Cheap dual-core processors: AMD Athlon X2 vs Intel Pentium. Which is better than Intel or AMD

Assembling a computer can be very difficult, especially if you are inexperienced in such tasks. There are a myriad of components you can use, but it is important to choose compatible components that will give you the best performance.

The central processor is one of the most important components of a computer, and this is where all calculations are performed. It controls the operation of all other components, so it is important to choose the correct option. At the moment, devices from two manufacturers are available to you: AMD or Intel processor. These companies make virtually every PC processor in the world. But they are quite different from each other. In this article, we will look at how these processors differ so that you can choose which processor is better than amd or intel in 2016.

Before diving into the detailed specs of the processor and technology, let's get back to basics and see how both companies got their start.

Intel appeared a little earlier than AMD, it was created by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore in 1968. Initially, the company was engaged in the development of integrated circuits, then it was engaged in the production of processors. The first processor was the Intel 8008 model. Back in the 90s, the company became the largest processor manufacturer. And he still continues to invent and introduce new technologies.

Oddly enough, AMD or Advanced Micro Devices was created with the support of Intel. The company was founded a year later - in 1969 and its goal was to develop microcircuits for computers. At first, Intel supported AMD, for example, by providing licenses for the use of technologies, as well as financially, but then their relationship deteriorated and the companies became direct competitors. Now let's move on to the processors themselves and their characteristics.

Price and performance

Both Intel and AMD offer processors in a wide price range. But AMD processors are cheaper. The cheapest are AMD Sempron and Athlon, these A-series dual-core processors start at $ 30. The Intel Celeron G1820 dual-core processor is slightly more expensive at $ 45. But that doesn't mean that AMD's chips are definitely better. Intel is known to provide better performance for the same price. You get a more powerful processor if you choose Intel's Celeron, Pentium, or Core. If we compare amd and intel 2016, then the former consume less energy, generate less heat, and higher performance has been confirmed by many tests.

But there are a few exceptions to this rule, AMD sells quad-core processors much cheaper than Intel, for example, you can get the A6-5400K for as little as $ 45. If you are using software that needs a lot of cores but cannot afford an Intel Core i5, then AMD is a better option for you. The same is true for the eight-core AMD FX series processors, they are much cheaper than the Intel Core i7.

AMD chips also provide the best integrated graphics cards. For example, the AMD A10-7870K allows you to play most games in low details and resolutions up to 1080p. Of course, this is not a gaming card, but it beats all Intel HD Graphics cards, so if you want to play on a budget device then AMD is the best choice.

Overclocking the processor

Most processors have a fixed clock speed and it is set at a level that ensures that the processor will run the most stable and longest possible. Users who want more performance overclock the processor by increasing its frequency.

AMD supports overclocking much better than Intel. You can overclock cheap processors for $ 45 or more expensive ones for $ 100. As for Intel, here you can overclock processors of only one category - Pentium, for $ 70. It is well suited for this task and can be overclocked from a base frequency of 3.2 GHz to 4.5 GHz. AMD processors, FX series with a frequency of 5 GHz, support overclocking up to 13 GHz, although this requires special cooling.

In fact, budget Intel processors are not designed for overclocking, but AMD is quite suitable. If you are looking to overclock AMD is a great choice. There are several high-end Intel chips with eight or ten cores. They are much faster than AMD chips. But AMD has a lot of power headroom, so they dominate overclocking. You won't find anything faster for home use.

Gaming performance

Gaming is one of the most basic areas where you need a powerful processor. AMD has several processors that come with an integrated ATI Radeon graphics card. They offer excellent value for money. Intel also has such solutions, but if we compare intel and amd processors, then its performance is lower.

But there is one problem, AMD processors are not as fast as Intel, and if you compare AMD vs Intel, then Intel can behave better in heavy games. Intel Core i5 and i7 will perform much better in games if you use a good external graphics card. The difference between amd and intel processors is that Intel can produce 30-40 more frames per second.

Energy efficiency

The confrontation between AMD and Intel, or rather, AMD's attempts to keep up with Intel is much worse than it looks. Both companies are holding up well, but the processors should use a lot less power. Let's try to compare intel vs amd processors.

