This article will compare the processor products of the two leading manufacturers of semiconductor chips: Intel vs AMD. Also, their current computing platforms will be considered, their strengths and weaknesses will be indicated. Well, in addition to this, possible configurations of computers will be given.
Main current processor sockets x86
Today, each of the leading manufacturers of central processing units has 2 actual processor sockets. At Intel it is:
Socket LGA 2011-v3. This combo processor socket is targeted at both high-performance personal computer assemblies for computer enthusiasts and servers. The key feature of this platform is the RAM controller, which can operate in 4-channel mode, and it is this important feature that provides processor products with unprecedented performance. It should also be noted that this platform does not use an integrated graphics subsystem. Only discrete graphics can unleash the potential of such high-performance chips, and it is precisely on the use of this class of computer components that the LGA 2011 - v3 processor socket is oriented.
Socket LGA 1151. This computing platform allows you to organize both budget-level PCs and high-performance computing systems. In this case, the RAM controller can function as much as possible in 2-channel mode. Also, almost every central processing unit in the LGA 1151 is equipped with an integrated video card, which will perfectly "fit" into an office or budget system unit. In terms of performance, this socket loses to the previously reviewed LGA 2011-v3, but outperforms any AMD solution. Therefore, if we compare Intel i5 vs AMD Fx-8XXX, the advantage, both in performance and in energy efficiency, will be with the products of the first company.
In turn, AMD is actively promoting the following processor sockets today:
The main computing platform for this developer of microprocessor devices is AM3 +. The most productive CPUs within its framework are FX chips, which can include from 4 to 8 computational modules. The RAM controller in AM3 +, like in LGA 1151, can function as much as possible in. Only in this case we are talking about support for the outdated RAM standard - DDR3, but LGA 1151 boasts support for the latest and fastest DDR4. Therefore, if we compare the most recent Intel i5 vs AMD Fx-9XXX, then even the flagship solutions of the latter will lose significantly in performance. Also within this platform there is support for the integrated graphics subsystem. But, unlike the sameLGA 1151,the integrated graphics core in this case leads to the composition of the motherboard, and is not integrated into the semiconductor crystal of the CPU.
The most recent AMD processor socket today isFM2+. Its main niche is inexpensive multimedia stations, office or ultra-budget computers. main featureFM2 + -it is a very productive integrated subsystem that can compete on an equal footing with discrete entry-level video cards in performance and is significantly ahead of Intel's products of this class. But the limiting factor on the way to the success of this socket is the weak processor part of this semiconductor solution. Therefore, the use of this connector in the context of even an entry-level completely and completelyunjustifiably.
LGA 1151. Main characteristics
This computing platform currently occupies a dominant position in the desktop computer market, and it is this platform that provides a significant advantage in comparison with Intel vs AMD on the side of the former. Moreover, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. As noted earlier, it boasts the following advantages over its direct competitors in the face of AM3 + and FM2 +: an integrated DDR4 RAM controller, the mandatory presence of a graphics subsystem and a cache memory that includes three levels without fail. The positioning of chips within LGA 1151, as well as their most important parameters, are shown in Table 1. If we make a direct comparison between Intel Core i5 vs AMD FX-9 XXX series, then in the overwhelming majority of tasks the advantage will be with the first solution. There is nothing special about this: the latest generation of Intel chips was presented in the summer of 2015, and AMD - in 2012. Therefore, it is quite difficult for the latter's processor products to compete with the newer and more productive Intel products.
Chips positioning within LGA 1151. Their most important characteristics
Processor names | In what PCs is it best to use such a chip? | main parameters |
Celeron. CPU models G3920, G3900, and G3900TE. | Office system units with integrated graphics. | Advanced 14 nm process technology, excellent energy efficiency, three-tier cache. |
Pentium. Processors lineup G44XX and G45XX. | Budget PCs capable of solving most of the most common tasks. | Compared to the most affordable Celeron chips increased 3rd level cache and clock frequencies. |
Core i3 models 61XX and 63XX. | Basic gaming PCs paired with powerful discrete graphics. | Support for HT technology, which allows you to get at the level with Office 4 threads of software processing. Increased level 3 cache and clock speeds. |
Core i5 models 64XX, 65XX and 66XX. | An average gaming system or graphics station combined with a powerful graphics card. | Full 4 cores, dynamic CPU frequency regulation, even larger cache size. |
Core i7 models 67XX. | The most productive gaming PCs, video processing and encoding stations, entry-level servers. | 4 cores and 8 threads of software processing. Maximum cache size. Adjusting the frequency of the processor. |
System blocks for computer enthusiasts. | An unlocked multiplier can significantly increase the speed of the computing system. |
Processor Socket LGA 2011-v3. Technical specifications
It is impossible to compare Intel vs AMD within this platform for the reason that this socket is out of competition in terms of speed today.LGA 2011-v3originally designed as a server socket, but later a lineup of chipsXeon was supplemented Core i7,aimed at the segment of already consumer PCs with unprecedented high performance.As noted earlier, integrated graphics in such systems should not be expected, and the RAM controller has 4 channels at once. Also, the indisputable advantages of this socket include the ability to install a CPU with 6 or even 12 cores, which also haveunlockedfactor. As a result, the performance margin of such computing systems allows their owners do not think about the hardware requirements for the next 3-4 years, for sure. Intel vs AMD processors in context LGA 2011-v3no comparison is allowed. There is simply a gap between them both in speed and in price. The latter for such PCs starts at several thousand dollars. But this is nothing special: such a PC is purchased for several years in advance and has excessive performance.
Basic parameters and capabilities
It's not entirely correct to compare Intel Core vs AMD processor solutions FX.While the former are constantly being updated and refined, the latter were released back in 2012 and since then there have been no changes within the AM3 + platform. As a result, the performance difference is huge.between these two platforms. AMD's flagship today can only compete on equal terms with the chips of the lineupCore i3.All processors within AM3 + have an unlocked multiplier, and as a result, they can and should be overclocked. Under the most favorable circumstances, with such CPUs, you can conquer the bar at 5 GHz. Also, without fail, this semiconductor crystal includes a 3-level cache. The RAM controller in this case is 2-channel, but, in contrastLGA 1151,cannot work with memoryDDR4, but only with DDR3.If you compare with each other“ Cor ” of the last generation, the advantage of the latter in terms of performance will be very large.The approximate positioning of AM3 + chips on niches is shown in the table below.
