Generations of AMD processors. Intel processor architectures of all time

Almost every year a new generation of Intel Xeon E5 central processors enters the market. Each generation alternates between socket and process technology. There are more and more nuclei, and heat generation is gradually decreasing. But a natural question arises: “What does the new architecture give to the end user?”

To do this, I decided to test the performance of similar processors of different generations. I decided to compare models from the mass segment: 8-core processors 2660, 2670, 2640V2, 2650V2, 2630V3 and 2620V4. Testing with such a generational spread is not entirely fair, because Between V2 and V3 there is a different chipset, a new generation of memory with a higher frequency, and most importantly, there are no direct peers in frequency among the models of all 4 generations. But, in any case, this study will help to understand to what extent the performance of new processors has increased in real applications and synthetic tests.

The selected line of processors has many similar parameters: the same number of cores and threads, 20 MB SmartCache, 8 GT/s QPI (except 2640V2) and the number of PCI-E lanes equal to 40.

To assess the feasibility of testing all processors, I turned to the results of the PassMark tests.

Below is a summary graph of the results:

Since the frequency is significantly different, it is not entirely correct to compare the results. But despite this, conclusions immediately arise:

1. 2660 is equivalent in performance to 2620V4
2. 2670 is superior in performance to 2620V4 (obviously due to frequency)
3. 2640V2 sags, and 2650V2 beats everyone (also due to frequency)

I divided the result by frequency and got a certain performance value at 1 GHz:

Here the results are more interesting and clear:

1. 2660 and 2670 - an unexpected turnaround for me within one generation, 2670 is justified only by the fact that its overall performance is very high
2. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - a very strange low result, which is worse than the 2660
3. 2630V3 and 2620V4 - the only logical growth (apparently due to the new architecture...)

After analyzing the result, I decided to weed out some of the uninteresting models that are of no value for further testing:

1. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - an intermediate generation, and not very successful, in my opinion - I’m removing them from the candidates
2. 2630V3 is an excellent result, but it costs unreasonably more than 2620V4, given the similar performance and, moreover, this is the outgoing generation of processors
3. 2620V4 - reasonable price (compared to 2630V3), high performance and, most importantly, this is the only model of the latest generation 8-core processor with Hyper-threading on our list, so we definitely leave it for further tests
4. 2660 and 2670 - an excellent result in comparison with 2620V4. In my opinion, it is the comparison of the first and last (at the moment) generations in the Intel Xeon E5 line that is of particular interest. In addition, we still have sufficient stocks of first-generation processors in our warehouse, so this comparison is very relevant for us.

The cost of servers based on 2660 and 2620V4 processors can differ by almost 2 times, not in favor of the latter, so by comparing their performance and choosing a server on V1 processors, you can significantly reduce the budget for purchasing a new server. But I will tell you about this proposal after the test results.

For testing, 3 stands were assembled:

1. 2 x Xeon E5-2660, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
2. 2 x Xeon E5-2670, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
3. 2 x Xeon E5-2620V4, 8 x 8Gb DDR4 ECC REG 2133, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb

PassMark PerformanceTest 9.0

When selecting processors for testing, I already used the results of synthetic tests, but now it’s interesting to compare these models in more detail. I made the comparison in groups: 1st generation versus 4th.

A more detailed testing report allows us to draw some conclusions:

1. Mathematics, incl. and floating point, mainly depends on frequency. The difference of 100 MHz allowed the 2660 to outpace the 2620V4 in computational operations, encryption and compression (and this despite the significant difference in memory frequency)
2. Physics and calculations using extended instructions are performed better on the new architecture, despite the low frequency
3. And, of course, the test using memory was in favor of V4 processors, since in this case different generations of memory were competing - DDR4 and DDR3.

It was synthetic. Let's see what specialized benchmarks and real applications show.

Archiver 7ZIP

Here the results have something in common with the previous test - a direct link to the processor frequency. It doesn’t matter that slower memory is installed - V1 processors confidently take the lead in frequency.

CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating computer performance for working with professional animation software MAXON Cinema 4D.

The Xeon E5-2670 pulled up the frequency and beat the 2620V4. But the E5-2660, which has a not so visible advantage in frequency, lost to the 4th generation processor. Hence the conclusion - this software uses useful additions of the new architecture (although perhaps it’s all a matter of memory...), but not so much that this is a decisive factor.

3DS MAX + V-Ray

To evaluate processor performance when rendering in a real application, I took a combination: 3ds Max 2016 + V-ray 3.4 + a real scene with several light sources, specular and transparent materials, and an environment map.

The results were similar to CINEBENCH: the Xeon E5-2670 showed the lowest rendering time, and the 2660 could not beat the 2620V4.

1C: SQL/File

At the end of the testing, I attach the results of the gilev tests for 1C.

When testing a database with file access, the E5-2620V4 processor confidently leads. The table shows the average values ​​of 20 runs of the same test. The difference between the results of each stand in the case of a file database was no more than 2%.

A single-threaded SQL database test showed very strange results. The difference turned out to be insignificant, given the different frequencies of the 2660 and 2670, and the different frequencies of DDR3 and DDR4. There was an attempt to optimize the SQL settings, but the results turned out to be worse than they were, so I decided to test all the stands on the basic settings.

The results of the multi-threaded SQL test turned out to be even more strange and contradictory. The maximum speed of 1 thread in MB/s was equivalent to the performance index in the previous single-threaded test.

The next parameter was the maximum speed (of all streams) - the result was almost identical for all stands. Since the results of different runs fluctuated greatly (+-5%) - sometimes they were at different stands with a significant gap in both directions. The same average multi-threaded SQL test results lead me to 3 thoughts:

1. This situation is caused by an unoptimized SQL configuration
2. The SSD became a system bottleneck and did not allow the processors to overclock
3. There is almost no difference between the frequency of memory and processors for these tasks (which is extremely unlikely)

The result for the “Recommended number of users” parameter also turned out to be inexplicable. The average result of 2660 turned out to be the highest - and this despite the low results of all tests.
I will also be glad to see your comments on this issue.

conclusions

The results of several diverse computing tests showed that the processor frequency in most cases turned out to be more important than the generation, architecture, and even memory frequency. Of course, there is modern software that uses all the improvements of the new architecture. For example, video transcoding is sometimes performed incl. using AVX2.0 instructions, but this is specialized software - and most server applications are still tied to the number and frequency of cores.

