Gaming is one of the most resource-intensive tasks for a modern PC, and there's nothing you can do about it. Despite the fact that the main component responsible for processing graphics is the video card, the CPU also significantly affects the FPS in games. If it is not productive enough, it will become a “bottleneck”, preventing it from opening up to the full graphics chip. Which processor is better for gaming in 2016 will help you find out the TOP gaming CPUs.
Processor rating: requirements and selection criteria
To be considered a gaming processor, a processor must meet one criterion: be able to run games (your Cap). However, how well he should do it depends on the price category and positioning. After all, it is clear that the capabilities of the models for 100 and 1000 dollars will be “slightly” different. It is difficult to make a rating of processors in terms of performance in 2016, since in different tasks the models show a different ratio of price and potential. This is especially true when comparing different manufacturers (Intel and AMD). Therefore, our rating of processors is left from models in the price range up to 15 thousand rubles.
The TOP gaming processors 2016 included only current models that meet the following criteria:
- connector type. The list contains processors for games that are designed to be installed in motherboards on the latest sockets that are relevant. "Antiquity" under 1155 or FM2 was not taken into account, since such CPUs are incompatible with new boards. It makes sense to buy them in 2016 only for an upgrade, if you completely change the platform - there is no need or finance.
- Opportunities. Only processors that are well adapted to games were taken into account. No matter how good the eight-core AMD FX-8300 is in multi-threaded tasks, in games it is sometimes inferior even to the older dual-core Intel Core i3, therefore it is not interesting in its class. Although in general such processors are not bad, but against the background of competitors, they do not deserve to get into the TOP.
- Value for money. More powerful is not always better. It often happens that for a minimal increase in productivity, you have to pay a substantial amount. If the difference in performance between two CPUs reaches 5%, and in price - 20% - it is clear that the weaker option will be more effective, from a cost-benefit standpoint.
- Related costs. Savings on the processor - does not necessarily mean savings on PC assembly in general. Having reduced costs in one place, you may need to overpay in another. So, buying AMD FX-9590, it may seem that for 15 thousand you get a processor of the Core i7 level. But do not forget that in order to use this chip, you also need to buy an expensive board (while i7 works on any compatible motherboard for 4 thousand), a more powerful power supply and a high-quality cooler. Such CPUs also have no place in the TOP gaming processors of 2016.
TOP gaming processors for different budgets
The 2016 gaming processor rating includes chips that meet the above requirements and are optimal in their class. All models are selected taking into account the most attractive ratio of price, features, and costs for assembling a gaming system.
5th place: AMD A10-7850K, from 6469 rubles
AMD A10-7850K took the 5th place in the TOP gaming processors of 2016. This is a quad-core processor with integrated graphics aimed at budget gaming PCs. It is intended for boards with socket FM2+. The processor is equipped with a quartet of Kaveri cores operating at a frequency of 3.7-4 GHz, thanks to an unlocked multiplier, it can be raised (4.5 GHz is not a problem if the PC case is not stuffy, but there is ventilation). The amount of cache memory is 4 MB. The chip also includes an integrated Radeon R7 video core.
The AMD A10-7850K is the minimum gaming solution of 2016 and deserves attention for its integrated graphics. Its four cores provide normal, but not very high performance. The integrated video core, by itself, is capable of running modern games only at low and minimum settings, but in Dual Graphics mode with a discrete Radeon R7 240 or R7 250 graphics card, it shows much more interesting results.
The main advantage of the processor, which ensured it got into the rating, was the integrated graphics. Thanks to it, you can build an entry-level PC in the face of a shortage of money, and later buy an inexpensive video card as well. However, the potential of the processor is not very high. If the average settings do not suit you and you want more, the practical ceiling of a powerful video card for it is the Radeon RX 460.
4th place: AMD FX-6300, from 5250 rubles
In fourth place in the ranking of gaming processors in 2016 for low-cost PCs was the AMD FX-6300. This six-core processor has been known for a long time, several heirs were prepared for it, but none of them became significantly better. The AMD FX-6300 is designed for installation in AM3+ boards that support processor TDP up to 95, so it's very good for upgrading a relatively old system to AM3/AM3+. Although the processor cores operate at a frequency of 3500 GHz, it does not have integrated graphics. The amount of cache memory is 4 MB of the second level, and another 6 MB of the third. The chip also supports overclocking, the latest revisions take frequencies above 4 GHz well, but this requires a good cooler and a normal power supply.
