ARM processor is a mobile processor for smartphones and tablets. Comparison of laptop processors (AMD and Intel)
This article will examine in detail the latest generations 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. Process in this case it was identical - 32 nm, but the changes in terms of chip architecture are significant - the north bridge of the motherboard and the built-in graphics accelerator have been moved 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 gaming PCs entry level.
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, install the first chips on this architecture in motherboard It won't work for a 6th generation CPU. Or, conversely, a chip codenamed “SkyLike” cannot be physically 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 the 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 on 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 CPUs "Celerons" 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 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 last, 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 high degree energy efficiency and phenomenal level of performance. Their only drawback is their high cost. But the reason here lies in the fact that Intel’s direct competitor, represented by 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.
The processor is the main component of a computer; without it, nothing will work. Since the release of the first processor, this technology has been developing at a rapid pace. The architectures and generations of AMD and Intel processors have changed.
In one of the previous articles we looked at, in this article we will look at generations of AMD processors, look at where it all began, and how they improved until the processors became what they are now. Sometimes it is very interesting to understand how technology has developed.
As you already know, initially, the company that produced computer processors was Intel. But the US government did not like the fact that such an important part for the defense industry and the country's economy was produced by only one company. On the other hand, there were others who wanted to produce processors.
AMD was founded, Intel shared all its developments with them and allowed AMD to use its architecture to produce processors. But this did not last long; after a few years, Intel stopped sharing new developments and AMD had to improve its processors themselves. By the concept of architecture we will mean microarchitecture, the arrangement of transistors on a printed circuit board.
First processor architectures
First, let's take a quick look at the first processors released by the company. The very first was the AM980, which was a full eight-bit Intel 8080 processor.
The next processor was the AMD 8086, a clone of the Intel 8086, which was produced under a contract with IBM, which forced Intel to license the architecture to a competitor. The processor was 16-bit, had a frequency of 10 MHz, and was manufactured using a 3000 nm process technology.
The next processor was a clone of the Intel 80286 - AMD AM286, compared to the device from Intel, it had a higher clock frequency, up to 20 MHz. The process technology has been reduced to 1500 nm.
Next was the AMD 80386 processor, a clone of the Intel 80386. Intel was against the release of this model, but the company managed to win the lawsuit in court. Here, too, the frequency was raised to 40 MHz, while Intel had it only 32 MHz. Technological process - 1000 nm.
AM486 is the latest processor released based on Intel's developments. The processor frequency was raised to 120 MHz. Further, because legal proceedings AMD could no longer use Intel technology and they had to develop their own processors.
Fifth generation - K5
AMD released its first processor in 1995. It had a new architecture that was based on the previously developed RISC architecture. Regular instructions were recoded into microinstructions, which helped greatly improve productivity. But here AMD could not beat Intel. The processor had a clock speed of 100 MHz, while the Intel Pentium already ran at 133 MHz. The 350 nm process technology was used to manufacture the processor.
Sixth generation - K6
AMD did not develop a new architecture, but decided to acquire NextGen and use its Nx686 developments. Although this architecture was very different, it also used instruction conversion to RISC, and it also did not beat the Pentium II. The processor frequency was 350 MHz, power consumption was 28 Watt, and the process technology was 250 nm.
The K6 architecture had several improvements in the future, with several sets added to the K6 II additional instructions, improved performance, and the K6 III added L2 cache.
Seventh generation - K7
In 1999, a new microarchitecture of AMD Athlon processors appeared. Here the clock frequency was significantly increased, up to 1 GHz. The second level cache was placed on a separate chip and had a size of 512 KB, the first level cache was 64 KB. For manufacturing, a 250 nm process technology was used.
Several more processors based on the Athlon architecture were released; in Thunderbird, the second level cache returned to the main integrated circuit, which increased performance, and the process technology was reduced to 150 nm.
In 2001, processors based on the AMD Athlon Palomino processor architecture with a clock frequency of 1733 MHz, 256 MB L2 cache and a 180 nm process technology were released. Power consumption reached 72 watts.
Improvements in the architecture continued and in 2002 the company launched Athlon Thoroughbred processors, which used a 130 nm process technology and operated at a clock frequency of 2 GHz. Barton's next improvement increased the clock speed to 2.33 GHz and doubled the L2 cache size.
In 2003, AMD released the K7 Sempron architecture, which had a clock frequency of 2 GHz, also with a 130 nm process technology, but was cheaper.
Eighth generation - K8
All previous generations of processors were 32-bit, and only the K8 architecture began to support 64-bit technology. The architecture has undergone many changes, now the processors could theoretically work with 1 TB of RAM, the memory controller was moved into the processor, which improved performance compared to the K7. Also added here new technology HyperTransport data exchange.
