Which is better Intel or AMD. Which processor is better to choose when building a computer, Intel or AMD

Which processor is better: Intel or AMD?

It's an interesting time for CPU manufacturers. The time when laptop battery life was measured in just a few hours and was considered efficient, and when the bulk of computer enthusiasts had noisy, hot desktop PCs in their homes, is long gone. Sales of desktop PCs fell 9.8 percent. In new markets the story is even worse: a decline of 11.3 percent. It's simple, users now prefer smaller, cheaper and less power-intensive devices.

In 2014, the position of desktop PCs strengthened slightly, and only because companies were replacing their PCs that were running the no longer supported Windows XP, but in 2015 sales fell again. According to analysts, there will be a “moderate decline” across the board because sales of Windows tablets and 2-in-1 laptop/tablet hybrids have increased.

Overall, this was a revolution for the major players in the industry. Just ten years ago, Intel and AMD had peace and quiet. Intel's distinctive logo appeared everywhere laptops were sold, and AMD's future was bright thanks to the acquisition of ATI graphics. And in such a cloudless atmosphere, these giants little by little began to lag behind the times. The technology environment was changing rapidly and Intel, and especially the slower AMD, were slow to pivot to mobile devices, allowing other chip makers, especially ARM, but also VIA and Qualcomm, to dominate this huge new market.

Why AMD and Intel

If you're buying a traditional laptop or PC, you only have two processor options - AMD and Intel, and the sharp decline in PC popularity doesn't mean they've gone beggarly. Keep in mind that Intel's total revenue in 2014 was $55.8 billion. But, of course, Intel receives its income not only from the sale of processors for PCs and laptops. The company also produces graphics processors, wired and wireless network adapters, servers, workstation processors, and much more. And although you are unlikely to find Intel processors in most smartphones or tablets, the company produces quite a lot of SoCs for mobile devices.

AMD is in some ways the weaker of the two companies. On the one hand, while Intel is creating its own manufacturing, opening more than a dozen facilities in the US, Ireland, Israel and China; AMD sold off its last fabs back in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and many others, AMD designs its own chips but manufactures them outsourced. Microprocessor production is terribly expensive and AMD, compared to Intel, looks pale at only $5.51 billion.

History and breakthroughs

Both companies have their own history. When Intel released the 8080 processor in 1974, it laid the foundation for all x86 processors, which powered all desktop PCs for nearly 30 years. They later demonstrated commercial acumen: in the mid-2000s, the Centrino platform, consisting of a low-power processor, a wireless chip, and a mobile chipset, took the market by storm, with a reputation for desktop-class computing power and long battery life. And the company's switch from the x86 brand to "Pentium" was like the brush of a PR genius.

Intel's marketing department's ability to think continues to this day. True, the success of the Intel-branded ultrabook was riskily associated with Microsoft's efforts to promote its Windows 8 OS.

AMD's position as an underdog is consistent. AMD now has a 17 percent market share, partly due to console gaming devices: the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are powered by an 8-core AMD Jaguar processor.

Perhaps AMD's biggest relatively recent innovation was the acquisition of an ATI graphics processing unit (GPU). Thanks to this, AMD has almost caught up with Intel in the ability to install integrated graphics processors - that is, GPUs located on the same chip as the CPU. The result is less graphics power, but a significant reduction in power consumption and heat. Forget fire-breathing, discrete graphics cards (last year's Radeon R9 280X ran at 250W at peak and needed two fans). AMD realized that the future of silicon is not only about increasing computing power, but also about reducing power consumption and size. These days, most people don't need more computing power, they want better battery life on their portable devices.

Intel or AMD problems

At first glance, AMD and Intel were well positioned in the market and answered all the needs of mobile device users. The desktop PC market was in a steady decline, laptop sales were rising, and mobile phones were in need of a rethink. Intel, with its Centrino-based laptop, already had an incredibly strong reputation, and its rival AMD's Turion was just a second behind, the race was on to win a market that already knew that mobility was the future of computing.

Intel started strong. Remember your netbook? The first netbooks - such as the Asus Eee PC 701, released in the UK in 2007 - cost less than £200, weighed less than a kilogram and still offered enough processing power to run basic work applications and applications running in web browsers. What processor is it based on? An ultra-low version of the humble Celeron.

The netbook was a major commercial success, and Intel capitalized on its Atom processor. This was Intel silicon at its cheapest. Thousands of the earliest CPU Atoms found on netbooks cost manufacturers less than $30. Consumers wanted small, cheap computers, and Intel, with its extensive experience in mobile processors, was able to answer the call.