Positioning of AM3 + chips
Processor family name | Number of cores and modules | Appointment |
FX-43XX | 4/2 | Budget and office PCs. Entry-level gaming systems. |
FX-63XX | 6/3 | Game computers of the middle level |
FX-83XX | 8/4 | Graphic and workstations. Entry-level servers. The most productive gaming PCs on this platform. |
FX-9XXX | 8/4 | Enthusiast computers. |
FM2 + processor socket. Main platform for AMD hybrid chips
It is impossible to compare with each other processor parts vs AMD A-series. These processors are aimed at solving completely different tasks. The first of them allow you to create high-performance PCs, and the second - multimedia stations. But the situation changes dramatically when comparing graphics subsystems. The Core i5, alas, cannot boast of a powerful integrated graphics subsystem, but the AMD hybrid chip is equipped by default with a video card that even surpasses even the entry-level discrete accelerators in its capabilities. An important feature of this family of chips is that they are equipped with only two levels of cache memory.
Multimedia stations
Of course, within the niche of multimedia stations, it is possible to compare such central processors as Intel Core i5 vs AMD A10-XXXX, but this approach is not economically justified. Such computers put forward increased requirements for the graphics subsystem, and are not so demanding on the processor part of the PC. It is this combination of characteristics that the previously mentioned series of hybrid chips from AMD boasts. Another important feature is their very low cost, which corresponds to the 2-core CPU models from Intel. As a result, AMD has a dominant position in this highly specialized niche. The approximate configuration of such a PC is shown in the table below. The parameters of this computer will be quite enough for playing video, listening to music, working in office applications, and even some toys on it will run on the minimum settings.
Approximate complete set of multimedia station
№ p / p | Name of components | Model | Cost, rubles |
CPU | A8-7850 3.6 / 3.9 GHz, 4 cores, 4 MB L2 cache. | 5000 rubles |
|
Motherboard | MSI A78M-E35 | 3000 rubles |
|
RAM | TEAM 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz | 2000 rubles |
|
Power Supply | GameMax GM-500B | 1200 rubles |
|
Frame | I-BOX FORCE 1807 | 900 rubles |
|
HDD | HDD 1 Tb 7200 | 2500 rubles |
|
Total: | 14,600 rubles |
||
Office computers
In this, the comparison between AMD FX vs Intel will be on the side of the latter. It has highly productive entry-level CPUs at a very democratic cost. The Celeron chip will look the most optimal within the framework of such a computing system. The approximate complete set of such a computer is shown in the following table.
Office computer 2016
№p / p | PC component | Model | Estimated price, rubles |
CPU | Celeron G3900 | 2100 rubles |
|
Motherboard | ASUS H110M-R / C / SI | 2400 rubles |
|
RAM | Silicon Power 4 GB DDR4 2133 MHz | 1200 rubles |
|
Power Supply | Delux 400W FAN 120 mm | 700 rubles |
|
Frame | Frime 165B | 900 rubles |
|
HDD | WD WD1600AVVS, 160 GB | 2200 rubles |
|
Total: | 9500 rubles |
||
Entry-level gaming PCs
Theoretically, within the framework of an entry-level gaming PC, you can also compare, for example, AMD FX - 6300 vs Intel "Kor Ay 3". But the difference in performance in this case will be fantastic. Moreover, the second CPU will win, which has only 2 real modules for performing computations instead of the one that has 6 paired blocks.
Therefore, in any case, the gaming system should be based on Intel chips. They are more expensive, but their performance is much better. Well, for gaming systems, the number of displayed images per second comes out on top, and here the difference between AMD FX vs Intel i3 will be simply staggering. The approximate complete set of such a computer is shown in the table below.
Complete set of basic gaming system
№ p / p | PC component | Model | Price, rubles |
CPU | i3-6100 | 6500 rubles |
|
Motherboard | ASUS H110M | 2400 rubles |
|
RAM | 2х 4 GB DDR4 2133 MHz | 2400 rubles |
|
Power Supply | GameMax GM-500B | 1200 rubles |
|
Frame | I-BOX FORCE 1805 | 900 rubles |
|
HDD | 1Tb 7200 | 2 7 00 rubles |
|
Solid state drive | 128 GB SATA 3 | 2500 rubles |
|
Video card | Radeon RX460 | 7000 rubles |
|
Total: | 25 600 rubles |
||
Average gaming systems
Comparing AMD FX-8350 vs Intel "Kor Ay 5" in terms of even a mid-level gaming PC in terms of the number of frames per second, we get a significant difference. In some cases, the difference will be 20-30 frames per second. This is unacceptable in dynamic games. Therefore, it is most correct to assemble a mid-level gaming system only on a full-fledged 4-core CPU from Intel. And it is best to look towards the i5-6600 chip. It is in combination with the GeForce 1060 that it will allow you to get excellent "Gameplay". It should be noted that the video card must be equipped with 6GB of RAM. Also, installing processors with an unlocked multiplier in such a system is not entirely justified. They are aimed at the premium segment and to work in tandem with the more expensive and efficient graphics card. Otherwise, the approximate configuration is shown in the table below.
Mid-level gaming system
Component | Parameters, model | Price, rubles |
CPU | i5-6600 | 15 000 rubles |
Motherboard | ASUS B 150-M | 6000 rubles |
RAM | DDR4 3200MHz 16Gb | 12,000 rubles |
Power Supply | 1000W | 7000 rubles |
Frame | Midi-Tower | 2000 rubles |
HDD | 2GB, 7200 | 6000 rubles |
SSD - drive | 256GB | 5500 rubles |
Graphics accelerator | GeForce 1060, 6 GB | 20 000 rubles |
Total: | 73,500 rubles |
|
Uncompromising gaming computers
If, even when comparing Intel Core i5 vs AMD, the indisputable advantage is already on the side of the first company, then in this case, in essence, the second company has no analogues. For the last 5 years, the premium segment of CPUs has been confidently occupied by the products of only one company - Intel, and even a comparison of AMD FX-9590 vs Intel LGA 2011-v3 does not give any chances for the products of the first company. This niche, as noted earlier, is targeted by Core i7 processors for the LGA2011-v3 socket. They can include up to 10 compute units, have an increased cache memory and an unlocked multiplier.