The number of processor cores is a compromise among AMD processors. If 4 is not enough, and 8 is already too much (and this is too much, since the Core i5 for the same money will be the best choice), then 6 is the golden mean. With such a processor, you can use a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or Radeon RX 460 class graphics card to play new games at medium and high settings. It will be able to pull something more powerful only in individual games focused on multi-core, since the performance per core leaves much to be desired.
3rd place: Intel Pentium G4400, from 3550 rubles
The Intel Pentium G4400 is, like the AMD A10-7850K, a minimal processor whose capabilities are enough for new toys. However, if the AMD chip takes the number of cores and integrated graphics as a bonus, then the strength of the brainchild of Intel is quality. It has only 2 SkyLake cores, moreover, without HyperThreading support. They operate at a frequency of 3.3 GHz, there is no Turbo mode that automatically overclocks the CPU either. The cache size is 3 MB. The processor is installed in boards on socket 1151, with DDR3L or DDR4 memory. There is an integrated Intel HD 510 graphics, but it is not suitable for games, so you cannot do without a video card.
It is unrealistic to measure the absolute computing power in games in practice, but according to synthetic tests, one core of the Intel Pentium G4400 is stronger than two cores from AMD. Due to this, the processor almost never loses to quad-core (and even six-core) rivals from a competing company. For World of Tanks or World of Warships, this processor is completely ideal as part of a budget gaming PC. After all, these games are not very friendly with multi-core, so the Intel Pentium G4400 outperforms the six- and eight-core AMD, and even fully competes with the Core i5.
The strength of the Intel Pentium G4400 is its price. For the money, you won't find anything better among new components. And if you take into account that boards based on socket 1151 with the H110 chipset are also cheap, and DDR4 memory is almost equal in price to the outdated DDR3, this CPU becomes just a godsend for an economical player. In tandem with the processor, you can install a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti-level video card or
The first quad-core processor was released in the fall of 2006. They became the Intel Core 2 Quad model, based on the Kentsfield core. At the time, bestsellers such as The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion and Half-Life 2: Episode One were considered popular games. The "killer of all gaming computers" Crysis has not appeared yet. And the DirectX 9 API with shader model 3.0 was in use.
How to choose a processor for a gaming PC. We study the effect of processor dependence in practice
But it's the end of 2015. On the market, in the desktop segment, there are 6- and 8-core central processors, but 2- and 4-core models are still considered popular. Gamers are raving about the PC versions of GTA V and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and yet there is no gaming graphics card in nature capable of delivering a comfortable level of FPS in 4K resolution at maximum graphics quality settings in Assassin's Creed Unity. In addition, the release of the Windows 10 operating system took place, which means that the era of DirectX 12 has officially begun. As you can see, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in nine years. Therefore, the question of choosing a central processor for a gaming computer is more relevant than ever.
The essence of the problem
There is such a thing as the effect of processor dependence. It can appear in absolutely any computer game. If the performance of the video card rests on the capabilities of the central chip, then they say that the system is processor-dependent. It must be understood that there is no single scheme by which the strength of this effect can be determined. It all depends on the features of a particular application, as well as the selected graphics quality settings. However, in absolutely any game, tasks such as organizing polygons, lighting and physics calculations, artificial intelligence modeling, and many other actions fall on the “shoulders” of the central processor. Agree, there is plenty of work.
The most difficult thing is to choose a central processor for several graphics adapters at once
In processor-dependent games, the number of frames per second can depend on several parameters of the "stone": architecture, clock speed, number of cores and threads, as well as cache size. The main purpose of this material is to identify the main criteria that affect the performance of the graphics subsystem, as well as to form an understanding of which central processor is suitable for a particular discrete video card.
Frequency
How to identify processor dependence? The most effective way is empirically. Since the CPU has several parameters, let's analyze them one by one. The first characteristic, which most often pay close attention to, is the clock frequency.
The clock frequency of the central processors has not been growing for quite a long time. At first (in the 80s and 90s), it was the increase in megahertz that led to a frenzied increase in the overall level of performance. Now the frequency of AMD and Intel CPUs is frozen in the delta of 2.5-4 GHz. Everything below is too budget and not quite suitable for a gaming computer; anything above is already overclocking. This is how processor lines are formed. For example, there is an Intel Core i5-6400 running at 2.7GHz ($182) and there is a Core i5-6500 running at 3.2GHz ($192). These processors have the same absolutely all characteristics, except for the clock frequency and price.