The problems started with tablets. "We don't know how to make a $500 computer without it being junk," Steve Jobs said in 2008. "A netbook is worse than this," he added when launching the first generation iPad in 2010. Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook agreed, describing the netbook as "not a very good consumer experience." This is how the iPad was born.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that they didn't anticipate consumer preference for mobile devices. The problem was the form factor: on its first day of sales in 2010, the iPad sold 300,000 units. By choosing between traditional laptops and netbooks, with traditional desktop operating systems built on traditional x86 hardware, Intel and AMD were backing the wrong horse. In fact, Intel, Microsoft and HP tried to market the tablet long before the iPad, but the combination of Windows (an OS designed for a keyboard and mouse), short battery life and heavy hardware meant that no one wanted to buy them.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that the iPad and subsequent tablets from Sony, Samsung, etc. didn't need processors. They were still needed, but in new types of processors. And the kingdom of SoC (system on a chip) - in which all the functions of a computer are built into a single chip - was already ruled by British giant ARM.

ARM processors have a completely different architecture from traditional Intel and AMD chips. The ARM reduced instruction set (RISC) architecture is physically simpler than an x86 processor, which means they are cheaper and consume less power. The rapid rise of the iPad and the sharp decline of Windows tablets showed that AMD and Intel were late to this boat. Fast forward to 2015 and the netbook has proven to be stillborn, killed in the bud by high-quality tablets that perform well, offer long battery life, and cost much less than a standard laptop.

New form factors

Even Microsoft, a longtime ally of x86-bit hardware, has added to the misery for Intel and AMD. RT Windows, released in late 2012, was the first version of Windows to run on ARM devices, theoretically giving Microsoft access to low-cost tablets. However, the RT Windows platform has taken a hit: Microsoft lost $900 million in 2013 on its unsold RT Windows devices, and the company's CFO Amy Hood said, "We know we have to do better, especially on mobile devices."

While we were all impressed with the Surface Pro 3, it turned out to be the best of a relatively poor selection of so-called two-in-one devices that supposedly offer the best of both worlds: a full Windows laptop one minute, a tablet the next. The problem is that Windows 8's touch interface isn't that great, and few developers are writing apps for it. Now, Microsoft's immediate future depends on the success of Windows 10.

However, Intel did not place all its hopes only on Microsoft. In 2015, the Curie module appeared, a miniature module the size of a button. It uses Quark SE SoC, which can be powered by a coin-sized battery. And although its spread in the world of tablets and ultra-thin computers cannot yet be called triumphant, Intel still has a lot in store.

Intel or AMD, which is better for games?

Targeting games is a completely different story. Intel is betting on graphics processing, but its interests lie in integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are ideal for small laptops. The integrated GPU doesn't add much to the price of the laptop, doesn't use up too much power, and - contrary to popular belief - actually provides decent enough 3-D processing for not very resource-intensive games.

For anyone who plays, trying to run the latest games at high detail settings has shown the inconsistency of the latest consoles. But nevertheless, discrete video cards have always been a worthy alternative, and here AMD has a significant advantage. There's a whole range of AMD graphics cards available today, from low-profile passively cooled cards to the R9 390X, which retails for $500. However, discrete graphics are not AMD's only strength. As a supplier of its chips for the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, AMD did not ignore Nintendo's Wii U. And although today they are not able to announce their new platform developments, for example, tablets or hybrids, avid gamers have something to thank them for.

What to buy AMD or Intel

If you're building a desktop PC, the choice between AMD and Intel is as clear as ever. But on the other hand, it is complicated, since in any well-known store you will be faced with a huge selection of 600 CPUs. If you're on a budget, AMD has a good selection of decent processors at lower standard prices. But choosing AMD doesn't mean giving up on high-performance computing; the upper limit of Athlon processors is comparable to the leading Intel Core i7 processor.

And yet Intel dominates both the mid-range CPU and high-end processors, where there are a huge number of them. For powerful, everyday computing, the Core i5 is great. You can buy it for about 250-300 dollars. More advanced users - those who do video editing, 3-D animation, or those who participate in leaderboards - can choose the Intel Core i7 chip.

So, when buying a desktop PC or laptop, Intel is preferable to AMD. True, if you are not strictly limited by budget.

Every user, even one who is not particularly versed in the technical side of things, sooner or later inevitably comes to the realization that the performance of his computer is beginning to be insufficient to solve everyday problems, which are becoming more and more demanding on computing power day by day. Laptop owners will most likely solve this issue by purchasing a new one. laptop.

Users of desktop PCs, especially those who assembled it themselves from components, will probably not make such radical decisions and will turn their attention to upgrade.

Installing additional memory sticks, using faster ones SSD -disks - all this, of course, is wonderful, but still it is customary to give the main role in increasing PC performance to the processor. There is no need to guess what a computer user with an outdated processor will do; he will simply go to the store and buy a newer and faster chip. At the same time, owners of PCs based on Intel will purchase an Intel chip, the same ones who had it installed AMD , will give preference to AMD.