But the key difference in this case is the RAM controller, which can operate in 4-channel mode. As a result, the RAM subsystem is faster in this case, and there is no worthy competition for such computers yet.
PC for the computer enthusiast
Component | Specifications | Price, rubles |
CPU | Core i7-6950 NS | 100,000 rubles |
Video card | 8 GB | 50,000 rubles |
RAM | 32 GB, DDR4 | 25 000 rubles |
Motherboard | X99 | 45,000 rubles |
Power Supply | 1000 watts | 16,000 rubles |
Frame | ATX | 2000 rubles |
HDD | 2Gb, 7200 | 8,000 rubles |
SSD - drive | 512 GB | 10,000 rubles |
Total: | 256,000 rubles |
|
Graphics stations
Even within this specialized niche, a comparison between AMD FX vs Intel Core i5 indicates that the products of the first company are outdated and lose in all respects. The base chip for such a PC is the i5-6400.
The approximate configuration of such a system is shown in the following table.
Graphics station complete set
№ p / p | Component | Model | Price in rubles |
CPU | i5-6400 | 11 000 rubles |
|
Motherboard | ASUS Z-170DE | 5400 rubles |
|
RAM | DDR4 16Gb | 10,000 rubles |
|
Power Supply | Aerocool VX-800 | 5400 rubles |
|
Frame | Frime 165B | 2000 rubles |
|
HDD | 1Tb SATA 3, 7200, 64 Mb cache | 40 00 rubles |
|
Solid state drive | 256 GB SATA 3 | 50 00 rubles |
|
Video card | Radeon Pro2DUO | 120,000 rubles |
|
Total: | 162 800 rubles |
||
What's next?
The next few months will be quite busy in the processor market. First, in January, Intel will update the lineup of its chips and present the 7th generation of its architecture, codenamed Core. In this case, no fundamental changes are expected. Bug fixes will be carried out, performance will be slightly improved and some new technologies will be added. Then, closer to the end of the first quarter, AMD will finally release its new socket, which it will call AM4. In this case, the changes will already be revolutionary. The chips will be manufactured using a new process technology, have an improved architecture and receive new technologies. These Zen processors should, in theory, restore parity in the CPU market. Only after that it will be expedient to revise the previously given computer configurations.
Outcomes
Let's sum up the results of the comparison of Intel vs AMD processor products carried out within the framework of this material. The only niche where the position of the second company is still strong is multimedia systems and budget and office PCs. Moreover, in the second case, Intel products look even more preferable. Another plus that AMD can boast of is the lower cost of its products. But is it worth saving the same $ 100 and getting an outdated system?even by today's standards. This is already obvious: a PC is bought for 3-5 years, therefore, in all other cases, when buying a new computing system, it is more correct to navigate when comparingspecifically for the products of the second company.
At the end of each year, we summarize the benchmark results for most modern processors, taking into account BIOS updates and changes in performance, and then divide the resulting data into three separate categories.
The first part of our ranking focuses on performance in gaming benchmarks, in the second we will touch on performance in CAD applications for workstations (real-time rendering), and finally in the third we will collect general data on performance, rendering and power consumption.
No one can always be a leader: a system that lacks performance today may surpass all others tomorrow. So if you have a good strategy, then you can be confident in your future.
This truth works, but not always. First of all, you need to understand today's PC capabilities, tomorrow's computing needs, and also have a reserve for the future. This is where you need to focus - and plan for a small supply.
Unfortunately, high productivity always costs more, perhaps even not always proportionally, so it is very important to determine the optimal volume of such a stock.
Our requests, desires and financial capabilities do not always coincide. However, in this case, there is the concept of "common sense", allowing you to drop insurmountable obstacles. It is always worth combining environmental aspects, such as energy consumption and durability, with economic - costs and profitability of the purchase. Simply put, it's worth buying exactly what you really need (or need in the near future).
Our testing methodology is described in the article ", so for convenience we will refer to this article. If you are interested in details, we recommend that you refer to it.
The differences from this method in relation to this testing are reduced to the hardware configuration: processor, RAM, motherboard and cooling system, the features of which can be found in the following table.
| Test systems and measuring equipment | |
| Hardware: | AMD Socket AM4 MSI X370 Tomahawk 2x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 RGB AMD Socket SP3 (TR4) AMD Socket AM3 + Intel Socket 1151 (Z370): Intel Socket 1151 (Z270): Intel Socket 2066 Intel Socket 2011v3: All systems: 1x 1 TByte Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, system SSD) |
| Cooling: | Alphacool Eiszeit 2000 Chiller Alphacool Eisblock XPX Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut (for cooler replacement) |
| Monitor: | Eizo EV3237-BK |
| Frame: | Lian Li PC-T70 with expansion and modification kit Open test bench, closed case |
| Energy consumption measurement: | Non-contact current measurement on a PCIe slot (using an adapter card) Non-contact current measurement on the external power supply cable of the PSU Direct voltage measurement on a power supply 2 x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz (4-channel oscilloscope with data logging function) 4 x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 (current clamp) 4 x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10: 1 oscilloscope probe, 500 MHz) 1 x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 (multimeter with data logging function) |
| Temperature measurement: | Infrared camera Optris PI640 PI Connect analysis software with various profiles |
| Measurement of noise level: | NTI Audio M2211 (with calibration file, 50 Hz high pass filter) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for mics) Creative X7, Smart v.7 Our own measurement chamber with blanking surfaces, dimensions 3.5x1.8x2.2 m (LxWxH) Measurements along the axis perpendicular to the center of the sound source at a distance of 50 cm Noise level in dB (A) (slow), real-time frequency response analyzer (RTA) Graphical spectrum of noise frequencies |
Let's start with two synthetic benchmarks, dividing them into two categories for DirectX11 and DirectX12 support. In the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark, core count is most important, which boosts the performance of older multi-core processors that don't run at high enough clock speeds, such as the Core i7-6950X. AMD Threadripper and Ryzen 7 also demonstrate good results. Simple quad-core processors have little chance here, as well as Intel six-core processors without Hyper-Threading support.
The pattern is repeated in 3DMark Time Spy based on DirectX12. Regardless of the software interface, there is nothing to replace the number of cores. The performance becomes even more convincing with increasing clock speeds.
As in 3DMark, core count plays a major role in Ashes of Singularity: Escalation, followed by clock speed. This is a good example of proper load balancing across multiple threads.
