Since the launch of the 1156 platform in 2009, INTEL's mainstream platform has experienced a very long and stable period of time. I5 quad-core four-frame, I7 quad-core eight-frame structure to take detours AMD has been difficult to reach. Fortunately, after the release of AMD RYZEN this year, the 7700K has entered the state of IQ testing and forced INTEL to readjust its specifications. However, from the selling point of view, the I7 series and I5 8600K are expensive. The I3 8350K is also basically funny. So the real value of purchase should be the 8400 and 8100. So today we have conducted a comprehensive test for the mainstream-level I5 8400.
Product Specifications:
The basic specifications of the I5 8400 are six-core six-threaded, single-core Turbo Frequency 4G, and six-core Turbo Frequency 2.8~3.8G. Still want to emphasize one sentence, now INTEL CPU is also somewhat similar to the video card, as long as the heat dissipation enough, the basic frequency will not run. So 8400 that benchmark 2.8G is basically used to brush TDP, ignore it.
The major comparisons are the previous-generation I7 7700K and I5 7600K, the same-generation I5 8600K and AMD's alignment product R5 1600X.
Product packaging and accessories:
According to the convention, the eight generations of packaging are also changed. The color matching is obviously much deeper than before, but individuals do not like this color.
Product accessories are very traditional, a boxed radiator, a manual, a warranty book.
There must be a Tucao here, this radiator is for the 4560, in fact, simply can not hold 8400. Suggest that everyone is better when he does not exist.
CPU ontology introduction:
Then introduce the CPU ontology. From the appearance point of view, there is no obvious difference from the previous generation.
CPU's chrysanthemum is still different, you can see the layout of the capacitor has changed.
After laying flat, it can be found that the PCB of the eight generations is slightly thicker than the seventh generation, obviously not the same material, and it should be relatively less likely to bend. The overall thickness of the eight generations is also slightly thicker.
Z370 motherboard platform introduction:
In fact, there is still a pit father in the eight generations, that is, only the Z370 is available on the motherboard, which also makes the platform cost of the eight generations significantly higher. For the 8400 such a CPU is still relatively embarrassing. So this time the introduction of the motherboard is also on the relatively entry-level Z370-HD3, this should be the current cheaper generation of the eighth-generation motherboard with France. At the same time this motherboard does not have too many expansion chips, equivalent to the public version of the design, but also easy to introduce the Z370's platform. But in fact there is nothing too much to introduce, Z370 is the Z270's vest, anyway, there is always a place to toothpaste.
The CPU base of the motherboard is 1151. Just like the previous generation, this time even the needles are too lazy to move.
Take the 7700K of the previous generation and it can be perfectly installed, but now it is basically OK that the 7th generation CPU is not compatible with the 300 series motherboard.
The power supply part of the CPU is seven phases. However, compared with the previous products, INTEL's CPU power supply specifications are also on the rise. Taking Gigabyte as an example, the 4+3 phase power supply in the Z97 era is basically a MOS. The Z170Z270 starts to use one or two MOS in the CPU, but now the Z370 CPU has been directly switched to two or two. MOS. So from the number of MOS powered by the CPU can be seen that the power consumption of these generations of INTEL CPU growth rate is actually very fast.
From the program point of view, the CPU power supply is 8PIN, there is an inductor for steady current. The power supply control chip is an ISL 95866, 4+3 phase chip. The CPU powers MOS two times on each phase. On the bridge MOS are on the United States 4C10N, the MOS under the bridge are ON Semiconductor 4C06N. The input and output capacitors of the power supply are all Sung State solid capacitors, and the number of output capacitors is increased compared with the previous products. The entire power supply is currently the most commonly used set of solutions for Gigabyte.
The heatsink of the motherboard is one of CPU power supply and motherboard chipset. It is good for a partial entry product.
The memory specification is still dual-channel DDR4, which can support up to four memory slots. 300 series motherboards can support DDR4 2666. This is actually meaningless to the Z370, because the Z370 does not lock the memory frequency. This mainly affects the later released B360. The previous generation B250 can only support 2400.
The memory power supply is a standard power supply, two inductors, four solid capacitors, and three ON Semiconductor MOS.
A set of power supply modules can be seen between the CPU and the graphics card slot. This is mainly to power the CPU's bus and memory controller (VCCSAVCCIO). The quality of this part will affect the ability of memory overclocking.
There are three graphics card slots, namely X16X4X4. This board does not support two X4s on the back of the SLI. The graphics card can only be connected to one slot.
The motherboard provides an M.2 slot between the CPU and the graphics card. Finally not under the graphics card.
The mainboard chipset is not obviously different from the Z270 in terms of appearance. It is a vest anyway.
Part of the chipset uses two-phase independent power supply, which is considered to be a surplus configuration. Each phase power supply has an inductor, a solid state capacitor and an ON Semiconductor MOS.