For example, Intel Pentium G3258 consumes 53 watts, the same is consumed by A6-7400K from AMD. Nevertheless, in the tests, the Intel chip is faster in many aspects, sometimes by a wide margin. This means that the chip from Intel will run faster with less power, so AMD will generate more heat and, as a result, generate more noise.

If the question is which processor is better than amd or intel for a laptop, then energy efficiency is even more important, because it directly affects battery life. Intel processors last longer, but Intel hasn't pushed AMD out of the laptop market. AMD processors with integrated graphics are found on laptops over $ 500.

conclusions

AMD and Intel have been fighting for two decades, but Intel has begun to gain the upper hand in the past few years. The new Pentium processors have slowly ousted AMD at various price points.

If you're on a budget, then Intel is obviously the best solution. This will hold true if your budget allows you to purchase an Intel Core i5. AMD can't compete with Intel for performance, at least not yet.

If your budget is small, then perhaps you should look towards AMD, here the performance loss is compensated by the increase in the number of cores. Such processors cope with some operations faster, for example, AMD encodes video faster.

If we compare intel and amd processors in 2016, then Intel are more energy efficient, therefore they produce less heat and noise. For a regular computer, these features are not so important, but for a laptop, efficiency is very important.

But with AMD all is not lost, in 2017, the company is going to release a new architecture - Zen. According to the available information, it is very promising. If you still want to buy AMD, then it is worth waiting for the release of Zen.

Thus, the Intel processor is better than AMD, but in some situations the latter can perform excellently and overtake Intel. For the Linux operating system, the manufacturer of the processor does not really matter. This is exactly the component that is fully supported by the kernel. And which processor to choose AMD or Intel in 2016, in your opinion? Which is better amd or intel? Which one would you choose? Write in the comments!

To complete the video from 16 bit ago about the history of Intel vs AMD:

Buying or assembling a computer on your own, most often they pay attention to the hard disk, the amount of RAM and the central processor. The CPU is responsible for the performance and stability of the entire system, and all basic computations are performed in it. Processors from Intel and AMD are available to the common user. Their architecture is very different, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Intel was founded by Robert Noyce in 1968. And they started with the Intel 8008 microprocessor. Now the company is actively promoting the latest developments and is a leader in the development of processors.

Their direct competitor AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) appeared a year later with the participation of Intel. At first, she was engaged in the production of microprocessors, but relations with Intel deteriorated and the companies fled. Since then, they have been eternal rivals in the computer microprocessor market.

Intel chips - expensive and fast

To date, crystals of this brand are leading in all respects. They are available in the budget Pentium and Celeron versions for the LGA1151 universal socket and the top-end i7 for the LGA2011-v3 socket.

Intel pros

1. Stable performance under any load and high performance in an active application (archiver, graphics editor, game).
2. Optimized for many modern games, so performance and frames per second will be higher than that of a similar AMD.
3. Good overclocking potential.
4. Debugged technology of multithreading and virtualization.
5. The work of the processor memory at the lower levels is very good.
6. Low power consumption and operating temperature.

disadvantages

1. The price even for basic models is higher than AMD counterparts, the cost of i3, i5, i7, i9 models is very high.
2. Frequent change of sockets for a crystal connector and their non-interchangeability - to install a powerful processor, you will need to change the motherboard.
3. Sensitive to cooling, especially during overclocking.

On a note! Intel processors do not lose their technical characteristics even after 3-5 years, when a new line or computer game is released. The old ones continue to do their job well and do not strain the PC user.

Interesting video on the comparison of Intel and AMD processors

AMD processors - catch up and overtake

AMD is doing well, and in some niches they are treading on Intel's heels. The strongest position is in the segment of inexpensive crystals.

Advantages

To date, their strengths are as follows:

1. Excellent cost / performance ratio, the price for the processor is 1.5-2 times lower than that of competitors.
2. Multiplatformity has been successfully solved, when almost the entire line of processors can be installed on the popular AM2 + and AM3 sockets.
3. The number of physical cores in a die is greater than that of a similar one from Intel, so work with several applications at once is well implemented.
4. All series have high overclocking potential.

