Compare amd and amd processors – Intel vs AMD processors: Anyone who decides to assemble a stationary computer for himself always starts with the choice of the processor, because this is the heart of the computer and everything depends on this choice. At the moment, there are only two companies on the market that produce processors for ordinary users, these are AMD and Intel. So what should you choose? To answer this question, you need to consider all the pros and cons of the processors of these companies.
|Core i7-980X EE(3.33 GHz, 130 W, 6 x 256 KB L2, 12 MB L3 cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)|
|Core i7-975 EE(3.33 GHz, 130 W, 4 x 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)|
|Core i7-965 EE(3.2 GHz, 130 W, 4 x 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 Cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)|
|Core i7-950(3.06 GHz, 130 W, 4 x 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)|
|Core i7-940(2.93 GHz, 130 W, 4 x 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)|
|Core i7-870(2.93 GHz, 95 W, 4 × 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 Cache, HT, Socket LGA1156)|
|Core i7-930(2.8 GHz, 130 W, 4 x 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 Cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)||Phenom II X6 1090T ‘Black Edition’(3.2 GHz, 125 W, 6 × 512 KB L2 Cache and 6 MB L3 Cache, HT)|
|Core i7-860(2.8 GHz, 95 W, 4 × 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 Cache, HT, Socket LGA1156)|
|Core i7-920(2.66 GHz, 130 W, 4 x 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 cache, HT, Socket LGA1366)|
|Core i5-750(2.66 GHz, 95 W, 4 × 256 KB L2, 8 MB L3 cache, Socket LGA1156)||Phenom II X6 1055T(2.8 GHz, 125 W, 6 × 512 KB L2 Cache and 6 MB L3 Cache, HT)|
|Core 2 Extreme QX9775(3.2 GHz, 150 W, 12 MB L2-cache, FSB 1600 MHz, installed in pairs in ‘Skulltrail’ Socket 771 motherboards)|
|Core 2 Extreme QX9770(3.2 GHz, 136 W, 12 MB L2 Cache, 1600 MHz FSB)|
|Core 2 Extreme QX9650(3 GHz, 130 W, 12 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)|
|Core 2 Quad Q9650(3 GHz, 130 W, 12 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 965 ‘Black Edition’(3.4 GHz, 125 W, 2 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Extreme QX6850(3.0 GHz, 130 W, 8 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)|
|Core 2 Extreme QX6800(2.93 GHz, 130 W, 8 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)|
|Core i5-660 (* 661)(3.33 GHz, 73 (* 87) W, 256 × 2 KB L2, 4 MB L3 cache, HT, Socket LGA1156)|
|Core 2 Duo Е8600(3.33 GHz, 65 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)|
|Core i5-650(3.2 GHz, 73 W, 256 × 2 KB L2 Cache, 4 MB L3 Cache, HT, Socket LGA1156)|
|Core 2 Quad Q9550(2.83 GHz, 95 W, 12 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 955 ‘Black Edition’(3.2GHz 125W, 2MB L2 cache and 6MB L3 cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Quad Q9505(2.83 GHz, 95 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 945(3.0GHz 125W, 2MB L2 Cache, 6MB L3 Cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Quad Q9450(2.66 GHz, 95 W, 12 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 940 ‘Black Edition’(3.0GHz 125W, 2MB L2 cache and 6MB L3 cache, 3600MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Quad Q9400(2.66 GHz, 95 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 925(2.8 GHz, 95 W, 2 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core i3-540(3.06 GHz, 73 W, 256 × 2 KB L2 Cache, 4 MB L3 Cache, HT, Socket LGA1156)|
|Core 2 Duo E8500(3.16 GHz, 65 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 920(2.8 GHz, 125 W, 2 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Quad Q8400(2.66 GHz, 95 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X3 720(2.8 GHz, 95 W, 1.5 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Quad Q9300(2.5 GHz, 95 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X4 810(2.6GHz 95W, 2MB L2 cache and 4MB L3 cache, 3600MHz HT)|
|Core i3-530(2.93 GHz, 73 W, 256 × 2 KB L2 Cache, 4 MB L3 Cache, NT, Socket LGA1156)|
|Core 2 Duo E8400(3.0 GHz, 65 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom II X3 710(2.6 GHz, 95 W, 1.5 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E8300(2.83 GHz, 65 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)|
|Core 2 Quad Q6700(2.66 GHz, 95 W, 8 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)|
|Core 2 Duo E6850(3.0 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)|
|Core 2 Quad Q8300(2.5 GHz, 95 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Athlon II X4 635(2.9 GHz, 95 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Quad Q6600(2.4 GHz, 95 W, 8 MB L2 cache, FSB 1066 MHz)|
|Core 2 Quad Q8200(2.33 GHz, 95 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Athlon II X4 630|
