The Intel Haswell Refresh Review: Core i7-4790, i5-4690 and i3-4360 Tested
by Ian Cutress on May 11, 2014 3:01 AM ESTConclusions
When a company builds a product that evolves and adapts every generation, unless they are under strong competition on all fronts, the best and brightest will not be released on day one. The company can afford to be more casual in how it approaches the product stack. This allows for updates to be produced during downtime that are just a slightly more aggressive policy revision. In the land of processors, this means more stringent bins or tighter pricing methods. The Haswell Refresh is essentially this – Intel has a long time between major updates (ticks or tocks) and can launch a number of processors in the interim which are more competitive for price and/or performance until the next major update appears.
As expected, the Core i7-4790 CPU that we had beats the i7-4770K in each of the CPU benchmarks by a consistent margin due to the CPU frequency increase. In a similar vein, the IGP of the i7-4790 trails that of the i7-4770K due to the 50 MHz deficit on the side of the i7-4790. There are no surprises here, it has all gone by the book.
While our other CPU matchups were not as ideal as the i7, the i5 and i3 both show their respective positions in the table. The use of the i7-4765T as a low frequency, quad core CPU with HyperThreading also puts in an element of analysis, whereby removing the HyperThreading for the i5-4690 actually puts it ahead on several of the single threaded / high-register requirement benchmarks.
In discrete GPU testing, the CPUs all perform similarly in single GPU conditions. This showcases that high-end CPUs, even for modern games are not needed when it comes to discrete gaming capabilities. This seems especially true for Tomb Raider which comes across as completely CPU agnostic, choosing to offload as much of the work onto the GPU as possible.
In dual GPU conditions, we get more of a landscape of where the Haswell Refresh CPUs stand. The i3-4360, in the same PCIe arrangement as the i5 and i7 CPUs, fails to scale as well as the CPUs with more cores. This equates to about 10% in Sleeping Dogs/Battlefield 4 using the GTX 770s in SLI, or 30% in the same benchmarks using HD 7970s in CrossFire. For users enjoying the higher refresh rate monitors, such as 120 Hz or 144 Hz, this can make a significant difference. The inclusion of HyperThreading with the i7-4790 did not give any advantage in gaming compared to the i5-4690, except in the CPU benchmarks where each thread had minimal register requirements (PovRay, 3DPM).
On the IGP side all of our new CPUs were using the HD4600 solution making comparison straightforward. The i7 seems to have the clear advantage here, with up to 10% performance increase against the i3. The difference between the i7 and i5 however was minimal, but exaggerated in some of the synthetic tests such as 3DMark Cloud Gate which ends up more CPU bound.
For a lot of users interested in overclocking CPUs or who have already moved to Haswell, this refresh will seem almost pointless. It is a chance for Intel to combine the release of a new chipset with a series of CPUs so system integrators and retailers can start selling bundles. For the enthusiasts especially, the new overclocking-focused Devil’s Canyon and Pentium-K processors supposedly coming soon are being awaited with bated breath.
For new users looking to go Intel however, the Haswell Refresh is the new platform to get. It edges out the older CPUs either in terms of performance or price, but not in a massive excitement sort of way. Intel has played it safe, as you would expect when you have a performance advantage.
The last question to consider is if this is the right time to purchase: is there something new around the corner? For the enthusiast, the next generation of enthusiast CPUs (Haswell-E and X99) are due out in the second half of this year, however one would expect the entry point for this platform is around the $500 mark (CPU + motherboard + DRAM). For more mainstream uses, Intel has teased Broadwell news in the form of an unlocked Iris Pro CPU, however that seems to be due more towards the end of 2014/2015 if the Broadwell NUC roadmap is anything to go by. That would mean anyone buying a Haswell Refresh platform today, with a new CPU, would have until the end of the year before it is no longer the latest technology in the more casual desktop market. However, Broadwell processors are assumed to be LGA1150, the same as Haswell, meaning an upgrade should be as simple as replacing the CPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
130 Comments
View All Comments
rajod1 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link
I agree, waste of cash to upgrade every generation. Old days were nice. Intel said they would hit 10 GHZ by like 2004 or something. LOL. So they hit a wall but still needed cash. Lots of suckers born every minute that will upgrade for 10 percent increase.Hrel - Monday, May 12, 2014 - link
The fact that hyperthreading is disabled on the i5's on the desktop is infuriating. Enabling it costs them nothing. Agree on the 8 core at $300, it should still have HT though.Flunk - Monday, May 12, 2014 - link
Definitely, turn on HT on i5 and give them all 4 cores and offer an 8 core i7 with HT. i3s can soldier on with only 2 cores if they really want to.A i7 5770 with 8 cores and HT is what they really need to bring out, but I think they're waiting for AMD to bring out something better first.