Weaknesses of AMD Crystals

1. Multithreading in the kernels is not fully debugged, there are problems in the work of powerful graphics editors - AutoCad, Illustrator, Compass 3D and other programs.
2. Poorly interacts with RAM.
3. High power consumption and the need for a powerful cooler, prone to strong heating with a standard cooling system.

CPU overclocking and power consumption

All manufacturers set the clock speed at a level that will allow the processor to work as long and reliably as possible. Users for whom this is not enough are engaged in an artificial increase in the number of operations per second, overclocking the microchip.

In overclocking, AMD devices have always been in the lead. Even the base A series model for RUR 1400 lends itself to overclocking, and FX processors can reach frequencies of 13 GHz. It is imperative with such a procedure to replace them with more productive ones.

Intel can only overclock the Pentium line. He lends itself well to this operation and can increase his performance by 20-25%. Modern Core models with chips of 8 or 10 cores noticeably outperform powerful chips from AMD in performance. Overclocking somewhat equalizes the situation, but Intel is in the lead in terms of the sum of indicators.

AMD chips are used to produce the best embedded graphics cards that outperform Intel's HD Graphics series. A6 processors are an excellent budget solution for multitasking processes, and with proper overclocking, they correspond to the i5 indicators, but will be 2 times cheaper.

Let's compare power consumption using the example of popular chips. Intel Pentium G3258 and A6-7400K have the same power - 53 watts, but Intel performs better in graphics tests. This indicates its efficient operation with less heat, but the AMD processor in similar conditions has a much harder time, and the cooling system is forced to work at maximum.

The same situation applies to all AMD chips - they consume more power and get hotter. For this reason, they are rarely used in applications where battery life is important.

Video - AMD vs. Intel: Which Is Better?

Choosing a processor

Recently, Intel has strongly pushed its competitor in all segments. Even AMD's transition to the new Zen architecture does not help, but there are segments where they are still very strong. The approximate choice of processor for a personal computer can be divided into 3 groups:

1. The first group is budget models. Any inexpensive chip from Intel or AMD can be used (Athlon, Sempron, A4). The difference in performance between them will be negligible, but the price can vary greatly.
2. The second group is graphic editors and multimedia systems. In this segment, models of the A6 and Trinity series from AMD or Intel G series chips and others are good.
3. The third group is powerful gaming devices and graphics programs that work with discrete 3D graphics. The choice here is obvious: in the middle price range, we choose AMD processors of the FX series or Core i3 from a competitor. There is no alternative to the i7 and i9 chips in the maximum configuration.

How much money would you like to spend on a central processing unit? Depending on the price segment, the difference in performance can be very significant. Of course, there is also a dependence on what requirements you have for your computer. It all starts with CPU models costing up to about 10,000 rubles, which are intended for simple PCs with a small performance, but sufficient for office work and web surfing.

In the category from 15,000 rubles, there is an opportunity to get much more power. These models can be equipped with already good gaming computers. At this price point, AMD offers some attractive quad-core models, but Intel also has something to offer, such as the Core i5 processors with four cores and high clock speeds.

Intel's Core i7 and high-end AMD Ryzen 7 series models typically start at Rs. 20,000 and only justify their use in serious systems. Even more money will need to be spent only by those who want to achieve fast operation of resource-intensive specialized software optimized for multi-core systems.

CoolerMaster V8: CPU cooler can be huge.

Choosing a processor: what to look for

Those who want to get the best option for their money should first of all pay attention to the overall performance of the model when buying a processor. However, the level of energy consumption also plays an important role. When evaluating a specific model, parameters such as clock speeds, number of cores and the availability of special features are also important.

How comprehensively and objectively processors are tested in the CHIP laboratory, we talk in. Below we will tell you what you should pay attention to when choosing a specific model.

1. CPU performance

Performance is the most important parameter when evaluating a processor. Who knows exactly what tasks will be assigned to the computer, additional useful information can be gleaned from the corresponding benchmarks. For office work, a high score in the Excel benchmark is important.