Overclocking has long become a "weapon" of marketers. For example, only a lazy motherboard manufacturer does not brag about the excellent overclocking potential of their products.
On sale you can find chips with an unlocked multiplier. It allows you to independently overclock the processor. At Intel, such "stones" have the letters "K" and "X" in the name. For example, Core i7-4770K and Core i7-5690X. Plus, there are separate models with an unlocked multiplier: Pentium G3258, Core i5-5675C and Core i7-5775C. AMD processors are marked in a similar way. So, hybrid chips in the name have the letter "K". There is a line of FX processors (AM3+ platform). All "stones" included in it have a free multiplier.
Modern AMD and Intel processors support automatic overclocking. In the first case, it is called Turbo Core, in the second - Turbo Boost. The essence of its work is simple: with proper cooling, the processor during operation increases its clock frequency by several hundred megahertz. For example, the Core i5-6400 operates at a speed of 2.7 GHz, but with the active Turbo Boost technology, this parameter can permanently increase to 3.3 GHz. That is exactly 600 MHz.
It is important to remember: the higher the clock speed, the hotter the processor! So you need to take care of high-quality cooling of the “stone”
I'll take the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X video card - the most powerful single-chip gaming solution of our time. And the Intel Core i5-6600K processor is a mainstream model equipped with an unlocked multiplier. Then I'll fire up Metro: Last Light, one of the most CPU-intensive games of our day. The graphics quality settings in the application are selected in such a way that the number of frames per second each time rests on the performance of the processor, but not the video card. In the case of the GeForce GTX TITAN X and Metro: Last Light - the maximum graphics quality, but without anti-aliasing. Next, I will measure the average FPS level in the range from 2 GHz to 4.5 GHz in Full HD, WQHD and Ultra HD resolutions.
Processor dependency effect
The most noticeable effect of processor dependence, which is logical, is manifested in light modes. So, in 1080p, as the frequency increases, the average FPS also steadily increases. The results were very impressive: when the speed of the Core i5-6600K increased from 2 GHz to 3 GHz, the number of frames per second in Full HD resolution increased from 70 FPS to 92 FPS, that is, by 22 frames per second. With an increase in frequency from 3 GHz to 4 GHz - another 13 FPS. Thus, it turns out that the processor used, with the given graphics quality settings, was able to “pump” the GeForce GTX TITAN X in Full HD only from 4 GHz - it was from this mark that the number of frames per second with an increase in the CPU frequency stopped growing.
As the resolution increases, the effect of processor dependence becomes less noticeable. Namely, the number of frames stops growing, starting from 3.7 GHz. Finally, in Ultra HD resolution, we almost immediately ran into the potential of the graphics adapter.
There are many discrete graphics cards. It is customary in the market to catalog these devices in three segments: Low-end, Middle-end and High-end. Captain Evidence suggests that different processors with different frequencies are suitable for different performance graphics adapters.
The dependence of performance in games on the frequency of the central processor
Now I’ll take the GeForce GTX 950 video card - a representative of the upper Low-end segment (or lower Middle-end), that is, the absolute opposite of the GeForce GTX TITAN X. The device belongs to the entry level, however, it is able to provide a decent level of performance in modern games in Full HD resolution. As you can see from the graphs below, the processor, operating at a frequency of 3 GHz, “pumps” the GeForce GTX 950 in both Full HD and WQHD. The difference with the GeForce GTX TITAN X is visible to the naked eye.
It is important to understand that the less load falls on the “shoulders” of the video card, the higher the frequency of the central processor should be. It is irrational to purchase, for example, an adapter of the GeForce GTX TITAN X level and use it in games at a resolution of 1600x900 pixels.
Video cards of the Low-end level (GeForce GTX 950, Radeon R7 370) will have enough of a central processor operating at a frequency of 3 GHz. Middle-end adapters (Radeon R9 280X, GeForce GTX 770) - 3.4-3.6 GHz. High-end flagship video cards (Radeon R9 Fury, GeForce GTX 980 Ti) - 3.7-4 GHz. Productive bundles SLI/CrossFire - 4-4.5 GHz
Architecture
In reviews devoted to the release of one or another generation of central processors, the authors continually state that the difference in performance in x86 calculations is a meager 5-10% year after year. This is a kind of tradition. Neither AMD nor Intel has seen any serious progress for a long time, and phrases like " keep sitting on my Sandy Bridge, wait for next year»become winged. As I said, in games, the processor also has to process a large amount of data. In this case, a reasonable question arises: to what extent is the effect of processor dependence observed in systems with different architectures?
