Tmk processor development table. Intel vs AMD processors: analysis and comparison of models

ARM processor is a mobile processor for smartphones and tablets.

This table shows all currently known ARM processors. The table of ARM processors will be supplemented and upgraded as new models appear. This table uses a conditional system for evaluating CPU and GPU performance. ARM processor performance data was taken from a variety of sources, mainly based on the results of tests such as: PassMark, Antutu, GFXBench.

We do not claim absolute accuracy. Absolutely accurately rank and evaluate the performance of ARM processors impossible, for the simple reason that each of them has advantages in some ways, but in some ways lags behind other ARM processors. The table of ARM processors allows you to see, evaluate and, most importantly, compare different SoCs (System-On-Chip) solutions. Using our table, you can compare mobile processors and it’s enough to find out exactly how the ARM heart of your future (or present) smartphone or tablet is positioned.

Here we have compared ARM processors. We looked at and compared the performance of CPU and GPU in different SoCs (System-on-Chip). But the reader may have several questions: Where are ARM processors used? What is an ARM processor? How does ARM architecture differ from x86 processors? Let's try to understand all this without going too deep into details.

First, let's define the terminology. ARM is the name of the architecture and at the same time the name of the company leading its development. The abbreviation ARM stands for (Advanced RISC Machine or Acorn RISC Machine), which can be translated as: advanced RISC machine. ARM architecture combines a family of both 32 and 64-bit microprocessor cores developed and licensed by ARM Limited. I would like to note right away that the ARM Limited company is exclusively engaged in the development of kernels and tools for them (debugging tools, compilers, etc.), but not in the production of the processors themselves. Company ARM Limited sells licenses for the production of ARM processors to third parties. Here is a partial list of companies licensed to manufacture ARM processors today: AMD, Atmel, Altera, Cirrus Logic, Intel, Marvell, NXP, Samsung, LG, MediaTek, Qualcomm, Sony Ericsson, Texas Instruments, nVidia, Freescale... and many more other.

Some companies that have received a license to produce ARM processors create their own versions of cores based on ARM architecture. Examples include: DEC StrongARM, Freescale i.MX, Intel XScale, NVIDIA Tegra, ST-Ericsson Nomadik, Qualcomm Snapdragon, Texas Instruments OMAP, Samsung Hummingbird, LG H13, Apple A4/A5/A6 and HiSilicon K3.

Today they work on ARM-based processors virtually any electronics: PDA, mobile phones and smartphones, digital players, portable game consoles, calculators, external hard drives and routers. They all contain an ARM core, so we can say that ARM - mobile processors for smartphones and tablets.

ARM processor represents a SoC, or "system on a chip". An SoC system, or “system on a chip,” can contain in one chip, in addition to the CPU itself, the remaining parts of a full-fledged computer. This includes a memory controller, an I/O port controller, a graphics core, and a geopositioning system (GPS). It may also contain a 3G module, as well as much more.

If we consider a separate family of ARM processors, say Cortex-A9 (or any other), it cannot be said that all processors of the same family have the same performance or are all equipped with a GPS module. All these parameters strongly depend on the chip manufacturer and what and how he decided to implement in his product.

What is the difference between ARM and X86 processors?? The RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) architecture itself implies a reduced set of instructions. Which accordingly leads to very moderate energy consumption. After all, inside any ARM chip there are much fewer transistors than its counterpart from the x86 line. Don't forget that in an SoC system all peripheral devices are located inside a single chip, which allows the ARM processor to be even more energy efficient. The ARM architecture was originally designed to calculate only integer operations, unlike x86, which can work with floating point calculations or FPU. It is impossible to clearly compare these two architectures. In some ways, ARM will have an advantage. And somewhere it’s the other way around. If you try to answer the question in one phrase: what is the difference between ARM and X86 processors, then the answer will be this: the ARM processor does not know the number of commands that the x86 processor knows. And those that do know look much shorter. This has both its pros and cons. Be that as it may, lately everything suggests that ARM processors are beginning to slowly but surely catch up, and in some ways even surpass conventional x86 processors. Many openly declare that ARM processors will soon replace the x86 platform in the home PC segment. As we already know, in 2013 several world-famous companies completely abandoned the further production of netbooks in favor of tablet PCs. Well, what will actually happen, time will tell.