1.

Overall rating: 100

Value for money: 76

2.

Overall rating: 93.6

Value for money: 100

3.

Overall rating: 86.6

Value for money: 73

2. Processor manufacturer

Essentially, the question is: Intel or AMD? Both processor manufacturers have their own advantages and disadvantages. Intel CPUs now offer higher clock speeds and high instruction-per-cycle (IPC) counts, making them shine in applications that require "one core" performance.

Since 2017, AMD has joined the arms race with new Ryzen processors. The manufacturer presented very good 6- and 8-core CPUs with multithreading support, outperforming Intel's price offer, and in every segment.

3. CPU power consumption

Processors convert large amounts of energy into heat. AMD chips need up to 95 W, Intel's this parameter reaches 140 W for the fastest models. In the segment of mainstream desktop CPUs, the power consumption levels are at around 65 and 95 watts, respectively.

Those who do not assemble a workstation and do not plan to overclock the processor may not bother too much when buying a power supply and a cooler. However: before purchasing components, you must add up the power consumption of all parts of the system in order to find a power supply with the right characteristics.

4. Specifications

Anyone who wants to equip an existing computer with a new processor should pay attention to the fact that the CPU fits the motherboard and its socket. For current models (no more than 2-3 years old), the choice will be quite simple: Intel's Skylake and KabyLake processors need socket 1151, AMD Ryzen processors need socket AM4.

The fact that the CPU is a socket type does not guarantee that everything will work as it should. Your best bet is to find up-to-date motherboard user manuals on the manufacturer's website - usually there is an exact list of supported processors.

Rating leader (extreme processors): Intel Core i9-7900X

This CPU from Intel with its ten cores set, as they say, heat during the test tests and demonstrated the highest level of performance. Of course, the cost is also huge - about 73,000 rubles. For ordinary users, such a processor is still redundant.

But those who need it will find in him a chip for the high-end LGA2066 socket platform with a base clock frequency of 3.3 GHz, which can be increased to 4.5 GHz if necessary. At the same time, technically, despite the index "7" in the designation, we are talking about a processor of the generation not of Kaby Lake, but Skylake in the extreme version.

Test results

Intel Core i9-7900X is the new top-level processor from Intel. During the test tests, the Skylake X generation processor proved to be fantastic: in many benchmarks, it confidently lays on the blades of its predecessor, the Intel Core i7-6950X. Many, but not all. The new cache structure takes its toll. However, the processor deserves an undisputed buy recommendation for anyone looking to maximize the processing power of their computer.

Advantages

Highest performance
Ten CPU cores
Very promising
Good value for money
Large L2 cache

disadvantages

Very expensive
High energy consumption

The results of testing Intel Core i9-7900X

• Price-quality ratio
  Good
• Place in the overall rating
  7 from 28

• Value for money: 65
• CPU performance (100%): 84.1

Hello everybody! A very interesting article awaits you today. Anyone has bought a computer at least once in his life, no matter which one: gaming or office,the first question that the shop assistants asked him was: “On the basis of which processor do you want to buy a PC - AMD or Intel ? ", Seeing your ignorance in this matter, they explained to you that it is better to purchase a system unit with an AMD processor, since it will come out much cheaper than with Intel, and in terms of performance it will only slightly yield to the latter. So friends, in 2017 several new models of processors from both competing firms came out and everything changed dramatically, so if you want to know why processors from AMD: A4-4000, Sempron 2650, FX 4300, and everyone's favorite Intel i3 6100 faded into the background. Is the new percentage so strong Ryzen 7 1700 and what kind of processorthe best in 2017, read our article!

Which is better than AMD or Intel in the summer of 2017

The furious debate between Intel and AMD fans continues for a second, and they both claim that their chosen processor manufacturer is unrivaled and leading in its field. Today I would like to express my opinion on this matter and help you figure out which of the two manufacturers is still worth staying at. With this article, I in no way want to become the reason for a new battle unleashed in the endless war between AMD and Intel, but I just want to help ordinary users who do not belong to either side with a choice.