For both AMD and Intel chips, you can define a list of modern architectures that are still popular. They are relevant, on a global scale, the difference in performance between them is not so big.
Let's take a couple of chips - Core i7-4790K and Core i7-6700K - and make them work at the same frequency. Processors based on the Haswell architecture are known to have appeared in the summer of 2013, and Skylake solutions in the summer of 2015. That is, exactly two years have passed since the update of the “so” processor line (this is how Intel calls crystals based on completely different architectures).
Impact of architecture on game performance
As you can see, there is no difference between Core i7-4790K and Core i7-6700K running at the same frequencies. Skylake is ahead of Haswell only in three games out of ten: in Far Cry 4 (by 12%), in GTA V (by 6%) and in Metro: Last Light (by 6%) - that is, in all the same processor-dependent applications. However, 6% is mere trifles.
Comparison of processor architectures in games (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980)
A few platitudes: it is obvious that it is better to assemble a gaming computer based on the most modern platform. After all, not only the performance of the chips themselves is important, but also the functionality of the platform as a whole.
Modern architectures with a few exceptions have the same performance in computer games. Owners of processor families Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell can feel quite calm. With AMD, the situation is similar: various variations of the modular architecture (Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller) in games have approximately the same level of performance
Cores and Threads
The third and perhaps the determining factor that limits the performance of a video card in games is the number of CPU cores. It's no coincidence that a growing number of games have a quad-core CPU in their minimum system requirements. Vivid examples include such modern hits as GTA V, Far Cry 4, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and Assassin's Creed Unity.
As I said at the very beginning, the first quad-core processor appeared nine years ago. Now there are 6- and 8-core solutions on sale, but 2- and 4-core models are still in use. I will give a table of markings for some popular AMD and Intel lines, dividing them depending on the number of "heads".
AMD hybrid processors (A4, A6, A8 and A10) are sometimes referred to as 8-, 10- and even 12-core. It's just that the company's marketers add elements of the built-in graphic module to the computing units. Indeed, there are applications that can use heterogeneous computing (when x86 cores and embedded video process the same information together), but this scheme is not used in computer games. The computational part performs its task, the graphic - its own.
Some Intel processors (Core i3 and Core i7) have a certain number of cores but double the number of threads. Hyper-Threading technology is responsible for this, which first found its use in Pentium 4 chips. Threads and cores are slightly different things, but we'll talk about this a little later. In 2016, AMD will release processors based on the Zen architecture. For the first time, the "red" chips will acquire technology similar to Hyper-Threading.
In fact, the Core 2 Quad on the Kentsfield core is not a full-fledged quad-core. It is based on two Conroe crystals, divorced in one package under the LGA775
Let's do a little experiment. I took 10 popular games. I agree that such an insignificant number of applications is not enough to say with 100% certainty that the effect of processor dependence has been fully studied. However, the list included only hits that clearly demonstrate the trends in modern game development. The graphics quality settings were selected in such a way that the final results did not rest against the capabilities of the video card. For the GeForce GTX TITAN X, this is the maximum quality (without anti-aliasing) and Full HD resolution. The choice of such an adapter is obvious. If the processor can "pump" the GeForce GTX TITAN X, then it will cope with any other video card. The stand used the top Core i7-5960X for the LGA2011-v3 platform. Testing was carried out in four modes: when activating only 2 cores, only 4 cores, only 6 cores and 8 cores. Hyper-Threading multithreading technology was not involved. Plus, testing was carried out with two frequencies: at nominal 3.3 GHz and overclocked to 4.3 GHz.
Processor dependence in GTA V
GTA V is one of the few modern games that use all eight "crusts" of the processor. Therefore, it can be called the most processor-dependent. On the other hand, the difference between six and eight cores was not so impressive. Judging by the results, the two cores are very far behind other modes of operation. The game slows down, a large number of textures are simply not drawn. The stand with four cores shows noticeably better results. It lags only 6.9% behind the six-core one, and 11% behind the eight-core one. Whether in this case the game is worth the candle - you decide. However, GTA V clearly demonstrates how the number of processor cores affects the performance of the video card in games.