|Core 2 Duo E7600(3.06 GHz, 65 W, 3 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon II X4 620(2.6 GHz, 95 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E7500(2.93 GHz, 65 W, 3 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Phenom II X2 555(3.2 GHz, 80 W, 1 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Athlon II X3 440(3.0GHz, 65W, 1.5MB L2 Cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Pentium G6950(2.8 GHz, 73 W, 2 × 256 KB L2 Cache, 3 MB L3 Cache, Socket LGA1156)||Phenom II X2 550 ‘Black Edition’(3.1 GHz, 80 W, 1 MB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Athlon II X3 435(2.9 GHz, 65 W, 1.5 MB L2 Cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E7400(2.8 GHz, 65 W, 3 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Phenom II X2 545(3.0GHz 80W, 1MB L2 cache and 6MB L3 cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E8200(2.66 GHz, 65 W, 6 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Athlon II X3 425(2.7 GHz, 65 W, 1.5 MB L2 Cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Extreme X6800(2.93 GHz, 90 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon II X2 255(3.1GHz, 65W, 2MB L2 Cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E7300(2.66 GHz, 65 W, 3 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon II X2 250(3.0GHz, 65W, 2MB L2 Cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6750(2.66 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Phenom X4 9950 ‘Black Edition’(2.6GHz 140W, 2MB L2 Cache & 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Athlon X2 7850 ‘Black Edition’(2.8 GHz, 95 W, 1 MB L2 cache and 2 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E7200(2.53 GHz, 65 W, 3 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon X2 7750(2.7 GHz, 95 W, 1 MB L2 cache and 2 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E6500(2.93 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon II X2 245(2.9GHz, 65W, 2MB L2 Cache, 4000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6700(2.66 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Phenom X4 9850 ‘Black Edition’(2.5GHz 125W, 2MB L2 Cache & 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E6300(2.8 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon II X2 240(2.8 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 4000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6550(2.33 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1333 MHz)||Athlon X2 6400+(3.2GHz, 125W, 2MB L2 Cache, 2000MHz HT)|
|Pentium E5400(2.7 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon II X2 215(2.7GHz, 65W, 1MB L2 Cache, 3600MHz HT)|
|Pentium E5300(2.6 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)|
|Core 2 Duo E4700(2.6 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 7550(2.5 GHz, 95 W, 1 MB L2 cache and 2 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E5200(2.5 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 7450(2.4 GHz, 95 W, 1 MB L2 cache and 2 MB L3 cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6600(2.4 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)|
|Athlon X2 6000+ ‘Black Edition’(3.0GHz 125W, 2MB L2 Cache, 2000MHz HT)|
|Phenom X4 9750(2.4GHz 95W, 2MB L2 Cache & 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Phenom X3 8750(2.4GHz 95W, 1.5MB L2 Cache & 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Phenom X4 9650(2.3GHz 95W, 2MB L2 Cache & 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E4600(2.4 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 800 MHz)||
Athlon X2 5800+(Mod 1: 3.0 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 cache, 2000 MHz HT
Mod 2: 2.9 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 cache, 2000 MHz HT)
|Core 2 Duo E6420(2.13 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Phenom X4 9550(2.2GHz 95W, 2MB L2 Cache and 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6400(2.13 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Phenom X3 8650(2.3 GHz 95 W, 1.5 MB L2 Cache and 2 MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Phenom X3 8450(2.1 GHz 95 W, 1.5 MB L2 Cache and 2 MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E2220(2.4 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||
Athlon X2 5600+(Mod 1: 2.8 GHz, 89 W, 2 MB L2 cache, 2000 MHz HT
Mod 2: 2.9 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 cache, 2000 MHz HT)
|Core 2 Duo E4500(2.2 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 800 MHz)||Athlon X2 5400+(2.8 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E2210(2.2 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Phenom X4 9350e(2.0GHz 65W, 2MB L2 Cache & 2MB L3 Cache, 3600 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E2200(2.2 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||
