Intel Haswell Low Power CPU Review: Core i3-4130T, i5-4570S and i7-4790S Tested
by Ian Cutress on December 11, 2014 10:00 AM ESTHaswell Low Power CPU Conclusion
There is a clear demand for lower powered everything, as long as the performance is still there. We saw this with the MSI B85M ECO motherboard we reviewed recently, whereby as long as it makes financial sense as well it becomes a win-win.
Intel ultimately keeps its binning and testing process secret, but it is the binning process that allows them to keep high yields by a partitioning off defective cores or CPUs that do not conform to the best voltage/frequency curves. Some CPUs will fall into multiple bins, allowing Intel to sell the unit as a model that needs a boost in stock due to consumer demand. This is why some processors can perform as well as others in terms of their voltage/frequency response, but the only way to guarantee a certain level of performance is to buy the exact processor you need.
Today we tested three processors: the i3-4130T, the i5-4570S and the i7-4790S. These tackle three competitive price points on Newegg at $135, $215 and $315. This is the main reason we requested these processors in rather than others, as many S or T models end up as OEM only. The OEM only models sometimes appear for sale depending on the retailer and their own stock levels, or the region, but are not available everywhere. This is a shame, as some real gems (like the i7-4765T) are on Intel's road map.
The S processors command nothing extra over the base cost, in comparison to the premium of the K models. In terms of performance, in single threaded benchmarks (and therefore responsiveness) these CPUs performed the same as their counterparts, and our i7-S CPU was right on the money all the way through. Particularly in our gaming benchmarks, no performance was lost against the bigger models. In mutlithreaded benchmarks, there was a slight performance decrease. This means a Google Octane result down from 33512 with the i7-4790 to 31127 with the i7-4790S, a loss of 7% in exchange for the reduction in TDP, but in our gaming benchmarks the only real deficit afforded by the S/T processors was that in a few circumstances, minimum frames were lower, such as Bioshock Infinite moving from 28.0 FPS on the i3-4360 to 24.5 FPS on the i3-4130T.
With the T processors, the cut is more severe, especially for the i7 models. For our i3 T processor, we are reducing down from a 54W base component to a 35W, similar to the i7 S reductions. As a result, the benchmark numbers, while lower, are comparable to those i3 models with a potential sticker saving of 19W.
Is the power reduction worth the increase in cost? Ultimately the main use for lower power processors is for systems where heat and noise are critical junctures in the design. By using a lower power processor, the heatsink can also be smaller. This means certain office designs and machines destined for communal areas of the home are the main target points, as well as potential servers that end up locked in a room somewhere. Intel's range of lower powered Haswell processors, according to their road maps, is quite substantial, although one downfall for end users is that some of the exciting parts are OEM only.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
76 Comments
View All Comments
dave_the_nerd - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
I have a custom build SFF system with a 4670T, so... yay!Dahg - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
One of the really interesting aspects of the i3-4130T processors is that they work on workstation motherboards with ECC memory (unlike the i5 and i7). Perfect for building a NAS instead of using the low power Xeons. When buying an i3, make sure whether you'll be getting one with or without integrated GPU.Mickatroid - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
I recently built a system with a an i5-4690s. I still used a decent cooler (Scythe Big Shuriken 2). Why the lower TDP part? It is for my workshop. It gets hot in there and it is a machine that I want working reliably for a very long time. The S processor was an obvious choice. I ended up still less than 45degrees above ambient running IntelBurnTest. Very nice. Dust filtering is provided by an automotive 'pod' filter. Just thought it worth mentioning since it is a use case that is not quite the same as those mentioned at the end of the (interesting thanks) review.Gigaplex - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
Here we have a review of low power CPUs, and there's pretty much no analysis on the actual power usage. There's one delta test that shows the supposedly low power CPU drawing way more power than it should, with no follow up tests. What I want to know is, how much power do I actually save with these chips.alacard - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
That'd be zero. Here's your answer from a REAL review: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-...Anandtech, get your act together for Christ's sake.
