Comparison of cpu processors. Best processor for gaming

The processor industry is no less dynamic than other areas of information technology. Constant improvements to the latest microarchitectures and the release of new ones, although they did not make revolutionary breakthroughs at the beginning of 2016, did give us a wider choice within certain classes of central processors.

Once again we will discuss which processor is better - Intel or AMD, and also compare processors for the system for different tasks. I’ll say right away that the opinion in this article is subjective and can be either supported or refuted by anyone and without consequences. This article will not defend one side or another; everything will be based on the real state of affairs of the global central processor market.

In addition, we will touch a little on the segment of mobile solutions. Specific answers for systems for certain types of tasks will be given in the conclusions, I advise you to hold on and read to the end.

For convenience and quick transition, the contents of the article are given:

AMD vs Intel. A short historical introduction

So, let's go. Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices were founded around the same time: in 1968 and 1969, respectively. That is, both companies have vast experience both in the production of processors and in competition with each other. But for some reason, Intel is much more famous among ordinary “users”. And even in some antediluvian technical schools they study in detail the old i8080 processor, which is sore for all technical students. AMD at this time simply released clones of the 8080 in the form of Am9080 processors. And the first successful AMD processor of its own design can be called the Am2900 processor.

Okay, let's not talk about sad old processors with frequency at 3 MHz, made according to technical process 6 microns and equipped with an 8-bit data bus. Better yet, let's slowly move directly to the topic of our discussion, and to modern processors with more joyful characteristics.

Myths about AMD

I would immediately like to dispel the myths about “burning” and “not subject to” overclocking AMD processors. To date, such statements are based on “naked” rumors. About ten years ago there were many precedents for the failure of processors like the Athlon 1400, which simply burned out after the cooler cooling the processor radiator failed. Yes, it was relevant then, but talking about it when it’s 2015 and AMD processors are equipped with excellent thermal protection technology is simply blasphemy.

And the thermal regime depends on various factors, and not just on the processor itself, for example, the efficiency of the processor cooler, as well as the quality applying thermal paste. Regarding overclocking, I won’t say much and cite specific processor models, but will simply state the fact that there are processors from the “Black Edition” series on sale, which are oriented towards overclocking by the manufacturer itself. It’s the same with the new FX from AMD, they have not only proven themselves to be suitable for good overclocking, but also boast world records in overclocking.

The negative myths about AMD are over, now we can remember about Intel. There seemed to be no negative myths about Intel. In those days when Athlones were burning, one could only hear flattering reviews about the Pentium. This processor was known and revered by many, and even now when asked: “What kind of computer do you have?” Sometimes you can hear a proud answer -"Pentium".

2016 Comparison of the main processor lines from AMD and Intel

Let me sharply declare that as of 2016, among AMD and Intel we can confidently identify the clear leader in the processor hit parade. And based on this article, you can choose and buy a processor, truly taking into account all your needs. If, in the article which video card is better Since we were unable to identify a large-scale leader, here everything is a little clearer. But this leader will be voiced with rather general notes, since no one has canceled the specifics of the work and budget spheres, but more on that later.

In this subsection of the article, we will go through the main lines of processors from the two companies and analyze their performance under various types of loads, and in the conclusions, as promised, recommendations will be given for choosing a processor for certain tasks. Accordingly, taking into account specific tasks, the advantage of certain processors will change significantly.

The description and resolution of the dilemma “which is better: amd or intel” should be approached comprehensively and from different viewing angles, because an ordinary consumer needs one thing, but an avid gamer or overclocker needs something completely different. I’ll say right away that the answer will be dynamic, and I will try to update the article as radically new lines of processors from both companies are born, because this year one is leading, and next year the other.

Let's start a little from afar. When Intel quietly and peacefully continued to produce good and high-quality processors, the AMD Athlon 64 line with a modified K8 microarchitecture was born. It was after the appearance of these processors that many started talking about AMD, and many even moved away from Intel at that time. Several years ago there were more or less equal battles between Phenom K10 processors and the corresponding Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad models from Intel. During these periods, a widespread opinion emerged that AMD processors in the mid-range and budget price range were superior to Intel in terms of price/quality ratio. For AMD, everything seemed to be going very, very well, but then the Nehalem microarchitecture appeared, which dealt a significant blow to AMD and revolutionized the processor market.