We will monitor the ARM processors already available on the market.

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.

This article will take a detailed look at the latest generations of Intel processors based on the Kor architecture. This company occupies a leading position in the computer systems market, and most PCs are currently assembled on its semiconductor chips.

Intel's development strategy

All previous generations of Intel processors were subject to a two-year cycle. This company’s update release strategy is called “Tick-Tock.” The first stage, called "Tick", consisted of converting the CPU to a new technological process. For example, in terms of architecture, the Sandy Bridge (2nd generation) and Ivy Bridge (3rd generation) generations were almost identical. But the production technology of the former was based on 32 nm standards, and the latter - 22 nm. The same can be said about HasWell (4th generation, 22 nm) and BroadWell (5th generation, 14 nm). In turn, the “So” stage means a radical change in the architecture of semiconductor crystals and a significant increase in performance. Examples include the following transitions:

1st generation Westmere and 2nd generation Sandy Bridge. The technological process in this case was identical - 32 nm, but the changes in terms of chip architecture were significant - the north bridge of the motherboard and the built-in graphics accelerator were transferred to the CPU.

3rd generation "Ivy Bridge" and 4th generation "HasWell". The power consumption of the computer system has been optimized and the clock frequencies of the chips have been increased.

5th generation "BroadWell" and 6th generation "SkyLike". The frequency has been increased again, power consumption has been further improved, and several new instructions have been added to improve performance.

Segmentation of processor solutions based on the Kor architecture

Intel's central processing units have the following positioning:

The most affordable solutions are Celeron chips. They are suitable for assembling office computers that are designed to solve the most simple tasks.

One step higher are the Pentium series CPUs. Architecturally, they are almost completely identical to the younger Celeron models. But the larger L3 cache and higher frequencies give them a definite advantage in terms of performance. The niche of this CPU is entry-level gaming PCs.

The middle segment of CPUs from Intel is occupied by solutions based on Cor I3. The previous two types of processors, as a rule, have only 2 computing units. The same can be said about Kor Ai3. But the first two families of chips do not have support for HyperTrading technology, while Cor I3 does have it. As a result, at the software level, 2 physical modules are converted into 4 program processing threads. This provides a significant increase in performance. Based on such products, you can already build a mid-level gaming PC, or even an entry-level server.

The niche of solutions above the average level, but below the premium segment, is filled with chips based on Cor I5. This semiconductor crystal boasts the presence of 4 physical cores at once. It is this architectural nuance that provides an advantage in terms of performance over the Cor I3. Newer generations of Intel i5 processors have higher clock speeds and this allows for constant performance gains.

The niche of the premium segment is occupied by products based on Cor I7. The number of computing units they have is exactly the same as that of the Cor I5. But they, just like Cor Ai3, have support for technology codenamed “Hyper Trading”. Therefore, at the software level, 4 cores are converted into 8 processed threads. It is this nuance that provides a phenomenal level of performance that any chip can boast of. The price of these chips is appropriate.

Processor sockets

Generations are installed on different socket types. Therefore, it will not be possible to install the first chips on this architecture into a motherboard for a 6th generation CPU. Or, conversely, a chip codenamed “SkyLike” cannot physically be installed on a motherboard for 1st or 2nd generation processors. The first processor socket was called "Socket H", or LGA 1156 (1156 is the number of pins). It was released in 2009 for the first CPUs manufactured to tolerance standards of 45 nm (2008) and 32 nm (2009), based on this architecture. Today it is outdated both morally and physically. In 2010, LGA 1155, or “Socket H1,” replaced it. Motherboards in this series support Kor chips of the 2nd and 3rd generations. Their code names are "Sandy Bridge" and "Ivy Bridge", respectively. 2013 was marked by the release of the third socket for chips based on the Kor architecture - LGA 1150, or Socket H2. It was possible to install CPUs of the 4th and 5th generations into this processor socket. Well, in September 2015, LGA 1150 was replaced by the latest current socket - LGA 1151.