Of course, I’m not saying that there is no difference at all between processors, I just want to point out that for certain applications there is no point in a “planned” transition to a new generation.

If you disagree with me or have suggestions for testing, the stands have not yet been dismantled, and I will be happy to test your tasks.

Economic benefit

As I already wrote at the beginning of the article, we offer a line of servers based on first-generation Xeon E5 processors, which are significantly cheaper in cost than servers based on the E5-2620V4.
These are the same new servers (not to be confused with used ones) with a 3-year warranty.

Below is an approximate calculation.

The processor is the main component of a computer; without it, nothing will work. Since the release of the first processor, this technology has been developing at a rapid pace. The architectures and generations of AMD and Intel processors have changed.

In one of the previous articles we looked at, in this article we will look at generations of AMD processors, look at where it all began, and how they improved until the processors became what they are now. Sometimes it is very interesting to understand how technology has developed.

As you already know, initially, the company that produced computer processors was Intel. But the US government did not like the fact that such an important part for the defense industry and the country's economy was produced by only one company. On the other hand, there were others who wanted to produce processors.

AMD was founded, Intel shared all its developments with them and allowed AMD to use its architecture to produce processors. But this did not last long; after a few years, Intel stopped sharing new developments and AMD had to improve its processors themselves. By the concept of architecture we will mean microarchitecture, the arrangement of transistors on a printed circuit board.

First processor architectures

First, let's take a quick look at the first processors released by the company. The very first was the AM980, which was a full eight-bit Intel 8080 processor.

The next processor was the AMD 8086, a clone of the Intel 8086, which was produced under a contract with IBM, which forced Intel to license the architecture to a competitor. The processor was 16-bit, had a frequency of 10 MHz, and was manufactured using a 3000 nm process technology.

The next processor was a clone of the Intel 80286 - AMD AM286, compared to the device from Intel, it had a higher clock frequency, up to 20 MHz. The process technology has been reduced to 1500 nm.

Next was the AMD 80386 processor, a clone of the Intel 80386. Intel was against the release of this model, but the company managed to win the lawsuit in court. Here, too, the frequency was raised to 40 MHz, while Intel had it only 32 MHz. Technological process - 1000 nm.

AM486 is the latest processor released based on Intel's developments. The processor frequency was raised to 120 MHz. Further, due to litigation, AMD was no longer able to use Intel technologies and they had to develop their own processors.

Fifth generation - K5

AMD released its first processor in 1995. It had a new architecture that was based on the previously developed RISC architecture. Regular instructions were recoded into microinstructions, which helped greatly improve productivity. But here AMD could not beat Intel. The processor had a clock speed of 100 MHz, while the Intel Pentium already ran at 133 MHz. The 350 nm process technology was used to manufacture the processor.

Sixth generation - K6

AMD did not develop a new architecture, but decided to acquire NextGen and use its Nx686 developments. Although this architecture was very different, it also used instruction conversion to RISC, and it also did not beat the Pentium II. The processor frequency was 350 MHz, power consumption was 28 Watt, and the process technology was 250 nm.

The K6 architecture had several future improvements, with the K6 II adding several additional instruction sets to improve performance, and the K6 III adding an L2 cache.

Seventh generation - K7

In 1999, a new microarchitecture of AMD Athlon processors appeared. Here the clock frequency was significantly increased, up to 1 GHz. The second level cache was placed on a separate chip and had a size of 512 KB, the first level cache was 64 KB. For manufacturing, a 250 nm process technology was used.

Several more processors based on the Athlon architecture were released; in Thunderbird, the second level cache returned to the main integrated circuit, which increased performance, and the process technology was reduced to 150 nm.

In 2001, processors based on the AMD Athlon Palomino processor architecture with a clock frequency of 1733 MHz, 256 MB L2 cache and a 180 nm process technology were released. Power consumption reached 72 watts.

Improvements in the architecture continued and in 2002 the company launched Athlon Thoroughbred processors, which used a 130 nm process technology and ran at a clock speed of 2 GHz. Barton's next improvement increased the clock speed to 2.33 GHz and doubled the L2 cache size.

In 2003, AMD released the K7 Sempron architecture, which had a clock frequency of 2 GHz, also with a 130 nm process technology, but was cheaper.

Eighth generation - K8

All previous generations of processors were 32-bit, and only the K8 architecture began to support 64-bit technology. The architecture has undergone many changes, now the processors could theoretically work with 1 TB of RAM, the memory controller was moved into the processor, which improved performance compared to the K7. A new HyperTransport data exchange technology has also been added here.

The first processors based on the K8 architecture were Sledgehammer and Clawhammer, they had a frequency of 2.4-2.6 GHz and the same 130 nm process technology. Power consumption - 89 W. Further, as with the K7 architecture, the company made slow improvements. In 2006, Winchester, Venice, San Diego processors were released, which had a clock frequency of up to 2.6 GHz and a 90 nm process technology.

In 2006, the Orleans and Lima processors were released, which had a clock frequency of 2.8 GHz. The latter already had two cores and supported DDR2 memory.

Along with the Athlon line, AMD released the Semron line in 2004. These processors had lower frequencies and cache sizes, but were cheaper. Frequencies up to 2.3 GHz and second-level cache up to 512 KB were supported.

In 2006, the development of the Athlon line continued. The first dual-core Athlon X2 processors were released: Manchester and Brisbane. They had a clock speed of up to 3.2 GHz, a 65 nm process technology and a power consumption of 125 W. In the same year, the budget Turion line was introduced, with a clock frequency of 2.4 GHz.