First, a little introduction. Today, the market for computer processors is in fact a duopoly. And in the person of two competing leaders are two well-known companies - AMD and Intel. They release processors for any category of computers; in total, five categories can be conventionally distinguished. Office, home, gaming, advanced gaming and professional. Let's analyze each of them.

Office - as the name implies, they are designed to work with simple office programs and documents, they are suitable for watching videos, no more. Home - unlike the first, have more functionality, have average hardware, allow you to use graphics programs and play weak games. Gaming - (again a telling name) have strong, modern hardware and allow you to play games that are demanding on system resources. Advanced gaming - the same as the previous ones, only they have the most powerful hardware. Professional - they are used for a very narrow range of tasks (video editing, graphic work, etc.), as a rule, they have multi-threaded processors and a huge amount of RAM (we, unfortunately, will not consider them today due to the low demand and a small amount of information and tests from which at least some conclusions could be drawn). As I wrote above, both companies have a bunch of processors in any category, but we will consider the best representatives, so to speak, flagships in their price segment.

Speaking of the price. I think for most users, price, along with performance, is a fundamental factor when choosing a processor, but do not forget about others as well, for example: availability in stores, reluctance to order abroad, discounts or other great deals, bitter experience of owning themes or another brand and much, much more. Perhaps you already have a motherboard with a specific socket and that is why you choose, say, AMD, not Intel, or Intel, not AMD. What I want to say by this. And the fact that the final decision when choosing depends on a huge number of factors and circumstances, and in your specific situation it may differ from mine. Ultimately, agree with me or not is up to you.

So let's get started. I will be based on prices using the well-known Regard online store. https://www.regard.ru

The first category in line is office computers. When choosing a processor, the buyer is primarily concerned with price and reliability. If we look at all processors in this price category, we will see that the overwhelming majority are processors from AMD.

And if you are somehow interested in cheap stones, then there will be nothing surprising for you here. AMD has been leading the budget segment for a very long time. However, this is which side to look at. The first, cheapest processor on the scene from Intel appears the famous Celeron G3900(2160 rubles) which, unlike the most prominent representatives of the "red" army: AMD A4-4000(2080 rub.) And AMD Sempron 2650(RUB 1710) has one very big advantage - it supports 4K video playback. And it is on its basis that I recommend assembling a car if the most important thing for you is watching movies (you still won't be able to assemble a game car based on any of these stones). In addition, the processor has a modern socket - 1151. This means a large selection of motherboards and the ability to upgrade your PC without replacing the motherboard.

For example, here's the whole selection of boards on FM2 and AM1 sockets in regard.

You will say that, for example, a processor with an FM2 socket is compatible with a motherboard with an FM2 + socket. Yes, it is, but the choice is still not great relative to Intel's 1151. But for you number of results per request per 1151 sockets.

I do not think that the situation with the availability of goods in other stores is fundamentally different.

Although in this category, performance is not so important, since percent basically acts as a plug to open documents and watch videos, but still here's a comparison of the performance of A4-4000 and Celeron G3900 processors using two special services, the first http://www.cpubenchmark.net (how to use this service is shown in)

In the end, it's up to you to decide, but for me personally, at this stage, the score 0-1 is not in favor of AMD. ... Of course, if you only need to open and close Microsoft Word, then take AMD, since the price of the cheapest model with an integrated video core (A4-6300) is 620 rubles lower than the cheapest model from Intel Celeron G3900. The rest of the celerons I do not consider because of the poor, in my opinion, price / performance ratio. And most of them are on socket 1150, which is obsolete.

