Performance comparison of intel and amd processors. Comparison of the performance of Intel processors of different generations

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

AMD Am29000 Processors

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

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

AMD C8080A Processors

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

AMD Am386 Processors

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

AMD Am486DX Processors

K-series

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

AMD5k processor series

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

AMD K6 processor family

Since 1999, the release of Athlon models, included in the K7 series, has been widely used and well-deserved recognition of many users. In the same line are the budget models Duron, as well as Sempron. The bus frequency ranged from 100 to 200 MHz. The processors themselves had a clock frequency of 500 to 2333 MHz. Possessed 64 KB of cache in the first level and 256 or 512 KB of cache in the second level. The installation connector was designated as Socket A or Slot A. The release ended in 2005.

AMD K7 Series

The K8 series was introduced in 2003 and includes both single-core and dual-core processors. The number of models is quite varied, as processors have been released for both desktop and mobile platforms. Various connectors are used for installation, the most popular of which are Socket 754, S1, 939, AM2. The bus frequency is from 800 to 1000 MHz, and the processors themselves have a clock frequency from 1400 MHz to 3200 MHz. L1 cache is 64 Kb, L2 cache is from 256 Kb to 1Mb. An example of successful use is some models of Toshiba laptops based on Opteron processors, which have a code name corresponding to the kernel code name - Santa Rosa.

AMD K10 Processor Family

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

The logical continuation of the K10 line is called K10.5, which includes processors with 2-6 cores, depending on the model. The processor bus frequency is 1800-2000 MHz, and the clock frequency is 2500-3700 MHz. We use 64+64 KB L1 cache, 512 KB L2 cache and 6 MB L3 cache. Installation is made in Socket AM2+ and AM3.

AMD64

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

AMD a10 processors

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

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

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

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

This article presents only the best AMD processors in 2017.

If you don't want to figure out all the specs of each CPU model yourself, or if you're not sure you can choose the best option, take a look at our CPU rating from AMD.

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

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

№5 - Athlon X4 860 K

The AMD Athlon line is designed for Socket FM2+. X4 860K is the best and most productive model in the entire series, which includes three processors:

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

Fig.2 - Athlon X4 860K hardware package

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

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

Main characteristics:

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

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

CPU operation was tested using the AIDA64 utility. In general, the model shows good results for a mid-range processor. If you're looking for an affordable multitasking CPU for your home computer, the Athlon X4 860K is one of your options.

Fig.3 - Athlon X4 860K testing

No. 4 - AMDFX-6300

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

Features of FX-6300:

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

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

Fig. 4 - Boxing devices of the FX series from AMD

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

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

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

Fig.5 - Athlon X4 860K test result

№3 - A10-7890 K

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

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

Fig.6 - packaging of model A10-7890K

This processor has an integrated Radeon graphics unit that allows you to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results of testing the component with the standard Cinebench R15 test:

Fig.8 - Cinebench R15 test result

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

№2 - Ryzen 5 1600 X

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

Ryzen 5 is a direct competitor for the Intel i5 processor group. In the best measure, the CPU manifests itself in gaming systems. This is also stated by the CEO of AMD.

Specifications:

• AMD Ryzen 5 Family;
• 6 cores;
• Without integrated graphics;
• There is an unlocked multiplier;
• Clock frequency 3.6 MHz;
• Socket AM4;
• The cost is about $260.

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

All fifth-generation Ryzen models support SMT, Surface Mount Technology. In this way, the CPU is easily mounted on the surface of the PCB without the need to cut parts of the component.

Fig. 9 - Ryzen 5 package

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

Figure 10 - 1600X Performance Test

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

№1 - Ryzen7 1800X

The Ryzen 7 1800X is a great choice for building a powerful PC or for layered data server support.

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

Specifications:

• Family: AMD Ryzen 7;
• 8 cores;
• Clock frequency 3.6 MHz with the possibility of overclocking to 4 MHz;
• Support for unlocked multiplier;
• No support for integrated graphics;
• The average price is $480.