rajod1 - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link
You may as well ask them to drop the I5 because if you put HT on a I5 its then I7.rajod1 - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link
It does cost them something. They sell my I7s that way.bsim500 - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link
Thanks for this review - appreciate the effort that went into it as always."Also of note is the Z97 motherboard we used for these tests implements an Adaptive voltage profile, meaning that artificial loads such as OCCT push the voltage higher than normal, increasing power consumption at load"
So they've still got that dumb Haswell "feature" of stuffing the Vcore up by +0.1v when you least want it? Also why are your power consumption figures so high in general? My i5-3570 @ 4.0Ghz barely pulls 37w idle / 88w 4-threads prime with a 7870 discrete card (whole system (excluding monitor) measured at the wall). That's roughly 25w lower both idle & load than your i3 (with a 1600MHz idle vs 800Mhz Haswell's)! Just out of curiosity, what where the stock / default VID's like on the i3-4360 / i5-4690? ie, has the clock speed bump increased required voltages much? Thanks.
Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link
Adaptive is an Intel specification implementation, but for some reason goes haywire with certain 100% load simulators (OCCT/AIDA).With regards power consumption seeming high:
a) Low efficiency band of the PSU. Hence me stating qualitative analysis more relevant than quantitative. Need to keep the PSU consistent across all the tests, some tests require 2x/3x GPUs (e.g. X79). This is probably a large part of it, but all tests are therefore done on the same efficiency curve.
b) Using a Corsair H80i with two fans and ODD plugged in. I move the USB devices to USB 2.0 so any USB 3.0 controller can power down, but it still all adds up.
c) OCCT loading does the adaptive voltage thing, causing more power consumption at load from idle.
We got ES chips to test, so retail might have adjusted slightly on the stock VID. Also VID can differ from chip to chip in the same bin, so it's not really a good measure. One CPU can have a high VID in the bin, while the next bin up we could get a low VID, and it all look a bit odd.
Daniel Egger - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link
IMNSHO it is really ridiculous to test all systems with the same outlandish special PSUs that no sane person would ever use. Why not have a testbed for single card systems with say a platinum 500W PSU (which should cover even the nasty R295X2 plus a Haswell K processor) and a separate one for crazy setups? With those far sub 20% loads even under full load it is nearly impossible to get useful readings not to mention comparable ones since at these low loads lots of funny effects kick in skewing the results...wetwareinterface - Sunday, May 11, 2014 - link
The reason you don't have a low end psu on your test bench is it's a test bench.The one setup should handle anything you can possibly throw at it and then a little extra for good measure.
Also having the exact same high wattage psu to test everything on eliminates the psu as a differentiating factor when testing multiple system configurations.
and finally the sad truth is there are several reviewers working for anandtech each from home and each with whatever they have laying around to do said testing with...
Daniel Egger - Monday, May 12, 2014 - link
> The reason you don't have a low end psu on your test bench is it's a test bench.The one setup should handle anything you can possibly throw at it and then a little extra for good measure.
Exactly my point for suggesting a 500W PSU rather than something much lower that I would personally put into a build. That should be sufficient for any even just halfway reasonable setup.
> Also having the exact same high wattage psu to test everything on eliminates the psu as a differentiating factor when testing multiple system configurations.
Unfortunately that's not true. Very low output on high wattage PSUs skews the results quite a bit because they typically are not accurate enough when it comes to handling the low loads thus smearing over the results with their own losses. I assume this is also why our Greek friend here doesn't even bother to test loads below 5% (which would be 60W at a 1200W PSU, about twice as much as my current Haswell PC needs on an mostly Idle Windows desktop).