We go further and next in line we have processors for home computers with advanced multimedia capabilities and easy gaming. Here AMD had a heavy flagship out of competition for a long time in the face of FX 4300... But that all changed when, relatively recently, Intel introduced heavy artillery in the face of Pentium G4560... After such a turn, the situation on the market has changed dramatically and right now, while you are reading this, all the shelves with the new "hemp" are being swept away in stores, leaving the old AMD old man aside (and not only him). And all because Intel is currently pursuing an active policy aimed at pushing AMD in the budget sector. The new "stump" is a representative of the latest generation of Kaby Lake processors and has 2 cores and 4 threads thanks to the well-known Hyper-threading technology. The price difference between the flagships is currently only 350 rubles in favor of AMD.

but performance on the side Intel.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net

Website performance comparison http://cpu.userbenchmark.com

I think the result is obvious, the FX loses in performance, yes, it can be overclocked a little, but the "stump" will still be ahead. Plus, do not forget that the G4560 has the more common socket 1151, unlike the fx 4300 with AM3 + socket. I want to remind you that I do not consider other models of processors, as I consider them inexpedient for purchase from the point of view of price / performance, all reviewed processors are the best in their category. Intel i3 6100? The answer is very simple, it was overshadowed by a new "stump", just as it was overshadowed by the FX.

If so, why pay more, right? Of course, the second one can be overclocked quite well, but this is a completely different song, besides, as practice shows, only 10% of users are engaged in overclocking hardware. And for overclocking, you need a special mother on the 170 chipset, which is significantly more expensive and a more sophisticated cooler, which also costs a pretty penny.

So, summing up the chapter, we find that AMD is losing the current battle with a crash, and in this category I would also choose Intel. I can already see rotten tomatoes flying at me, but let's not rush to final conclusions. In addition, at the beginning I mentioned that the article is purely subjective and Until we move on to the next category, I would like to separately dwell on the AMD FX 8300 pebble for 6,280 rubles. For a relatively low cost, we get a percentage with 4.2 GHz and 8 cores. He's also good at chasing.

This processor is a legend and is perfect for video editors or other multi-threaded tasks or games. I don't even come close to seeing a good competing processor from Intel that can handle multi-threaded tasks just as well. If you have about the same budget, you are engaged in video editing and want to play average games in terms of load on the system, which need a lot of threads, then we can safely take it! AMD is out of competition here. And yes, I did not include this percentage in any of the groups, because, in my opinion, it is somewhere in the middle between home and game. By the way, such processors as FX 8320, FX 8320e, FX 8350, FX 8370, FX 8370e are essentially variations of the same processor and I do not recommend overpaying for them, because they are all chasing about the same, and the benefit for overpayment is minimal.

The next type of computers is gaming. The top model from Intel is the i5 6400 for 10,600 rubles, since it has an undeniable advantage over its counterparts in the form of a gorgeous overclocking on the bus. After overclocking (), it turns into an i5 7600K, which costs 1.5 times more. The rest of the brothers of this processor such as i5 6500, i5 6600, i5 7500 are significantly more expensive, but there is little sense from this. In general, they are not worth their money. That is why the i5 6400 is the best representative of Intel's army in this segment.

The closest competitor from the "red" is the cannon recently rolled out on the deck, which everyone has been waiting for AMD for so long. Ryzen 5 1400 for 10610 rubles. A solid quad core with 8 threads and a turbo frequency of 3.4 GHz.

But the question is, did this cannon fire? The closest competitor for the i5 6400 before Ryzen was the FX-9590, which, frankly, did not stand next to it. Of course, if you are a hard-core editor and you don’t do anything else on your computer except for days on end editing and rendering video, then perhaps FX had some meaning for you, in other cases it didn’t. 59% of the total overclocking of the i5 6400 spoke for themselves, I have already written about this, I will not repeat myself.

Many argue that with the release of Ryzen, the situation has changed radically. Is it so? Let's figure it out. As we can see, the price of the processors is almost identical. What about performance? One site shows the superiority of the AMD Ryzen 5 1400.