Tenth generation - K10

The next architecture from AMD was K10, it is similar to K8, but received many improvements, including increased cache, improved memory controller, IPC mechanism, and most importantly, it is a quad-core architecture.

The first was the Phenom line, these processors were used as server processors, but they had a serious problem that led to the processor freezing. AMD later fixed it in software, but this reduced performance. Processors in the Athlon and Operon lines were also released. The processors operated at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, had 512 KB of second-level cache, 2 MB of third-level cache and were manufactured using a 65 nm process technology.

The next improvement in the architecture was the Phenom II line, in which AMD transitioned the process technology to 45 nm, which significantly reduced power consumption and heat consumption. Quad-core Phenom II processors had frequencies up to 3.7 GHz, third-level cache up to 6 MB. The Deneb processor already supported DDR3 memory. Then dual-core and triple-core processors Phenom II X2 and X3 were released, which did not gain much popularity and operated at lower frequencies.

In 2009, budget AMD Athlon II processors were released. They had a clock speed of up to 3.0 GHz, but to reduce the price the third level cache was cut out. The line included a quad-core Propus processor and a dual-core Regor. In the same year, the Semton product line was updated. They also did not have L3 cache and ran at a clock speed of 2.9 GHz.

In 2010, the six-core Thuban and quad-core Zosma were released, which could operate at a clock speed of 3.7 GHz. The processor frequency could change depending on the load.

Fifteenth generation - AMD Bulldozer

In October 2011, the K10 was replaced by a new architecture - Bulldozer. Here the company tried to use a large number of cores and high clock speeds to get ahead of Intel's Sandy Bridge. The first Zambezi chip couldn't even beat the Phenom II, let alone Intel.

A year after the release of Bulldozer, AMD released an improved architecture, codenamed Piledriver. Here, clock speed and performance have been increased by approximately 15% without increasing power consumption. The processors had a clock frequency of up to 4.1 GHz, consumed up to 100 W and were manufactured using a 32 nm process technology.

Then the FX line of processors based on the same architecture was released. They had clock speeds of up to 4.7 GHz (5 GHz overclocked), were available in four-, six- and eight-core versions, and consumed up to 125 W.

The next Bulldozer improvement, Excavator, was released in 2015. Here the process technology has been reduced to 28 nm. The processor clock speed is 3.5 GHz, the number of cores is 4, and power consumption is 65 W.

Sixteenth generation - Zen

This is a new generation of AMD processors. The Zen architecture was developed by the company from scratch. The processors will be released this year, expected in the spring. For their production, the 14 nm process technology will be used.

The processors will support DDR4 memory and generate 95 watts of heat. The processors will have up to 8 cores, 16 threads, and operate at a clock speed of 3.4 GHz. Energy efficiency has also been improved and automatic overclocking has been announced, where the processor adapts to your cooling capabilities.

conclusions

In this article we looked at AMD processor architectures. Now you know how they developed processors from AMD and how things stand at the moment now. You can see that some generations of AMD processors are missing, these are mobile processors, and we intentionally excluded them. I hope this information was useful to you.

Let's figure out what the main differences are between the processors of the world leaders - Intel and AMD.

We will also consider their positive and negative sides.

Major CPU Manufacturers

Everyone understands perfectly well that there are two leading companies in the computing market that are engaged in the development and production of the Central Processing Unit (central processing unit), or, more simply put, processors.

These devices combine millions of transistors and other logic elements, and are electronic devices of the highest complexity.

The whole world uses computers whose heart is an electronic chip from either Intel or AMD, so it’s no secret that both of these companies are constantly fighting for leadership in this area.

But let's leave these companies alone and move on to the average user, who is faced with a choice dilemma - what is preferable - Intel or AMD?

Whatever you say, there is not and cannot be a definite answer to this question, since both manufacturers have enormous potential, and their CPUs are capable of meeting the current requirements.

When choosing a processor for your device, the user primarily focuses on its performance and cost - relying on these two criteria as the main ones.

The majority of users have long been divided into two opposing camps, becoming ardent supporters of Intel or AMD products.

Let's look at all the strengths and weaknesses of the devices of these leading companies, so that when choosing a particular one, we rely not on speculation, but on specific facts and characteristics.

Advantages and disadvantages of Intel processors

So, what are the advantages of Intel processors?

• First of all, this is very high performance and speed in applications and games, which are most optimized for Intel processors.
• Under the control of these processors, the system operates with maximum stability.
• It is worth noting that the second and third level memory of Intel CPUs operates at higher speeds than in similar processors from AMD.
• Multithreading, which is implemented by Intel in CPUs such as Core i7, plays a big role in performance when working with optimized applications.

Advantages and disadvantages of AMD processors

• The advantages of AMD processors include, first of all, their affordability in terms of cost, which is perfectly combined with performance.
• A huge advantage is the multi-platform, which allows you to replace one processor model with another without the need to change the motherboard.
• That is, a processor designed for socket AM3 can be installed on socket AM2+ without any negative consequences.
• One cannot fail to note multitasking, which many AMD processors cope well with, simultaneously running three applications.
• In addition, FX series processors have quite good overclocking potential, which is sometimes extremely necessary.

• The disadvantages of AMD CPUs include higher power consumption than that of Intel, as well as operation of the second and third level cache memory at lower speeds.
• It should also be noted that most processors belonging to the FX line require additional cooling, which will have to be purchased separately.
• And another disadvantage is that fewer games and applications are adapted and written for the AMD processor than for Intel.