Athlon X2 5200+(Mod 1: 2.6 GHz, 89 W, 2 MB L2 cache, 2000 MHz HT
Mod 2: 2.7 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 cache, 2000 MHz HT
Mod 3: 2.6 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2- cache, 2000 MHz HT)
|Core 2 Duo E4400(2.0 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 800 MHz)||Athlon X2 5000+ ‘Black Edition’(2.6 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6320(1.87 GHz, 65 W, 4 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Phenom X4 9150e(1.8 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache and 2 MB L3 Cache, 3200 MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E6300(1.87 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, FSB 1066 MHz)||Athlon X2 4800+(2.5GHz, 65W, 1MB L2 Cache, 2000MHz HT)|
|Core 2 Duo E4300(1.8 GHz, 65 W, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)|
|Pentium E2180(2.0 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, FSB 800 MHz)||Athlon X2 4600+(2.4GHz, 65W, 1MB L2 Cache, 2000MHz HT)|
|Celeron E3300(2.5 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 4400+(2.3 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Celeron E3200(2.4 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 BE-2400(2.3 GHz, 45 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E2160(1.8 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 4200+(2.2GHz, 65W, 1MB L2 Cache, 2000MHz HT)|
|Celeron G440 (LGA1155)(1.6GHz 35W Cache: L1 64KB, L2 256KB, L3 1MB, DDR3-1066)|
|Celeron E1600(2.4GHz, 65W, 512KB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 BE-2350(2.1 GHz, 45 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Celeron E1500(2.2GHz, 65W, 512KB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 4000+(2.1 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Pentium E2140(1.6 GHz, 65 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 3800+(2.0GHz, 65W, 1MB L2 Cache, 2000MHz HT)|
|Celeron E1400(2.0GHz, 65W, 512KB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)||Sempron X2 2300(2.2GHz 65W 512KB L2 Cache 1600MHz HT)|
|Athlon X2 3600+(2.0GHz 65W 512KB L2 Cache 2000MHz HT)|
|Celeron E1200(1.6GHz, 65W, 512KB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB)||Athlon X2 BE-2300(1.9 GHz, 45 W, 1 MB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz HT)|
|Sempron X2 2100(1.8GHz, 65W, 512KB L2 Cache, 1600MHz HT)|
Difference between AMD and Intel processors. Comparison and differences
For starters, AMD processors. Their main advantage over their competitors is the price. On average, AMD processors cost one and a half, or even two times cheaper than similar processors from Intel. Second, but not less important, is the performance of the video card built into the processor, if there is one, of course. In this component, AMD is giving 10 points a head start to its main competitor, and if a desktop computer does not have a discrete graphics card, then this can be a decisive factor.
In addition, AMD has a number of budget processors, even by the standards of the company itself, that are quite powerful even in modern realities. Of course, they will not have a built-in video card, but for options with an external video card, they will fit perfectly. An example of such a processor is the eight-core FX-8150 with a clock speed of 4.0 GHz, which is very cheap for its characteristics, about $ 250. For comparison, about the same processor from Intel will cost an average of $ 400-500. This is where the pluses end, the minuses begin. The main ones are power consumption and heat dissipation. The aforementioned processor from AMD consumes 125 watts per hour, which is twice as much as a similar processor from Intel. Besides, this monster needs a good cooling system. The one that comes with the processor sometimes cannot cope with the load, because of which the computer just shuts down by itself. Thus, choosing an AMD processor, you need to be prepared for the fact that electricity bills will increase, and the computer will run louder.
Intel has followed the path of continuous development of its processors. This is the reason for the higher cost of processors. However, in terms of technology, Intel has always been ahead of its competitors. More than 80% of all processors sold now belong to this particular company, which means that people are willing to overpay for the sake of greater reliability and comfort. Except for the price, these processors have no flaws. They consume little energy, they generate little heat, thanks to which even after a year the fan will still work very quietly. In addition, it should be noted that Intel has a lot more variety in its selection. You can choose a very budget processor, and it will work off the money invested in it like a clock.