The first processors based on the K8 architecture were Sledgehammer and Clawhammer, they had a frequency of 2.4-2.6 GHz and the same 130 nm process technology. Power consumption - 89 W. Further, as with the K7 architecture, the company made slow improvements. In 2006, Winchester, Venice, San Diego processors were released, which had a clock frequency of up to 2.6 GHz and a 90 nm process technology.
In 2006, the Orleans and Lima processors were released, which had a clock frequency of 2.8 GHz. The latter already had two cores and supported DDR2 memory.
Along with the Athlon line, AMD released the Semron line in 2004. These processors had lower frequencies and cache sizes, but were cheaper. Frequencies up to 2.3 GHz and second-level cache up to 512 KB were supported.
In 2006, the development of the Athlon line continued. The first dual-core Athlon X2 processors were released: Manchester and Brisbane. They had a clock speed of up to 3.2 GHz, a 65 nm process technology and a power consumption of 125 W. In the same year, the budget Turion line was introduced, with a clock frequency of 2.4 GHz.
Tenth generation - K10
The next architecture from AMD was K10, it is similar to K8, but received many improvements, including increased cache, improved memory controller, IPC mechanism, and most importantly, it is a quad-core architecture.
The first was the Phenom line, these processors were used as server processors, but they had a serious problem that led to the processor freezing. AMD later fixed it in software, but this reduced performance. Processors in the Athlon and Operon lines were also released. The processors operated at a frequency of 2.6 GHz, had 512 KB of second-level cache, 2 MB of third-level cache and were manufactured using a 65 nm process technology.
The next improvement in the architecture was the Phenom II line, in which AMD transitioned the process technology to 45 nm, which significantly reduced power consumption and heat consumption. Quad-core Phenom II processors had frequencies up to 3.7 GHz, third-level cache up to 6 MB. The Deneb processor already supported DDR3 memory. Then dual-core and triple-core processors Phenom II X2 and X3 were released, which did not gain much popularity and operated at lower frequencies.
In 2009 they were released budget processors AMD Athlon II. They had a clock frequency of up to 3.0 GHz, but to reduce the price the third level cache was cut out. The line included a quad-core Propus processor and a dual-core Regor. In the same year, the Semton product line was updated. They also did not have L3 cache and ran at a clock speed of 2.9 GHz.
In 2010, the six-core Thuban and quad-core Zosma were released, which could operate at a clock speed of 3.7 GHz. The processor frequency could change depending on the load.
Fifteenth generation - AMD Bulldozer
In October 2011, the K10 was replaced by a new architecture - Bulldozer. Here the company tried to use a large number of cores and high clock speeds to get ahead of Intel's Sandy Bridge. The first Zambezi chip couldn't even beat the Phenom II, let alone Intel.
A year after the release of Bulldozer, AMD released an improved architecture, codenamed Piledriver. Here, clock speed and performance have been increased by approximately 15% without increasing power consumption. The processors had a clock frequency of up to 4.1 GHz, consumed up to 100 W and were manufactured using a 32 nm process technology.
Then the FX line of processors based on the same architecture was released. They had clock speeds of up to 4.7 GHz (5 GHz overclocked), were available in four-, six- and eight-core versions, and consumed up to 125 W.
The next Bulldozer improvement, Excavator, was released in 2015. Here the process technology has been reduced to 28 nm. The processor clock speed is 3.5 GHz, the number of cores is 4, and power consumption is 65 W.
Sixteenth generation - Zen
This is a new generation of AMD processors. The Zen architecture was developed by the company from scratch. The processors will be released this year, expected in the spring. For their production, the 14 nm process technology will be used.
The processors will support DDR4 memory and generate 95 watts of heat. The processors will have up to 8 cores, 16 threads, and operate at a clock speed of 3.4 GHz. Energy efficiency has also been improved and automatic overclocking has been announced, where the processor adapts to your cooling capabilities.
Conclusions
In this article we looked at AMD processor architectures. Now you know how they developed processors from AMD and how things are going on at the moment Now. You can see that some generations of AMD processors are missing, these are mobile processors, and we intentionally excluded them. I hope this information was useful to you.
Computers have entered our lives so tightly that we already consider them something elementary. But their structure cannot be called simple. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drives: all these are integral parts of the computer. You can’t throw away this or that detail, because they are all important. But the most important role is played by the processor. It’s not for nothing that they call it “central”.