Core i3/i5/i7 on Sandy Bridge began to actively sell out, raising Intel higher and higher above AMD. A little later, Intel added heat to the fire by releasing second-generation Sandy Bridge processors. They turned out to be no less successful than their predecessors: many people loved the i5-2400, 2500, i7-2700, and for good reason. Let's not delve into microarchitecture, I’ll just say that Intel developers have thoroughly refined it, adding many different technologies and features.

A little time passed, and Intel announced third generation processors - Ivy Bridge. The intel core i5-3570K, i7-3770K and many others processors did not go unnoticed, although they cannot boast of significant improvements. But given the fact that the prices for Ivy and Sandy Bridge are not separated by an abyss, it would be more reasonable to buy a slightly polished Ivy Bridge.

What did AMD do at this time? AMD calmly continues to refine the K10 microarchitecture, slowly adding frequencies to the Phenom. Although AMD Phenom II 9xx processors look very good on the processor market, due to their capabilities and price, they are already obsolete and it is quite difficult for them to compete with new products from Intel.

Then the AMD Llano line of hybrid processors is announced, with a focus on integrated graphics directly on the processor chip. The solution is quite interesting, considering that Llano graphics show good performance, but in computing tests these hybrid chips show the result of dual-core Intel Core i3-2100. Some people will like the option of saving on a video card, especially since the savings are significant and Llano processors will be noted by us in the results as an interesting budget option. In addition, a newer line of A-series processors was released - these are Trinity processors, they offer more powerful graphics than Llano, which looks even more delicious for entry-level home systems. Trinity graphics are rightfully considered the best in the world among those integrated on a processor chip.

Things didn't go well in the top segment. Everyone was looking forward to the enchanting launch of the legendary processors based on the Bulldozer architecture. Everyone was expecting a revolution in the processor market, but instead a crude 8-core product was born. In addition, these 8 cores are not entirely complete, since the developers combined every two cores in the Bulldozer microarchitecture into 1 module, which can be compared (conditionally) with one core of Ivy Bridge processors. But I would like to emphasize once again that this comparison is very conditional, since depending on the type of tasks, this very convention can be broken to smithereens both in favor of Intel and AMD.

Then a revision of Bulldozer was announced - Vishera processors with microarchitecture Piledriver – which, according to AMD representatives, gives an increase of around 10-15%, while having a lower TDP and all this is supported by a very tempting price.

Of course, it should be noted that Bulldozer processors and, in particular, their improved version - Vishera– show excellent results under multi-threaded loads, this is clearly visible in the 3d max working tests:

Less is better

FX8350 beats i7-3770K. Approximately the same situation will be observed in all applications that can create 8 high-quality threads, that is, in most graphics packages, as well as in any other types of complex calculations. If we analyze the results, we can see that the gap from the i7-3770K is insignificant, but given the approximate prices of these models - $340 for the i7-3770K and $209 for the FX-8350, I think questions about a more profitable processor specifically for these types of tasks should be removed. Also, the even cheaper FX-8320 will be interesting for these tasks.

But when a single-threaded load falls on the processor, due to the same unfinished microarchitecture, the bulldozer often loses to opponents from Intel. Those same games typically fail to load more than four cores, which ends up exposing the shortcomings of the Bulldozer cores individually. AMD Vishera processors have corrected the situation a little, but the lag is still noticeable. For clarity, here are some game tests:

Of course, the gaming load falls largely on the video card, but the processor is an equally important link here. Moreover, games that are quite demanding on processor resources often slip through.

The sample of tests presented is too small, but the general trend of testing results on both domestic and foreign sites is exactly this: from the tests it is clearly visible that the i5-3570K confidently outperforms opponents from AMD in the form of the new FX-4300, FX-6300 and FX-8350.