Fig.11 - Ryzen 7 1800X

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

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

Fig.12 - performance comparison

Pros and cons of all processorsAMD

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

• Inexpensive cost ;
• Even the cheap processor segment shows good performance for computers of the "General Purpose" group;
• Support for different platforms. AMD users have no problem checking socket and CPU compatibility. For example, socket AM2+ supports most AMD processors. Thus, you can quickly replace a hardware component and increase PC performance by almost 100%;
• Multitasking support . As the test results on different benchmarks show, a system running AMD performs 3-5 tasks at once without any problems. From archiving large files to downloading data and playing games. Running multiple processes does not slow down the operating system;
• OS stability ;
• The user can set core voltage CPU, regardless of the class of the installed motherboard.

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

Of the negative aspects of products from AMD, the following can be distinguished:

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

Outcome

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

AMD processors can be a great value-for-money choice if you're looking for a part for basic PC work or for playing games at medium graphics settings.

Thematic videos:

All about AMD processors / which processor to choose?

Best Processor for Gaming | Benefit Diminishing Effect

Prices for high-end processors are skyrocketing, 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, with 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 optimizing games for multiple cores will continue, which is why we've added the Core i7-5820K to the list. In most games, there will be little to no difference between the Core i7 and Core i5, but if you're an enthusiast looking for future-proofing and high performance in multi-threaded applications, this CPU may cost more.

With the advent of the LGA 2011-v3 interface, there was every reason to build an unsurpassed gaming platform based on it. Haswell-E based processors have more cache available and four more cores than the leading LGA 1150/1155 processors. In addition, thanks to the four-channel controller, a large 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, removing potential bottlenecks in CrossFire or SLI configurations for three and four video cards.

While all of the above sounds impressive, it doesn't necessarily lead to significant performance improvements in today's 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 graphics cards in SLI. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe do not greatly affect the performance of current systems based on the Sandy Bridge architecture.

The real potential of Haswell-E comes into play in CPU-heavy games, such as multiplayer in Battlefield 1. If you're running three or four graphics cards, it's possible that you already have enough performance. An overclocked Core i7-5960X or Core i7-5930K can help the rest of the platform catch up with an extremely powerful video system.

In general, while we do not 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 not spare money in an effort to achieve the highest possible performance .

Best Processor for Gaming | comparison table

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

Questions like these are appropriate, as the availability of different models and their prices change daily. How do you know if the processor you have your eye on will be the best buy in that price range?

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

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

We do not have the opportunity to test every CPU on the market, so in some cases the distribution of places depends on the results of similar models. In essence, this hierarchical table is useful as a general selection guide, but it is not a universal means of comparing different processors. For more information, please refer to (eng.) or to the regularly updated section " Best Processor for Gaming: Current Market Analysis ".

You may have noticed that we have split the flagship section into two levels. processors and one of them hosted several quad-core AMD models. Considering that many older platforms can be used with several different generations of graphics subsystems, we wanted to highlight the highest performing models in order to maintain a balance between the system and the video accelerator. For example, at the moment, any owner of a Sandy Bridge generation Core i7 will see a significant increase when switching to Kaby Lake or Broadwell-E. And the premises of the flagship processors AMD's FX series is one step up with a few Core i7s and older Core i5s, which means they've been elevated in status.

Hierarchy of Intel and AMD processors | table

Our table currently consists of 13 levels. The bottom half of the list is mostly irrelevant: these chips will show 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 the enjoyment of games.

In fact, only the chips in the top five levels can be considered suitable for gaming today. And at the top of the table, it only makes sense to upgrade if you choose CPU at least two levels higher. Otherwise, the improvements will be clearly not enough to justify the cost of a new CPU, motherboard and memory, not to mention the video card and drives, which you also consider replacing.