Why is this so? Because it is a tradition, a habit, and for some a sacred belief that a processor from one manufacturer is certainly superior to another in all respects. This last opinion is largely subjective and can be challenged, although it is unlikely that discussion on this topic will be productive. Fierce disputes between supporters Intel And AMD They have been going on for more than a year now and will probably continue to do so. And the point here is not so much the stubbornness of opponents, but the fact that to give an unambiguous answer to the question of what is better, Intel or AMD, impossible.

Someone will say, processors Intel are more widespread, therefore they are better, otherwise the first place would have gone to AMD. This is not true. It just happened historically that marketers Intel turned out to be faster, but everything could have been different and most programs today would not have been written under Intel, and under AMD. Moreover, with AMD There are several unsubstantiated myths associated with it, in particular the myth that processors from this company "burning", it is worth giving a slightly increased load. Yes, there were precedents, just remember the Athlon 1400, but they are not related to the processors themselves, but to the failure of the fan.

Today, with few exceptions, all this is a thing of the past and is considered an argument against AMD can not. Both Intel and Amdisch processors have their own advantages and disadvantages, which manifest themselves under certain circumstances, so one can only judge whether a particular processor is good or bad within the framework of the task it performs. Below you can familiarize yourself with the main advantages and disadvantages of processors Intel And AMD, look and decide for yourself what is better based on your goals.

Pros of Intel Processes

Most of the software is optimized for Intel chips.
Better gaming performance than similar AMD chips.
When allocating resources, most of them are allocated to active applications, which makes the latter work faster.
Lower power consumption.
Good overlocking potential for indexed chips K .
High-quality interaction with RAM.

Cons of Intel processors

Limitations in terms of multitasking. Can only work with two resource-intensive applications.
Processors i7-i5 with index K require better cooling.
Forced complete PC upgrade when installing a new line of chips (except for chips with LGA 115 socket) .
High price.

Pros of AMD processes

Affordable price, good cost-performance ratio.
Multitasking. More flexible distribution of computing power between running applications.
Multiplatform support.
Good overclocking potential of some models, but in general, any chip can be overclocked by 10-20 percent AMD.

Cons of AMD processors

AMD chips are worse at processing data from applications written under Intel.
Insufficient cooling of series chips FX And Phenom II X4-X6, requiring the installation of additional coolers.
Higher power consumption.
Interaction with RAM is not at such a high level as in Intel.
Reduced performance in games when compared with Intel analogues.

What general conclusions can be drawn based on all of the above? If you intend to use the computer only for office work, then you can give preference AMD, because why pay more? On the other hand, have Intel there are more than enough budget processors that, like AMD, can easily cope with the tasks assigned to them. So, by and large, there is no difference, except for the price, based on which processor you will build an office computer.

In the case of a multimedia PC, everything is a little more interesting, although here too there are special advantages from choosing AMD or Intel you won't get it. If the assembly does not require a discrete video card, then you should pay attention to APU Trinity from AMD, if you can’t do without a discrete card, then it’s better to give preference to Intel processors. As for gaming computers, everything again depends on what games you are going to play and, accordingly, on what card is installed on the computer.

Suitable for games and mid-range graphics cards AMD, For example, Phenom II X4 955 BE, if there are several video cards or the graphics card is very powerful, then it is still better to choose processors Intel i5-i7 with index TO. Not because Intel is faster in principle, but because allocating resources to a specific application is its specialty. In any case, count on a particularly noticeable performance increase when switching from AMD on Intel or with Intel on AMD It's not worth it, it will be obvious in benchmarks, but may be almost unnoticeable during real work.

Subscribe:

When choosing a personal computer, we very often think about what brand of processor will be there, what is the performance of the video card, what is the capacity of the hard drive? But most users simply buy a system unit and do not delve into the technical parameters of their devices. Therefore, in this article I would like to bring some clarity to perhaps one of the most pressing questions on the topic of PC components - which processor is better to buy - Intel or AMD?

Comparison of Intel and AMD processors

I would like to start this article by identifying the main advantages and disadvantages of both brands, and then make a small conclusion about the possibility of their applicability in different computer configurations.

So, let's list main advantages of Intel processors, which will contribute to the choice:

Stable operation and good performance in an active application (game, archiver, video converter); . excellent optimization for many computer games - therefore, greater performance compared to similar models from AMD; . good overclocking potential even at the “factory” level; . well-implemented multi-threading mechanism, virtualization technologies; . increased efficiency of second and third level processor memory; . reduced energy consumption.

But you can’t talk only about the advantages without considering disadvantages of Intel processors, which are also available from this brand. Let's present the most significant of them:

Frequent platform (socket) changes do not allow replacing older processor models with more modern ones; . requires a good cooling system, especially during overclocking or maximum loads; . clearly overpriced models of the i3, i5, i7 series.