Already in 2015, the Sunnywell company AMD, which had practically no hopes for innovation, announced, of course, the introduction of a new line called Carrizo. The representatives stipulated that the Carizzo is the sixth generation, but it is not clear why the little-known Brazos is not included in the accounting. Well, okay, it’s worth highlighting the following points of this sensational line presented in Germany.

1. Carizzo is located exclusively on one chip, and before that the southbridge and the graphics chip were located on two crystals. The functionality of the device is based on 28 nanometers using the Global Foundries process.
2. Four cores have Excavator architecture. The processor frequency was raised only by 1 MHz compared to the previous Steamroller, so the data processing performance per core, alas, increased slightly, but overall everything is not so bad - an increase of about 15%, while generally maintaining the previous principles of data processing .
3. The graphic side has also been updated. In particular, the graphics core received 512 KB of second-level memory. Significant performance improvements are seen when matching tessellation, and very importantly, color reproduction is lossless.

At the same time, Intel did not skimp on the creation and release of a new generation of processors, which were called Broadwell. And it’s worth noting right away that every fan of the Intel team was disappointed. The processor is based on Haswell, made using a 14-nm process technology. The core functionality and microarchitecture did not receive any changes, so the desktop Broadwell turned out to be, to put it mildly, not great.

One of the advantages is a reduction in heat generation. An integrated graphics core Iris Pro 6200 has also been added. These are, perhaps, all the main important additions to the operation of the processor from Intel.

But if we look at it in general, for most games, AMD processors also perform quite well.

In these tests, the main thing for us is not the specific FPS of two games, but the general trend of FX processors lagging behind in games. In the conclusions we will note this fact, which will go to AMD’s liability.

Laptop CPUs

Intel has reigned supreme in the laptop processor segment for quite some time now, and it reigns very thoroughly. Both budget and top-end laptops feature Core ix processors, which we praised a little higher.

The release of Llano processors did not change the balance of power very much, but it did introduce some variety into the budget laptop segment. But the Trinity processors can be called a truly good attack from AMD. Even more powerful integrated graphics at an affordable price, and these processors support Dual Graphics technology. This technology allows the integrated graphics of Trinity processors to work in conjunction with a discrete adapter. As a result, the combination of “integrated Trinty graphics + discrete Radeon HD 7670M” looks very attractive, taking into account the total graphics performance indicators and low cost.

We can safely say that in the budget segment of laptops, the AMD Trinity A4 and A6 series are very interesting for the buyer, as they guarantee more powerful graphics than the integrated graphics in Intel processors.

In the mid-range mobile segment, A10 processors paired with HD 7670 will also delight with their graphics performance. But already in the fight against certain Core i5s they will have problems on the computing front. With all this, the middle class of laptops remains subject to fierce competition and many will choose the A10 + HD 7670. So in the middle and budget segment, determining which processor is better for a laptop is not so easy.

Returning to the same Carrizo from AMD, which was released in 2015, it is worth noting that the system already has an integrated UVD-6 video decoder. Thanks to this decoder, it became possible to watch video in H.264 and H.265 formats. As stated by the Carrizo manufacturers, this is the world's first chip for laptops that can decode H.265.

Intel is also not asleep when it comes to laptop graphics, but it lags significantly behind AMD, as strange as it may sound. Thus, testing was carried out in which Carrizo from AMD and Broadwell from Intel competed, playing 4-K video in HEVC format. The results were stunning: when playing video, a laptop with AMD Carrizo did not load the processor even halfway, while its competitor Inrel was loaded at 80, and sometimes even 100%.

Thus, if back in 2013 Intel was in the lead, then the situation in 2015 has changed somewhat, and now a self-respecting user will prefer a laptop with greater graphics performance running Carrizo processors from AMD.

I would like to note that purchasing a high-performance laptop is a very controversial thing, I advise you to read the article “ laptop or desktop PC”, which will not allow you to stumble on this deceptive front.

Okay, let's not dwell on processors for laptops, but rather move on to the conclusions.

AMD and Intel. Which processors are better? conclusions

It remains to sum up the battle between AMD and Intel.From what was said above, everything becomes clear, but let’s judge objectively, because everyone has the right to make a mistake, and we will believe that this mistake will be corrected. Let's pay attention to the class of tasks performed by these processors in order to ultimately judge fully.