In Civilization VI, the number of threads also matters, but in processors with eight or more possible threads (for example, in Intel Core i7-7700K using Hyper-Threading, clock speeds start to play an important role. So this game needs the right balance between number of cores and clock frequency.
In the game Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War III, the CPU clock speed comes to the fore, while four well-scalable threads will be enough. This lowers Ryzen slightly and boosts the performance of Intel chips.
Grand Theft Auto V is also an Intel-dominated construction site overall. At the same time, all Ryzen do not look too bad in terms of price-performance ratio.
In Hitman 2016, the AMD world looks pretty good. At the same time, the basic performance of the chips (for example, in the case of the Intel Core i5-8400) is limited by the power of the video card used. This is a clear example of the fact that if any of the components serve as limiting factors, any increase in performance can be costly. The key to everything is the right balance: the video card must match the processor level, and vice versa.
Project Cars is completely dominated by Intel processors. Even the junior quad-core models without Hyper-Threading are significantly ahead of Ryzen 7 and Threadripper. Ryzen 3 and Pentium fail completely, and Ryzen 7 1700 has problems with too low clock speeds. So overclocking is indispensable here.
Far Cry Primal is the second game in our tests where the graphics card is the limiting factor, but a little clarification is needed here. This game works well with eight threads, and physical cores are not necessary, a quad-core chip with Hyper-Threading will do if the clock speeds are high enough. However, with "purely" quad-core models, this trick will no longer work if their clock frequency does not go beyond certain limits. In other words, frequency is important here, but frequency alone is not enough.
In the VRMark test, we see a similar picture, and here Threadripper is already ahead of all Ryzen 7 modifications. However, this test is still the domain of Intel chips.
Bad news first: there is no single best processor we tested, so all factors need to be considered in order to make the right choice, such as the purpose of use, the performance you need, the overall concept of your PC, and your budget. So the good news is that everyone can find the best processor for themselves.
Games or office applications, workstation packages or HTPCs? The applications and applications are multifaceted, and most of us already know how a new processor will be used before purchasing it. The wrong choice not only causes disappointment in the acquisition, but also often leads to significant financial losses, especially if you have to resell, exchange or completely replace components that do not fit together.
There are many options for combining components. Does your CPU match the socket on the motherboard, and if so, does the motherboard itself support it? Is the cooling system suitable in terms of power for this processor, and if so, does this cooler cover the RAM modules and does it interfere with the installation of a video card in the first PCI Express slot? There are such "experts" who screw a huge cooler onto a mini-ITX board, and only then think about the case ...
Processor prices fluctuate like palm trees during a tropical cyclone, and any budding assembler pays attention to them first. Therefore, we are not going to comment on the price level in any way, since both the usual market price adjustments and the relative scarcity of individual models (for example, the Coffee Lake-S from Intel) make such comments meaningless just a few days after they were uttered. Therefore, we simply present the "clean" results and leave the readers the opportunity to inquire about prices on their own.
This article will compare laptop processors from two leading semiconductor manufacturers - Intel and AMD. The products of the first of them are equipped with an improved processor part and, in this regard, have a higher level of performance. In turn, AMD solutions can boast of a more efficient graphics subsystem.
Division into niches
Comparison and Intel for laptops will be best performed in three niches:
- Low-end processors (they are also the most affordable).
- Mid-range CPUs that combine both a high level of performance and acceptable energy efficiency.
- Chips with the highest level of performance. In this case, performance, autonomy and energy efficiency fade into the background.
If in the first two cases AMD can provide a worthy alternative to Intel, then the premium segment has been completely dominated by the latter company for a long time. The only hope in this regard is for new processor solutions based on the Zen architecture, which AMD is to present next year.
Intel entry-level products
Until recently, this niche from Intel was occupied by Atom products. But now the situation has changed and entry-level laptops are now based on processors The most modest products of this class include only 2 cores, and the most advanced - 4. The following models are relevant for Q3 2016, which are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 - Current Intel CPU models for entry-level mobile PCs.
Model name | Number of cores, pcs | Process technology, nm | 3rd level cache, MB | Frequencies, GHz | Thermal package, W | CPU cost, $ | Graphics card model HD Graphics |
|
There are essentially no fundamental differences between these CPU models. They are aimed at solving the most simple tasks and have the lowest level of performance. Also, this manufacturer of semiconductor solutions has a strong point in the processor part, but the integrated graphics subsystem is very weak. Another strength of these products is a high degree of energy efficiency and improved autonomy due to this.
Mid-range solutions from Intel
Cor i3 and Cor i5 are mid-range Intel processors for notebooks. Comparison of their characteristics indicates that the first family is closer to entry-level solutions, and the second - under certain circumstances, can compete with the most productive chips of this company. The detailed specifications of this product family are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Parameters of Intel processors for mid-range notebooks.
Model name | Number of Cores/ logical flows, pcs | Production technology, nm | Level 3 cache, MB | Frequencies, GHz | Power, W | HD Graphics |
|
The characteristics of this class of CPUs are almost identical. The key difference is the improved energy efficiency of the 7U54. As a result, autonomy in this case will also be better. As for the rest, there are no significant differences between these processors. The price for all chips of this family is the same - $ 281.
Intel premium notebook processors
For the latest generation notebooks, indicates that the most powerful solutions are the i7 family of CPUs. Moreover, in terms of architecture, they practically do not differ from middle-class products. Even the models of video cards are the same in this case. But a higher level of performance compared to middle-class processors is provided by higher clock speeds and an increased size of volatile memory of the 3rd level. The main parameters of the chips of this family are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 - Main characteristics of the i7 CPU family.
The difference between these products is that in the second case, energy efficiency is improved, but at the same time, the performance will ultimately be lower.
AMD Entry-Level Mobile Processors
For notebooks of the two leading manufacturers, these products indicate that Intel, as noted earlier, has a better processor part, while AMD has an integrated graphics subsystem. If in the new laptop the priority is precisely the improved video system, then it is better to pay attention to the laptops of the second manufacturer. Specific chip models by technical specifications are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 - The most recent AMD processors for entry-level notebooks.
Model name | Frequency range, GHz | 2nd level cache, MB | Thermal package, W | Number of cores, pcs | Integrated graphics |
|
Most of these chips have almost identical technical parameters. The key difference here is only in the frequency range and model of the integrated embedded accelerator. It is on the basis of these parameters that you need to make a choice. If you need maximum autonomy, then we choose products with a lower performance. If autonomy comes to the fore, then dynamism will have to be sacrificed for this.