Motherboard rear window is also a relatively public version of the design, USB 3.0 * 4, USB 2.0 * 2, single network card, PS2 * 1, DVI-D + HDMI, audio port * 6. USB 3.1 is still not provided for the time being, wait until Z390. But it really seems that there are no eggs used by the natives.
Motherboard network card is INTEL I219V, quite satisfactory configuration.
Audio part is relatively simple, an AL892 + four audio capacitors. But for the average home is enough.
Behind the HDMI interface is an additional PTN3360DBS level-shift chip, which is used to allow HDMI to support 4K@30 frames. However, for a large board, there is no problem if it is not supported.
Two front USB 3.0 sockets are standard on the current Z series motherboards.
The disk interface is SATA 3.0*6, the standard channel of the chipset.
The motherboard can also support external light strips. Such a starter board also starts to support RGB. However, an external light strip can only support seven-tone light. Still did not achieve full color.
Overall, the Z370 is just a Z270's vest, but from a specification point of view, it is enough for 99% of people. If it is not enough, in fact, the board can only take the PCI-E expansion card on it. High-end motherboards feel less and less valuable.
Product test platform:
The following is a detailed configuration table of the test platform. Compared with the previous evaluation, the main change is that the video card is changed from RX 480 to VEGA 64, and the memory frequency refers to 2666C15 from 2133C15.
Seventh-generation Core Test Platform is Z270-Phoenix GAMING.
The memory is a pirate ship's DDR4 8G*4. The actual operating frequency is 2666C15.
The video card uses the Dylan Hengjin VEGA 64 water-cooled version.
The SSD is three INTELs. The system disk uses the more mainstream 535 to ensure that the test is closer to the average user. 240G is used as a system disk, and 480G*2 is mainly used to place test games. More and more games can only be added SSD.
The radiator is Captain 240 RGB of Kyushu Fengshen.
The test platform is Streacom's BC1.
Product performance test:
Simple evaluation conclusion:
Because many test items are very complicated, in order to avoid the white look dizzy, first provide the refined version of the test results:
The improvement of the overall performance of the CPU is very obvious. The I5 8400 is basically the same as the 7700K, and the 7600K, the highest-end I5 of the previous generation, has also been significantly thrown away. Basically between R5 1600 and I7 7700K.
The game performance is slightly lower due to the slightly lower clock speed, but the game performance is slightly lower, but it is also less than 5% compared with the 8600K, which has the largest difference.
The 8400 power consumption will be slightly larger than 7600K but far less than 7700K. In an era of soaring CPU power consumption, it is still acceptable.
Performance test project description:
For children's shoes that are interested in learning more about comparative performance, detailed test data will be provided here. If you do not want to see it, you can jump directly to the final summary.
The test will roughly be divided into the following sections:
CPU Performance Test: Includes System Bandwidth, CPU Theoretical Performance, CPU Benchmarking Software, CPU Rendering Test Software, 3D MARK Physical Score
Integrated graphics test: Contains benchmarking software, set game testing, set professional software benchmark
With a single significant test: Including independent benchmark test software, independent game test, alone significant professional software benchmark
Power Test: Power Consumption Measurements on a Standalone, Standalone Platform
The amount of data in this article is more violent. If you feel dizzy, you can watch it slowly. It takes a price to know the truth. If you don't care, don't complain when you're pitted.
CPU performance test and analysis:
System bandwidth test, memory bandwidth, eight generations and seven generations are not much difference. In terms of buffer bandwidth, L1 and L2 have a significant improvement over 7700K. L3 is obviously weaker. It should be due to the frequency. Compared with I5 7600K, the increase rate is even greater, so the cache progress is very obvious.
The theoretical performance test of the CPU is performed with built-in tools of AIDA64, which can test the basic performance of many CPUs. It can be found that INTEL is actually a very exaggerated heap, 8400 has exceeded 1600X, 7700K is even left about 15%, the advantage over 7600K more than 20%.
The CPU performance test mainly tests some common CPU benchmarking software, and also includes some application software and CPU test items in the game. The overall testing of this project is rather complex and the gap will generally narrow. The lower-frequency 8400 is still clearly at a disadvantage in this major, 7700K will be 10% higher than 8400, and 1600X will be 3% higher.
The CPU renders the test and tests the rendering capabilities of the CPU. CineBench's three versions test multi-threaded performance 8400 will be 13% higher than the 7700K, single-threaded will be about 17% lower than the 7700K.
The 3D physical performance test measures the physical scores in the 3DMARK test. These are mainly related to the CPU. The highest score for this part is 1600X, and 8400 is only higher than 7600K.
CPU performance test section comparison section:
The integrated statistics of the CPU 8400 can tie the previous generation I7, is still quite good.
In fact, there is a more tangled problem is single-threaded and multi-threaded, this side has also done a little decomposition.