Processor for a budget system with undemanding tasks

First, let’s answer what is better than amd or intel in the budget segment of the market. Budget systems are quite widespread. These can be both home computers and office systems, where the boss is trying to buy a fleet of machines for the price of the configuration of one normal system.
Here, it seems to me, we should give the advantage to AMD. The same new Trinity, such as the A4-5300 for $50-60, will look great in budget home systems, especially when trying to load the system with graphical tasks such as games. Well, or at worst, you can equip the system with the cheapest Llano, for $40.

For an office fleet of machines, Trinity will also be a good solution, but here they are being squeezed by Pentium G, since in computing tasks they show a higher level of performance due to the second generation Sandy Bridge architecture and slightly larger volume cache memory.

The 2015 AMD Carrizo will be an excellent solution not only for home use, but may well take pride of place among office machines. But AMD's main goal was to release a completely new processor that would satisfy the functionality needs of laptops.

The Intel company, with Broadwell, which has become the “unloved child,” is largely losing ground to AMD’s competitors. So, in particular, although Broadwell is equipped with a powerful Iris Pro 6200 graphics core, the functionality at the level of office calculations leaves much to be desired. Broadwell is not far removed from Sandy Bridge, which really handled computing tasks at the proper level.

So for an office fleet of machines, a good choice would be the budget Intel Pentium G processor on Sandy Bridge, released in 2013, or the new 2015 Carrizo from AMD.

Processor for gaming computer

The class of gaming computers is the most comprehensive, because it covers as average? So is the top segment of processors, there is no place for integrated graphics, and systems are usually equipped with high-performance video cards, which do the bulk of the work in games. But a lot also depends on the processor, since no one has canceled the balance in the system.

From the previously analyzed test results, we can confidently say that the average gaming system requires Intel. If you don’t mind overpaying a little, and at the same time you want to get a certain reserve for the next year or two in most games, then the Core i5 on Ivy Bridge in most cases will be the best option than any of the Vishera. In no way do I want to say that Vishera is absolutely unsuitable for games. Due to its price, the same FX-6300 will be a very good option for an inexpensive gaming system, although here it is being squeezed by the Core i3.

But the primacy for gaming loads and a home system like “for all tasks” is still with the Core i5, as the mainstream option can be called the Core i5-3570 or i5-3470 . In particularly extreme gaming scenarios, a Core i7 would be an even more advanced solution, but at this stage of development of the gaming industry and the classic use case, its performance is in most cases excessive.

So, for a good gaming system, an Intel core i5 (in some cases i7) is recommended, and for a cheaper gaming system, the FX-6300 is a good choice - here you need to look at secondary tasks and, based on them, give preference to one or another option.

Processor for demanding computing work

Video/audio processing and encoding, work in complex graphics applications, as well as any other type of complex computing work or work on entry-level servers - all this can often be divided into multiple threads.

As we said earlier, multi-threading is the FX-8350's strong point. At its low cost, this processor shows the level of the i7-3770K, and sometimes even surpasses it in the above types of tasks. Therefore, for workloads, if you don’t want to spend extra money, use only the FX-8350.

Of course, if you have extra funds, you can overpay and get a universal i7-3770K, both for work and for games, which will also be a reasonable option, but still at the well-known price/performance ratio for complex computing tasks FX- The 8350 confidently outperforms its opponents from Intel.

Also, do not forget about the “hard solution” from Intel, in the form of the same Core i7-3970X. This processor is the best desktop option: it can do everything better than anyone else, but there’s only one thing it can’t do – be cheap, its cost is about $1000. An impeccable extreme option for those who like to throw money.

The processor options given here for different types of tasks are very general and cannot accurately reflect each individual case, where secondary, but no less important tasks may arise, and the purchase budget may also have a significant impact.