Current connectors from Intel

Today, many leading manufacturers of central processors are equipped with two current connectors. From Intel they are as follows:

• LGA 2011 v3 is a combined connector that is aimed at quickly assembling a high-performance personal computer for both servers and the end user. The key feature of such a platform is the presence of a RAM controller that successfully operates in multi-channel mode. Thanks to this important feature, PCs with such processors are characterized by unprecedented performance. It must be said that within the framework of such a platform an integrated subsystem is not used. Unlocking the potential of such chips is only possible with the help of discrete graphics. To do this, you should use only the best video cards;
• Thanks to LGA, you can easily organize not only a high-performance computing system, but also a budget PC. For example, a socket LGA 1151 It is perfect for creating a mid-price computing station, while at the same time it will have a powerful integrated graphics core of the Intel Graphics series and support DDR4 memory.

Current AMD connectors

Today AMD is promoting the following processor sockets:

• The main computing platform for such a developer is considered AM3+. The most productive CPUs are considered to be the FX model range, which includes up to eight computing modules. In addition, such a platform supports an integrated graphics subsystem. However, here the graphics core is included in the motherboard, and is not integrated into the semiconductor crystals;
• the latest modern AMD processor socket – FM3+. AMD's new CPUs are intended to be used in desktop computers and media centers not only at entry-level, but also at mid-level. Thanks to this, the most modern integrated solution will be available to the average user for a fairly small amount.

Working capabilities

Many people first pay attention to the price of the processor. It is also important for them that he can easily solve the tasks assigned to him.

So, what can both organizations offer on this point? AMD is not known for outstanding achievements.

But this processor represents an excellent price-performance ratio. If you configure it correctly, you can expect stable operation without any complaints.

It is worth noting that AMD managed to implement multitasking. Thanks to such a processor, various applications can be easily launched.

With its help, you can simultaneously install the game and surf the vast expanses of the Internet.

But Intel is known for more modest results in this area, which is confirmed by the comparison of processors.

It would not be superfluous to pay attention to the availability of overclocking, during which the performance of an AMD processor can easily be increased by twenty percent compared to standard settings.

To do this, you just need to use additional software.

Intel beats AMD in almost everything except multitasking. In addition, Intel is working with

So you should select the motherboard and power supply much more carefully to prevent freezes due to insufficient power.

Power consumption chart for Intel and AMD It's the same story with heat dissipation. It is quite high in older models. As a result, a standard cooler has difficulty coping with increased cooling.

Therefore, when purchasing a CPU from AMD, you must additionally purchase high-quality cooling from any decent company. Don't forget that high-quality fans make much less noise.

Socket type and performance

We should also say something about performance. After AMD acquired ATI, its creators were able to successfully integrate most of the graphics processing capabilities into the processor cores. Such efforts have paid off successfully.

Those who use an AMD chip for gaming should have no doubt that they are getting good performance, which is much better than the performance of equivalent chips from Intel (this is especially true for those who use a card with ATI graphics).

If it comes to heavy multitasking, then it is better to choose Intel, since it has HyperTreasing technology.

However, this advantage can only be exploited when the software application is capable of multitasking, that is, the ability to divide tasks into several small parts.

If the user needs a gaming processor, it is better to combine an AMD processor with a video card.

So, there is a big difference between intel and amd processor sockets. When choosing the right option, consider the differences between them listed in this article. This will make choosing the right option much easier.

3 Great processor for gaming 4 Best price 5

Computers have entered our lives so tightly that we already consider them something elementary. But their structure cannot be called simple. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drives: all these are integral parts of the computer. You can’t throw away this or that detail, because they are all important. But the most important role is played by the processor. It’s not for nothing that they call it “central”.

The role of the CPU is simply enormous. It is responsible for all calculations, which means it depends on it how quickly you will complete your tasks. This could be surfing the web, composing a document in a word processor, editing photos, moving files and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main load falls on the shoulders of the graphics accelerator, the central processor plays a huge role, and with the wrong “stone” the performance of even the most powerful video card will not be fully realized.

At the moment, there are only two major processor manufacturers in the consumer market: AMD and Intel. We will talk about them in the traditional ranking.

The best inexpensive processors: budget up to 5000 rubles.

4 Intel Celeron G3900 Skylake

The most affordable Intel processor
Country: USA
Average price: 4,381 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.5

The rating opens with an extremely weak processor from the Celeron line. The G3900 model has two cores of the previous generation - Skylake, which, coupled with a frequency of 2.8 GHz, gives the lowest performance result. In synthetic tests, the processor shows a result that is approximately half that of the Core i3. But the price here is quite affordable - 4-4.5 thousand rubles. This means that this processor is perfect for assembling, for example, a simple office computer or a multimedia system for the living room. Overall, this model cannot be called bad. Still, the 14 nm process technology provides good energy efficiency, and the HD Graphics 510 graphics core is suitable for casual games.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in class
• Perfect for office PC or HTPC

Flaws:

• Does not support Hyper-Threading technology

3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo

Best price
A country:
Average price: 3,070 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.5

The processors of the Athlon line belong to the budget class, which is clearly evident from the cost of the bronze medalist. But for a little over three thousand rubles you will get a very interesting stone. There are 4 cores (2 logical cores for each physical) made using a 28 nm process technology. Thanks to this, power consumption is low, and heat dissipation is quite low for AMD - only 65 W. True, you don’t have to be particularly happy about this because the multiplier is locked - you won’t be able to overclock the processor. Another disadvantage is the lack of a built-in graphics core, which means that when assembling an office PC or multimedia system you will have to separately purchase a video card.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in class
• Great performance for the price

Flaws:

• Lack of built-in graphics core
• Unlocked multiplier

2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera

The only 6-core processor in its class
A country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 4,160 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.6

AMD's FX-6300 is the only processor in the category with six cores. Unfortunately, you can’t hope for high power in the budget class - the model is based on the 2012 Vishera core. In normal mode, the cores operate at a frequency of 3.5 GHz, but, like many AMD CPUs, it overclocks well. Yes, judging by user reviews, the performance is sufficient even for games, but there are still a lot of disadvantages.

One of the main ones is high energy consumption. Due to the use of inexpensive 32 nm process technology, AMD gets very hot and consumes a lot of electricity. We also note the lack of support for modern DDR4 RAM. Because of this, the processor can be recommended not for building a new PC, but for updating an old one without replacing the motherboard and other components.