The role of the CPU is simply enormous. It is responsible for all calculations, which means it depends on it how quickly you will complete your tasks. This could be surfing the web, drafting a document in text editor, photo editing, moving files and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main load falls on the shoulders of the graphics accelerator, the central processor plays a huge role, and if the “stone” is incorrectly selected, the performance of even the most powerful video card will not be fully realized.
At the moment, there are only two major processor manufacturers in the consumer market: AMD and Intel. We will talk about them in the traditional ranking.
The best inexpensive processors: budget up to 5000 rubles.
4 Intel Celeron G3900 Skylake
The most affordable Intel processor
Country: USA
Average price: 4,381 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.5
The rating opens with an extremely weak processor from the Celeron line. The G3900 model has two cores of the previous generation - Skylake, which, coupled with a frequency of 2.8 GHz, gives the lowest performance result. In synthetic tests, the processor shows a result that is approximately half that of the Core i3. But the price here is quite affordable - 4-4.5 thousand rubles. This means that this processor is perfect for assembling, for example, a simple office computer or a multimedia system for the living room. Overall, this model cannot be called bad. Still, the 14 nm process technology provides good energy efficiency, and the HD Graphics 510 graphics core is suitable for casual games.
Advantages:
- The most low price in class
- Perfect for office PC or HTPC
Flaws:
- Does not support Hyper-Threading technology
3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo
Best price
Country:
Average price: 3,070 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.5
The processors of the Athlon line belong to the budget class, which is clearly evident from the cost of the bronze medalist. But for a little over three thousand rubles you will get very interesting stone. There are 4 cores (2 logical cores for each physical) made using a 28 nm process technology. Thanks to this, power consumption is low, and heat dissipation is quite low for AMD - only 65 W. True, you don’t have to be particularly happy about this because the multiplier is locked - you won’t be able to overclock the processor. Another disadvantage is the lack of a built-in graphics core, which means that when assembling an office PC or multimedia system you will have to separately purchase a video card.
Advantages:
- Lowest price in class
- Great performance for the price
Flaws:
- Lack of built-in graphics core
- Unlocked multiplier
2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera
The only 6-core processor in its class
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 4,160 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.6
AMD's FX-6300 is the only processor in the category with six cores. Unfortunately, you can’t hope for high power in the budget class - the model is based on the 2012 Vishera core. In normal mode, the cores operate at a frequency of 3.5 GHz, but, like many AMD CPUs, it overclocks well. Yes, judging by user reviews, the performance is sufficient even for games, but there are still a lot of disadvantages.
One of the main ones is high energy consumption. Due to the use of inexpensive 32 nm process technology, AMD gets very hot and consumes a lot of electricity. We also note the lack of support for modern DDR4 RAM. Because of this, the processor can be recommended not for building a new PC, but for updating an old one without replacing the motherboard and other components.
Advantages:
- 6 cores. Perfect for performing several simple tasks at the same time.
- Good overclocking potential
- Low cost
Flaws:
- Poor energy efficiency
- Aging platform
At the moment there are only two players in the processor market - Intel and AMD. But this doesn’t make the choice any easier. To make the decision to buy a CPU from one manufacturer or another easier, we have highlighted for you several main pros and cons of the products of these companies.
| Company |
Pros |
Cons |
|
Programs and games are better optimized for Intel Lower power consumption Performance tends to be slightly better Higher cache frequencies |
Work effectively with no more than two resource-intensive tasks Higher cost When the line of processors changes, the socket also changes, which means the upgrade is more complicated |
|
|
Lower cost Better price/performance ratio Work better with 3-4 resource-intensive tasks (better multitasking) Most processors overclock well |
Higher power consumption and temperatures (not entirely true of recent Ryzen processors) Worse program optimization |
1 Intel Pentium G4600 Kaby Lake
Better performance
Country: USA
Average price: 7,450 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.7
We can recommend the good old Pentium for purchase in this category. This processor, like previous participants, is made using a 14 nm process technology, LGA1151 socket. Belongs to one of the latest generations - Kaby Lake. There are, of course, only 2 cores. They operate at a frequency of 3.6 GHz, which causes the lag behind the Core i3 by about 18-20%. But this is not much, because the price difference is twofold! In addition to the core frequency, the relatively low power is due to the small size of the L3 cache - 3071 KB.
In addition to the excellent price-performance ratio, the advantages of this CPU include the presence of a built-in Intel HD Graphics 630 graphics core, which is more than enough for comfortable use of a PC without a discrete video card.
Advantages:
- Great price for this performance
- Generation Kaby Lake
- Good integrated graphics core
The best mid-class processors: budget up to 20,000 rubles.