If we talk about the financial side of the issue, then the AMD Carrizo processor is included in the price range from 350 to 750 US dollars, which is determined by the category of application. Accordingly, laptop processors are comparatively more expensive than desktop processors, so again you have to choose according to your accumulated budget. But it’s just worth noting that Carrizo, based on eight graphics and four processor cores, additionally has technology to optimize operation with 15 W power. Thanks to this, the new device works 2.4 times faster than the previous generation Kaveri.

The minimum cost of Intel processors in 2015 is $380, which does not at all correspond to the parameters inherent in Broadwell. In particular, the graphics core of the latest generation Iris Pro 6200 played a major role in cost; a slightly improved microarchitecture, which simply improved its predecessor Haswell, as well as a high rate of heat reduction. And this, perhaps, is all that Intel can boast about its latest work.

This is how the comparison of processors turned out and the answer to the question: “Which processors are better, Intel or AMD?”

Perhaps there are some controversial points, I will be very glad to see your corrections or additions in the comments, but without a holivar or offensive bias.

Finally, we unanimously wish AMD to pleasantly surprise us with the Streamroller microarchitecture soon, and also try to give a worthy rebuff to Intel, because we don’t need a monopoly and inflated prices.

We wish Intel to reduce prices for its processors and continue to release the same good, powerful and high-quality products.

And to you, dear friends, I wish stable operation of the “hearts” of your computers, regardless of who and when they were released. All the best!

The result is banal: it is impossible to judge the performance of any central processor by only one parameter. Only a set of characteristics gives an understanding of what kind of chip it is. Narrowing down the processors to consider is very easy. AMD's modern ones include FX chips for the AM3+ platform and A10/8/6 hybrid solutions of the 6000 and 7000 series (plus Athlon X4) for FM2+. Intel has Haswell processors for the LGA1150 platform, Haswell-E (essentially one model) for LGA2011-v3 and the latest Skylake for LGA1151.

AMD processors

I repeat, the difficulty in choosing a processor lies in the fact that there are a lot of models on sale. You simply get confused in this variety of markings. AMD has hybrid processors A8 and A10. Both lines include only quad-core chips. But what's the difference? Let's talk about this.

Let's start with positioning. AMD FX processors are top chips for the AM3+ platform. Gaming system units and workstations are assembled on their basis. Hybrid processors (with built-in video) of the A-series, as well as Athlon X4 (without built-in graphics) are mid-class chips for the FM2+ platform.

The AMD FX series is divided into quad-core, six-core and eight-core models. All processors do not have a built-in graphics core. Therefore, for a complete build you will need either a motherboard with built-in video or a discrete 3D accelerator.

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

AMD processors first appeared on the market in 1974, following the presentation by Intel of its first 8080-type models and were their first clones. However, the very next year the am2900 model of its own design was introduced, which was a microprocessor kit that began to be produced not only by the company itself, but also by Motorola, Thomson, Semiconductor and others. It is worth noting that the Soviet microsimulator MT1804 was also made on the basis of this kit.

AMD Am29000 processors

The next generation - Am29000 - full-fledged processors that combine all the components of the kit into one device. They were a 32-bit processor based on the RISC architecture, with an 8 KB cache. Production began in 1987 and ended in 1995.

In addition to its own developments, AMD also produced processors manufactured under license from Intel and bearing similar markings. So, the Intel 8088 model corresponded to Am8088, Intel 80186 - Am80186, and so on. Some models were upgraded and received their own markings, slightly different from the original ones, for example Am186EM - an improved analogue of Intel 80186.

AMD C8080A processors

In 1991, a line of processors designed for desktop computers was introduced. The series was designated Am386 and used microcode developed for the Intel 80386. For embedded systems, similar processor models were launched into production only in 1995.

AMD Am386 processors

But already in 1993, the Am486 series was introduced, intended for installation only in its own 168-pin PGA connector. The cache ranged from 8 to 16 KB in upgraded models. The family of embedded microprocessors is designated Elan.

AMD Am486DX processors

Series K

In 1996, production of the first family of the K series began, designated K5. To install the processor, a universal socket was used, called Socket 5. Some models of this family were designed for installation in Socket 7. The processors had a single core, the bus frequency was 50-66 MHz, and the clock frequency was 75-133 MHz. The cache was 8+16 KB.