Advantages:

• 6 cores. Perfect for performing several simple tasks at the same time.
• Good overclocking potential
• Low cost

Flaws:

• Poor energy efficiency
• Aging platform

At the moment there are only two players in the processor market - Intel and AMD. But this doesn’t make the choice any easier. To make the decision to purchase a CPU from one manufacturer or another easier, we have highlighted for you several main pros and cons of the products of these companies.

Company	pros	Minuses
	Programs and games are better optimized for Intel Lower power consumption Performance tends to be slightly better Higher cache frequencies	Work effectively with no more than two resource-intensive tasks Higher cost When the line of processors changes, the socket also changes, which means the upgrade is more complicated
	Lower cost Better price/performance ratio Work better with 3-4 resource-intensive tasks (better multitasking) Most processors overclock well	Higher power consumption and temperatures (not entirely true of recent Ryzen processors) Worse program optimization

1 Intel Pentium G4600 Kaby Lake

Better performance
Country: USA
Average price: 7,450 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.7

We can recommend the good old Pentium for purchase in this category. This processor, like previous participants, is made using a 14 nm process technology, LGA1151 socket. Belongs to one of the latest generations - Kaby Lake. There are, of course, only 2 cores. They operate at a frequency of 3.6 GHz, which causes the lag behind the Core i3 by about 18-20%. But this is not much, because the price difference is twofold! In addition to the core frequency, the relatively low power is due to the small size of the L3 cache - 3071 KB.

In addition to the excellent price-performance ratio, the advantages of this CPU include the presence of a built-in Intel HD Graphics 630 graphics core, which is more than enough for comfortable use of a PC without a discrete video card.

Advantages:

• Great price for this performance
• Generation Kaby Lake
• Good integrated graphics core

The best mid-class processors: budget up to 20,000 rubles.

5 Intel Core i3-7320 Kaby Lake

The most affordable processor with integrated graphics
Country: USA
Average price: 12,340 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.6

Let's open the rating with the most affordable processor in the i-core line. It is extremely difficult to call the model excellent in terms of price/quality ratio, because the cheaper Ryzen 3 even shows slightly better results in synthetic tests. However, the model that opens the TOP 5 can be safely chosen not only for an office system, but also for a gaming computer.

There are only two physical cores, but these are modern 14 nm chips from one of the latest generations - Kaby lake. Frequency - 4100 MHz. This is a very shameful indicator. In addition, there is the possibility of overclocking. Considering the excellent energy efficiency and low heat generation - even with the included cooler, the temperature remains at 35-40 degrees when idle, and up to 70 degrees under load - you can safely increase the frequencies. Unlike competitors from AMD, Core i3 has a built-in graphics core, which allows it to be used in an office system without a discrete graphics card. But keep in mind that officially it only works on Windows 10

Advantages:

• Built-in graphics core
• Overclocking capability
• Low temperatures

Flaws:

• Poor performance for the price

4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge

Best price
A country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 6,917 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.7

Ryzen 3 is a low-cost new line of AMD processors, designed to once again impose a fight on Intel. And the 1200 does the job perfectly. For 7 thousand rubles, the buyer receives a 4-core processor. Factory frequencies are low - only 3.1 GHz (in high performance mode 3.4 GHz), but the multiplier is unlocked, which means enthusiasts can easily make the “stone” a little faster.

The transition to new chips not only improved performance, but also reduced power consumption, and also reduced temperatures to acceptable values. Due to the lack of a built-in graphics chip, we can only recommend this processor for budget gaming builds. Productivity is only slightly higher than the previous participant.

Advantages:

• Unlocked multiplier

Flaws:

• No built-in graphics chip

3 Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake

Great processor for gaming
Country: USA
Average price: 19,084 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.7

Let's start with the fact that the i5-7600K is by no means an outsider. Yes, in terms of performance it is somewhat worse than the mastodons that you will see below, but for most gamers it will be enough. The processor has four Kaby Lake cores operating at 3.8 GHz (in reality up to 4.0 GHz with TurboBoost). There is also a built-in graphics core - HD Graphics 630, which means you can play even demanding games at minimum settings. With a normal video card (for example, GTX 1060), the processor reveals itself completely. In most games with FullHD resolution (the majority of gamers have these monitors) and high graphics settings, the frame rate rarely drops below 60 fps. Is anything else needed?

Advantages:

• Best price
• Enough power for most gamers
• Excellent graphics core

2 AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Summit Ridge

Best price/performance ratio
A country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 11,970 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.8

The second line of the TOP 5 mid-level processors is occupied by one of the best processors in terms of price/performance ratio. With an average cost of only 12,000 rubles, in synthetic tests Ryzen 5 is able to compete with the well-known Intel Core i7-7700K at standard settings (PassMark 12270 and 12050 points, respectively). This power is due to the presence of six Summit Ridge physical cores, made using a 12 nm process technology. The clock frequency is not a record - 3.6 GHz. Overclocking is possible, but in reviews users claim that at frequencies above 4.0-4.1 GHz the processor behaves unstable and gets very hot. With factory settings, idle temperatures remain at 42-46 degrees, in games 53-57 when using a standard cooler.

Also, high performance is due to large cache volumes at all levels. The CPU supports the modern DDR4-2667 standard, which allows you to create excellent computers based on this processor for gaming at medium-high settings in FullHD.

Advantages:

• Excellent price/performance ratio
• Heats up a little

Flaws:

• Low overclocking potential

1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge

The most powerful processor in its class
A country: USA (Manufactured in Malaysia, China, China)
Average price: 17,100 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.8

As expected, the processor from the top-line Ryzen 7 has the best performance in its class. Once again we cannot help but remember the cost - for 17 thousand rubles we get power at the level of the top-end Core i7 of previous years. The processor includes eight cores, divided into two clusters. The standard clock speed is only 3.0 GHz, Ryzen 7 is guaranteed to overclock to 3.7, and with a little luck, up to 4.1 GHz.