First generation of chips

The most affordable processor products of this platform were Celeron G1101 (2.27 GHz), Pentium G6950 (2.8 GHz) and Pentium G6990 (2.9 GHz). All of them had only 2 cores. The niche of mid-level solutions was occupied by “Cor I3” with the designation 5XX (2 cores/4 logical information processing threads). One step higher were the “Cor Ai5” labeled 6XX (they have parameters identical to the “Cor Ai3”, but the frequencies are higher) and 7XX with 4 real cores. The most productive computer systems were assembled on the basis of Kor I7. Their models were designated 8XX. The fastest chip in this case was labeled 875K. Due to the unlocked multiplier, it was possible to overclock such a device. The price was appropriate. Accordingly, it was possible to obtain an impressive increase in performance. By the way, the presence of the prefix “K” in the designation of the CPU model meant that the multiplier was unlocked and this model could be overclocked. Well, the prefix “S” was added to designate energy-efficient chips.

Planned architectural renewal and Sandy Bridge

The first generation of chips based on the Kor architecture was replaced in 2010 by solutions codenamed “Sandy Bridge”. Their key features were the transfer of the north bridge and the built-in graphics accelerator to the silicon chip of the silicon processor. The niche of the most budget solutions was occupied by Celerons of the G4XX and G5XX series. In the first case, the level 3 cache was trimmed and there was only one core. The second series, in turn, could boast of having two computing units at once. The Pentium models G6XX and G8XX are located one step higher. In this case, the difference in performance was provided by higher frequencies. It was the G8XX that, because of this important characteristic, looked preferable in the eyes of the end user. The Kor I3 line was represented by 21XX models (it is the number “2” that indicates that the chip belongs to the second generation of the Kor architecture). Some of them had the index “T” added at the end - more energy-efficient solutions with reduced performance.

In turn, the “Kor Ai5” solutions were designated 23ХХ, 24ХХ and 25ХХ. The higher the model marking, the higher the level of CPU performance. The "T" at the end is the most energy efficient solution. If the letter “S” is added at the end of the name, it is an intermediate option in terms of power consumption between the “T” version of the chip and the standard crystal. Index “P” - the graphics accelerator is disabled in the chip. Well, chips with the letter “K” had an unlocked multiplier. Similar markings are also relevant for the 3rd generation of this architecture.

The emergence of a new, more advanced technological process

In 2013, the 3rd generation of CPUs based on this architecture was released. Its key innovation is an updated technical process. Otherwise, no significant innovations were introduced into them. They were physically compatible with the previous generation of CPUs and could be installed in the same motherboards. Their notation structure remains identical. Celerons were designated G12XX, and Pentiums were designated G22XX. Only at the beginning, instead of “2” there was already “3”, which indicated belonging to the 3rd generation. The Kor Ai3 line had indexes 32XX. More advanced "Kor Ai5" were designated 33ХХ, 34ХХ and 35ХХ. Well, the flagship solutions of “Kor I7” were marked 37XX.

The fourth revision of the Kor architecture

The next stage was the 4th generation of Intel processors based on the Kor architecture. The marking in this case was as follows:

Economy class Celerons CPUs were designated G18XX.

"Pentiums" had the indexes G32XX and G34XX.

The following designations were assigned to “Kor Ai3” - 41ХХ and 43ХХ.

“Kor I5” could be recognized by the abbreviations 44ХХ, 45ХХ and 46ХХ.

Well, 47XX were allocated to designate “Kor Ai7”.

Fifth generation chips

based on this architecture, it was mainly focused on use in mobile devices. For desktop PCs, only chips from the AI 5 and AI 7 lines were released. Moreover, only a very limited number of models. The first of them were designated 56XX, and the second - 57XX.