AMD chips for organizing mid-range laptops
FX-9XXXP and A1X-9XXXP are for laptops. Comparison of their characteristics with the entry-level products indicates that they already have 4 compute units versus 2 that are available in the entry-level products. Also, in this case, it can compete with discrete entry-level accelerators. But the weak processor part is the factor that significantly reduces the performance of laptops based on these chips. Therefore, you can look in their direction only when, at the lowest cost of a mobile computer, you need the fastest possible graphics subsystem. The main specifications for this family of CPUs are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - CPU parameters from AMD for middle class notebooks.
CPU marking | Clock frequencies, GHz | Graphics accelerator | Thermal package, W |
|
The most difficult comparison is in the entry-level segment of notebook processors. On the one hand, Intel solutions in this case have a lower cost and an improved processor part. In turn, AMD offers mobile PCs with improved graphics subsystem. It is based on the last parameter that it is recommended to buy when choosing an entry-level laptop Pavilion 15-AW006UR from HP. All other things being equal with competing solutions, the video card in this case will have a certain performance margin, and the processor is not that much inferior to the Intel CPU. As a mid-range mobile PC, it is recommended to choose the Aspire E5 - 774 - 50SY from Acer. It has an i5 - 7200U chip, which is only slightly inferior to the flagship products. And other technical specifications are at an acceptable level for a mid-range laptop. Comparison of laptop processors in the niche of the most productive solutions indicated that it is best to buy mobile computers based on 7th generation i7 chips. The most affordable, but at the same time very equipped version of the laptop, is the IdeaPad 510-15 IKB from Lenovo. It is he who is recommended to buy when choosing the most productive mobile PC. At the same time, the price is quite democratic both for this class of devices, and the equipment is excellent.
Outcomes
Comparison of processors for notebooks of two leading chip manufacturers today clearly and clearly indicates that the leading positions in most cases are occupied by products from Intel. AMD, in turn, lags significantly behind its direct competitor. The only market segment where parity is still maintained is entry-level mobile products, where AMD has a worthy alternative. In all other cases, it would be more correct to purchase notebooks based on Intel CPUs. The current situation can be radically changed by the release of processors based on the Zen architecture in 2017. But time will tell whether AMD will succeed in doing this. Now it is most correct in the niche of mid-range and premium mobile PCs to rely on Intel solutions. Although their price is somewhat overpriced, the level of performance more than compensates for this shortcoming.
The quality and speed of a personal computer, as well as its performance, largely depend on the processor. This becomes clear when the PC refuses to cope with the tasks that the user sets for it. There is only one way out - to upgrade your computer and look for a new, more productive and modern processor. To make the purchase not useless, you need to have a clear idea of how to choose a processor and what parameters it should have in order to cope with specific tasks. Similar problems are faced by those who decided to assemble a car for themselves. Let's try to answer all questions as briefly and succinctly as possible, as well as study the modern market and determine the best processors in 2018.
The main point of controversy when choosing a processor is the manufacturer. At the moment, there are two companies competing on the market - AMDandIntel... The controversy over which product is better is reminiscent of the eternal debate about iOS and Android, or Canon and Nikon. Fans of this or that system are ready to tirelessly prove their point of view, there is always an "arms race" between the companies themselves, so it is impossible to unequivocally answer which processors are better, AMD or Intel. Someone once said that it was a matter of religion or even a matter of habit.
We will come back to the manufacturer's question later, try to understand their proposals in more detail, but for now we note that when choosing a processor, you should still pay attention to its architecture, number of cores, clock speed, cache memory and other parameters.
Processor socket, or Socket type
The processor is installed in a special socket on the motherboard, so the type of socket (socket) they must match. Different types of connectors are not compatible with each other - a system assembled in this way will not work. Motherboard manufacturers indicate which processors each model is compatible with. Information is available in the instructions for the motherboard or on the official websites. If you assemble the computer yourself, then do not take an outdated motherboard: in a couple of years, when you want to upgrade your PC, you will have to buy not only a new processor, but also a new motherboard. 
There are up to 30 different types of sockets, many of which are already considered obsolete.
Intel processors are currently available with these sockets:
For processorsAMDsuch sockets are relevant:
- FM2 / FM2 +- inexpensive simple processors that are suitable for assembling ordinary office systems and the simplest gaming PCs;
- AM3 +- one of the most common sockets, on its basis it is possible to assemble systems of any power, up to the most advanced gaming computers;
- AM4 - socket for the most productive processors, which are used to build professional and gaming PCs;
- AM1 - socket for the simplest processors.
Sockets LGA1155, LGA775AM3, LGA2011, AM2 / + are deprecated. 
Number of cores and threads
The core of the process is its heart, brain and soul. The first multi-core processor was introduced to the world by Intel, but there is still an opinion that the idea was stolen from AMD. Let's not stir up the past - the main thing is that today you can't find single-core processors. It remains to figure out how many cores are really needed.
If you simplify a little, then you can come to the following conclusions:
- 2 cores- an option for a computer that will be used to work with a basic set of office programs, launch a browser and watch a video;
- 4 cores- option for both office use and for launching medium-sized toys. It all depends on the frequency and architecture;
- 6, 8 and 10 cores- powerful computers for running 3D programs and the most advanced and demanding games. A good option for a gamer.
Please note that there are programs that cannot balance the load across the cores, and they will run faster on a 2-core processor with a higher clock speed than a 4-core processor, but at a lower frequency.
Please note that there is processors with virtual additional cores... Special technology (Intel Hyper-Threading or AMD SMT) allows you to clone every physical core, therefore the number of data processing threads does not always equal the number of cores... If you're talking about an eight-threaded processor, then it might have 4 or 8 real cores. 
CPU frequency
Many users naively believe that the higher the clock speed, the better and faster the computer will work. This is not entirely true, or rather true, but under certain conditions. Let's figure it out.
Clock speed refers to the number of operations that the processor performs per second. Hence, the higher the frequency, the faster the "brains" work and a 3.5 GHz processor would be preferred over a 2.8 GHz processor, for example. This is really so, when it comes to processors of the same line where identical kernels are used.
Performance depends not only on the frequency, but also on the processor architecture and cache size, so you shouldn't focus only on the frequency, but within the same line it is a significant factor. 
