Core i7-5775C CPU Review

[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
We tested the new high-end CPU from the fifth generation Core i processor family: the Core i7-5775C, which has four physical cores (more four logical cores thanks to the Hyper-Threading technology) running at 3.3 GHz with turbo clock up to 3.7 GHz, is manufactured under 14 nm lithography, and comes with the Iris Pro 6200 graphics engine. Let’s see if is it faster than the Core i7-4770K.
The fifth generation of the Intel Core i CPUs is codenamed “Broadwell”, and it is basically a 14nm version of the “Haswell” (fourth generation) processors. It is interesting that most models from this generation are targeted on mobile computers, or SFF (small form factor) desktop computers, like the NUC. There are, until now, only two socketed desktop models, and the speculations are that there will be no more models, since the sixth generation (“Skylake”) models were launched almost simultaneously.
The fifth generation desktop processors launched so far are the Core i5-5675C (four cores, 3.1 GHz, turbo clock up to 3.6 GHz) and the Core i7-5775C (four cores with HT, 3.3 GHz, turbo clock up to 3.7 GHz).
The main difference presented by the “Broadwell” CPUs, compared to the earlier generation ones, besides the 14 nm manufacturing process, is the presence of the Iris Pro 6200 GPU, which supports DirectX 11.2, has 48 execution units (against 20 present on the HD 4600 GPU present in most Haswell processors) and offers a 128 MiB GPU cache (it is listed as an L4 cache in some bibliographies). Besides this, there are some minor optimizations.
We chose to run the tests using a mid/high-end video card, with the integrated video disabled. This is because we assume that the Core i7-5775C, being a high-end desktop CPU, will usually be used with a “real” video card; most users buying a CPU in this price range will use it with a video card. However, we also ran an specific test to discover the integrated video performance.
Figure 1 shows the Core i7-5775C CPU we used in our tests.

Figure 1: the Core i7-5775C processor

We compared the performance of the Core i7-5775C with one of its predecessors, the Core i7-4770K. We also included the FX-9590 in the roundup, because it is the most high-end processor from AMD, despite the fact it is not a direct competitor to the Core i7-5775C, because it is in a different price range.

Figure 2: the FX-9590 (left), the Core i7-5775C (center), and the Core i7-4770K (right)

Let’s compare the main specs of the tested CPUs on the next page.
[nextpage title=”The Reviewed CPUs”]
In the tables below, we compare the main features of the CPUs included in our review.

CPU	Cores	HT	IGP	Internal Clock	Turbo Clock	Base Clock	Core	Tech.	TDP	Socket	Price
Core i7-5775C	4	Yes	Yes	3.3 GHz	3.7 GHz	100 MHz	Broadwell	14 nm	650 W	LGA1150	USD 420
Core i7-4770K	4	Yes	Yes	3.5 GHz	3.9 GHz	100 MHz	Haswell	22 nm	84 W	LGA1150	USD 345
FX-9590	8	No	No	4.7 GHz	5.0 GHz	200 MHz	Vishera	32 nm	220 W	AM3+	USD 240

Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review. TDP stands for Thermal Design Power and states the maximum amount of heat the CPU can dissipate.
Below you can see the memory configuration for each CPU.

CPU	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	Memory Support	Memory Channels
Core i7-5775C	4 x 256 kiB	6 MiB	Up to DDR3-1866	Two
Core i7-4770K	4 x 256 kiB	8 MiB	Up to DDR3-1600	Two
FX-9590	4 x 2 MiB	8 MiB	Up to DDR3-1866	Two

[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions, the only variable device was the CPU being tested and the motherboard, which had to be replaced to match the different CPU sockets. The memory also has to be replaced, since the Core i7-5770C uses DDR4 memory, while the other two CPUs use DDR3.
Hardware Configuration

Motherboard (socket LGA1150): ASRock Z97 Extreme4
Motherboard (socket AM3+): ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer
CPU Cooler: SilverStone TD02
Memory: 16 GiB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws Z, four F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH 4 GiB memory modules configured at 1866 MHz
Boot drive: Kingston HyperX Savage 480 GB
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 970 4 GiB
Video Monitor: Philips 236VL
Power Supply: Corsair CX500M

Operating System Configuration

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
NTFS
Video resolution: 1920 x 1080 60 Hz

Driver Versions

AMD driver version: 15.7
Intel Inf chipset driver version: 10.0
NVIDIA GeForce driver version: 355.60

Software Used

Error Margin
We adopted a 4% error margin. Thus, differences below 4% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 4% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”PCMark 8″]
PCMark 8 is a benchmarking software that uses real-world applications to measure the computer performance. We ran three tests: Home, which includes web browsing, writing, light gaming, photo editing, and video chat tests; Creative, which includes web browsing, photo editing, video editing, group video chat, media transcoding, and gaming; and Work, which runs tasks such as writing documents, web browsing, spreadsheets, editing, and video chatting. Let’s analyze the results.