The most recent and promising solutions

The 6th generation of Intel processors debuted in early autumn 2015. This is the most current processor architecture at the moment. Entry-level chips are designated in this case as G39XX (“Celeron”), G44XX and G45XX (as “Pentiums” are labeled). Core I3 processors are designated 61XX and 63XX. In turn, “Kor I5” is 64ХХ, 65ХХ and 66ХХ. Well, only the 67XX marking is allocated to designate flagship solutions. The new generation of Intel processors is only at the beginning of its life cycle and such chips will be relevant for quite a long time.

Overclocking Features

Almost all chips based on this architecture have a locked multiplier. Therefore, overclocking in this case is possible only by increasing the frequency. In the latest, 6th generation, even this ability to increase performance will have to be disabled by motherboard manufacturers in the BIOS. The exceptions in this regard are the processors of the “Cor Ai5” and “Cor Ai7” series with the “K” index. Their multiplier is unlocked and this allows you to significantly increase the performance of computer systems based on such semiconductor products.

Owners' opinion

All generations of Intel processors listed in this material have a high degree of energy efficiency and a phenomenal level of performance. Their only drawback is their high cost. But the reason here lies in the fact that Intel’s direct competitor, AMD, cannot oppose it with more or less worthwhile solutions. Therefore, Intel, based on its own considerations, sets the price tag for its products.

Results

This article examined in detail generations of Intel processors only for desktop PCs. Even this list is enough to get lost in the designations and names. In addition, there are also options for computer enthusiasts (2011 platform) and various mobile sockets. All this is done only so that the end user can choose the most optimal one to solve their problems. Well, the most relevant now of the options considered are 6th generation chips. These are the ones you need to pay attention to when buying or assembling a new PC.

Considering the best processors of 2017, it is worth noting that the performance of each is sufficient to run gaming applications.

Even budget versions, together with suitable memory and a video card, can easily handle running a modern game with good resolution.

And you can choose the model that suits you based on several parameters - cache memory, frequency, number of cores and threads, power consumption and, of course, price.

Features of choice

The processor frequency, which is an important parameter of this device, is at the level of 3–4 GHz in modern models. And although some of them can increase this characteristic when overclocking or turning on turbo mode, this does not matter much.

Much more important for running games and applications are the characteristics of the video card working together with the central processor.

Another important parameter is energy consumption during operation, which determines the power of the computer power supply and cooling cooler. This figure is significantly lower for Intel brand models and higher for AMD processors. However, the greater the performance of the device, the smaller the difference in power consumption between the top versions - regardless of the manufacturer, they have a power of about 90 W.

The number of cores and threads determines the speed of data processing. The higher these numbers, the higher the likelihood of running not only a modern and resource-demanding game on your computer, but also any applications over the next few years. Most modern processors have from 4 to 8 cores. And dual-core ones are considered almost obsolete - especially if you use them for games.

Ryzen 7 1800X - the best gaming processor

The Ryzen 7 series of processors, released in 2017, includes a number of top models, the oldest of which is the 1800X. The performance of each thread and core is inferior to the capabilities of the similar Intel Core i7 model, but the device benefits due to their number. The eight-core processor processes a large amount of information and can be overclocked from 3.6 to 4 GHz.

Additional advantages of purchasing a processor include Neural Net Prediction technology, which is actually built-in artificial intelligence to speed up data processing. And among the disadvantages we can note the lack of “boxed versions”, that is, models immediately equipped with a powerful cooler. The cooling system for Ryzen 7 will have to be purchased separately.

Model characteristics:

socket: AM4;
frequency (normal/turbo): 3.6/4.0 GHz;
L3 cache: 16 MB;
cores/threads: 8/16;
power: 95 W;
price: from 28,000 rub.

Rice. 1. Ryzen 7 1800X.

Core i7-7700K - maximum performance from Intel

The Intel processor lineup also has its leader – the i7-7700K, characterized by high performance and clock speed. At the same time, the device consumes a relatively large amount of electricity - almost as much as a top-end AMD. And the processor frequency can vary within 4.2–4.7 GHz - enough to support any, even the most demanding games of 2016, 2017 and, most likely, 2018.