Like previous representatives of the line, the leader is made using a 12 nm process technology, which allows for economical energy consumption. The situation with heat dissipation is good - in stress tests, temperatures remain at 70-75 degrees.

Advantages:

• High performance
• There is an overclocking option
• A fresh platform that will be supported for at least 4 years

The best top processors

3 Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake

The most popular top processor
Average price: 29,060 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.6

More recently, the i7-7700K was the top processor in the Intel lineup. But technology is developing extremely quickly, and in 2018 it is difficult to recommend this particular chip for purchase. According to synthetic tests, the model clearly lags behind its competitors - in PassMark the CPU scores only 12 thousand points, which is comparable to modern mid-level processors. But these indicators are achieved on standard settings, when 4 physical cores operate at a frequency of 4.2 GHz, but the CPU can be easily overclocked to even higher frequencies, thereby increasing performance.

Yes, the bronze medalist lags behind its competitors, but it costs at least half as much, and given its popularity, it is quite possible to find a good used processor. Also, the high prevalence and long-standing presence on the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with the LGA1151 socket. In general, we have an excellent basis for a powerful gaming system at a relatively low cost.

Advantages:

• Good price for this class
• High performance
• Great overclocking capabilities
• High popularity

Flaws:

• Not entirely relevant in 2018

2 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake

The most powerful processor in the Intel line
Country: USA
Average price: 77,370 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.7

Until recently, Intel's top line was the Core i7 series. But modern realities require more and more power. If you are not familiar with solutions, pay attention to the Core i9-7900X. The processor, already at a standard clock frequency, is capable of entering the TOP 10 most powerful CPUs. For example, in PassMark the model scores almost 22 thousand points - this is twice as many as the bronze medalist of the rating. At the same time, in reviews, users talk about trouble-free overclocking to 4.2-4.5 GHz with high-quality air cooling. Temperatures do not exceed 70 degrees under load.

Such high performance is due to the use of 10 cores made using a 14 nm process technology. The model supports all the necessary modern standards and commands, which allows it to be used for any task.

Advantages:

• Highest performance
• Excellent overclocking potential
• Acceptable temperatures

Flaws:

• Very high cost
• No solder under the cap.

1 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

The leader of the rating is crazy in everything - from the price of 65 thousand rubles to the incredible performance. In terms of power in synthetic tests, the model is slightly ahead of the previous participant. The internal structure is significantly different. Threadripper uses 16 (!) cores. The clock speed is comparable to the Core i9 - 3400 MHz - but the overclocking capabilities are more modest. The “stone” operates stably at a frequency of 3.9 GHz; as rates increase, the necessary stability is lost.

Such a large number of cores performs well in all tasks. But using a monster for games is not entirely reasonable - not all projects can reveal its potential. AMD will be useful for professional video editors, 3D designers, etc. - in professional software, an increase in cores gives a noticeable increase in rendering speed.

Advantages:

• Relatively low price tag
• High power
• Excellent performance in professional programs

This material will compare the processor products of two leading manufacturers of semiconductor chips: Intel vs AMD. Their current computing platforms will also be reviewed, their strengths and weaknesses indicated. Well, in addition to this, possible computer configurations will be given.

The main current x86 processor sockets

Today, each of the leading manufacturers of central processors has 2 current processor sockets. At Intel it is:

Socket LGA 2011-v3. This combined processor socket is aimed at assembling both high-performance personal computers for computer enthusiasts and servers. The key feature of this platform is the RAM controller, which can operate in 4-channel mode, and it is this important feature that provides unprecedented performance to processor products. It should also be noted that this platform does not use an integrated graphics subsystem. Only discrete graphics can unlock the potential of such high-performance chips, and the LGA 2011 - v3 processor socket is aimed precisely at using this class of computer components.

Socket LGA 1151. This computing platform allows you to organize both budget-level PCs and high-performance computing systems. In this case, the RAM controller can operate maximally in 2-channel mode. Also, almost every central processor in LGA 1151 is equipped with an integrated video card that will fit perfectly into an office or budget system unit. In terms of performance, this socket is inferior to the previously reviewed LGA 2011-v3, but outperforms any of the AMD solutions. Therefore, if we compare Intel i5 vs AMD FX-8XXX, then the advantage, both in productivity and in energy efficiency, will be with the products of the first company.

In turn, AMD is actively promoting the following processor sockets today:

The main computing platform for this developer of microprocessor devices is AM3+. The most productive CPUs within its framework are FX chips, which can include from 4 to 8 computing modules. The RAM controller in AM3+, as in LGA 1151, can function at its maximum in only in this case we are talking about support for the outdated RAM standard - DDR3, but LGA 1151 boasts support for the newest and fastest DDR4. Therefore, if we compare the latest Intel i5 vs AMD FX-9XXX, then even the flagship solutions of the latter will significantly lose in performance. Also within this platform there is support for an integrated graphics subsystem. But, unlike the sameLGA 1151The built-in graphics core in this case is part of the motherboard, and is not integrated into the semiconductor chip of the CPU.

The most recent AMD processor socket to date isFM2+. Its main niche is inexpensive multimedia stations, office or ultra-budget computers. main featureFM2+ -This is a very productive integrated subsystem, which in terms of performance can compete on equal terms with entry-level discrete video cards and is significantly ahead of Intel products of this class. But the limiting factor on the success of this socket is the weak processor part of this semiconductor solution. Therefore, the use of this connector in the context of even an entry-level is entirelyunjustified.