AMD5k series processors

The next generation of the K series is the K6 processor family. During their production, proper names begin to be assigned to the kernels on which they are based. So, for the AMD K6 model the corresponding code name is Littlefood, AMD K6-2 - Chomper, K6-3 - Snarptooth. The standard for installation in the system was a Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 connector. The processors had one core and operated at frequencies from 66 to 100 MHz. The first level cache was 32 KB. For some models there was also a second level cache, 128 or 256 KB in size.

AMD K6 Processor Family

Since 1999, the production of Athlon models began, part of the K7 series, which have received widespread and well-deserved recognition from many users. In the same line there are also budget models Duron, as well as Sempron. The bus frequency ranged from 100 to 200 MHz. The processors themselves had clock frequencies from 500 to 2333 MHz. They had 64 KB of first-level cache and 256 or 512 KB of second-level cache. The installation connector was designated as Socket A or Slot A. Production ended in 2005.

AMD K7 series

The K8 series was introduced in 2003 and includes both single-core and dual-core processors. The number of models is quite diverse, as processors have been released for both desktop computers and mobile platforms. Various connectors are used for installation, the most popular of which are Socket 754, S1, 939, AM2. The bus frequency ranges from 800 to 1000 MHz, and the processors themselves have clock speeds from 1400 MHz to 3200 MHz. L1 cache is 64 KB, L2 - from 256 KB to 1 MB. An example of successful use is some Toshiba laptop models based on Opteron processors, codenamed according to the core codename - Santa Rosa.

AMD K10 Processor Family

In 2007, the release of a new generation of K10 processors began, represented by only three models - Phenom, Athlon X2 and Opteron. The processor bus frequency is 1000 - 2000 MHz, and the clock frequency can reach 2600 MHz. All processors have 2, 3 or 4 cores depending on the model, and the cache is 64 KB for the first level, 256-512 KB for the second level and 2 MB for the third level. Installation is carried out in connectors such as Socket AM2, AM2+, F.

The logical continuation of the K10 line is called K10.5, which includes processors with 2-6 cores, depending on the model. The processor bus frequency is 1800-2000 MHz, and the clock frequency is 2500-3700 MHz. The work uses 64+64 KB of L1 cache, 512 KB of L2 cache and 6 MB of third-level cache. Installation is carried out in Socket AM2+ and AM3.

AMD64

In addition to the series presented above, AMD produces processors based on the Bulldozer and Piledriver microarchitecture, manufactured using a 32 nm process technology and containing 4-6 cores, the clock speed of which can reach 4700 MHz.

AMD a10 processors

Nowadays, processor models designed for installation in the FM2 socket, including hybrid processors of the Trinity family, are very popular. This is due to the fact that the previous implementation of Socket FM1 did not receive the expected recognition due to relatively low performance, as well as limited support for the platform itself.

The core itself consists of three parts, including a graphics system with a Devastrator core, which came from Radeon video cards, a processor part from the x-86 Piledriver core and a north bridge, which is responsible for organizing work with RAM, supporting almost all modes, up to DDR3- 1866.

The most popular models of this family are A4-5300, A6-5400, A8-5500 and 5600, A10-5700 and 5800.

The flagship models of the A10 series operate with a clock frequency of 3 - 3.8 GHz, and when overclocked they can reach 4.2 GHz. The corresponding values ​​for A8 are 3.6 GHz, with overclocking - 3.9 GHz, A6 - 3.6 GHz and 3.8 GHz, A4 - 3.4 and 3.6 GHz.

This article presents only the best AMD processors in 2017.

If you don't want to independently understand all the characteristics of each processor model or are not sure that you can choose the best option, pay attention to our CPU rating from AMD.

A good processor is the main indicator of the power and speed of your PC. AMD is one of the leaders in the processor market. AMD produces the following types of processors:

• CPU – central computing units
• GPU – a separate device that renders video. Often used in gaming computers to reduce the load on the central unit and to provide better video quality;
• APU – central processors with a built-in video accelerator. They are also called hybrid, because such a component combines the central and graphic processor of a PC in one chip.