Although, in order for the device to run resource-intensive applications, it should be used together with a suitable memory and video card (from 8 GB and from 4 GB, respectively). The capabilities of the built-in graphics processor will not be enough for the game, but it will be enough to play video in the best resolution to date.

Main parameters:

energy consumption: 91 W;
socket: 1151;
frequency: 4.2 GHz (4.5 GHz in turbo mode);
L3 cache: 8 MB;
number of cores/processes: 4/4;
average price: 25,000 rub.

Rice. 2. i7-7700K.

Core i5-7500 - fast gaming processor

If prices above 20 thousand rubles seem too high to the user, he can buy an Intel processor from the previous series - Core i5-7500.

The price will be half that of i7 models, and the performance and size of the third-level cache memory are almost as good as the “older” versions. If you have a good video card and 8–16 GB of RAM, you can run any game released today using this processor.

The advantages of the model include the built-in graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630, which supports videos with 4K resolution. And support for DirectX 12 technology provides even better interaction with games, allowing the processor to be called both fast and gaming-ready.

Model characteristics:

power, W: 65;
frequency, GHz: 3.4–3.8;
socket: 1151;
threads and cores: 4/4;
L3 cache, MB: 6;
prices, rub.: from 11,600 rub.

Rice. 3. Intel Core i5-7500.

Ryzen 5 1600X - Mid-range AMD

A more economical option, but practically not inferior in terms of capabilities to the top model, is also available in the Ryzen 5 line from AMD. The 1600X processor is one of the five best offers from the manufacturer. However, it costs almost 40% less.

The operating frequency and cache of the model are fully consistent with the Rysen 7 series, and the only important difference is the smaller number of cores. However, if you do not use the processor at full capacity, the difference will be almost unnoticeable. Moreover, the speed of the device increases thanks to the same built-in “artificial intelligence”.

Technical specifications:

socket version: AM4;
frequency: 3.6 (4.0 in turbo mode);
L3 cache: 16 MB;
cores/threads: 6/12;
energy consumption: 95 W;
cost: from 16,000 rub.

Rice. 4. Ryzen 5 1600X.

Intel Core i3-7100 is a good gaming processor

Users who prefer to build their computer based on Intel processors and not pay more than $1000 for a system unit should pay attention to the Core i3-7100 model.

A device with two cores but four threads will be able to run even those games whose minimum requirements include Core i5 or i7. To do this, the processor should be installed on a PC with sufficient RAM and graphics memory. Although this model already has built-in support for DirectX 12 and integrated video, which allow it to work even without a discrete video card.

Main characteristics:

frequency and socket: 3.9 GHz, 1151;
L3 cache: 3 MB;
number of threads/cores: 4/2;
CPU power consumption: 51 W;
cost: 6300–9700 rub.

Rice. 5. Intel Core i3-7100.

AMD FX-6300 - profitable and fast

Manufacturer AMD, whose products have always been less expensive than Intel models, allows you to choose an excellent alternative to a budget gaming processor.

For example, the FX-6300, which may come with an inexpensive motherboard and 8 GB of RAM.

This set will work with most modern games and applications. Moreover, using the FX-6300 processor, it is quite possible to watch two different films on two monitors, record streams and process video.

Model features:

socket: AM3+;
power consumption parameters: 95 W;
processor frequency: 3.5 GHz;
cache memory level 3: 8 MB;
cores and threads: 6/6;
prices online: from 4400 rub.

Rice. 6. AMD FX-6300.

Pentium G4560 - cheap gaming processor

Another budget Intel model is the Pentium G4560, which you can buy when building an inexpensive gaming PC.

If you use this processor for assembly, the cost of the kit (without monitor) will not exceed $500. And the resources of the resulting computer will be enough either to run modern games at minimum settings, or for older gaming applications.

The best match for such a processor is an RX 460 or GTX 7xx video card that matches its price and performance (for example, Nvidia 750 Ti).