5 Intel Core i3-7320 Kaby Lake
The most affordable processor with integrated graphics
Country: USA
Average price: 12,340 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.6
Let's open the rating with the most affordable processor in the i-core line. It is extremely difficult to call the model excellent in terms of price/quality ratio, because the cheaper Ryzen 3 even shows several best results in synthetic tests. However, the model that opens the TOP 5 can be safely chosen not only for an office system, but also for a gaming computer.
There are only two physical cores, but these are modern 14 nm chips from one of the latest generations - Kaby lake. Frequency - 4100 MHz. This is a very shameful indicator. In addition, there is the possibility of overclocking. Considering the excellent energy efficiency and low heat generation - even with the included cooler, the temperature remains at 35-40 degrees when idle, and up to 70 degrees under load - you can safely increase the frequencies. Unlike competitors from AMD, Core i3 has a built-in graphics core, which allows it to be used in an office system without a discrete graphics card. But keep in mind that officially it only works on Windows 10
Advantages:
- Built-in graphics core
- Overclocking capability
- Low temperatures
Flaws:
- Poor performance for the price
4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge
Best price
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 6,917 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.7
Ryzen 3 is a low-cost new line of AMD processors, designed to once again impose a fight on Intel. And the 1200 does the job perfectly. For 7 thousand rubles, the buyer receives a 4-core processor. Factory frequencies are low - only 3.1 GHz (in high performance mode 3.4 GHz), but the multiplier is unlocked, which means enthusiasts can easily make the “stone” a little faster.
The transition to new chips not only improved performance, but also reduced power consumption, and also reduced temperatures to acceptable values. Due to the lack of a built-in graphics chip, we can only recommend this processor for budget gaming builds. Productivity is only slightly higher than the previous participant.
Advantages:
- Unlocked multiplier
Flaws:
- No built-in graphics chip
3 Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake
Great processor for gaming
Country: USA
Average price: 19,084 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.7
Let's start with the fact that the i5-7600K is by no means an outsider. Yes, in terms of performance it is somewhat worse than the mastodons that you will see below, but for most gamers it will be enough. The processor has four Kaby Lake cores operating at 3.8 GHz (in reality up to 4.0 GHz with TurboBoost). There is also a built-in graphics core - HD Graphics 630, which means you can play even demanding games at minimum settings. With a normal video card (for example, GTX 1060), the processor reveals itself completely. In most games with FullHD resolution (the majority of gamers have these monitors) and high graphics settings, the frame rate rarely drops below 60 fps. Is anything else needed?
Advantages:
- Best price
- Enough power for most gamers
- Excellent graphics core
2 AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Summit Ridge
Best price/performance ratio
Country: USA (Produced in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 11,970 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.8
The second line of the TOP 5 mid-level processors is occupied by one of the best processors in terms of price/performance ratio. With an average cost of only 12,000 rubles, in synthetic tests Ryzen 5 is able to compete with the well-known Intel Core i7-7700K at standard settings (PassMark 12270 and 12050 points, respectively). This power is due to the presence of six Summit Ridge physical cores, made using a 12 nm process technology. The clock frequency is not a record - 3.6 GHz. Overclocking is possible, but in reviews users claim that at frequencies above 4.0-4.1 GHz the processor behaves unstable and gets very hot. With factory settings, idle temperatures remain at 42-46 degrees, in games 53-57 when using a standard cooler.
Also, high performance is due to large cache volumes at all levels. The CPU supports the modern DDR4-2667 standard, which allows you to create excellent computers based on this processor for gaming at medium-high settings in FullHD.
Advantages:
- Excellent price/performance ratio
- Heats up a little
Flaws:
- Low overclocking potential
1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge
The most powerful processor in its class
Country: USA (Manufactured in Malaysia, China, China)
Average price: 17,100 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.8
As expected, the top-of-the-line Ryzen 7 processor has the best performance in its class. Once again, we cannot help but remember the cost - for 17 thousand rubles we get power at the level of the top-end Core i7 of previous years. The processor includes eight cores, divided into two clusters. The standard clock speed is only 3.0 GHz, Ryzen 7 is guaranteed to overclock to 3.7, and with a little luck, up to 4.1 GHz.
Like the previous representatives of the line, the leader is made using a 12 nm process technology, which allows for economical energy consumption. The situation with heat dissipation is good - in stress tests, temperatures remain at 70-75 degrees.
Advantages:
- High performance
- There is an overclocking option
- A fresh platform that will be supported for at least 4 years
The best top processors
3 Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake
The most popular top processor
Average price: 29,060 ₽
Rating (2018): 4.6
More recently, the i7-7700K was the top processor in the Intel lineup. But technology is developing extremely quickly, and in 2018 it is difficult to recommend this particular chip for purchase. According to synthetic tests, the model clearly lags behind its competitors - in PassMark the CPU scores only 12 thousand points, which is comparable to modern mid-level processors. But these indicators are achieved on standard settings, when 4 physical cores operate at a frequency of 4.2 GHz, but the CPU can be easily overclocked to even higher frequencies, thereby increasing performance.