Another site is not so categorical and n plus, minus the same performance (note that in Intel tests i5 6400 not overclocked),

Ryzen wins only in multi-threading, as well as many other processors from AMD. Let me remind you that it makes sense to buy the I5 6400 only for overclocking, because it becomes the flagship with the help of overclocking. The Ryzen 5 1400 is also capable of overclocking, but the overall gain is much worse. This stone barely reaches the 3.8GHz mark, while the i5, with the proper skill, can take the 4.5GHz mark! Do not believe the numerous videos where Ryzen calmly takes the 4.1 GHz mark, such videos were released relatively recently, and in them AMD itself provided processors for review, and it is clear that they did not give processors from a bad batch and with bad characteristics. If your processor picks up the desired frequency, good, but be prepared for the fact that this may not be the case. Many will now say that multithreading is the main attribute in the modern world and all games are "sharpened" for it. This statement is only partly true. I want to remind you that the first i7 with 8 threads was released back in 2008, but only now there is a global optimization of games for multithreading and it is not known how long it will take. Also, not all games are friendly with a large number of threads (for example, everyone's favorite tanks generally use 1 core and 1 thread). Based on everything written above, I can conclude that if you need a processor for working with graphics and video, or for streaming or other complex calculations, then take definitely Ryzen. In this regard, AMD succeeded for a long time. But if you only need a PC for games, then the i5 6400 will be much better. Big brother of the new generation i5 I do not advise taking 7400 at all, it will not be able to surpass the younger one in terms of overclocking. p pumped, and this is a different level of the budget. Yes, I agree, but motherboards for Ryzen are not cheap either. Don't believe me? Let's see.

As we can see, the prices are almost the same. Well, a cooler in both systems will need a tower cooler to take high frequencies. So, there is no difference in money.

As for the more advanced versions of gaming computers, the situation is similar here as in the previous category. The i7 6700 (with bus overclocking) and AMD Ryzen 7 1700... From Intel's side, the i7 6700K and i7 7700 can also act, they are all about the same and are very good.

Unfortunately, for full-fledged overclocking and stable operation, new Ryzen processors need RAM with a frequency higher than 3000 MHz, which is quite problematic to find at the moment, and in the end it also costs a pretty penny, plus you should not forget that new mothers for Ryzen memory does not always behave correctly. AMD is trying to correct this absurdity, but so far the situation is exactly like that.

Ryzen has appeared on the market relatively recently and has become the best choice for multi-threaded tasks, for which special thanks to AMD. For gaming stations, it is better to choose an overclocked i7 6700, since Intel's performance is usually higher when performing computational operations within the load on one core. In general, I myself wanted to switch to Ryzen, but, in my opinion, the product, although very successful, is still raw. Optimization of new processors is in full swing now, so I would advise you to wait, because it seems to me that AMD will eventually surpass Intel, the era of four cores will pass (just like it was with 2 cores) and the time of everyone's favorite multithreading will come , but as they say, wait and see. As for other models, the unsuccessful i7-4770K and Xeon E3-1276V3 are not worth your attention. Ryzen 7 1700X costs almost five thousand more, but the investment is also not worth it. Increasing the multiplier in the non-X version will give the same performance.

So, after such a detailed debriefing, I think you can smoothly finish the article. Finally, I want to say that any company cannot be better than its direct competitor in everything. We all have successful and unsuccessful models, their pros and cons. And also there is a huge number of factors that affect the manufactured products, which we, ordinary users, do not know about. Choose a processor for your specific tasks and needs, regardless of the brand, and respect the opinions of others. I also want to note that prices and market conditions in the modern computer world are changing every day, today one is more profitable, and tomorrow another. This article may be out of date at the time of your reading. I hope I somehow helped you sort out the current state of affairs. Thank you all for your attention, see you soon in new articles!

Related articles:

• 1. A bit of history
• 2. Pricing policy
• 3. Opportunities for overclocking
• 4. Processor for computer games
• 5. Final instructions

Every computer, no matter how it is used, has the same basic components. The main element in any PC is the processor, which performs all computational operations, and the performance of the system as a whole depends on the performance of this small detail. Only two companies are fighting for leadership in the processor market, which we will talk about today and try to answer the age-old question - AMD or Intel, which is better?

A bit of history

Both companies began their journey in an era when computers occupied entire rooms and the concept of a personal computer was just beginning to come into vogue. The first in this field was the Intel company, created in 1968 and became practically the only developer and manufacturer of processes. The brand's original products were integrated circuits, but pretty soon the manufacturer focused only on processors. AMD was founded in 1969 and was originally focused on the process market.

