Conclusions: Broadwell Overclocking, IPC and Generational Gain

For everyone who has been in the PC industry for a decade or more, several key moments stand out when it comes to a better processor in the market. The Core architecture made leaps and bounds over the previous Pentium 4 Prescott debacle, primarily due to a refocus on efficiency over raw frequency. The Sandy Bridge architecture also came with a significant boost, moving the Northbridge on die and simplifying design.

Since then, despite the perseverance of (or soon to be mildly delayed) Moore’s Law, performance is measured differently. Efficiency, core count, integrated SIMD graphics, heterogeneous system architecture and specific instruction sets are now used due to the ever expanding and changing paradigm of user experience. Something that is fast for both compute and graphics, and then also uses near-zero power is the holy-grail in design. But let’s snap back to reality here – software is still designed in code one line at a time. The rate at which those lines are processed, particularly in response driven scenarios, is paramount. This is why the ‘instructions per clock/cycle’ metric, IPC, is still an important aspect of modern day computing.

As the movement from Haswell to Broadwell is a reduction in the lithography node, from 22nm to 14nm, with a few silicon changes, Broadwell was a mobile first design and launched in late 2014 with notebook parts. This is typical with node reductions due to the focus on efficiency overall rather than just performance. For the desktop parts, launched over six months later, we end up with an integrated graphics focused implementation purposefully designed for all-in-one PCs and integrated systems rather than a mainstream, high end processor. The i7 and i5 are both targeted at 65W, rather than 84W/88W of the previous architecture. This gives the CPUs a much lower frequency and without a corresponding IPC change, makes the upgrade path more focused for low end Haswell owners, those who are still several generations behind wanting an upgrade or those who specifically want an integrated graphics solution.

In our first look at Broadwell on the desktop, our recommendation that it would only appeal to those who need the best integrated graphics solution regardless of cost still stands. Part 2 has revealed that clock-for-clock, Broadwell gives 3.3% better performance from our tests although DRAM focused workloads (WinRAR) can benefit up to 25%, although those are few and far between. If we compare it back several generations, that small IPC gain is wiped out by processors like the i7-4790K that overpower the CPU performance in pure frequency or even the i7-4770K which still has a frequency advantage. From an overall CPU performance standpoint out of the box, the i7-5775C sits toe-to-toe with the i7-4770K with an average 1% loss. However, moving the comparison up to the i7-4790K and due to that frequency difference, the Broadwell CPU sits an average 12% behind it, except in those specific tests that can use the eDRAM.

There’s nothing much to be gained with overclocking either. Our i7-5775C CPU made 4.2 GHz, in line with Intel’s expectations for these processors. If we compare that to an overclocked 4.6 GHz i7-4790K, the 4790K is still the winner. Overclocking on these Broadwell CPUs still requires care, due to the arrangement of the CPU under the heatspreader with the added DRAM. We suggest the line method of thermal paste application rather than the large-pea method as a result.

Looking back on the generational improvements since Sandy Bridge is actually rather interesting. I remember using the i7-2600K, overclocking it to 5.0 GHz and remembering how stunned I was at the time. Step forward 4.5 years and we have a direct 21% increase in raw performance per clock, along with the added functionality benefits of faster memory and a chipset that offers a lot more functionality. If you’ve been following the technology industry lately, there is plenty of talk surrounding the upcoming launch of Skylake, an architectural update to Intel’s processor line on 14nm. I can’t wait to see how that performs in relation to the four generations tested in this article.

*When this article was initially published, inaccuracies were made in calculating the IPC gain in the timed benchmarks. The article has been updated to reflect this change. In light of the recalculation,overall conclusions are still correct.

Interesting related links:

The Intel Broadwell Desktop Review: Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C Tested (Part 1)
AnandTech Bench CPU Comparison Tool

Generational Tests: Gaming Benchmarks on High End GPUs
Comments Locked

121 Comments

View All Comments

  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link

    Quite nice comparison.

    Unfortunately, it seems that, while broadwell does have the best IPC of the bunch, the overclock is pathetic. 1.325v to hit 4.2 GHz? my ivy bridge 3570k does the same clock with 1.075v. now, I've been told I have a exceptionally good chip, but it strikes me as odd that broadwell, being on a smaller 14nm process, cant match what ivy bridge could do two years ago. and since sandy bridge can be OC'ed to 4.7GHz+ with ease,and ive can hit 4.5, it seems there is still no reason to upgrade to broadwell, as any IPC gains are cancelled out by the lower clock rate. unless you need to do lots of dolphin emulation and refuse to overclock at all, the ancient sandy bridge still seems to do the best.
  • K_Space - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link

    TheinsanegamerN agreed. Those who held into their Sandy made a very wise investment, just like those good ol' 920s back in the X58 era.
  • Dupl3xxx - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link

    Ah, yes, the 920 was a lovely beast. Started overclocking at 3.6. It booted, tried 3.8, booted, tried 4.0, failed. 3.8 was literally done in less than an hour as my second ever attempt at overclocking, with my first being the intel e6600. And when a dying PSU wounded it, I got a 3930k. It does 4.0 ghz, and I've yet to find any situation where it's a bottleneck, besides things like rendering and benchmarks. I considered upgrading to the 59xx series, but when I learned that only the 5960x would be a 8-core, that was quickly decided against.

    It'll be interesting to watch Skylake and Zen fight it out in a year or so.
  • Impulses - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link

    I'm surprised Intel isn't banking on nostalgic memories of the Q6600 to hype the 6600K & 6700K... Surely marketing had a hand in the simplified naming reminiscent of the old C2Q.
  • augiem - Monday, August 3, 2015 - link

    I'm still on a i7-920 from mid 2009. Been running 3.6GHz the entire time, still rock solid as the day I bought it. I still can't believe I've been using a PC for this long. Before the i7, I would upgrade every 1.5 - 2 years tops. This thing is nuts.
  • mkozakewich - Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - link

    We've reached the end of that exponential advancement, so you can expect things to advance at roughly this rate for a while, at least until we also reach "small enough".
  • close - Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - link

    That's logarithmic advancement :). It keeps slowing down year after year.
  • Cryio - Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - link

    Technically with Sandy Bridge they reached the end. SB was quite a jump over Nehalem.
  • Harry Lloyd - Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - link

    There is no end. Intel just do not care, as they have no competition. Why would they waste money on increasing performance, when they can focus on efficiency for mobile? They can get away with selling basically the same CPUs every year on desktop, as they are still the fastest.
  • Badelhas - Tuesday, August 4, 2015 - link

    I also blame AMD. If they had good high end CPUs Intel would be forced to improve the ones they´ve been selling for the last 5 years or so.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now