AMD processors of Phenom II, Bulldozer and Vishera architectures were repeatedly tested in the laboratory, both their overclocking and performance level were studied. But there are few face-to-face benchmarks, so it's hard to assess the progress (or lack) of progress from one CPU generation to another. It's time to fill in the gaps. This review will take part in the top AMD solutions of recent years - these are AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, AMD FX-8150 and AMD FX-8350. To complete the picture, all CPUs will be tested not only in normal mode and at equal frequencies, but also at maximum overclocking. In addition, a comparison of the power consumption of processors will be carried out. The Core i7-2600K was taken as a benchmark from the Intel camp. Test bench and software Testing was carried out on the following configuration: Motherboards: ASUS Crosshair V Formula; ASUS Sabertooth Z77; Processors: AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3 GHz (16.5x200); AMD FX-8150 3.6 GHz (18x200); AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz (20x200); Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4 GHz (34x100); Cooling system: Zalman CNPS10X Performa (120*120*25, ~2000 rpm); Thermal interface: Prolimatech PK-1; RAM: G.Skill TridentX F3-2400C10D-8GTX; Video card: ASUS ARES II, CrossFireX Disabled; Hard drive: Western Digital Caviar Blue (WD500AAKS), 500 GB; Power supply: Corsair CMPSU-750HX, 750 W; Case: open test bench. Software Operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64; Video card driver: Catalyst 13.5 beta 2; Additional software: FRAPS 3.5.9, build 15586; AutoHotkey 1.0.48.05. Test Methodology The following applications were used for the performance test: LinX 0.6.4 + Linpack 11.0.1.005; TrueCrypt 7.1a; SVPmark 3.0.3a; Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2; Maxon Cinebench 11.5x64; POV-Ray v3.7 RC7; x264 HD Benchmark 5.0.1; TOC [email protected] Bench v.0.4.8.1; WinRar 4.2 X64; 7-zip 9.30x64. The following games have used built-in performance measurements: Batman: Arkham City Hitman: Absolution; Metro 2033; Sleeping Dogs; Tomb Raider (2013). These games were measured using Autohotkey scenes: Crysis 3 (Welcome to the jungle); Far Cry 3 (Harvest The Jungle); The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Goldflower Manor); The Witcher 2 (On the front line). Both Min/AVG FPS numbers and performance rating based on frametimes results were used to analyze gaming performance results. Frametimes analysis was carried out using the Fraps-Calc utility, which allows you to see the main features related to system performance in a particular application. Based on the average (AVG) FPS and its stability characteristics, this program calculates the value of the so-called performance rating. We can say that the performance rating is a numerical characteristic of the comfort of the gameplay, where a value of 1 or higher means the absence of “brakes” visible to the eye when displaying an image. Each of the processors was tested in three modes of operation: Normal mode: completely factory settings of the system obtained by resetting the BIOS, respectively - the results “out of the box”, which will be if the system is not touched. I note that both motherboards in this mode used the Turbo Core / Turbo Boost functions, and for all CPUs they set the memory mode to DDR3-1600 11-11-11; Comparison of CPUs at the same frequency (4 GHz). Memory mode DDR3-1600 7-8-8-21-1T, Turbo Core/Turbo Boost disabled, HT/CPU_NB frequencies for AMD processors set to standard values; Maximum overclocking mode for each of the processors. For AMD Phenom II X6 1100T it: Processor frequency: 4174 MHz (260.88x16); CPU_NB operating frequency: 2870 MHz; HT operating frequency: 2609 MHz; Memory mode: DDR3-2087 8-10-10-25-1T. For AMD FX-8150 it: Processor frequency: 4615 MHz (200.66x23); CPU_NB operating frequency: 2609 MHz; HT operating frequency: 2609 MHz; Memory mode: DDR3-2140 8-10-10-25-1T. For AMD FX-8350 it: Processor frequency: 4592 MHz (199.66x23); CPU_NB operating frequency: 2396 MHz; HT operating frequency: 2596 MHz; Memory mode: DDR3-2396 10-11-11-28-1T. For Intel Core i7-2600K it: Processor frequency: 4700 MHz (47x100) with HT on and 4800 MHz (48x100) with HT off. Both settings have been tested; Memory mode: DDR3-2133 8-10-10-25-1T. Power consumption measurements were made using a Mastech MY64 multimeter and a 50 A 75 mV shunt (75SHIP1-50-0.5) in the plus break of the 8-pin power cable. Measurements were made for two modes: for standard and for maximum overclocking of the processor. LinX 0.6.4 was used as a load during measurements. Performance Testing LinX Testing was carried out with the size of the task 20014 (3072 MB of memory). The final result is the best after five passes. gflops Regular mode 4000 MHz Please enable JavaScript to see charts Overclocking Please enable JavaScript to see charts When comparing participants in regular mode among