Technical process
The technical process determines the size of the transistors on the processor and the distance between them. The photolithography method is used to apply conductors, insulators and other elements to a silicon substrate. The resolution of the equipment used forms a certain technical process and affects the size of the transistors and the distance between them.
The technical process is measured in nm and the smaller it is, the more elements can be placed on the same area. At the moment, the most modern processors have a 14 nm process technology.
This parameter has a very indirect effect on performance. Much more significantly, it affects the heating of the processor. The improvement of technologies allows each time to release a processor with a lower technical process, they heat up less. If we compare the processor of the old generation and the new one with the same performance, then the new one will heat up less. Since the performance increases in the new models, the old and new "stones" are heated approximately in the same way. Thus, the reduction of the technical process allows manufacturers to create faster and more efficient processors without increasing the degree of heating. 
Cache memory
Cache memory is built-in ultra-fast memory that helps store and process data between cores, RAM, and other buses. In fact, it is connecting link between RAM and processor... Thanks to this buffer, you can quickly access frequently used data. In modern processors, the cache has several levels (as a rule, three, rarely two). The larger the amount of memory on them, the faster the "stone" will work, but this is again true only for processors of the same line.
Memory is unevenly distributed across levels:
- L1 is first level cache, its volume is minimal (8-128 Kb), but the speed is the highest. The frequency usually reaches the level of the processor frequency;
- L2 - second level cache, more in volume (from 128 Kb) than the first, but slower than it;
- L3 is the largest, but the slowest cache. On the other hand, even the L3 cache is faster than RAM.
If you need to choose a processor for a gaming computer or to run powerful professional programs with high graphics requirements, then it is better to take processor with the maximum possible amount of L3 memory(the parameter usually ranges from 2 to 20 MB). This long-standing truth has recently been destroyed by tests of new processors, which show that cache memory practically does not affect performance in games. However, this parameter should not be written off - a good amount of cache memory will speed up data archiving and writing data from flash memory to the hard drive. 
Integrated graphics core
Improvement of production technology made it possible to place various microcircuits inside the processor, incl. graphics core. The main advantage of this solution is that there is no need to buy a video card separately. They are built into the processor, as a rule, quite average video cards in terms of capabilities, therefore, models with an integrated graphics core suitable for users for whom graphical capabilities are secondary. These are budget processors for the office environment, but video from the Internet, most non-specific programs, ordinary toys and even entry-level 3D games will be able to handle it.
If your goal is to build a powerful gaming computer, then it is better to take a processor without an integrated graphics core and then buy a powerful video card. Considering that it costs a lot, and many have to save some more time for it, a processor with an integrated video card can be useful in this case as well. 
What is processor bitness, and is it so important?
The bit depth of the processor shows how many bits the computer can process in one clock cycle. This parameter affects performance. At the moment, the most commonly used processors for 32 and 64 bits, there are also 128-bit processors, but their segment is still very limited.
Is a 64-bit processor always better than a 32-bit processor, and what are the differences? If the processor has 2 cores, and 2-3 GB of RAM is used, then you will not feel the difference. A 64-bit processor when using multi-core processors can significantly increase performance when running 64-bit applications. In fairness, it should be noted that the increase in performance will not always be noticed.
The main advantageous difference between 64-bit processors- this is the ability to work with 4 GB of RAM or more. If you have even 8 GB RAM sticks in your computer, the 32-bit processor will see and use only 3.75 GB of them. 
Heat dissipation
The more powerful the processor, the more it heats up. It is good that the improvement of the technical process can significantly reduce heating. Today, the TDP value is used to estimate heat dissipation, in W. The lower the value, the less heat is generated. In laptop computers, everything is well calculated, installed and works without additional cooling. If you need to assemble a very powerful computer, then you will hardly be able to do without a cooler built into the processor (such models are labeled as BOX, without a cooler - OEM).
If the TDP of the system 60W and less, even a complete or simplest cooling system can be used. With heat release up to 95 W it is better to take high-quality medium-format fans - the complete one will not cope. At TDP 125 W or more a tower cooler with multiple copper pipes is indispensable. 
Unlocked multiplier
If you are going to overclock the processor, make sure that it is possible to do it using standard methods. It is important that the multiplier function is supported by the motherboard.
AMD or Intel - which is better?
There is no objective answer to this question and cannot be. Thousands of pages on the Internet have been created on this topic, disputes sometimes turn into scandals using obscene language - this is how users defend the products of their favorite manufacturer. Often, all these disputes resemble attempts to find out which is better, pineapple or sausage - there can be no consensus here.
In some segments it is better than AMD, in some - Intel, but often even these opinions are subjective, so when choosing, rely purely on your subjective opinion - we will not bother you. Well, for those who have not yet decided on their subjective opinion, we will give a few facts.
The competition between the two leaders is fierce, but it is believed that Intel is releasing more powerful processors that AMD cannot keep up with, and AMD, in turn, offers the best budget solutions. But this opinion is too generalized, since Intel also has good inexpensive processors, and AMD offers good top-end solutions. In terms of durability and reliability, the products of both companies are on an equal footing.
To decide which processor is better, AMD or Intel, you need to clearly define goals for yourself and answer the question of what the computer is going for... Moreover, the number of cores and frequency do not always determine the performance - it's all about a completely different architecture. Therefore, use special sites where you can view test results, compare with analogs and see what tasks a particular processor does best. 
We understand that we are touching on a very delicate and controversial topic, but still, let's talk about the general advantages of the processors of the two companies.
Processor advantagesIntel:
- high performance and speed. Working with RAM is better optimized than AMD;
- a large number of games and programs that are optimized specifically for Intel;
- L2 and L3 caches often operate at higher speeds than AMD processors;
- lower power consumption.
Disadvantages of processorsIntel:
- higher price;
- they are inferior to AMD processors in multitasking, despite the fact that they win when working with one process;
- strong attachment to specific sockets, so when buying a new process, you will most likely have to change the motherboard too.
Recently there was a real scandal... In processors from Intel it was revealed vulnerability, which allows third-party malware to gain access to the structure of the protected part of the kernel memory and discover where confidential information is stored. Our passwords, messages, photos and payment card details can be read and used by intruders. Elimination of this problem and an urgent update of the operating system will slow down computers by 20-30%. While the company was trying to resolve the conflict, it turned out that a similar there is a vulnerability in processors fromAMD.