Yes, the bronze medalist lags behind its competitors, but it costs at least half as much, and given its popularity, it is quite possible to find a good used processor. Also, the high prevalence and long-standing presence on the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with the LGA1151 socket. In general, we have an excellent basis for a powerful gaming system at a relatively low cost.
Advantages:
- Good price for this class
- High performance
- Great overclocking capabilities
- High popularity
Flaws:
- Not entirely relevant in 2018
2 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake
The most powerful processor in the Intel line
Country: USA
Average price: 77,370 RUR
Rating (2018): 4.7
Until recently, Intel's top line was the Core i7 series. But modern realities require everything more power. If you are not familiar with solutions, pay attention to the Core i9-7900X. The processor, already at a standard clock frequency, is capable of entering the TOP 10 most powerful CPUs. For example, in PassMark the model scores almost 22 thousand points - this is twice as much as the bronze medalist of the rating. At the same time, in reviews, users talk about trouble-free overclocking to 4.2-4.5 GHz with high-quality air cooling. Temperatures do not exceed 70 degrees under load.
Such high performance is due to the use of 10 cores made using a 14 nm process technology. The model supports all the necessary modern standards and commands, which allows it to be used for any task.
Advantages:
- Highest performance
- Excellent overclocking potential
- Acceptable temperatures
Flaws:
- Very high cost
- No solder under the cap.
1 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
The leader of the rating is crazy in everything - from the price of 65 thousand rubles to the incredible performance. In terms of power in synthetic tests, the model is slightly ahead of the previous participant. Internal structure however, it differs significantly. Threadripper uses 16 (!) cores. The clock speed is comparable to the Core i9 - 3400 MHz - but the overclocking capabilities are more modest. The “stone” operates stably at a frequency of 3.9 GHz; as rates increase, the necessary stability is lost.
Such a large number of cores performs well in all tasks. But using a monster for games is not entirely reasonable - not all projects can reveal its potential. AMD will be useful for professional video editors, 3D designers, etc. - in professional software, an increase in cores gives a noticeable increase in rendering speed.
Advantages:
- Relatively low price tag
- High power
- Excellent performance in professional programs
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 does not necessarily lead to a significant increase in productivity 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's potential really shines is in CPU-intensive games like Battlefield 1's multiplayer. If you're using three or four graphics cards, it's likely that 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 because the availability of different models and their prices change daily. How to Know if the Processor You've Got Your Eyes on Will Be best buy in this price range?
We decided to help you in this difficult task by presenting a CPU hierarchy table, where processors of the same level of gaming performance 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 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 universal remedy comparisons of 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.
|
Part 1: 53 configurations with integrated graphics The change of year on the calendar, as a rule, leads to an update of computer system testing methods, and therefore to a summing up of the results of central processor testing (which is a special case of system testing) carried out in the past year. In principle, we received the bulk of the results long before the end of the year, but we wanted to add the “seventh generation” Core to the results (at least in limited quantities). Unfortunately, this was not possible: the “original” version of Windows 10 used in tests using the 2016 method is incompatible with graphics Intel drivers, suitable for HD Graphics 630. More precisely, of course, the opposite: this driver requires at least the Anniversary Update. In principle, there is nothing new in this, the latest versions of graphic Nvidia drivers, for example, behave similarly, but changing the set of test bench software violates the concept of tests “in the closest possible conditions.” However, tests of new processors using the 2017 method have already shown that there is nothing truly “new” in them - as expected. Therefore, it is possible to do without the results of “Skylake Refresh” for now, which is what we will do. The second point that should also be taken into account is the number of subjects. Last year's results presented the results of 62 processors, 14 of which were tested with two “video cards” - an integrated GPU (different for everyone) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X, and four with different types memory. In total there were 80 configurations. It’s not that difficult to “shove” them all into one article (after all, not so long ago we had 149 test configurations in one article ), but the diagrams were, to put it mildly, not very convenient to view. In addition, there is no great need for a direct comparison of the “atomic” Celeron N3150 and the extreme ten-core Core i7-6950X: these are still fundamentally different platforms. The “vastness” of the final articles using the “old” methods was mainly due to the fact that in the main line of tests all participants worked with the same discrete video card, but this approach was not always applicable before - as a result, some computer systems had to be removed into a separate line of tests, and then summarize individual testing results. This year we decided to do the same. Today's article will present results from 53 different configurations: 47 processors, five of which were tested with two different types of memory, and one with different TDP levels. But everything is done exclusively using the integrated GPU (also different for everyone). To some extent, this is a return to the results of 2014 - only there are more results. And in the near future, those who wish will be able to familiarize themselves with summary material based on testing of 21 processors with the same Radeon R9 380. Some of the participants overlap, and in general the test results are “compatible” with each other, but to improve their perception, it seems to us, better two separate materials. Those