At that time, AMD processors became a product that appeared with the active interaction of two manufacturers. Intel's technical department strongly supported the young competitor and shared technologies and patents. After the company was firmly on its feet, the paths of manufacturers diverged in different directions, and today two world manufacturers face each other in each generation of processors.

Price policy

There are many solutions on the market, both from one manufacturer and from another. Taking the side of one company and completely abandoning the other is not so easy, because when choosing a processor, you need to take into account many factors. For starters, it's worth noting that both companies make processors for all uses and for any budget:

• Office. Such processors have minimal technical performance and low cost, are designed to run office applications and are not designed for programs with high computing needs.
• Homemade. This type of process is usually more powerful than the office version, because it involves a margin of productivity for casual gaming, but the cost of such an element is much higher.
• Gaming or professional. Computer games put forward certain demands on the power of the CPU, and such a processor will cost a tidy sum.

If you are looking for a processor for the job, then AMD offers inexpensive options for "stones" with good technical indicators. The budget line from the manufacturer is distinguished by its low cost, excellent performance and reasonable power consumption. However, Intel products, according to the assurances of all experts, have a much higher power reserve. Thus, a processor from AMD is great for a budget computer, but for work in resource-intensive applications, gaming and stable operation of the system as a whole, it is better to opt for Intel.

Overclocking capabilities

Overclocking is a fairly popular way to increase the performance of your computer without having to buy additional hardware. However, for full overclocking, the processor must have a specific architecture and meet specific requirements.

If the Intel processor is better for gaming, then AMD is recommended for overclocking. Unlike its competitor, AMD has created processors that can operate at different clock speeds, which provides ample room for overclocking. At the same time, you can overclock any processor from the line, but Intel allows you to experiment only with some models with the K index in the name. Other processors simply do not support overclocking and cannot change the clock speed.

For those who plan to overclock the PC platform, it is better to buy AMD, which works stably at any frequency. At the same time, such an impact is supported by both expensive eight-core processors and budget options.

Computer gaming processor

Fans of crisp graphics will definitely go for the Intel Core i5 and i7. The latest models from this manufacturer have shown high parameters in the most "heavy" games and do an excellent job of rendering any picture. Such processors are classified as gaming.

However, AMD is not losing ground so easily. Not so long ago, a solution appeared that is great for a budget gaming computer - six-core Ryzen 5 chipsets. The result is an inexpensive and quite productive working platform. Although the verdict still adheres to Intel products, which are recognized as the best solution for a gaming computer.

One of the main factors when choosing a processor for gaming is its energy efficiency. Traditionally, Intel processors are better optimized both in terms of power consumption and operating temperatures. Therefore, if you do not want your computer to “warm up like a stove,” it is better to join the blue camp, or save on the processor and take AMD, but additionally buy a powerful cooling system.

Final instructions

In 2019, both companies will introduce a new generation of processors that will have more advanced features. At the moment, the best choice for a home computer in terms of price / quality ratio are two processors - Intel Core i5 and AMD Ryzen 5 1600.

Both stones have approximately the same parameters, but there are some quite obvious differences:

• Both stones have the same number of cores, but in the case of AMD, there is the notorious possibility of a fairly simple overclocking. Therefore, for the future, it will fit better, but Intel will work more stably.
• The specific format of the RAM. A processor from AMD fully reveals its potential with a certain frequency of RAM, which can create some difficulties. The Intel processor is much more interesting in this regard, because it does not impose such strict restrictions.
• The processor from Intel heats up much less, that is, you do not have to spend additional funds on organizing a cooling system. AMD heats up quite a bit and you have to buy a powerful cooler for it.

In any case, offers from all manufacturers have their own advantages and are tailored to meet the definition of tasks. If you have to stick to a tight budget, AMD has an excellent line of low-cost processors. In the event that you want to build a computer that can cope with any task at hand, then there is no better Intel product for this purpose yet.

The question of which processor is better than AMD or Intel does not have an unambiguous answer, because each component has a number of specific parameters and the choice of one or another option should be based on the purpose of the PC itself. An effective platform will demonstrate high performance only with the correct selection of all components that will enhance the performance of each other.