Benefits of processors fromAMD:
- affordable price, so many recognize the manufacturer's processors as the best in terms of price / quality ratio;
- multitasking;
- multiplatform;
- modern processors of the company have good overclocking potential, so in terms of performance they are catching up with Intel.
Disadvantages of processors fromAMD:
The best processors of 2018
Best Intel processors of 2018
Performance kings, Intel processors come in a variety of price points. V the budgetary sphere is the Celeron and Pentium lines... By the way, they are superior in performance to AMD processors of similar cost, but inferior to them in multitasking. For entry-level gaming PCs and multimedia PCs, processors fit Core i3 , for more powerful ones - Core i5 , for the most powerful gaming - Core i7 .
Core i7-7700K
Despite the existence of more productive Core i7-6950X, Intel Core i7-7820X, Intel Core i9-7900X and some others, the most balanced in terms of price and quality can be considered the Core i7-7700K. The frequency is 4.2-4.7 GHz, there are 4 cores in stock, there is an integrated video card, but it will not be enough for top games, but it can easily cope with the launch of video in the highest resolution. The price is about $ 400. 
Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition
It is indecently expensive (about $ 1,700), is equipped with 10 cores, has 25 MB of L3 cache, has a frequency of 3 GHz, and supports Hyper-Threading technology. Power and strength! However, for assembling a gaming computer, the processor's capabilities will even be a bit too much. This solution is only for those who use very specific and highly demanding programs, and then finding a suitable solution can be cheaper.
Core i5-7500
If you want to build a gaming PC, and the budget for buying a processor is modest, then the $ 200 Core i5-7500 is a good solution. Performance, cache memory of the third level (6 MB versus 8 MB) are almost as good as the Core i7-7700K, and with a good video card, the processor can cope with any game. There is a built-in graphics core that supports 4K video. 4 cores operate at 3.4-3.8 GHz.
Core i3-7100
Two cores, four threads, 3.9 GHz frequency and low power consumption combined with an affordable price (110-170 $) makes this processor a popular favorite. Users note that when using a sufficient amount of RAM and graphics memory, this processor can handle even those games where Core i5 and Core i7 are specified in the requirements.
Pentium G4560
The processor has 2 cores, but 4 threads, a frequency of 3.5 GHz. The cost is about $ 70, so if you need to build an inexpensive gaming PC, then this is a good option. It is impossible to compare it with more expensive solutions, but if you have an appropriate video card, it will handle modern games at minimum settings, older and less demanding games will generally fly. 
Pentium Haswell
Not a bad option for an office PC. There are 2 cores, an integrated graphics processor, a frequency of 2.3-3.6 GHz. The cache of the third level is 3 MB. Heat dissipation is small. The cost is about $ 85.
Celeron skylake
A simple, inexpensive processor for computers designed to work with documents, a browser and watching videos. Main characteristics: 2 cores, frequency 2.6-2.9 GHz, cache of the third level 2 MB, minimum heat dissipation, there is a graphics core. Cost $ 45.
Best AMD processors 2018
Ruler budget processors - Sempron, Athlon, Phenom, A4 and A6. A8 and A10 can be used for multimedia and simple games, series Fx- for gaming computers of the middle class, and Ryzen Are top-end processors. You can buy AMD processors on the website: all modern developments of AMD are presented to the attention of potential buyers, as well as photographs of models, detailed lists of characteristics, brief descriptions and manuals. To make it easier for you, we have selected several of the most interesting models suitable for different tasks.
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
The honorable first place goes to the processor from the flagship Ryzen series - Threadripper 1920X. The 12-core "beast" with a clock frequency of 3.5-4 GHz simply could not stay outside our rating. An incredible 24 streams allow you to make the most of the productive power of your personal computer. The processor is equipped with DDR4 memory (4 channels) with error correction function, which guarantees extremely high data transfer rates. The cost is about $ 990. 
Ryzen 7 1800X
The second place also goes to the representative of Ryzen - 7 1800X. This processor differs from the leader in the absence of virtualization technology, the number of cores (there are eight of them in Ryzen 7) and, accordingly, threads (16), as well as RAM channels. There is support for an unlocked multiplier. This model is great for gamers - it can handle 3D games and simulation programs even at maximum settings. It costs about $ 480.
Ryzen 5 1600X
The top three also includes the Ryzen 5 1600X, a strong rival to the rival Core i5 family. Its characteristics are, first of all, 6 cores / 12 threads, Socket AM4 and two channels of RAM. Frequency - 3.6 GHz with overclocking up to 4 GHz. There is support for an unlocked multiplier. It costs about $ 260.
AMD A10-7860K
In fourth place is a powerful 4-core processor designed for home PCs and office use. Model with integrated graphics. The clock speed is 3.6 GHz. It copes well with running games online (medium settings) with good performance and without overheating the hardware. The price is about $ 100.
AMD FX-6300
Not a bad alternative to high-performance solutions from Intel. The processor works with 6 cores, has an unlocked multiplier, a clock speed of 3.5 GHz with the ability to overclock up to 4.1 GHz. Socket - Socket AM3 +. The performance is good, suitable for games and demanding applications, there is no integrated graphics core. The cost is about $ 85. 
Athlon X4 880K
Closing the TOP is the model from the Athlon 880K family - a 4-core processor for home PCs. The clock frequency of the model is 4.0-4.2 GHz. Included with the Radeon Athlon 880K graphics card, it delivers excellent performance and demonstrates all the positive qualities of AMD products. Cost $ 84.
There is also a more budgetary solution from this series. Athlon X4 860K runs on 4 cores, 3.7 GHz, but there is no integrated graphics core. Cost $ 45.
You can still write a lot, give arguments for a long time, argue, test and reflect. We will round off on this, and leave you alone with your thoughts.
Almost every year, a new generation of Intel Xeon E5 central processing units is introduced to the market. Each generation alternates between socket and process. There are more and more cores, and the heat release is gradually decreasing. But a natural question arises: "What does the new architecture give to the end user?"
To do this, I decided to test the performance of similar processors of different generations. I decided to compare the models of the mass segment: 8-core processors 2660, 2670, 2640V2, 2650V2, 2630V3 and 2620V4. Testing with such a spread of generations is not entirely fair, since there is a different chipset between V2 and V3, a new generation memory with a higher frequency, and most importantly, there are no direct peers in frequency among the models of all 4 generations. But, in any case, this study will help to understand to what extent the performance of new processors has increased in real applications and synthetic tests.