The Core i7-5775C achieved a score 16% higher than the FX-9590 and similar to the Core i7-4770K in the Home test.

On the Creative benchmark, the Core i7-5770C achieved a score 25% higher than the FX-9590, and 9% higher than the Core i7-4770K.

On the Work benchmark, the Core i7-5770C achieved the same performance level of the Core i7-4770K and was 9% faster than the Core i7-4770K.
[nextpage title=”3DMark”]

3DMark is a program with a set of benchmarks that create 3D scenarios and simulations.

The 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark measures DirectX 11 performance, and is aimed at high-end gamer PCs. The Sky Diver benchmark also measures DirectX 11 performance, but is more suitable to mainstream computers. The 3DMark Cloud Gate benchmark measures DirectX 10 performance, running at 1280 x 720 resolution. The 3DMark Ice Storm benchmark measures DirectX 9 performance and it is aimed at low-end computers, so we did not include it in our tests.

Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.

On the Fire Strike benchmark, the Core i7-5770C was not significantly faster than the Core i7-4770K, but it was 14% faster than the FX-9590.

On the Sky Diver benchmark, the Core i7-5770C was4.4% faster than the Core i7-4770K, and 13% faster than the FX-9590.

On the Cloud Gate benchmark, the Core i7-5770C was 10% faster than the Core i7-4770K, and 30% faster than the FX-9590.

[nextpage title=”Photoshop CC and Cinebench R15″]

Photoshop CC

The best way to measure the performance of a CPU is by using real programs. The problem, of course, is to create a methodology that offers precise results. For Photoshop CC we used a script named “Retouch Artist Speed Test”, which applies a series of filters to a standard image and gives the time Photoshop takes to run all of them. The results are given in seconds, so the fewer, the better.

In this test, the Core i7-5775C performed the same way of the Core i7-4770K, but was 23% faster than the FX-9590.

Cinebench R15

Cinebench R15 is based on the 3D software Cinema 4D. It is very useful to measure the performance gain given by having more than one CPU installed on the system when rendering heavy 3D images. Rendering is one area in which having more than one CPU helps considerably, because usually, rendering software recognizes several CPUs. (Cinebench, for instance, can use up to 256 CPUs.)
Since we were interested in measuring the rendering performance, we ran the CPU test, which renders a “heavy” sample image using all available CPUs or “cores” – either real or virtual – to speed up the process. The result is given as a score.

Here the Core i7-5770C obtained the same performance of the Core i7-4770K, and was 6.6% faster than the FX-9590.
[nextpage title=”Video encoding”]

DivX Converter

We used the DivX converter, a tool included in the DivX package, in order to measure the encoding performance using this codec. The DivX codec is, at least theoretically, capable of recognizing and using all available cores and the SSE4 instruction set.
We converted a Full HD, six-minute long .mov video file into a .avi file, using the “HD 1080p” output profile.
The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

On DivX encoding, the Core i7-5770C was 31% faster than the FX-9590, and was on par with the Core i7-4770K.

DVD Shrink

DVDShrink is an old but still very useful program to “shrink” video DVDs that have more than 4.7 GiB of data to fit single-layer DVD media. We used it to compress the DVD of “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” DVD to 4.7 GiB. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

In this test, the three CPUs achieved similar performance.

Media Espresso 6.7

Media Espresso is a video conversion program that uses the graphics processing unit of the video engine to speed up the conversion process. We converted a 1 GiB, 1920x1080i, 23,738 kbps, .mov video file to a smaller 320×200, H.264, .MP4 file for viewing on a smartphone. The results below are given in seconds, so the lower the better.

Here the Core i7-5770C was 24% faster than the FX-9590, and 5% faster than the Core i7-4770K.
[nextpage title=”Battlefield 4 and Dying Light”]

Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4 is the latest installment in the Battlefield franchise, released in 2013. It is based on the Frostbite 3 engine, which is DirectX 11. In order to measure performance using this game, we walked our way through the first mission, measuring the number of frames per second three times using FRAPS. We ran this game at 1920 x 1080, setting overall image quality at “high.”
The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.
Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.

On Battlefield 4, the Core i7-5770C performed the same way of the Core i7-4770K, and was 5% faster than the FX-9590.

Dying Light

Dying Light is an open-world horror game launched in January 2015, using the Chrome Engine 6. We tested the performance at this game with all quality options at “high”, at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), measuring three times the framerate using FRAPS.
The results below are expressed in frames per second and represent the arithmetical mean of the three collected results.
Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.