readers who are only interested in dry numbers can (and for quite a long time) compare them in any set using the traditional one, which, by the way, also includes information on several “specialized” tests, adding which to the final materials is somewhat difficult. Test bench configurationSince there are many subjects, it is not possible to describe their characteristics in detail. After thinking a little, we decided to abandon the usual short table: anyway, it is becoming too vast, and at the request of the workers, we still put some parameters directly on the diagrams, just like last year. In particular, since some people are asking to indicate right there the number of cores/modules and computational threads running simultaneously, as well as operating clock frequency ranges, we tried to do just that, adding information about the thermal package at the same time. The format is simple: “cores (or modules)/threads; minimum-maximum core clock frequency in GHz; TDP in Watts.” Well, all other characteristics will have to be looked at in other places - the easiest way is from manufacturers, and prices - in stores. Moreover, prices for some devices are still not determined, since these processors themselves are not available in retail (all BGA models, for example). However, all this information is, of course, also in our review articles devoted to these models, and today we are engaged in a slightly different task than the actual study of processors: we collect the data obtained together and look at the resulting patterns. Including paying attention to the relative position not of processors, but of entire platforms that include them. Because of this, the data in the diagrams is grouped precisely by platform. Therefore, all that remains is to say a few words about the environment. As for memory, the fastest one supported by the specification was always used, with the exception of the case that we called “Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)” - processors for LGA1151, but paired with DDR3-1600, and not the faster (and “main” according to specifications) DDR4-2133. The amount of memory has always been the same - 8 GB. System storage () is the same for all subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: this article used exclusively data obtained with the built-in video core. Accordingly, those processors that do not have it are automatically sent to the next part of the results. Testing methodologyThe technique is described in detail. Here we will briefly inform you that the main ones for the results are two “modules” out of four standard ones: and . As for gaming performance, it, as has been demonstrated more than once, is mainly determined by the video card used, so, first of all, these applications are relevant specifically for GPU tests, and discrete ones at that. For serious gaming applications, discrete video cards are still needed, and if for some reason you have to limit yourself to IGP, then you will have to take a responsible approach to choosing and configuring the game for a specific system. On the other hand, our “Integral Game Result” is quite suitable for quickly assessing the capabilities of integrated graphics (first of all, this is a qualitative, not a quantitative assessment), so we will also present it. Let's pretend that detailed results all tests are available as . Directly in the articles, we use relative results, divided into groups and normalized relative to the reference system (as last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD). The same approach is used when testing laptops and other ready-made systems, so that all results in different articles (using the same version of the technique, of course) can be compared, despite different environments. Working with video contentThis group of applications traditionally gravitates towards multi-core processors. But when comparing formally identical models different years release, it is clearly noticeable that the quality of the cores here is no less important than their quantity, and the functionality (primarily) of the integrated GPU is also important here. However, fans of “maximum performance” still have nothing special to please: AMD has never played in this market (even in the company’s plans the fastest IGP processors will be deprived), and Intel has solutions for LGA115x, where the performance per thread gradually increases with the platform number and clock frequency, but while maintaining the formula “four cores - eight threads”, and the frequencies cannot be said to be growing very actively. As a result, a comparison of the Core i7-3770 and Core i7-6700K gives us a 25% increase in performance over five years: the same notorious “5% per year” that people usually complain about. On the other hand, in the Pentium G4520/G2130 pair the difference is already quite significant 40%, and the new models of these processors for LGA1151 have acquired support for Hyper-Threading, so they behave like the Core i3-6100 with all that it implies. In the field of nettop-tablet solutions, there is still room for intensive methods of increasing performance, which is brilliantly demonstrated by the Celeron J3455, which is already outperforming some fully desktop processors. In general, progress in different market segments is proceeding at different speeds, but the reasons for this have long been and repeatedly voiced: desktop computers have ceased to be the main purpose, and there are times when it was necessary to increase productivity at any cost, since in principle it was not enough to solve problems mass users also ended in the last decade. There are, of course, server platforms, but (again, unlike the situation at the end of the last century), this has long been a separate area, where considerable attention is also paid to efficiency, and not just performance. Digital Photo Processing
We continue to observe similar trends, adjusted for the fact that Photoshop, for example, has only partial multi-threaded optimization. But some of the filters used actively use new sets of commands, so to some extent one compensates for the other in the case of budget desktop processors, but not “atomic” » platforms. In general, there is an increase in performance over a long time interval, and with a certain devaluation of old processor families (Core i7 for LGA1155 is approximately Core i5 for LGA1151), but the global “breakthroughs” that some “potential buyers” have been dreaming of have been around for a long time not anymore. Perhaps they are not there because changes generally occur only in the Intel assortment, and even those are planned :) Vector graphics