In general, it should be admitted that in recent years Intel has established itself in a dominant position in the market for selling processors, but with limited financial resources, you should still opt for AMD.
Read also: http://raznic.ru/121-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7.html
Which Processor Is Better than INTEL or AMD Processor Comparison |
When choosing a laptop or desktop computer model, many users are faced with the following problem, which processor model is the best and which processor should be in the computer in order for its configuration to be optimal. This article will help you make your choice.
The central processing unit is the key device in any computer system. Many novice users call the system unit a processor, thus actually calling a computer a processor. Of course, such a judgment is extremely naive, but there is definitely a little bit of truth in it. After all, the processor is the main computing device of the computer, which reads data and executes programs. That is why when buying a new personal computer or laptop, choosing a processor and carefully studying its characteristics should be the first thing you do.
The choice of processor, first of all, depends on the requirements of a potential computer user and depends on what you plan to use the computer for, for games, as an office computer or as a multimedia center. This will wholly depend on the configuration of the computer in general and the technical parameters of the processor in particular.
When choosing processors, you will be limited to the two brands AMD and Intel. However, these brands offer a large number of models that can satisfy the needs of any PC user. The average user finds that the processor market is actually represented by two brands, and is immersed in deep thoughts such as the following: which brand will best suit my needs? Which brand has better processors? Why is Intel so much more expensive? Etc.
In general, which is better – AMD or Intel? Let’s compare Intel and AMD processors, and you will decide for yourself.
AMD or Intel
Although Intel has dominated the market for the highest performing processors lately, its models are quite expensive. AMD is inferior to Intel in terms of technological innovation, but at the same time occupies a significant market share due to the good performance of the processors and at the same time the rather budgetary cost of its processor models.
So let’s take a look at the lineup of both brands and see what products these companies offer.
When AMD released its new line of FX series processors (FX-8150, FX-8120, FX-6100 and FX-4100), many were breathtaking at the functionality of the new microarchitecture called Bulldozer. However, very quickly, enthusiasm gave way to disappointment, the new AMD processors in the tests showed not so high computing power, which was expected of them. Bulldozer is a completely new architecture, not an upgrade or enhancement to any previous AMD line of processors. The publicity and hype surrounding the FX series generated some pretty high expectations. Let’s face it, even before its launch, they had already reached sky-high heights. However, as soon as the FX series was launched, it received very conflicting reviews from both IT experts and professionals and ordinary users. The FX-8150 was not considered otherwise, as a major commercial failure for AMD. Some experts even claim that its benchmark performance is less than that of AMD’s Phenom II X6 when the latter is running at a lower clock speed.
The multi-threading performance of the FX-8150 is about the same as that of the Phenom II X6. Indeed, the situation turned out to be rather bad, at a price that is higher than that of Intel Core i5 2500K with ambiguous performance, inferior to Core i5 in almost all criteria, AMD FX-8150 can cause nothing but disappointment. In addition, the FX series of processors are known to consume a lot of power when overclocked.
AMD announced the release of its second generation Bulldozer processors by the end of Q1 2012. The second generation of Bulldozer’s core architecture, codenamed Piledriver, is expected to have improved performance in all kinds of tests. The second generation of the FX series processors should have at least 25% more performance even under heavy multimedia congestion. The latest Opteron series, designed for use on servers, is expected to deliver high performance and cost-effective performance.
AMD’s strategy is understandable, if the company manages to reduce the rather high power consumption in its processors, while increasing the performance and at the same time keeping the prices for its models rather low, then Intel will face rather stiff competition.
Thanks to the new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture on which the new processor lineup is based (Core i5 and Core i7, however, these processors should not be confused with Intel processors with the same names, but based on an older microarchitecture), which were released in the second half 2012), Intel maintains leadership in the design and manufacture of the highest performing processors. The direct successor to Sandy Bridge, the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture has even lower power consumption than the previous generation. At the same time, the latest generation has an excellent integrated graphics processor, the highest computing speed, which makes it a dream for any user who is forced to work with “heavy” high-resource programs.