Single-threaded: The 8400 is only slightly higher than 1600X, but the comparison group is a very high frequency product. Close to 7600K is not bad, it can already be determined more than 7500.
Multithreading: The multithreaded test 8400 is close to 7700K, hanging I5 7600K.
Set performance test:
The set of significant theoretical performance tests is performed using the built-in AIDA64 tools. From the perspective of theoretical performance, this generation of set display should also have changes. SHA-1 decryption test is more obvious and memory bandwidth is reduced. However, it may be due to the decrease of the cache bandwidth, and the overall performance is even weaker than the 7700K.
Set 3D benchmarks, mainly running some benchmark software, and theoretical performance testing, will be about 12% behind the 7700K.
Set professional software benchmarks, the professional software part of the benchmark SPEC viewperf 12, also trailing more than 10%.
Set performance test section:
Since there was no test set at 8600K, the 8700K test result was used as a reference here. From the overall comparison, it can be seen that the INTEL set appears to be affected by the L3 bandwidth under the premise that other conditions are equal. The 8400's performance is not very good.
Disk performance test:
Because of the time, the disk part has not yet had time to test, follow-up fill it.
With a single significant test:
Now the graphics card is updated to VEGA 64 water-cooled version, so that the bottleneck problem of the graphics card will solve many problems.
The significant 3D benchmark test alone is mainly to run some benchmarking software. The 8400 score is lower than the 1600X, but the gap is less than 5%.
The 3D game test alone is displayed. The table classifies the DX9~DX12 games of different generations. This will make the game more clear. The 8600K test is relatively early so the driver version is 17.8.2, all others are unified to 17.9.1.
Decomposed to all generations, the gap between the 8400 and INTEL's other products is relatively even, with no more than 5%. Compared with 1600X, DX9 has the most obvious advantage, DX11 will narrow, DX12 will be 1600X go-ahead, but the overall difference is less than 5%. This should be related to the mechanism of the A card, and the difference with the N card should be greater.
Independently showed professional software benchmarking. Professional software used SPEC viewperf 12 as a benchmark. This test is aimed at the professional operation test of the graphics card. This software is sensitive to the internal delay of the CPU, so the 7700K performs best.
With a single significant test section:
From the test results, the 8400 is quite stable and unlikely to become a bottleneck.
Platform power test:
The 8400 on the power consumption performance is quite good, not much higher than the 7600K, and less than 7700K. The increase in energy consumption is quite obvious.
Finally, a horizontal contrast table for your reference. The performance section only compares CPU-related test items and does not include the results of game performance tests.
Since the graphics card has just been changed and the memory frequency has also been changed, this table is only for reference. The power test in the table is the result of the previous test, and only the test items that are not affected by the video card are compared for comparison. There will be room for improvement in actual performance. Intel will be roughly 3%, and AMD will be roughly 5%. I will try to update the test afterwards.
Simple summary:
About the performance of the CPU:
The improvement of the 8400 is still quite large. If the 8400 is 100%, the I5 7500 is 75.49%*, the I5 7600K is 86.30%, the I7 7700K is 103.97%, the R5 1600 is 96.86%*, and the R5 1600X is 105.46%. And 8400 does not support Hyper-Threading technology, so in some games there will be an additional bonus, after the upgrade six-core playing games can not be broadcast and other issues should also be resolved. So although the 8400 is a price increase, it is still worth the price. (*Before the test, there will be room for improvement in actual performance. Intel is roughly 3%, and AMD is roughly 5%)
About CPU power consumption:
In terms of power consumption, the energy consumption of the eight generations of Core Duo is significantly improved, and the power consumption of the 8400 is less than 7700K.
About CPU heat:
Because changing the core area after the six-core core will increase the pressure of heat dissipation, the overall temperature control of the eight-generation I5 will be good. However, the original radiator of the 8400 is waste, and it is highly recommended that you use an optional radiator.
About the price of CPU:
This time the price still exceeded my expectations, for the time being I5 8600K and above the value of the purchase of products is not large, it is expensive. 8350K first in the universe, said it could not afford, 233.
In general, the eight generations of Core Duo that are currently worth buying are the 8400 and the 8100. However, in terms of platform budgets, the 8100 is also awkward and must be hurt with the Z370. So at present, the most valuable purchase value is the I5 8400. Personal advice: People with six generations of seven generations of I5, I7, and four generations of I7 are temporarily not upgradeable. Four-generation I5 or earlier CPU products will have a more significant improvement.
Thank you appreciate
Best Rechargeable Vacuum Cleaner,Rechargeable Hand Vacuum Cleaner,Small Rechargeable Vacuum Cleaner,Cordless Rechargeable Vacuum Cleaner
Ningbo ATAP Electric Appliance Co.,Ltd , https://www.atap-airfryer.com