LGA 1151. Main characteristics

This computing platform currently occupies a dominant position in the desktop computer market, and it is it that provides a significant advantage in the comparison of Intel vs AMD on the side of the former. And both in quantitative and qualitative terms. As noted earlier, it boasts the following advantages over its direct competitors AM3+ and FM2+: a built-in DDR4 RAM controller, the mandatory presence of a graphics subsystem and cache memory, which includes three levels without fail. The positioning of chips within LGA 1151, as well as their most important parameters, are shown in Table 1. If we make a direct comparison between Intel Core i5 vs AMD FX-9 XXX series, then in the vast majority of tasks the advantage will be with the first solution. There is nothing special about this: the latest generation of Intel chips was introduced in the summer of 2015, and AMD in 2012. Therefore, it is quite difficult for the latter’s processor products to compete with newer and more productive Intel products.

Positioning of chips within LGA 1151. Their most important characteristics

Name of processors	In which PCs is it best to use such a chip?	Main settings
Celeron. CPU models G3920, G3900 and G3900TE.	Office system units with integrated graphics.	Advanced 14 nm process technology, excellent energy efficiency, three-level cache.
Pentium. Model series processors G44XX and G45XX.	Budget PCs that can handle most common tasks.	Compared to the most affordable Celeron chips Level 3 cache and clock speeds have been increased.
Core i3 models 61ХХ and 63ХХ.	Basic gaming PCs paired with powerful discrete graphics.	HT technology support, which allows you to get at the level With ofta 4 software processing streams. Increased L3 cache and clock speeds.
Core i5 models 64XX, 65XX and 66XX.	An average gaming system or graphics station combined with a powerful graphics card.	Full 4 cores, dynamic CPU frequency control, even larger cache size.
Core i7 models 67XX.	The most productive gaming PCs, video processing and encoding stations, entry-level servers.	4 cores and 8 software processing threads. Maximum cache size. Adjusting the processor frequency.
	System units for computer enthusiasts.	An unlocked multiplier allows you to significantly increase the speed of your computing system.

Processor socket LGA 2011-v3. Technical Specifications

Within this platform it is impossible to compare Intel vs AMD for the reason that this socket is unrivaled in performance today.LGA 2011-v3was originally developed as a server socket, but then a range of chipsXeon was supplemented Core i7,aimed at the segment of household PCs with unprecedented high performance.As was previously noted earlier, one cannot expect integrated graphics within such systems, and the RAM controller has 4 channels at once. Also, the undeniable advantages of this socket include the ability to install a CPU with 6 or even 12 cores, which also haveunlockedfactor. As a result, the productivity margin of such computing systems allows their owners will certainly not have to think about hardware requirements for the next 3-4 years. Intel vs AMD processors in context LGA 2011-v3comparison is unacceptable. There is simply a gap between them both in performance and in price. The latter for such PCs starts from several thousand dollars. But there is nothing special about this: such a PC is purchased several years in advance and has excessive performance.

Main parameters and features

It's not entirely correct to compare Intel Core vs AMD processor solutions FX.While the former are constantly updated and improved, the latter were released back in 2012 and since then there have been no changes within the AM3+ platform. As a result, the performance difference is simply huge.between these two platforms. AMD's flagship today can compete on equal terms only with the chips of the model rangeCore i3.All AM3+ processors have an unlocked multiplier, and, as a result, they can and should be overclocked. Under the most favorable circumstances, with such CPUs you can reach the 5 GHz bar. Also, this semiconductor crystal necessarily includes a 3-level cache. The RAM controller in this case is 2-channel, but, unlikeLGA 1151can't work with memoryDDR4 but only with DDR3.When compared with each other“ Core ” last generation, then the advantage of the latter in terms of performance will be very large.The approximate positioning of AM3+ chips in niches is given in the table below.

AM3+ chip positioning

Processor family name	Number of cores and modules	Purpose
FX-43XX	4/2	Budget and office PCs. Entry-level gaming systems.
FX-63XX	6/3	Mid-level gaming computers
FX-83XX	8/4	Graphics and workstations. Entry-level servers. The most productive gaming PCs within this platform.
FX-9XXX	8/4	Computers for enthusiasts.

Processor socket FM2+. The main platform for AMD hybrid chips

It is impossible to compare processor parts vs AMD A-series. These processors are aimed at solving completely different problems. The first of them allow you to create high-performance PCs, and the second - multimedia stations. But the situation changes dramatically when comparing graphics subsystems. Core i5, alas, cannot boast of a powerful integrated graphics subsystem, but the AMD hybrid chip is equipped by default with a video card, which even surpasses entry-level discrete accelerators in its capabilities. An important feature of this family of chips is that they are equipped only with a two-level cache memory.

Multimedia stations

Of course, within the niche of multimedia stations, it is possible to compare central processors such as Intel Core i5 vs AMD A10-ХХХХ, but this approach is not economically justified. Such computers place increased demands on the graphics subsystem, and are not so demanding on the processor part of the PC. It is precisely this combination of characteristics that the previously mentioned series of hybrid chips from AMD can boast of. Another important feature is their very low cost, which corresponds to 2-core CPU models from Intel. As a result, AMD occupies a dominant position in this highly specialized niche. The approximate configuration of such a PC is shown in the table below. The parameters of this computer will be quite sufficient for playing videos, listening to music, working in office applications, and even some toys will run on it at minimum settings.

Approximate configuration of a multimedia station

№ p/p	Name of components	Model	Cost, rubles
	CPU	A8-7850 3.6/3.9 GHz, 4 cores, 4 MB L2 cache.	5000 rubles
	Motherboard	MSI A78M-E35	3000 rubles
	RAM	TEAM 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz	2000 rubles
	power unit	GameMax GM-500B	1200 rubles
	Frame	I-BOX FORCE 1807	900 rubles
	HDD	HDD 1 Tb 7200	2500 rubles
Total:			14600 rubles

Office computers

In this case, the comparison between AMD FX vs Intel will be on the side of the latter. It has very productive entry-level CPUs at very affordable prices. The Celeron chip will look most optimal within such a computing system. The approximate configuration of such a computer is given in the following table.