AMD models, the results are arranged in order of processor release, the main progress is observed in the transition from Phenom II to Bulldozer, while the advantage of the FX-8350 is more likely due to the 400 MHz difference in frequencies than architectural features. I note that this alignment of forces was not always the case: at the time of the release of the FX-8150, the Linpack test did not yet support the instruction sets of new CPUs, and the results of AMD FX processors were a couple of times lower than in modern versions of Linpack, respectively, the results of Phenom II were for AMD FX are unreachable. As for the results of the i7-2600K, we can say that it does not work at full strength - the included HT in this test reduces performance, as a result, the Intel CPU is in the middle between the FX-8150 and FX-8350. When compared at equal frequencies, the difference between AMD processors is significantly reduced: the results of Phenom II X6 have grown noticeably (no wonder, because it has the lowest operating frequency among the tested - 3300 MHz), and FX-8150 and FX-8350 caught up. The i7-2600K is already taking the lead in this mode. After the transition to the maximum frequency regime, the status quo has not changed. The Phenom II is behind, and the FX-8150 and FX-8350 have switched places according to the achieved frequencies, yet the frequency potential of the Vishera is slightly lower. As for the Core i7-2600K, its advantage has only increased due to higher overclocking, and is especially noticeable when turning off HT. TrueCrypt 7.1a A multi-threaded benchmark that measures the speed of encryption operations. The result is Mean Speed ​​in the AES-Twofish-Serpent test. The result is the best according to the results of five measurements. True Crypt AES-Twofish-Serpent MB/s Regular mode Please enable JavaScript to see charts 4000 MHz Please enable JavaScript to see charts Overclocking Please enable JavaScript to see charts For normal operation, the balance of power is approximately similar to that observed when considering the results of LinX - that when moving from Phenom II to Bulldozer, that when moving from Bulldozer to Vishera, the performance varies significantly, and progress cannot but rejoice. What has changed is the level of performance of the Core i7-2600K, which this time is already between the Phenom II X6 1100T and FX-8150, and not between the FX-8150 and FX-8350. The transition to comparison at equal frequencies this time does not change the conclusions - this time the status quo is preserved at 4 GHz. The AMD FX-8350 remains out of competition, and the i7-2600K gets even closer to the Phenom II X6 1100T than to the FX-8150. The results with maximum overclocking do not bring any surprises. It's only interesting to see the i7-2600K with HT off, where the performance level is even lower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, despite the more than 600 MHz difference in processor frequencies. It can be noted that despite the lower frequencies, the FX-8350 remains a leader compared to the FX-8150, apparently, architectural optimizations have benefited. SVPmark 3.0.3a SVP is software designed to increase the smoothness of the video being played by calculating extra frames. The test is multi-threaded and very demanding on processor performance. The result is the best according to the results of five measurements. SVPmark 3.0.3a Points Regular mode Please enable JavaScript to see charts 4000 MHz Please enable JavaScript to see charts Overclocking Please enable JavaScript to see charts When comparing processors at stock frequencies, the results are not much different from the two previous performance tests: AMD CPUs once again lined up according to the hierarchy, with the greatest difference observed when moving from Phenom II X6 1100T to FX-8150. The Intel Core i7-2600K sits between the FX-8350 and FX-8150, closer to the latter. At equal frequencies, you can see that, despite the leveling of the difference in frequencies, the alignment of forces in the case of AMD solutions remains the same. But at the same time, the i7-2600K is already in the lead, albeit with a minimal difference. The same alignment among AMD models is maintained even at maximum overclocking of the CPU, while the i7-2600K strengthens its leadership. True, with HT turned off, it no longer leads, but only competes with the FX-8150. Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2 This test forces the processor to process chess algorithms and heavily loads modern CPUs. The final result is the best according to the results of five measurements. Fritz Chess Benchmark knodes/s Regular mode Please enable JavaScript to see charts 4000 MHz Please enable JavaScript to see charts Overclocking Please enable JavaScript to see charts The alignment of forces here looks much more interesting than in previous tests, and interesting figures can be seen already for the normal mode of processor operation. It shows that Phenom II X6 1100T and FX-8150 are very close, despite the fact that the frequency of the FX-8150 is 300 MHz higher, while the advantage of the FX-8350 over them is not so significant. This is confirmed by the comparison results at equal frequencies, where Phenom II is the most productive among the top three AMD flagships. Apparently, full-fledged six cores are preferable for this test than four "dual-core" modules from AMD FX. Do not forget that the frequency potential of Phenom II is much lower, and as a result, at maximum overclocking, all three AMD processors show approximately the same result. With more/less luck of specific CPU instances, any of the participants could show a better result. As for the results of the Core i7-2600K, it leads in all modes, except for maximum overclocking with HT off. Maxon Cinebench 11.5x64 This benchmark analyzes the rendering speed of a test scene by assigning performance points to the processor. The final result is the best according to the results of three measurements. Cinebench R11.5 CPU Points Regular mode Please enable JavaScript to see charts 4000 MHz Please enable JavaScript to see charts Overclocking Please enable JavaScript to see charts The results are very similar to the Fritz Chess Benchmark. Again, when comparing AMD solutions at stock frequencies, Phenom II X6 1100T holds up well, especially against the background of AMD FX-8150. The only difference is that this time the FX-8350 shows more confident results. When switching to 4 GHz among AMD CPUs, the six-core “old man” is expected to lead, although the FX-8350 is still closer to it than it was in the case of the chess test. When moving to maximum overclocking, the results of the processors are already consistent with the generations of architectures, although the difference in the final results is still small, especially for the X6 1100T and FX-8150. The i7-2600K, as in the chess test, leads in all modes except for maximum overclocking with HT off. POV Ray v3.7 RC7 Ray tracing imaging program. The built-in benchmark was used. The final result is the rendering time of the scene, the best result based on the results of three measurements. POV Ray v3.7 RC7 Seconds Regular mode Please enable JavaScript to see charts 4000 MHz Please enable JavaScript to see charts Overclocking Please enable JavaScript to see charts Already from the results of the normal mode, it can be seen that, unlike the two previous tests, the Phenom II no longer shines here, and such values ​​cannot be explained by clock frequencies alone. This is confirmed by the results at 4 GHz, where the processors are arranged according to the generations of their architectures, with a similar level of performance gain when moving from one to another. At maximum overclocking, the difference between the FX-8150 and Phenom II X6 1100T only increases. As for the Intel Core i7-2600K, it shows nondescript results in this test. At equal frequencies, its performance level is close to the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-8150 and FX-8350 outperform the Intel processor in all test modes. At the same time, with maximum overclocking with HT turned off, the Core i7 representative remains an outsider at all. The result is banal: it is impossible to judge the performance of any central processor by only one parameter. Only a combination of characteristics gives an understanding of what kind of chip it is. Narrowing the range of processors under consideration is very simple. AMD's modern ones are FX chips for the AM3+ platform and A10/8/6 hybrid solutions of the 6000 and 7000 series (plus Athlon X4) for FM2+. Intel has Haswell processors for the LGA1150 platform, Haswell-E (in fact, one model) for LGA2011-v3 and the latest Skylake for LGA1151. AMD Processors I repeat, the complexity of choosing a processor lies in the fact that there are a lot of models on sale. Elementary confused in this variety of markings. AMD has A8 and A10 hybrid processors. Both lines include only quad-core chips. But what's the difference? We'll talk about this. Let's start with positioning. AMD FX processors are the top chips for the AM3+ platform. Based on them, game system blocks and workstations are assembled. Hybrid processors (with integrated video) of the A-series, as well as Athlon X4 (without integrated graphics) are middle-class chips for the FM2+ platform. The AMD FX series is divided into quad-core, six-core, and eight-core models. All processors do not have an integrated graphics core. Therefore, a full-fledged assembly will require either a motherboard with integrated video, or a discrete 3D accelerator. Top Related Articles How to remove the password from the SIM card if you forgot the pin code Disabling pin code verification on devices USSD commands operating in the Velcom network Categories: Programs Safety Windows 10 Iron Windows 8 In contact with Mistakes © 2022 bumotors.ru. How to set up smartphones and PCs. Informational portal.