We abandoned the use of Adobe Illustrator in the new version of the methodology, and the final diagram clearly shows the reason for this decision: the last thing this program was seriously optimized for was Core 2 Duo, so for work (note: this is not a household application, and it is very expensive) A modern Celeron or a five-year-old Pentium is quite enough, but even if you pay seven times more, you can only get one and a half times the speedup. In general, although in this case the performance is interesting to many, there is no point in testing it - in such a narrow range it is easier to assume that all colas are the same:) The only “in-flight” solutions are “atomic” solutions - it was not in vain that it was said about them for 10 years in a row that they are intended for consuming content, and not for producing it. Audio processing
Adobe Audition is another program that, starting this year, is leaving the list of those we use in testing. The main complaint against it is the same: the “required level of performance” is achieved too quickly, and the “maximum” differs too little from it. Although the difference between Celeron and Core i7 in each iteration of LGA115x is approximately twofold, it is easy to see that most of it is still “made up” within, if not budget, then inexpensive processor lines. Moreover, what has been said is true only for Intel processors - the application is generally somewhat biased towards today’s AMD platforms. Text recognition
The times of rapid progress in character recognition technologies are long gone, so the corresponding applications are developed without changing the basic algorithms: they, as a rule, are integer and do not use new instruction sets, but they scale well in terms of the number of computational threads. The second provides a good spread of values within the platform - up to three times, which is close to the maximum possible (after all, the effect of code parallelization is usually not linear). The first does not allow us to notice a significant difference between processors of different generations of the same architecture - a maximum of 20 percent over five years, which is even less than the “average”. But processors of different architectures behave differently, so this application continues to be an interesting tool. Archiving and unarchiving data
Archivers have also, in principle, reached such a level of productivity that in practice you can no longer pay attention to their speed. On the other hand, they are good because they quickly respond to changes in performance characteristics within the same processor family. But comparing different ones is a dangerous task: the fastest among those we tested (of those included in today’s article, of course) was the Core i7-4970K for an already formally “outdated” platform. And not everything is going smoothly in the “atomic” family either. File operations
The diagram clearly shows why, from 2017, these tests will no longer be taken into account in the overall score and will “go” into their own: with the same fast drive, the results are too even. In principle, this could have been assumed a priori, but it didn’t hurt to check. Moreover, as we see, the results are smooth, but not perfectly smooth: “surrogate” solutions, low-end mobile processors and old AMD APUs do not squeeze the maximum out of the SSD used. In their case, SATA600 is supported, so no one seems to be stopping you from copying data at least at the same speed as “adult” platforms, but there is a decrease in performance. More precisely, it was until recently, but now it ceases to matter. Scientific calculations
About using SolidWorks Flow Simulation for testing budget systems Questions regularly arose in the forum, but in general the results of this program are quite interesting: as we see, it scales well across cores, but only across “physical” ones - different SMT implementations are contraindicated for it. From a methodological point of view, the case is interesting, but not unique; while most of the programs in our set are, if they are multi-threaded, then fully multi-threaded. But overall, the results of this scenario fit into the overall picture. iXBT Application Benchmark 2016
So, what do we have in the bottom line? Mobile processors are still a thing in themselves: they have the same performance as desktop processors, but of lower classes. There is nothing unexpected in this - but their energy consumption is significantly lower. The performance increase between similarly positioned desktop Intel processors over five years is 20-30%, and the more “top-end” the family, the slower it grew. This, however, does not interfere in any way." social justice": it is precisely in the budget segment that higher performance is needed, as well as more powerful graphics (there may simply not be enough money for discrete ones). In general, thrifty buyers are lucky - one might say that the primary focus on laptop computers has also contributed to budget desktops. And not only in performance and purchase price, but also in cost of ownership. In any case, this is true for Intel solutions - the second remaining manufacturer of x86 processors on the market was doing well recent years, to put it mildly, worse. FM1 is a five-year-old solution, FM2+ until the end of 2016 remained the company’s most modern and powerful integrated platform, but they differ... literally by the same 20% as different generations of Core i7. However, it cannot be said that nothing has changed at all over the past years: the graphics have become more powerful, and energy efficiency has increased, but gaming has remained the main niche of these processors. Moreover, for graphics performance at the level of low-end discrete video cards, you have to pay with both low performance of the processor part and high energy consumption - which is what we are just moving on to. Energy consumption and energy efficiencyIn principle, the diagram clearly explains why budget processors “grow” in speed faster than “non-budget” ones: power consumption is more limited than, generally speaking, necessary for desktop computers (although this is better than the horrors of the 90s and 2000s), but also the relative share of “full-size desktops” has also declined greatly over the years and continues to fall. And for laptops or tablets, even older “atomic” models are no longer very comfortable - not to mention quad-core Core ones. Which, in a good way, is long overdue to be made a main mass product - you see, the software industry will find useful use for such power.