Simply put, those of you using Sandy Bridge processors will appreciate the Ivy Bridge architecture – which has the same performance but uses less power.
You will also appreciate the excellent multimedia qualities of the graphics core of the Ivy Bridge processors, which have been significantly enhanced over the processors belonging to the older generations of Intel microarchitecture. Intel processors are still priced higher than AMD models, but considering the high functionality and performance and low power consumption, you won’t regret the money spent.
How are Intel processors different from AMD processors?
Quite recently, the issue of competition between Intel and AMD processors was actively discussed by those interested: gamers and overclockers were ready to defend their preferences in network wars, all processor lines from both manufacturers were run on test benches. Today, with the development of the mobile electronics segment, in which processors from both Intel and AMD are very poorly represented, the relevance of the comparison has become a thing of the past. However, you can still hear advice on choosing one or another manufacturer, sometimes completely categorical. The user who purchases the system in assembly or independently carries out the upgrade, still does not know what to give preference to. While the differences between Intel and AMD processors are far from obvious, knowing the main comparison points can help you optimize your system.
- Identifying Intel and AMD Processors
- Comparison of Intel and AMD processors
- The difference between Intel processors and AMD processors
Identifying Intel and AMD Processors
Intel processors are microprocessors manufactured by the American corporation Intel, which are used in portable and stationary personal computers. Today they occupy about 80% of the market, several lines are considered relevant, models of which demonstrate varying degrees of performance.
AMD processors are microprocessors manufactured by the American corporation Advanced Micro Devices. They are used in stationary and portable systems. AMD does not independently manufacture components, but only develops and orders from third-party manufacturers. Today the market share of AMD processors is about 20%.
Comparison of Intel and AMD processors
What is the difference between Intel and AMD processors? The fundamental difference between Intel and AMD processors is the sockets, or sockets, into which they are installed. In this case, there is no compromise cross-platform, and there cannot be, so for a certain motherboard with a given set of characteristics, the choice between manufacturers is not worth it. Today for AMD, AM3, AM3 + sockets, as well as sockets for a processor with an integrated graphics core FM1 and FM2 are relevant. Intel today offers processors for LGA 1155/1156 and LGA 2011 sockets. If processors for AM3 + are compatible with AM3, then LGA does not imply a replacement option.It is worth noting that the relevance is very relative, since it concerns only the sale of the corresponding components in Russian stores, and not production.
The many models of processor lines from both manufacturers with very different characteristics do not allow comparing Intel and AMD in terms of the performance of their products. In the budget segment, represented today by processors with integrated graphics (considered as a solution for mobile systems), AMD with the Trinity line turns out to be cheaper (at the same clock speeds) than the younger generation Sandy Bridge from Intel. Avoiding a discrete graphics card is a real way to save money on office and home systems that do not run resource-demanding applications. If the cost criterion is not the main one, then Sandy Bridge wins somewhat in performance, primarily due to the larger volume of the third-level cache. The next generation Ivy Bridge already outperforms Trinity in terms of processing power, even when comparing dual-core and quad-core models, respectively. The graphics cores of the hybrid processors are more powerful from AMD, so Trinity or the cheapest Llano can be recommended for a budget gaming system.
If the user plans to set serious tasks for his system, for example, video processing, then AMD Vishera (FX) processors, thanks to their optimized work with multiple threads, outperform even the top Core i7 in tests. The price difference is around $ 130, so the benefit in AMD’s offering is clear.
As for power consumption, which can be a serious selection criterion for an overclocker, AMD’s line of processors cannot boast of economy: even mobile Trinities produce immodest 65 watts.
The difference between Intel processors and AMD processors
- AMD processors, apart from APUs, are compatible with AM3 and AM3 + sockets, Intel processors require installation in one type of LGA socket.
- AMD processors are cheaper while maintaining the basic specifications.
- Intel processors show better computing performance in benchmarks
- AMD APU graphics are more powerful.
- AMD Next Generation (FX) processors are optimized for multithreading.
- Intel processors are more energy efficient.