CountDown_0 - Saturday, December 13, 2014 - link
I don't want to play the devil's advocate, but... Do you seriously think xbitlabs's review is a real one? They wrote 8 pages about low TDP processors (where the "T" stands for thermal) and they didn't bother to check the temperatures. Nor noise, for that matter, and considering that these processors are an obvious candidate for mini ITX systems, where both temperature and noise are an issue, I wouldn't say it is a real review. Ok, noise might be less important, but holy crap, these CPUs have a lower thermal design and you don't even have a look at temperatures? And no, checking the power is not enough. The relationship between power and temperature is not so linear.But I have to say they did a very good job by checking the voltage, revealing that these CPU's aren't binned. Which is surprising, in my opinion, as it contradicts both this review and common sense.
Anyway I have to agree with you that AT's review is also disappointing. Apart from the choice of a huge PSU, whose motivation (uniformity across all tests) does at least make sense - and anyway I am interested in the difference between processors, not so much in absolute values, so it isn't too bad - they have taken a performance-centric approach. Checking the performance is ok, but then you also have to check power and temperatures (ok, I'll leave noise aside), and they didn't do too much about this either. They have only one graph about temperatures. I am really surprised to see that the i7 4790s (65W) is 7° hotter than the the 4770k (84W), and there isn't a single word about this. They just say that the power consumption is also higher, and it might be "a bit alarming". Well, I'd say it is more than a bit alarming: the CPU is clearly slower, and then it consumes more and gets hotter??? Maybe Intel is binning CPUs after all, it's just the other way around: for S models they choose the crappiest ones! :-D Seriously, that demands further investigation. As things look right now, buying an S model wouldn't make sense.
In the end, both reviews leave my question unanswered: is it a good idea to choose an S model for a mini-ITX system to keep temperatures down? I think I will have to use pcpartpicker and some forums to figure out. But it is a very long, slow and painful research, and I wish I could have spared it.
alacard - Saturday, December 13, 2014 - link
I'd say that comparison between xbitlab and anandtech's reviews is entirely valid given that Anandtech's review is more like an empty shell of a partial review whereas xbitlabs actually digs down into the chips and analyzes them. We're in agreement that more attention wasn't paid to the power, temperature, noise aspect in either review though. I'm not sure what happened but those three metrics used to be standard, and now it's like we're lucky to even get them and when we do they're often half-assed.Take a look at Anandtech's review here and you'll notice more than half of the words in it are dedicated to explaining what the benchmark programs are good for testing. Take those useless paragraphs out and you're left with piratically nothing: a tiny bit of analysis and a smattering of charts. This is one of the laziest writeups i can recall seeing on this site. It provides almost no insight and sheds almost no light on the items it's analyzing.
Anandtech used to be the gold standard in tech analysis, and now they're no longer even the first site i visit when an embargo lifts on a highly anticipated recently released piece of tech. Being the best was their crown to lose, and i'm afraid they've lost it. This "review" is just another nail in the coffin.
ruthan - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
Finally someone cares about nature and my ears, results are better than i expected, im using those S and T procesors for last 4 years and im completely happy with them. Even todays low power Xeons are great.happycamperjack - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
Could you guys add more CPU intensive gaming benchmarks next time such as Crysis 3, Dragon Age Inquisition and Assassin's Creed Unity? Thanks.Beaver M. - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
I have been using a i7-4770S for 8 months and its really fast enough while not drawing too much power (I still get it over 80W, if I use Prime95). Very important to me to limit the power, since mine runs on battery.What I dont like however is that the T and S are also not soldered to the heatspreader. That means they get far too hot for small coolers. I had to delid mine and use liquid metal paste between heatspreader and die. I got 20°C less through that. Now the small cooler can run much more silent and I still only get 65°C max. On top of that, since it runs much cooler, it also draws about 5 to 10 Watts less, depending on what it does.