At the Dying Light test, the performance of the Core i7-5775C was the same of the Core i7-4770K, but 30% faster than the FX-9590.
[nextpage title=”Dragon Age: Inquisition and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt”]

Dragon Age: Inquisition

Dragon Age: Inquisition is the most recent game from the popular action RPG franchise Dragon Age. It was launched in November 2014 and uses the Frostbite 3 engine with SpeedTree.
We ran the game at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), with all quality options at “high”, measuring three times the framerate with FRAPS.
The results below are expressed in frames per second and represent the arithmetical mean of the three collected results.
Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.

On Dragon Age: Inquisition, the performance of the Core i7-5775C was the same of the Core i7-5775C, and 20% superior to the FX-9590.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is an open-world RPG, released in May of 2015 and based on the REDengine 3 engine. In order to measure the performance on this game, we walk around at the first scene of the game, measuring the framerate with FRAPS three times. We ran the game at Full HD (1920 x 1080), with image quality set to “medium”.
The results below are expressed in frames per second and represent the arithmetical mean of the three collected results.
Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.

In this game, all the three CPUs had similar performance.

[nextpage title=”Grand Theft Auto V and Dirt Rally”]

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V, or simply GTA V, is a open-world action game released for PCs in April of 2015, using the RAGE engine. In order to measure the performance on this game, we ran the performance test of the game, measuring the framerate with FRAPS. We ran GTA V at 1920 x 1080, with image quality set to “high” and 2x MSAA.

The results below are expressed in frames per second.

Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.

At GTA V, the Core i7-5775C was 15% faster than the Core i7-4770K, and 45% faster than the FX-9590.

Dirt Rally

Dirt Rally is an off-road racing game released in April 2015, using Ego engine. To measure performance using this game, we ran the performance test included in the game, in 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution and image quality configured as “high” and 2x MSAA.
Keep in mind that we used the GeForce GTX 970 with all the processors.
The results below are expressed in frames per second (fps).

In this game, the performance of the Core i7-5775C was the same of the Core i7-4770K, but 55% superior to the FX-9590.

[nextpage title=”Integrated video performance”]

In order to check the performance of the integrated video of the Core i7-5775C, compared to the Core i7-4770K (since the main architecture change was the GPU replacement), we ran 3DMark with the integrated video only.

We also repeated the tests on the Core i7-5775C using an entry-level video card (GeForce GTX 630), and a mainstream one (GeForce GTX 750 Ti) to check how the Iris Pro 6200 video performs compared to a “real” video card.

On the Fire Strike benchmark, the integrated video of the Core i7-5775C was 65% faster than the Core i7-4770K’s, 70% faster than a GeForce GT 630, but 67% slower than a GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

On the Sky Diver benchmark, the Core i7-5770C GPU was 42% faster than the Core i7-4770K’s, 77% faster than a GeForce GT 630, but 62% slower than a GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

On the Cloud Gate benchmark, the Core i7-5770C’s GPU was 34% faster than the Core i7-4700K’s, 71% faster than a GeForce GT 630, but it was 46% slower than the GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

[nextpage title=”Overclocking”]
The Core i7-5775C was an unlocked clock multiplier, which means that, at least theoretically, it is possible to overclock it just by changing its multiplier.
Unfortunately we were not able to, after some quick tests, run this processor in overclocking. In some tries, even with the overclocking configured, it was reducing the clock to 3.3 GHz when under load. We actually managed to put it to run at 4.0 GHz, but not with stability.
So, we cannot form an opinion about overclocking capabilities of the Core i7-5775C. It could be some issue on the BIOS of the motherboard we used (of course we updated it) because the CPU is very recent, or maybe we were just unlucky to get a sample with bad overclocking possibilities.
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
The launch of the Core i7-5775C has been done in a curious way. The Broadwell family was announced more than one year ago, on the launch of the 9-series chipsets, but the first (and only) two CPUs of this family were launched only recently. And, surprisingly, a few days after this launch, Intel revealed the sixth generation, codenamed Skylake. So, it is possible that the fifth generation LGA1150 processors never really take the market.
This, to be honest, makes sense at the light of the results of our tests, since the Core i7-5775C is not significantly faster than the Core i7-4770K, except on the integrated video performance. By the way, it is a great surprise to see that the Iris Pro 6200 integrated video is more powerful than an entry-level video card (specifically, the GeForce GTX 630). So, it has spare power to run 2D applications and even for the casual gamer to play a little, just not abusing the video quality settings.
So, it seems like the real market for the Core i7-5775C are the SFF desktop computers, where the low TDP and the enhanced integrated GPU are very welcome.
But worth it for the owner of a Core i7-4770K or Core i7-4790K with a dedicated video card to replace his or her CPU by a Core i7-5775C? Absolutely not, since the performance gain is insignificant. But is it a good processor? Yes, it has the same performance of the Core i7-4770K, with less power requirement and with a better integrated video. The problem, however, is the higher price, as well as limited availability.