo boost, would its performance be roughly equal to that of a single physical core from and i3-3240, which has the same base clock frequency?
and if not what differences in the architecture cause this difference?

Thanks in advance

More about : core core differences

a c 111 à CPUs
March 5, 2013 3:51:15 PM

yes.
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
March 5, 2013 3:52:57 PM

Apex_Impulse said:
Hello,

I've done a bit of research and as far as I can find the main performance difference between each tier of intel processors derives from either having a higher clock speed(w/ or w/o turbo boost), more cores, and/or hyperthreading. My queston is whether or not there is any diffrence in performance between the individual cores across the i3/i5/i7 range.
In other words
If you were to take an single physical core from an i7-3770, disable the hyperhreading and turbo boost, would its performance be roughly equal to that of a single physical core from and i3-3240, which has the same base clock frequency?
and if not what differences in the architecture cause this difference?

Thanks in advance


There is no difference in a single core between the models, that's correct. (Bear in mind, this only works within the same lineup - any ivy bridge core is going to be faster than a sandy bridge core, for example.)

The biggest difference between the CPUs is the number of cores, the presence of hyperthreading, and the possibility of overclocking.

EDIT: I'm not sure if what I said applies to the "extreme" chips... that is, I don't know if a sandy bridge EX core will work the same as a normal sandy bridge core.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 190 à CPUs
March 5, 2013 4:21:26 PM

+1 rgd1101 and DarkSable

Heck in the end each processor in a generation of processor would perform the same as the others at the same clock speed with the exception of the extra features that each family offers (i.e. hyper-threading, better graphics, turbo-boost etc.). You can even add the Intel® Xeon® processors into this in that they all have the same basic floor plan or architecture.
m
0
l
March 5, 2013 4:21:59 PM

Quote:
EDIT: I'm not sure if what I said applies to the "extreme" chips... that is, I don't know if a sandy bridge EX core will work the same as a normal sandy bridge core.

..


I did a bit more research on passmark and did a little math and got:
Processor(all @ 3.5 ghz) --i7-3970x------|----i7-3770k--------|---i7-2700k
Total Score --------------12,874 -------|---9,619 ----------|---- 8,959
Score/Physical cores-----2,145 per core--|--2,404 per core --|---2,239 per core

They all have roughly the same features so it is a half decent comparison... But it would appear that a Sandy bridge EX core = Sandy Bridge core the slight difference probably being due to the fact that performance scale perfectly with the # of cores. IB still beats both on an individual core level though.

Sorry for the lines it messes up the chart with spaces
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
March 5, 2013 4:33:11 PM

Apex_Impulse said:
Quote:
EDIT: I'm not sure if what I said applies to the "extreme" chips... that is, I don't know if a sandy bridge EX core will work the same as a normal sandy bridge core.

..


I did a bit more research on passmark and did a little math and got:
Processor(all @ 3.5 ghz) --i7-3970x------|----i7-3770k--------|---i7-2700k
Total Score --------------12,874 -------|---9,619 ----------|---- 8,959
Score/Physical cores-----2,145 per core--|--2,404 per core --|---2,239 per core

They all have roughly the same features so it is a half decent comparison... But it would appear that a Sandy bridge EX core = Sandy Bridge core the slight difference probably being due to the fact that performance scale perfectly with the # of cores. IB still beats both on an individual core level though.

Sorry for the lines it messes up the chart with spaces


Huh - interesting. It doesn't surprise me that ivy bridge has faster cores, by almost exactly what I would have expected - but it's good to know that the Xeon chips have the same architecture, or at least equivalent architecture, to their normal series. (Now I just have to wait a few years till Haswell-E for a Xeon chip with a low enough thermal capacity to be able to function in a SFF build.)
m
0
l
!