Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review & Overclocking

Conclusion

Intel Core i7-5775C Review

Conclusion

Such is the importance of the Iris 6200 graphics that we've strayed from our usual format to bring you today's review. Usually we're only interested in how much performance can be squeezed from a CPU and how high the overclocking will go. At the risk of stating the obvious the sign on the door says Overclock3D and that's our ideology. The amount of performance available from integrated solutions has always been so low, and the improvement from even the cheapest GPU so high, that we've never really bothered with iGPU performance.

The Core i7-5775C is interesting because it's the first 14nm processor we've seen from Intel. It's the forerunner to the Skylake CPUs that most of us are patiently awaiting. The performance from it is not far behind the faster i7-4790K Haswell CPU that we've put it up against and although we couldn't obtain more than 4.2GHz from overclocking it, we're sure that more mature BIOS' will allow us to push it further. We can't wait forever though, so rather than delay our review we put them against each other at stock. The reduced nm process enabled the i7-5775C to be extremely efficient both thermally and in overall power draw for the system at the wall.

What the die size reduction has meant is that there is, as you saw on page one, enormous amounts of space left over to fill up with the Iris Pro Graphics 6200. And what a job Intel have done too. The performance of the Iris 6200 is phenomenal. So good we struggle to believe it, but it isn't a case of it only being good at one or two things, but rather it happily munched through everything we threw at it. You aren't even reliant upon lowering the detail settings to minimum either. On what we call 'medium' settings - which are exactly that - the i7-5775C still banged out some very high frame rates. In 3D Mark Ice Storm for example we saw results akin to a GTX650Ti. From a CPU. If that doesn't leave you open-mouthed in amazement then maybe you're beyond help.

There is, of course, a slight caveat. Namely that this particular CPU probably isn't best suited for the integrated graphical goodness the Iris 6200 provides. If you can afford to purchase an i7-5775C then you are probably looking to buy a dedicated GPU too. Or at least should be. Instead the Iris would be most at home on an i5 or even an i3. A dual-core £100 i3 with the 6200 graphics would be perfect for the laptop, HTPC or maybe even the AIO PC crowd and we wait with eager anticipation for this amazing graphics solution to find a home on a CPU more suited to its low-power, high performance audience. If for arguments sake an £100 i3 with Iris 6200 graphics was released it would pretty much render every AMD APU pointless and we have a funny feeling this is where Intel is heading in the not to distant future.

You can discuss the Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review in the OC3D Forums thread.

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next»

Most Recent Comments

20-07-2015, 12:05:43

MadShadow
Much excite, I wanna read the review! :PQuote

20-07-2015, 14:57:07

timerwin63
So, Intel made a GPU. Great, put it on an i3, just give me a real processor... If I'm buying a top of the line chip, it's pretty safe to assume I won't be using the integrated graphics.Quote

20-07-2015, 15:04:58

skl27
I´m waiting for ZEN and then compare only the raw CPU power.
because i want to upgrade from a 3570k cause I´ve been having some issues but for me a iGPU isn´t really needed.Quote

20-07-2015, 16:11:25

Wraith
Holy smeg-o-rama! That iGPU is stonking, kudos Intel kudos indeed.Quote

20-07-2015, 19:57:02

ancientscream
jeesh how much die area are Intel wasting on they're flaming integrated GPU's ? intel we mainly want CPU's from you - not GPU's? I don't care about integrated graphics in desktop processors ? your spending so much energy on something, no one asked for? whose ambition is this ? wheres the cheap 8/16 core processor there should be here - by now ? instead at 14nm were still at quad core, the same as my 65nm q6600 processor wayback when ? a 4x reduction in process should mean if we have the same wafer area attributed to each die, 64 cores by now ? in very rough theory? if you just scaled down the q6600 transistor count cpu layout to the 14nm scale on the same die area as a q6600? (square area rule?) your deliberate failure to focus on more cores or the CPU portion of the processor transistor count, is beginning to be aggravating in the extreme ? moores law has been broken for 8 years and you have not really delivered imo much CPU performance increase. Everyone but a minority seems unaware or happy with the status quo performance wise youv'e been delivering? that consumers have been roughly receiving the same quad core power with small performance bumps for a long time, you may not have allot of competition from AMD but you've been taking the mickey compared to your illustrious history of performance increase in the past. and yes more cores don't always translate to more performance in individual programs depending how they're written, compared to higher frequencies etc, but lets be honest running many programs at once is smoother with many more cores. if any CPU manufacturer delivered a non iGPU CPU and threw down the CPU performance hat once more it would be interesting to see what could really be offered at this process scale ?Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.