Office computer 2016

№p/p	PC component	Model	Approximate price, rubles
	CPU	Celeron G3900	2100 rubles
	Motherboard	ASUS H110M-R/C/SI	2400 rubles
	RAM	Silicon Power 4 GB DDR4 2133 MHz	1200 rubles
	power unit	Delux 400W FAN 120 mm	700 rubles
	Frame	Frime 165B	900 rubles
	HDD	WD WD1600AVVS, 160 GB	2200 rubles
Total:			9500 rubles

Entry-level gaming PCs

Theoretically, within the framework of an entry-level gaming PC, you can also compare, for example, AMD FX - 6300 vs Intel Core AI 3. But the difference in performance in this case will be simply fantastic. Moreover, the winner will be the second CPU, which has only 2 real modules for carrying out calculations instead of the one that has 6 paired blocks.

Therefore, in any case, the gaming system should be based on chips from Intel. They are more expensive, but their performance is significantly better. Well, for gaming systems, the number of displayed images per second comes first, and here the difference between AMD FX vs Intel i3 will be simply stunning. The approximate configuration of such a computer is shown in the table below.

Basic gaming system components

№ p/p	PC component	Model	Price, rubles
	CPU	i3-6100	6500 rubles
	Motherboard	ASUS H110M	2400 rubles
	RAM	2x 4 GB DDR4 2133 MHz	2400 rubles
	power unit	GameMax GM-500B	1200 rubles
	Frame	I-BOX FORCE 1805	900 rubles
	HDD	1Tb 7200	2 7 00 rubles
	Solid State Drive	128 GB SATA 3	2500 rubles
	Video card	Radeon RX460	7000 rubles
Total:			25,600 rubles

Average gaming systems

Comparing AMD FX-8350 vs Intel "Cor AI 5" even on a mid-level gaming PC in terms of the number of frames per second output, we get a significant difference. In some cases the difference will be 20-30 frames per second. This is unacceptable in dynamic games. Therefore, it is most correct to assemble a mid-level gaming system only on a full-fledged 4-core CPU from Intel. Moreover, it is best to look towards the i5-6600 chip. It is in combination with the GeForce 1060 that it will allow you to get excellent “Gameplay”. It should be noted that the video card must be equipped with 6GB of RAM. Also, installing processors with an unlocked multiplier in such a system is not entirely justified. They are aimed at the premium segment and to work in tandem with a more expensive and powerful video card. Otherwise, the approximate configuration is shown in the table below.

Mid-range gaming system

Component	Parameters, model	Price, rubles
CPU	i5-6600	15 000 rubles
Motherboard	ASUS In 150-M	6000 rubles
RAM	DDR4 3200MHz 16Gb	12000 rubles
power unit	1000W	7000 rubles
Frame	Midi-Tower	2000 rubles
HDD	2GB, 7200	6000 rubles
SSD drive	256GB	5500 rubles
Graphics accelerator	GeForce 1060, 6 GB	20 000 rubles
Total:		73,500 rubles

Uncompromising gaming PCs

If even when comparing Intel Core i5 vs AMD the undeniable advantage is already on the side of the first company, then in this case, in essence, the second company has no analogues. For the last 5 years, the premium CPU segment has been confidently occupied by the products of only one company - Intel, and even a comparison of AMD FX-9590 vs Intel LGA 2011-v3 does not give any chance to the products of the first company. As noted earlier, Core i7 processors for the LGA2011-v3 socket are aimed at this niche. They can include up to 10 computational units, have an increased amount of cache memory and an unlocked multiplier.

But the key difference in this case is the RAM controller, capable of operating in 4-channel mode. As a result, the RAM subsystem in this case is faster, and worthy competition for such computers does not yet exist.

PC for the computer enthusiast

Component	Characteristics	Price, rubles
CPU	Core i7-6950 X	100,000 rubles
Video card	8 GB	50,000 rubles
RAM	32 GB, DDR4	25 000 rubles
Motherboard	X99	45,000 rubles
power unit	1000 W	16,000 rubles
Frame	ATX	2000 rubles
HDD	2Gb, 7200	8,000 rubles
SSD drive	512 GB	10,000 rubles
Total:		256,000 rubles

Graphic stations

Even within this specialized niche, a comparison between AMD FX vs Intel Core i5 indicates that the first company's products are outdated and inferior in all respects. The base chip for such a PC is i5-6400.

The approximate configuration of such a system is given in the following table.

Graphics station equipment

№ p/p	Component	Model	Cost in rubles
	CPU	i5-6400	11 000 rubles
	Motherboard	ASUS Z-170DE	5400 rubles
	RAM	DDR4 16Gb	10,000 rubles
	power unit	Aerocool VX-800	5400 rubles
	Frame	Frime 165B	2000 rubles
	HDD	1Tb SATA 3, 7200, 64 Mb cache	40 00 rubles
	Solid State Drive	256 GB SATA 3	50 00 rubles
	Video card	Radeon Pro2DUO	120,000 rubles
Total:			162,800 rubles

What's next?

The next few months will be very busy in the processor market. First, in January, Intel will update its lineup of chips and present the 7th generation of its architecture, codenamed Core. No fundamental changes are expected in this case. We will work on bugs, slightly improve performance and add some new technologies. Then, towards the end of the first quarter, AMD will finally release its new socket, which it will call AM4. In this case, the changes will already be revolutionary in nature. The chips will be produced using a new technical process, have an improved architecture and will feature new technologies. It is these Zen processors that will, in theory, restore parity in the CPU market. Only after this will it be advisable to revise the previously given computer configurations.

Results

Let us summarize the comparison of Intel vs AMD processor products carried out within the framework of this material. The only niche where the second company’s position is still strong is multimedia systems and PCs for budget and office use. Moreover, in the second case, Intel products look even more preferable. Another advantage that AMD can boast of is the lower cost of its products. But is it worth saving the same $100 and getting an outdated system?even by today's standards. This is already obvious: a PC is bought for 3-5 years, so in all other cases, when buying a new computer system, it is more correct to focus on comparisonspecifically for the products of the second company.