Let's now consider a direct competitor - the AMD brand, which has recently caught up and, in some respects, surpassed Intel. Next, let us give an example of the main positive qualities of AMD processors:

A very reasonable price, even for powerful models, which means a good price/performance ratio; . Well-implemented multi-platform functionality - the ability to install processors of various sockets (AM2+, AM3); . well-implemented multitasking - the processor copes with 3-4 applications running simultaneously thanks to a larger number of physical cores; . stability in operation and normal overclocking potential.

And now some significant ones disadvantages of AMD models:

Some programs are not optimized for working with AMD processors (for example, programs for working with vector and raster graphics CorelDraw, Illustrator, ACDSee). This is due, first of all, to the quality of multi-threaded optimization for these processors; . It is better to immediately replace the standard cooler of the cooling system with a more expensive and efficient one; . there is a tendency to increased energy consumption; . insufficiently optimized work with RAM.

In the end, which processor is better - Intel or AMD?

This question cannot be answered unambiguously by considering only the pros and cons of the models. We will determine the three most popular PC categories, and in them we will indicate which processor is better to take for everyday work.

First category- budget office computer. Any processor will do here, be it Intel (G540, G550, G630) or AMD (Athlon II X2, A4-3400, Sempron 140, 145). Each of them will cope with the assigned tasks while working in an office, school or university.

Second category- multimedia system. There are two options: if you want to build an inexpensive machine without using discrete graphics, then take a closer look at AMD processors, especially the Trinity series, which provide more powerful graphics, or take a closer look at competitors, namely Intel G2020, G860, G2120.

Third category, concerns the PC gaming segment, then we would recommend using both AMD (FX6300, FX8320, FX8350) and Intel Core i3 series processors to build an average gaming computer. But for more powerful gaming solutions, Core i5 and Core i7 are still preferable.

Happy shopping!

Comments

The processor is an important part of every modern computer. Therefore, when choosing a new device, a dilemma arises: which processor is better? Which company should you trust – AMD or Intel? Let's try to solve this issue.

Inexperienced users will immediately answer: “Of course, Intel!” But if you look at the prices of devices in this situation, you can’t help but wonder if it’s worth paying so much? It’s just that Intel is a well-known company, everyone knows it, everyone has heard about it, which means that processors should only be purchased from them. That is, in this situation, the choice of Intel is ensured by a good marketing campaign.

The AMD company is not so popular, but this does not mean that these elements are bad. In addition, it appeared much later than the above-mentioned company, and its marketing campaign did not reach great heights. Because of this, AMD CPUs are often favored due to their lower price. But in fact, this is not all the advantages of this manufacturer.

Advantages of AMD processors

• Low price.
• Multitasking.
• Work stability.
• Good overclocking potential.
• High clock speed.

Disadvantages of AMD processors

• High power consumption.
• Some series of devices require an additional cooler.
• Works a little worse with RAM.

Advantages of Intel processors

• Fast work in applications.
• Low power consumption.
• Good overclocking potential.
• High clock speed.
• Good performance.
• Most programs are written specifically for devices of this productivity.

Disadvantages of Intel processors.

• Doesn't handle multitasking well.
• High price.

You can see that the advantages of both companies are almost the same, so they are on par. If you conduct any tests, then you need to take the most similar models. But to be honest, the tests will also give you roughly the same results, so they won't solve the dilemma. Let's then look at CPUs for various tasks.

Office computer.

This activity does not require a powerful computer, so you can use a budget processor. Both AMD and Intel have such models, for example, Intel Celeron or Amd Sempron.

Multimedia computer.

It all depends on the video card. But, despite this, manufacturers have excellent options for such computers. It all depends on your preferences.

Gaming computer.

There is already some distinction here. If you need a medium-power gaming computer, then elements from the manufacturer AMD are perfect. But if you want a super-powerful device, you will need Intel. But keep in mind that you will have to spend a considerable amount of money on it. It all depends on your desires, but you can play “heavy” games with AMD processors just as well.

What conclusion can be drawn? Both companies make excellent processors. The cost differs significantly, which is why many choose AMD. And elements from Intel are chosen because of an excellent marketing campaign (perhaps because of this they cost a little more).

Many also rely on the manufacturer whose elements they have already used. For example, I have a medium-power AMD processor. It is enough for me for such complex applications as Adobe Photoshop and Visual Studio, which work at good speed. I don't play very heavy games, so I don't need a powerful processor. When buying a new device, I will take an element from the same company, but perhaps with more power. So I don't see any point in overpaying.

The same can be done in other situations. Find out what processor is on your device. If you are happy with it, then why not buy the same one, but more powerful? But if you are unhappy, take a CPU from another company. In this situation, it is good that there are only two manufacturers, because then it would be impossible to choose.

Thus, processors from both INTEL and AMD are good in their own way. When choosing, you should base your choice on your personal preferences, intended goals, and the amount of money you can allocate to this device.