The vast majority of games behave in a similar way. In seven out of ten applications, the system with two cores turned out to be processor-dependent. That is, the FPS level was limited by the central processor. At the same time, in three out of ten games, the six-core bench showed an advantage over the quad-core one. True, the difference cannot be called significant. Far Cry 4 turned out to be the most radical game - it stupidly did not start on a system with two cores.
The increase from the use of six and eight cores in most cases turned out to be either too small, or there was none at all.
Processor dependence in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
The three games loyal to the dual-core system were The Witcher 3, Assassin's Creed Unity and Tomb Raider. In all modes, the same results were demonstrated.
For those who are interested, I will give a table with the full test results.
performance of multi-core systems in games
Four cores is the optimal number for today. At the same time, it is obvious that gaming computers should not be assembled with a dual-core processor. In 2015, just such a “stone” is the bottleneck in the system
We figured out the cores. The test results clearly show that in most cases four "heads" in a processor are better than two. At the same time, some Intel models (Core i3 and Core i7) can boast of supporting Hyper-Threading technology. Without going into details, I note that such chips have a certain number of physical cores and twice the number of virtual ones. In ordinary applications, Hyper-Threading is certainly useful. But how does this technology fare in games? This issue is especially relevant for the line of Core i3 processors - nominally dual-core solutions.
To determine the effectiveness of multithreading in games, I assembled two test benches: with a Core i3-4130 and a Core i7-6700K. In both cases, a GeForce GTX TITAN X graphics card was used.
Core i3 Hyper-Threading Efficiency
In almost all games, Hyper-Threading technology has affected the performance of the graphics subsystem. Naturally, for the better. In some cases, the difference has been enormous. For example, in The Witcher, the number of frames per second increased by 36.4%. True, in this game without Hyper-Threading, disgusting friezes were observed every now and then. I note that the Core i7-5960X did not notice such problems.
As for the quad-core Core i7 processor with Hyper-Threading, support for these technologies made itself felt only in GTA V and Metro: Last Light. That is, only two games out of ten. They also noticeably increased the minimum FPS. Overall, the Hyper-Threaded Core i7-6700K was 6.6% faster in GTA V and 9.7% faster in Metro: Last Light.
Hyper-Threading in Core i3 is really dragging, especially if the system requirements indicate a quad-core processor model. But in the case of Core i7, the increase in performance in games is not so significant.
Cache
We figured out the main parameters of the central processor. Each processor has a certain amount of cache. Today, up to four levels of this type of memory are used in modern integrated solutions. The cache of the first and second levels, as a rule, is determined by the architectural features of the chip. The cache of the third level from model to model can vary. I will give a small table for your reference.
So, the more productive Core i7 processors have 8 MB of cache in the third level, the slower Core i5 have 6 MB. Will these 2 MB affect performance in games?
The Broadwell family and some Haswell processors use 128 MB of eDRAM (Level 4 cache). In some games, it can seriously speed up the system.
It's very easy to check. To do this, you need to take two processors from the Core i5 and Core i7 lines, set the same frequency for them and disable Hyper-Threading technology. As a result, in the nine games tested, only F1 2015 showed a noticeable difference of 7.4%. The rest of the 3D entertainment did not respond in any way to the 2-MB cache deficit in the third level in the Core i5-6600K.
Impact of L3 cache on gaming performance
The difference in L3 cache between Core i5 and Core i7 processors in most cases does not affect system performance in modern games
AMD or Intel?
All tests discussed above were carried out with the participation of Intel processors. However, this does not mean at all that we do not consider AMD solutions as the basis for a gaming computer. Below are the results of testing using the FX-6350 chip used in the highest performing AMD AM3+ platform, using four and six cores. Unfortunately, I did not have an 8-core AMD "stone" at my disposal.
Comparison of AMD and Intel in GTA V
GTA V has already established itself as the most processor-intensive game. With the use of four cores in an AMD system, the average FPS level turned out to be higher than, for example, Core i3 (without Hyper-Threading). In addition, in the game itself, the image was rendered smoothly, without slowdowns. But in all other cases, the Intel cores turned out to be consistently faster. The difference between processors is significant.
Below is a table with full testing of the AMD FX processor.