Processor Features:

slot: Socket 1151;
frequency: 3.5 GHz;
power consumption: 54 W;
cache memory level 3: 3 MB;
cores/threads: 2/4;
prices: from 3500 rub.

Rice. 7. Pentium G4560.

Athlon X4 860K - budget processor from AMD

If processor power consumption is not important to the user, it is advisable to pay attention to the X4 860K model, which differs in its optimal performance-to-price ratio.

For only 2800–3000 rubles, the user gets a device without a built-in graphics processor, but with a silent cooler and four cores. Moreover, another advantage of the processor is its compatibility with inexpensive motherboards for the FM2+ socket, although they do not support either modern memory or new video cards.

Characteristics:

CPU socket: FM2+;
frequency: 3.7 GHz;
number of cores and threads: 4/4;
L3 cache: no;
power: 95 W;
price: from 2800 rubles.

Rice. 8. Athlon X4 860K.

AMD A10-7890K – great capabilities and savings on video

For users who prefer to use integrated graphics, the AMD A10-7890K processor is a good option. Among its advantages is the ability to run many modern gaming applications even without using a powerful video card.

The characteristics of the device are approximately comparable to RX460 GPUs, which means they are suitable for most eSports games like DOTA2 and CS:GO with high image quality.

Subsequently, you can purchase a discrete video card for the A10-7890K, expanding the possibilities of using your computer. This is often what gamers do, buying parts for a budget gaming PC in stages - according to their financial capabilities.

Part parameters:

Socket: FM2+;
processor frequency: 4.1 GHz;
cores/threads: 4/4;
power consumption: 95 W;
average price: 8000 rub.

Rice. 9. A10-7890K.

A10-7860K - the most profitable gaming processor

If you want to buy a processor with good capabilities and an inexpensive processor with integrated graphics, you can pay attention to the A10-7860K - the “junior” model of the A10-7890K.

The operating speed and most characteristics of the devices differ little from each other. But by choosing a more affordable option, the cost of assembling a computer is reduced by another $30–35, practically without noticing a decrease in performance.

Processor parameters:

number of cores/threads: 4/4;
socket: FM2+;
frequency: 3.6 GHz;
power: 65 W;
cost online: 6000 rub.

Rice. 10. A10-7860K.

conclusions

Based on the results of a review of the best-in-class modern processors, we can draw conclusions about a good range of options on the modern market.

Depending on financial capabilities and computer requirements, any user can find a suitable chipset.

For example, Intel i7 and Ryzen 7 for powerful games and graphics work. Or Athlon X4 860K and Pentium G4560 for gaming applications with less serious requirements. And gamers who want to save money and run more or less modern games should give preference to the i5 series from Intel or Ryzen 5 from AMD.

As for office applications, there are no suitable models for them in 2017 - all these programs run perfectly on PCs with processors released several years ago.

CES2017: Processors of 2017

Everything that was shown at #CES2017 about central and hybrid processors: Intel Kaby Lake, AMD Ryzen Summit Ridge, Qualcomm Snapdragon 835.

Best processor for gaming | Benefit Reduction Effect

Prices for high-end processors are rising rapidly, but the performance gains in games will be less and less. Therefore, it is hardly worth recommending a processor more expensive than the Core i5-7600K. Moreover, if you have a good cooler, this model can be overclocked to 5 GHz - if higher performance is required.

However, there are a small number of games that take advantage of Core i7 processors with Hyper-Threading technology. We believe the trend of multi-core gaming optimization will continue, which is why we've added the Core i7-5820K to the list. For most games, there won't be much difference between a Core i7 and a Core i5, but if you're the kind of enthusiast who wants future-proofing and strong performance in multi-threaded applications, this CPU may be worth the extra cost.

With the advent of the LGA 2011-v3 interface, there is every reason to build an unsurpassed gaming platform on its basis. Haswell-E-based processors have more available cache and four more cores compared to leading LGA 1150/1155 socket models. In addition, thanks to the four-channel controller, greater memory bandwidth is provided. With 40 Gen 3 PCIe lanes available on Sandy Bridge-E processors, the platform natively supports two x16 slots and one x8 slot, or one x16 slot and three x8 slots, eliminating potential bottlenecks in three- and four-way CrossFire or SLI configurations. video cards.