Let's note that not only the efficiency increased - first of all, the energy efficiency increased, since more modern processors spend less energy to solve any problem in the same or even less time. Moreover, working quickly is useful: you will be able to stay in energy-saving mode longer. Let us recall that these technologies began to be actively used in mobile processors - when such a division even existed, because now all processors are like this to a certain extent. AMD has the same trend, but in this case the company failed to repeat the success of at least Sandy Bridge, as a result of which the most “tasty” market segments were lost. Let's hope that the release of processors and APUs based on a new microarchitecture and a new technical process will solve this problem. iXBT Game Benchmark 2016As stated in the description of the methodology, we will limit ourselves to a qualitative assessment. At the same time, let’s recall its essence: if the system demonstrates a result above 30 FPS at a resolution of 1366×768, it receives one point, and for the same thing at a resolution of 1920×1080, it receives two more points. Thus, given that we have 13 games, the maximum score could be 39 points - it does not mean that the system is gaming, but such a system at least copes with 100% of our gaming tests. It is by the maximum result that we will standardize all the others: we calculated the points, multiplied by 100, divided by 39 - this will be the “Integral game result”. For really gaming systems, it is not needed, since everyone there is more interested in the nuances, but for assessing “universal” ones it will do just fine. It turned out to be more than 50 - which means that sometimes you can play something more or less comfortably; about 30 - even lowering the resolution will not help; Well, if 10-20 points (not to mention zero), then it’s better not to even mention games with more or less 3D graphics.
As you can see, with this approach everything is simple: only AMD APUs for FM2+ (most likely FM2) or any Intel processors with fourth-level cache (with eDRAM) can be considered “conditionally gaming” solutions. The latter are faster, but quite specific: firstly, they are quite expensive (it’s easier to buy an inexpensive processor and a discrete video card, which will provide greater comfort in games), secondly, most of them have a BGA design, so they are sold only in components of ready-made systems. AMD, on the other hand, plays on a different field - its desktop A8/A10 are practically no alternative if you need to build a computer that is more or less suitable for games, but has a minimal cost. Other Intel solutions, as well as younger (A4/A6) and/or outdated AMD APUs, are best not considered as gaming solutions at all. This does not mean that their owner will have absolutely nothing to play - but the entire range of available games will also include either old or applications that are undemanding in terms of graphics performance. Or both at once. For other things, they will have to purchase at least an inexpensive discrete video card - but not the cheapest, since “low-end” solutions (as has been shown more than once in relevant reviews) are comparable to the best integrated solutions, that is, money will be wasted. TotalIn principle, we made the main conclusions about processor families directly in their reviews, so they are not required in this article - this is primarily a generalization of all previously obtained information, nothing more. More precisely, almost all of them - as mentioned above, we have postponed some systems for a separate article, but there will be fewer of them there, and the systems will be less widespread. The main segment is here. In any case, if we talk about desktop systems, which now come in different designs. Generally speaking, the past year, of course, was quite poor in terms of processor events: both Intel and AMD in the mass market continued to sell what debuted in 2015, or even earlier. As a result, many participants in these and last year’s results turned out to be the same - especially since we and the “historical” platforms in once again tested (we hope that in last time:)) But the slowest last year was the Celeron N3150: 54.6 points, and the fastest was the Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. In this regard, the positions did not change, and the results actually remained the same - 53.5 and 251.2 points. The top-end system had it even worse :) Note: this is despite a significant reworking of the software used, and precisely in the direction of the most demanding tasks on the computer’s performance. The budget “old man” represented by the Pentium G2130, on the contrary, grew from 109 to 115 points over the year, just as the “non-budget old man” Core i7-3770 began to look even a little more attractive than before after a software update. On this, in fact, the idea of acquiring “productivity for the future” can be closed - if someone has not already done this;) 
| |