Call or leave a request directly on the site! Our experts will be happy to help you!
Comparison of Intel and AMD processors
There are long-standing disputes about which processor is better, AMD or Intel, in which no unambiguous solution has been found. This is because processors work differently. Their performance and architecture differ. Therefore, the processor should take into account its rating number.
To begin with, it’s worth making a comparison of Intel processors, which have occupied the top lines in the ratings over the past few years. The top-end is the new Intel Core i7-3770X model for Socket LGA1155, the cores of which are called Ivy Bridge. It has become a tradition to supply the oldest processor with unlocked multipliers. This allows overclocking enthusiasts to get creative freedom. The Core i5-3570K processor has a lower frequency (by 100 MHz), and its main difference is the absence of hyper-threading, which is important for solving tasks such as rendering. Making a similar comparison of Intel processors, we can conclude that there are devices in their line that satisfy any wallet and taste. Moreover, the creation of new Intel models does not make major changes to the microarchitecture. Therefore, old and new processors are similar in internal structure and frequency. On the other hand, the power consumption has significantly decreased: 77 W versus 95 W. The memory frequency has changed to a more advantageous side, which now amounts to 1600 MHz. Previously, only the most powerful processors for LGA 2011 had it.
As a result, performance comparison of Intel processors leads to the following results. New – Core i7-3770X turned out to be faster than the previous generation processor – Core i7-2600K, which has a lower frequency (100 MHz). The new model has a higher overclocking potential due to its lower TDP. Therefore, the Core i7-3770X is perfect for a home computer, copes with tasks such as office applications and games, but loses in rendering images in three-dimensional graphics. But even this will be within the power of a beginner, if overclocked, and its eight threads will cope with the task no worse than the twelve threads that the Core i7-3960X has.
Processor performance can be judged by the time taken to complete one task. For example, converting a WAV file to MP3 format. This comparison of Intel processors leads to unexpected results. The Core i5-760, released three years ago, handles the operation faster. AMD processors perform well, which in all other respects are far inferior to Intel. The presence of a large number of threads played a bad trick on the Core i7-3770X. But when other tasks, the threads that turned out to be superfluous do not interfere, and in some cases even help.
There have been major changes with the integrated graphics. Thus, the comparison of Intel processors leads to the fact that the number of pipelines in the graphics processors of the new models has increased. From twelve in the GMA HD 3000 to sixteen in the GMA HD 4000 in the top new models that support DirectX 11. The latter is not suitable for games, since the integrated graphics are weak and the GPU is more suitable for computing tasks. But the very increase in pipelines affects performance. However, in the new models, the GPU has a lower frequency than the previous generation processors.
Before comparing AMD and Intel processors, it is necessary to dwell on the first in more detail. AMD has higher performance than Intel, this is due to the peculiarities of its architecture. Paying attention to the rating number of such a processor as AMD Athlon 3200+, we can conclude that its performance is equal to that of Intel P4, whose frequency is 3200 MHz. With the same performance, AMD processors are cheaper than Intel. Both firms produce processors with the same reliability and security. The only difference is the tasks for which they are intended. For example, Intel processors do an excellent job with computer-aided design and visualization programs. AMD processors are suitable for those users who are addicted to computer games.
Comparison of AMD or INTEL processors. What’s better?
The rivalry between AMD and INTEL processors has been going on for many years, and the heated debate over the advantages of one of them over the other has long been a surprise. But, nevertheless, the question remains unresolved. Let’s try and look at this dispute from an objective point of view, taking for comparison a number of important characteristics of these devices.
When it comes to saving a couple of dozen dollars, AMD has always been ahead. The pricing policy of the manufacturer producing this brand of processors has not changed and continues to be loyal to its consumer. Their components can be safely attributed to the middle or even economy class. For INTEL, the slogan “Expensive means high quality” determined the vector of development of the company itself, and often unreasonably high prices indicate an orientation towards a wealthy buyer.
The main characteristics of any processor will be its performance, speed of calculations, and the number of operations performed per unit of time. The network has a table of processor performance with a detailed comparison of AMD and INTEL indicators according to various kinds of parameters. AMD really demonstrates its extraordinary talent for keeping the “golden mean” in terms of price-quality ratio, while INTEL has a slightly better performance than its direct competitor in the market. Although, the leading position of the latter is most likely explained by the fact that the developers of the application and games are pre-configured to optimize their product specifically for this brand of processors.