№5 - Athlon X4 860 K

The AMD Athlon line is designed for the Socket FM2+ socket. The X4 860K is the best and most powerful model of the entire series, which comes with three processors:

• Athlon X4 860K;
• Athlon X4840;
• Athlon X2

Fig. 2 – Athlon X4 860K hardware product package

The Athlon family is designed for desktop personal computers. All models in the line are distinguished by good multi-threading. The best results in the Athlon group were shown by the X4 860K model.

The first detail to note is the support for a virtually silent cooler that consumes no more than 95 W along with quiet operation and no loss in performance. If the processor has been overclocked using special programs, an increase in noise in the operation of the cooling system may be observed.

Main characteristics:

• Family: Athlon X4;
• Number of processor cores: 4;
• Clock frequency – 3.1 MHz;
• There is no unlocked multiplier;
• Core type: Kaveri;
• Approximate cost: $50.

There is no integrated graphics in the CPU. This means that it is not recommended for use in gaming PCs, since the main load generated by games will be on the processor (unless the user uses an additional graphics CPU). The X4 860K processor is capable of supporting fast operation of general-purpose systems only.

Testing of the CPU operation was carried out using the AIDA64 utility. Overall, the model shows good results for a mid-class processor. If you're looking for an affordable, multitasking CPU for your home computer, the Athlon X4 860K is one of the suitable options.

Fig.3 – testing Athlon X4 860K

No. 4 – AMDFX-6300

AMD's FX-6300 is a CPU that supports the Piledriver architecture. Processors with this architecture have already become worthy competitors to new products from Intel. All processors from AMD FX group have excellent overclocking potential.

FX-6300 Features:

• Series: FX-Series;
• Supported connector: Socket AM3+;
• Number of cores: 6;
• No integrated graphics;
• The clock frequency is 3.5 MHz;
• Number of contacts: 938;
• The cost of the model is on average $85.

A characteristic feature of the processor is its flexibility. The clock frequency declared by the developer is 3.5 MHz, which is a rather mediocre figure among processors for personal computers. However, this CPU provides the ability to overclock the frequency to 4.1 MHz.

Fig. 4 – boxing of FX series devices from AMD

Acceleration of work occurs during intense loads. Most often in the process of rendering videos or working with games. It should be noted that this CPU model is equipped with a dual-channel memory controller.

CPU performance testing was carried out in Just Cause 2. The final results showed that the Athlon X4 860K supports a maximum graphics resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels.

The computer also used an integrated GTX 580 graphics card. In the figure below you can see a comparative analysis of the performance of other processors that were tested under identical software and hardware environment conditions.

Fig. 5 – test result of Athlon X4 860K

№3 - A10-7890 K

The A10-7890K is a hybrid CPU from AMD. Despite the announcement of the development of a fundamental new technology and generation of processors, AMD decided to release another model in the A10 line. The company positions this series of devices as an excellent choice for desktop PCs.

The A10-7890K is a best-in-class online gaming experience. Of course, the graphics settings will have to be lowered, but as a result you will get good performance without severe overheating of the PC hardware.

Fig.6 – packaging of model A10-7890K

This processor has a built-in Radeon graphics unit that allows you to:

• Use online games and streaming without damaging the computer system;
• Stream all games from your Xbox One console. Requirement: Windows 10 installed;
• Improved graphics settings when playing dark movie scenes and during video editing.

The processor comes with a Wraith cooler, which features very quiet operation. Also, the cooler supports backlight mode. Specifications of A10-7890K:

• CPU Family - A-Series;
• Clock frequency: 4.1 MHz;
• Type of connector: Socket FM2+;
• Number of cores: 4 cores;
• There is an unlocked multiplier;
• Number of contacts: 906;
• Estimated cost – $130.

The main advantage of the A10-7890K is improved interaction with Windows 10.

The detailed characteristics of the processor are shown to us in the figure below:

Fig. 7 – detailed characteristics of APU A10-7890K

Results of testing the component using the standard Cinebench R15 test:

Fig. 8 – Cinebench R15 test result

As you can see, the tested component has surpassed in its parameters some AMD models in the A-10 and Athlon line. At the same time, the results obtained were not enough to outperform analogues from Intel.