While all of the above sounds impressive, it doesn't necessarily translate into significant performance improvements in modern games. Our tests show very little difference between the $240 LGA 1150 Core i5-4690K and the $1000 LGA 2011 Core i7-4960X, even with three SLI graphics cards installed. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe do not greatly affect the performance of current Sandy Bridge architecture systems.

Where Haswell-E really shines is in CPU-intensive games like Battlefield 1's multiplayer. If you're running three or four graphics cards, chances are you already have enough performance. An overclocked Core i7-5960X or Core i7-5930K can help the rest of the platform catch up to the extremely powerful video system.

Overall, while we don't recommend buying a processor more expensive than the Core i5-7600K in terms of price/performance (the money saved can be spent on a graphics adapter and motherboard), there will always be those who will spare no expense in the pursuit of achieving the best possible performance .

Best processor for gaming | comparison table

What about other processors that aren't on our list of recommendations? Are they worth buying or not?

These types of questions are entirely appropriate since the availability of different models and their prices change daily. How do you know if the processor you've got your eye on is the best buy in its price range?

We decided to help you in this difficult task by presenting a CPU hierarchy table, where processors of the same gaming performance level are on the same line. The top lines show the most powerful gaming CPUs, and as you move down the lines, performance decreases.

Proposed hierarchical table of various models processors Intel and AMD were initially based on the average performance of each in our benchmark suite. We've since added new game data as part of the evaluation criteria, but keep in mind that different games behave differently due to the unique nature of their code. For example, some of them are extremely dependent on graphics power, but others respond positively to more cores, cache memory, or even a specific architecture.

We don't have the ability to test every CPU on the market, so in some cases rankings will depend on the results of similar models. Essentially, this hierarchical table is useful as a general selection guide, but it is not a universal means of comparing different processors. For more detailed information, please refer to (English) or to the regularly updated section " Best CPU for Gaming: Current Market Analysis ".

You may have noticed that we have divided the flagship section into two levels processors and on one of them they placed several quad-core AMD models. Given that many older platforms can be used with several different generations of graphics subsystems, we wanted to highlight the highest-performance models to maintain a balance between the system and the video accelerator. For example, at the moment, any owner of a Core i7 of the Sandy Bridge generation will feel a significant increase when switching to Kaby Lake or Broadwell-E. And the flagship premises processors AMD's FX series being one step up from several Core i7s and older Core i5s means their status has risen.