The selected line of processors has many similar parameters: the same number of cores and threads, 20 MB SmartCache, 8 GT / s QPI (except 2640V2) and the number of PCI-E lanes equal to 40.
To assess the feasibility of testing all processors, I turned to the PassMark benchmark results.
Below is a summary graph of the results:
Since the frequency is significantly different, it is not entirely correct to compare the results. But despite this, conclusions immediately suggest themselves:
1.2660 is equivalent in performance to 2620V4
2.2670 outperforms 2620V4 in performance (obviously due to frequency)
3.2640V2 sags, and 2650V2 beats everyone (also because of the frequency)
I divided the result by the frequency and got a certain performance value at 1 GHz:
Here the results are already more interesting and illustrative:
1.2660 and 2670 - an unexpected runaway for me within one generation, 2670 justifies only the fact that its overall performance is very high
2.2640V2 and 2650V2 - a very strange low result, which is worse than 2660
3.2630V3 and 2620V4 are the only logical growth (apparently due to the new architecture ...)
After analyzing the result, I decided to weed out some of the uninteresting models that have no value for further testing:
1.2640V2 and 2650V2 - an intermediate generation, and not very successful, in my opinion - I remove them from the candidates
2.2630V3 is an excellent result, but it costs unreasonably more than 2620V4, given the similar performance and, moreover, this is already the outgoing generation of processors
3.2620V4 - adequate price (compared to 2630V3), high performance and, most importantly, this is the only model of the latest 8-core processor with Hyper-threading in our list, so we definitely leave it for further tests
4.2660 and 2670 are excellent results compared to 2620V4. In my opinion, it is the comparison of the first and the last (at the moment) generation in the Intel Xeon E5 line that is of particular interest. In addition, we have sufficient stocks of the first generation processors in our warehouse, so this comparison is very relevant for us.
The cost of servers based on 2660 and 2620V4 processors can differ by almost 2 times not in favor of the latter, therefore, comparing their performance and choosing a server on V1 processors, you can significantly reduce the budget for buying a new server. But I will tell you about this proposal after the test results.
For testing, 3 stands were assembled:
1.2 x Xeon E5-2660, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
2.2 x Xeon E5-2670, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
3.2 x Xeon E5-2620V4, 8 x 8Gb DDR4 ECC REG 2133, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
PassMark PerformanceTest 9.0
When selecting processors for tests, I have already used the results of synthetic tests, but now it is interesting to compare these models in more detail. The comparison was made in groups: 1st generation versus 4th.
A more detailed test report allows us to draw some conclusions:
1. Mathematics, incl. and floating point, mainly depends on the frequency. The difference of 100 MHz allowed the 2660 to outperform the 2620V4 in calculation operations, in encryption and compression (and this despite the significant difference in the memory frequency)
2. Physics and calculations using extended instructions on the new architecture perform better, despite the low frequency
3. And, of course, the test using memory passed in favor of V4 processors, since in this case different generations of memory were competing - DDR4 and DDR3.
It was synthetic. Let's see what specialized benchmarks and real applications show.
7ZIP archiver
Here the results have something in common with the previous test - a direct link to the processor frequency. It doesn't matter that a slower memory is installed - V1 processors confidently take the lead in frequency.
CINEBENCH R15
CINEBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating computer performance for use with MAXON Cinema 4D professional animation software.
The Xeon E5-2670 pulled out in frequency and beat the 2620V4. But the E5-2660, which has a less visible frequency advantage, lost to the 4th generation processor. Hence the conclusion - this software uses useful additions to the new architecture (although perhaps it's all about memory ...), but not so much that it was a decisive factor.
3DS MAX + V-Ray
To evaluate the performance of processors when rendering in a real application, I took a bunch: 3ds Max 2016 + V-ray 3.4 + a real scene with several light sources, specular and transparent materials, and an environment map.
The results were similar to CINEBENCH: the Xeon E5-2670 showed the lowest render times, and the 2660 was unable to bypass the 2620V4.
1C: SQL / File
In conclusion of testing, I enclose the results of the gilev tests for 1C.
When testing a database with file access, the E5-2620V4 processor is confidently in the lead. The table shows the average of 20 runs of the same test. The difference between the results of each stand in the case of the file base was no more than 2%.
A single-threaded test of the SQL database showed some very strange results. The difference turned out to be insignificant, given the different frequencies for the 2660 and 2670, and the different frequencies for DDR3 and DDR4. There was an attempt to optimize the SQL settings, but the results turned out to be worse than they were, so I decided to test all the stands on the basic settings.
The results of the multithreaded SQL benchmark turned out to be even stranger and more inconsistent. The maximum speed of 1 stream in MB / s was equivalent to the performance index in the previous single-threaded test.
The next parameter was the maximum speed (of all streams) - the result was almost identical for all the stands. Since the results of different runs varied greatly (+ -5%) - sometimes they were at different stands with a significant margin both in one direction and in the other. The same average results from a multithreaded SQL benchmark lead me to 3 thoughts:
1. This situation is caused by unoptimized SQL configuration
2.The SSD became a bottleneck in the system and prevented the processors from overclocking
3. There is almost no difference between the frequency of memory and processors for these tasks (which is extremely unlikely)
Also, the result for the "Recommended number of users" parameter turned out to be inexplicable. The average result of the 2660 turned out to be the highest - and this is despite the low results of all tests.
On this issue, I will also be glad to see your comments.
conclusions
The results of several versatile computational tests showed that the processor frequency in most cases turned out to be more important than the generation, architecture, and even memory frequency. Of course, there is modern software that uses all the improvements in the new architecture. For example, video transcoding is sometimes performed incl. using AVX2.0 instructions, but this is specialized software - and most server applications are still tied to the number and frequency of cores.Of course, I am not stating that there is absolutely no difference between the processors, I just want to note that for certain applications there is no point in a "planned" transition to a new generation.
If you disagree with me or you have suggestions for testing, the stands have not yet been disassembled, and I will be happy to test your tasks.
Economic benefit
As I already wrote at the beginning of this article, we offer a line of servers based on the first generation Xeon E5 processors, which are significantly cheaper than servers based on E5-2620V4 at a cost.These are the same new servers (not to be confused with used ones) with a 3-year warranty.
Below is an approximate calculation.