Processor dependency in AMD system
There is no noticeable difference between AMD and Intel in only two games: The Witcher and Assassin's Creed Unity. In principle, the results lend themselves perfectly to logic. They reflect the real alignment of forces in the market of central processors. Intel cores are noticeably more powerful. Including in games. Four AMD cores compete with two Intel. At the same time, the average FPS is often higher for the latter. Six AMD cores compete with four Core i3 threads. Logically, eight "heads" of the FX-8000/9000 should impose a fight on the Core i5. Yes, AMD cores are absolutely deservedly called "semi-cores". These are the features of modular architecture.
The result is banal. For games, Intel solutions are better suited. However, among budget solutions (Athlon X4, FX-4000, A8, Pentium, Celeron), AMD products are preferable. Testing has shown that the slower four cores perform better in CPU-intensive games than the faster two Intel cores. In the middle and high price ranges (Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, A10, FX-6000, FX-8000, FX-9000), Intel solutions are already preferable
DirectX 12
As mentioned at the very beginning of the article, DirectX 12 became available for game developers with the release of Windows 10. You can get acquainted with a detailed overview of this API. The DirectX 12 architecture finally determined the direction of development of modern game development: developers began to need low-level programming interfaces. The main task of the new API is to rationally use the hardware capabilities of the system. This includes the use of all computational threads of the processor, and general-purpose calculations on the GPU, and direct access to the resources of the graphics adapter.
Windows 10 has just arrived. However, there are already applications in nature that support DirectX 12. For example, Futuremark has integrated the Overhead subtest into the benchmark. This preset is able to determine the performance of a computer system using not only the DirectX 12 API, but also AMD Mantle. The way the Overhead API works is simple. DirectX 11 imposes limits on the number of processor drawing commands. DirectX 12 and Mantle solve this problem by allowing more draw commands to be called. So, during the test, an increasing number of objects are displayed. Until the graphics adapter can no longer cope with their processing, and the FPS does not fall below 30 frames. For testing, I used a stand with a Core i7-5960X processor and a Radeon R9 NANO video card. The results turned out to be very interesting.
It is noteworthy that in patterns using DirectX 11, changing the number of CPU cores has almost no effect on the overall result. But with the use of DirectX 12 and Mantle, the picture changes dramatically. Firstly, the difference between DirectX 11 and low-level APIs turns out to be just cosmic (somewhere by an order of magnitude). Secondly, the number of "heads" of the central processor significantly affects the final result. This is especially noticeable when moving from two cores to four and from four to six. In the first case, the difference reaches almost a two-fold mark. At the same time, there are no special differences between six and eight cores and sixteen threads.
As you can see, the potential of DirectX 12 and Mantle (in the 3DMark benchmark) is simply huge. However, do not forget that we are dealing with synthetics, they do not play it. In reality, it makes sense to evaluate the profit from using the latest low-level APIs only in real computer entertainment.
The first PC games that support DirectX 12 are already on the horizon. These are Ashes of the Singularity and Fable Legends. They are in active beta testing. The other day colleagues from Anandtech
What makes a processor the best? Some will say that this is a high price, others suggest that the number of cores and the possibility of overclocking are important. All this is a matter of taste. You will be disappointed if you invest a fortune in a processor that will be used for viewing documents, and it is better not to save money on a processor for a gaming computer.
It's not about maximum performance, but about getting the best performance for the least amount of money. There are many devices from AMD and Intel that are designed to solve various problems. In this list, we have collected the best processors of 2017, both for servers and for home computers, which are distributed at an affordable price. Let's move on to the list itself.
Ideal for laptop users:
- Processor cores: 4;
- Power consumption: 95W;
- Graphics controller: Radeon R7;
- Clock frequency: 3.6 GHz;
- Processor socket: FM2+;
- L2 cache: 4 MB.
If you prefer AMD, these are really interesting times. The company is just about to release new processors based on the Zen architecture, which will be more powerful than the current generation processors. And that means prices will drop. Despite the fact that two years have passed since the release of the AMD A8-7670K, it remains one of the best in the AMD line.
It is built using the new 28 nm process technology and therefore has a power consumption of 95 watts. The processor runs at a fairly high frequency - 3.6 GHz and supports overclocking up to 3.9 GHz. In addition, here you get the excellent performance of the built-in graphics subsystem Radeon R7 240 GPU, which has a clock speed of 757 MHz and 384 shaver cores.
2. Intel Xeon E5-2670
Best for power seekers.
- Processor cores: 8;
- Power consumption: 115W;
- Graphics controller: No;
- Clock frequency: 2.6 GHz;
- Processor socket: FCLGA1011;
- Cache: 20 MB.