Hierarchy of Intel and AMD processors | Table

Intel	AMD
Core i7-3770, -3770K, -3820, -3930K, -3960X, -3970X, -4770, -4771, -4790, -4770K, -4790K, -4820K, -4930K, -4960X, -5775C, -5820K, 5930K, -5960X, -6700K, -6700, -7700K, -7700, -6800K, -6850K, -6900K, -6950X Core i5-7600K, -7600, -7500, -7400, -6600K, -6600, -6500, -5675C, -4690K, 4670K, -4590, -4670, -4570, -4460, -4440, -4430, -3570K, -3570, -3550
Core i7-2600, -2600K, -2700K, -965, -975 Extreme, -980X Extreme, -990X Extreme Core i5-3470, -3450P, -3450, -3350P, -3330, 2550K, -2500K, -2500, -2450P, -2400, -2380P, -2320, -2310, -2300	FX-9590, 9370, 8370, 8350, 8320, 8300, 8150
Core i7-980, -970, -960 Core i7-870, -875K Core i3-7350K, -7320, -7300, -7100, -4360, -4350, -4340, -4170, -4160, -4150, -4130, -3250, -3245, -3240, -3225, -3220, -3210 , -2100, -2105, -2120, -2125, -2130 Pentium G4620, G4600, G4560	FX-6350, 4350 Phenom II X6 1100T BE, 1090T BE Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980, 975
Core i7-860, -920, -930, -940, -950 Core i5-3220T, -750, -760, -2405S, -2400S Core 2 Extreme QX9775, QX9770, QX9650 Core 2 Quad Q9650	FX-8120, 8320e, 8370e, 6200, 6300, 4170, 4300 Phenom II X6 1075T Phenom II X4 Black Edition 970, 965, 955 A10-6800K, 6790K, 6700, 5800K, -5700, -7700K, -7800, -7850K, 7870K A8-3850, -3870K, -5600K, 6600K, -7600, -7650K Athlon X4 651K, 645, 641, 640, 740, 750K, 860K
Core 2 Extreme QX6850, QX6800 Core 2 Quad Q9550, Q9450, Q9400 Core i5-650, -655K, -660, -661, -670, -680 Core i3-2100T, -2120T	FX-6100, -4100, -4130 Phenom II X6 1055T, 1045T Phenom II X4 945, 940, 920 Phenom II X3 Black Edition 720, 740 A8-5500, 6500 A6-3650, -3670K, -7400K Athlon II X4 635, 630
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Core 2 Quad Q6700, Q9300, Q8400, Q6600, Q8300 Core 2 Duo E8600, E8500, E8400, E7600 Core i3 -530, -540, -550 Pentium G3470, G3460, G3450, G3440, G3430, G3420, G3260, G3258, G3250, G3220, G3420, G3430, G2130, G2120, G2020, G2010, G870, G860, G850, G840, G645, 40, G630	Phenom II X4 910, 910e, 810 Athlon II X 4 620, 631 Athlon II X3 460
Core 2 Extreme X6800 Core 2 Quad Q8200 Core 2 Duo E8300, E8200, E8190, E7500, E7400, E6850, E6750 Pentium G620 Celeron G1630, G1620, G1610, G555, G550, G540, G530	Phenom II X4 905e, 805 Phenom II X3 710, 705e Phenom II X2 565 BE, 560 BE, 555 BE, 550 BE, 545 Phenom X4 9950 Athlon II X 3 455, 450, 445, 440, 435, 425
Core 2 Duo E7200, E6550, E7300, E6540, E6700 Pentium Dual-Core E5700, E5800, E6300, E6500, E6600, E6700 Pentium G9650	Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600 Phenom X3 8850, 8750 Athlon II X2 265, 260, 255, 370K A6-5500K A4-7300, 6400K, 6300, 5400K, 5300, 4400, 4000, 3400, 3300 Athlon 64 X2 6400+
Core 2 Duo E4700, E4600, E6600, E4500, E6420 Pentium Dual-Core E5400, E5300, E5200, G620T	Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e Phenom X3 8650, 8600, 8550, 8450e, 8450, 8400, 8250e Athlon II X2 240, 245, 250 Athlon X2 7850, 7750 Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+
Core 2 Duo E4400, E4300, E6400, E6320 Celeron E3300	Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e Athlon X2 7550, 7450, 5050e, 4850e/b Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 5200+, 5000+, 4800+
Core 2 Duo E5500, E6300 Pentium Dual-Core E2220, E2200, E2210 Celeron E3200	Athlon X2 6550, 6500, 4450e/b, Athlon X2 4600+, 4400+, 4200+, BE-2400
Pentium Dual-Core E2180 Celeron E1600, G440	Athlon 64X 2 4000+, 3800+ Athlon X2 4050e, BE-2300
Pentium Dual-Core E2160, E2140 Celeron E1500, E1400, E1200

Currently our table consists of 13 levels. The bottom half of the list is mostly no longer relevant: these chips will demonstrate insufficient performance in modern games, regardless of the installed video card. If your CPU belongs to this half of the list, then the upgrade will really increase your enjoyment of the games.

In fact, only chips in the top five tiers can be considered suitable for gaming today. And in this upper part of the table, the meaning of an upgrade only appears if you choose CPU at least two levels higher. Otherwise, the improvements won't be enough to justify the cost of a new CPU, motherboard and memory, not to mention the graphics card and storage drives that you'll also be considering replacing.