№2 - Ryzen 5 1600 X

The first two places in our TOP are occupied by models of the Ryzen line. It is in the last few years that the architecture of these processors has become key for Advanced Micro Devices Corporation. The presented Zen microarchitecture is gradually returning the manufacturer to its leading position in the market.

Ryzen 5 is a direct competitor to Intel i5 processors. The CPU performs best in gaming systems. This is also stated by the CEO of AMD.

Characteristics:

• AMD Ryzen 5 Family;
• 6 cores;
• No integrated graphics;
• There is an unlocked multiplier;
• Clock frequency 3.6 MHz;
• Socket AM4 connector;
• The cost is about $260.

Most modifications of the 1600X lack a native cooling system. Users will have to purchase this component separately. The base frequencies do not cross the established 3.6 MHz mark. When operating in turbo mode (as a result of overclocking the processor), the clock frequency reaches 4.0 MHz.

All fifth-generation Ryzen models support SMT - surface mount technology. In this way, the CPU can be easily mounted on the surface of the PCB without the need to trim parts of the component.

Fig.9 – Ryzen 5 package

During testing of the CPU, even with the most resource-intensive programs, the maximum CPU temperature did not exceed 58 degrees. , Test results:

Fig. 10 – test of the 1600X model

Along with the line of powerful CPUs, AMD also released a special firmware for their initial configuration - AGESA. The utility allows you to reconfigure memory to avoid delays and interruptions in work.

№1 - Ryzen7 1800X

The Ryzen 7 1800X is an excellent choice for building a powerful PC or for multi-tier data server support.

AMD is currently developing another powerful member of the Ryzen family. In March 2017, the Ryzen 2000 X APU model was announced, which should go on sale at the end of the year.

Characteristics:

• Family: AMD Ryzen 7;
• 8 cores;
• Clock frequency 3.6 MHz with the ability to overclock to 4 MHz;
• Unlocked multiplier support;
• No support for integrated graphics;
• The average price is $480.

Fig.11 - Ryzen 7 1800X

The 1800X can simultaneously execute up to 16 threads of program code. The processor works with SMT multi-threading technology. All Zen cores ensure efficient use of other computer hardware components. Increased throughput by supporting three-level cache memory.

Comparison of test results of the Ryzen 7 1800X with competitive models from Intel.

Fig. 12 - performance comparison

Pros and cons of all processorsAMD

AMD products are cheaper than similar CPUs from Intel. All the models discussed above have the following advantages:

• Inexpensive cost ;
• Even the cheap processor segment shows good performance for computers of the “General Purpose” group;
• Support for different platforms. Users who choose AMD have no problems checking the compatibility of the socket and CPU. For example, the AM2+ socket supports most AMD processor models. This way you can quickly replace a hardware component and increase PC performance by almost 100%;
• Multitasking support . As test results on various benchmarks show, a system running AMD can easily perform 3-5 tasks at once. From archiving large files to downloading data and playing games. Running multiple processes does not slow down the operating system;
• Stable OS operation ;
• The user can set core voltage CPU, regardless of the class of the installed motherboard.

Please note that the developer has provided so-called “reserve power” in each processor model. This means that, regardless of the class of your CPU, you can overclock it by an average of 10%-20% using special software. We recommend using the Over Drive or Advanced Clock Calibration utility.

The negative aspects of AMD products include the following:

• Sometimes users encounter incompatibility between games or video editing programs and the processor. This is due to the lack of popularity among AMD for developers. Most operating systems and software shells are designed for Intel;
• Consumes more power than Intel. That is why AMD is not recommended to be installed in laptops if the user is important to the autonomy of the equipment;
• Low frequency of the 2nd and 3rd level cache.

Bottom line

With each CPU model released, AMD improves the performance of the component. In 2017, processors from the Ryzen and FX series received positive feedback from users.

AMD processors can be an excellent choice based on price/quality ratio if you are choosing a part for basic PC work or for playing games at medium graphics settings.

Thematic videos:

All about AMD processors / which processor to choose?