Energy consumption and heat dissipation
The most important criterion for netbook and laptop lovers. The lower the energy consumption, the longer the device will work without recharging. And regarding overheating, it is undesirable in any case, which can lead to emergency shutdowns of the computer, interruptions in its operation, freezing and component breakdowns.
In this field, INTEL has a significant advantage. AMD, on the other hand, get quite hot, require a good, or even additional, cooling system, careful selection of a motherboard, video card and, of course, a powerful power supply.
But, it should be noted that the balance of forces in these parameters between competing processors is gradually leveled out. Intel Core i5 and i7 still look like black sheep among their congeners, as they managed to catch up with AMD’s flagships and even surpassed them in power consumption by 5 watts.
It is difficult to give an advantage to one of the manufacturers. Both companies conduct timely monitoring of the opinions of consumers of their products and promptly eliminate shortcomings. INTEL’s market dominance is due to professional marketing activities and successful advertising campaigns. According to statistics, in 95% of cases in computer stores, the buyer is advised by INTEL, relying solely on the stereotypical opinion about its superiority.
It was this situation that forced AMD to cut prices, not the lack of competitiveness of the products. Owners of laptops do not have much to choose and they are forced to lean towards INTEL, while users of personal computers are free in their choice, depending on their needs and ability to pay.
Intel vs. AMD. Comparison of AMD and Intel processors
When it comes to the processor, there are only two major players in the market: Intel and AMD. You may have seen the information that Intel is better, and the next day, another post that is better than AMD. Let’s do some research comparing Intel and AMD processors.
Confused … which one is better? AMD or Intel?
Both AMD and Intel are processors built on different circuits (architectures) and therefore it is difficult to compare them. If you ask me which one is better, I will tell you that both are equally good and your choice depends entirely on your needs and preferences.
Below we will discuss the unique features of each processor.
If you noticed, Intel’s speed will always be faster than AMD’s. Be careful, this does not mean that Intel processors are better.
High speed means it does more work cycles per second, rather than more work done per second. Intel processors tend to divide their task into many smaller parts for easier handling. Therefore, the amount of work done per cycle is relatively small. Unlike AMD, it has a lower duty cycle, but processes more data per clock cycle. Thus, when he sums up the amount of work done, it turns out to be quite large.
Comparative analysis of the efficiency of each AMD and Intel processor is not a good idea, because we cannot say with 100% certainty that a particular Intel model is better than another model from AMD just because it has a higher clock speed.
The main reason why you cannot use AMD and Intel processors on the same board is that they have different PIN configurations. Due to the different circuitry, the number of connecting pins for processors is also different. Even with the same brand, different models may use different pin configurations.
AMD’s new generation chips have 938 pins and use the AM3 socket. The Intel chip (new generation) has 1366 pins and uses the LGA1366 socket on the motherboard. Thus, when choosing a processor, it is important to keep in mind the type of socket on your motherboard.
When comparing Intel and AMD processors in roughly the same category, AMD processors will always be cheaper (probably because Intel uses L2 / L3 cache in their processors. Cache memory allows the processor to store the most frequently used data in the processor itself for faster access . In turn, AMD has integrated a memory controller into the processor to reduce data acquisition time, which allowed AMD to bridge the performance gap between the two.) If you want to save money without sacrificing performance, then you need a processor from AMD.
After AMD acquired ATI, they began integrating graphics processing capabilities into the processor core, and the effort paid off. If you are using an AMD chip for gaming, you usually get better graphics performance compared to an equivalent chip from Intel (if you are using an ATI graphics card).
When it comes to multitasking, Intel has the edge with its HyperTreading technology. However, this benefit only works if the software / application supports multitasking (the ability to split your tasks into smaller parts).
In general, for similar models, Intel has slightly higher performance than AMD (only for processors in the high price range, this rule does not always work for cheap and mid-range processors). If you need a gaming processor, a combination of AMD processor and ATI graphics card will give you better performance than an equivalent processor from Intel.