The processor was released back in 2010, so the price for it has already fallen during this time. Still, it's an excellent 2.6GHz octa-core processor with 16 threads and 20MB of cache.
3.Intel Core i3-6100
Inexpensive but powerful enough processor
- Processor cores: 2;
- Power consumption: 65 watts;
- Graphics controller: Intel HD Graphics 530;
- Clock frequency: 3.7 GHz;
- Processor socket: LGA 1151;
- L2 cache: 2 x 256 kb.
If you're looking for a powerful yet affordable processor, then the Intel Core i3-6100 might be a great choice. This is the cheapest chip based on the Skylake architecture. There are two lower frequency versions 6100 and 6100T so make sure you choose the right one.
Using the 14nm process technology, it is possible to reach 3.7GHz with only 65W consumption. Two cores, four threads will be enough for games and work. There is also support for overclocking.
4. AMD Sempron 3850
The most affordable quad-core chip.
- Processor cores: 4;
- Power consumption: 25 watts;
- Graphics controller: AMD Radeon HD 8280;
- Clock frequency: 1.3 GHz;
- Processor socket: AM1;
- L2 cache: 2 MB.
This is one of the cheapest quad-core processors from AMD. The cores are made using the 28nm process technology, and have a low frequency, which explains the power consumption.
The processor comes with an integrated AMD Radeon HD 8280 GPU card, and therefore gives better performance than most Baytrail-based circuits. Of the minuses, it can be noted that there is only one channel for RAM.
5. Intel Pentium G4400
Budget Skylake
- Processor cores: 2;
- Power consumption: 65 watts;
- Graphics controller: Intel HD Graphics 510;
- Clock frequency: 3.3 GHz;
- Processor socket: FCLGA1151;
- L2 cache: 3 MB.
This is an excellent budget processor based on the Skylake architecture. It can be found even cheaper than the slower Celeron.
This chip has 3 MB L2 cache, 3.3 GHz, two cores, two threads each, and an integrated graphics card that supports DirectX12 and 4K resolution at 60 Hz. Please note that there is a slower version of the G4400TE with lower heat dissipation.
6.Intel Core i7-6700K
Best Processor for Gaming 2017
- Processor cores: 4;
- Power consumption: 91 watts;
- Graphics controller: Intel HD Graphics 530;
- Clock frequency: 4.0 GHz;
- Processor socket: LGA 1151;
- L2 cache: 2 x 256 MB.
This is another processor based on the sixth generation Skylake. Its price is $345. This is the most powerful Skylake model and is intended to replace Broadwell processors in the near future.
This best processor of 2017 has four cores, eight threads, 8MB cache, base clock speed of 4GHz, overclockable to 4.2GHz.
7.Intel Core i5-4690K
Top selling Intel product.
- Processor cores: 4;
- Power consumption: 88 watts;
- Graphics controller: Intel HD Graphics 4600;
- Clock frequency: 3.5 GHz;
- Processor socket: LGA 1150;
- L2 cache: 2x256 Kb.
This is the most affordable processor in the K series, its price is about $239. It has a clock speed of 3.5 GHz, but it can be increased by another 25%. The processor is manufactured using the 22nm process technology and consumes 88W of power.
8. AMD FX-8320E
The cheapest octa-core processor.
- Processor cores: 8;
- Power consumption: 95 watts;
- Graphics controller: No;
- Frequency: 3.2 GHz;
- Processor socket: AM3+;
- L2 cache: 4 x 2 MB.
It's one of the cheapest octa-core processors, selling for $110 on Amazon. It is manufactured using a 32nm process and this explains the high heat dissipation. The processor has a clock speed of 3.2 but supports overclocking up to 5 GHz.
When performing several multi-threaded tasks, this processor even beats the Haswell Core i3. Possibly the best processor of 2017.
9.Intel Core i7-5820K
- Processor cores: 6;
- Power consumption: 140 watts;
- Graphics controller: No;
- Clock frequency: 3.3 GHz;
- Processor socket: LGA 2011-v3
- L2 cache: 6x256 kb;
AMD has started to fall behind in recent years and Intel has gone back to releasing processors that need a new socket. This is one of those processors, it uses a new socket to realize maximum performance.
It has six 3.3GHz cores, 15MB cache, 12 threads and 28 PCI-Express lanes. This is not a bad decision for a $389 device.
10. AMD Athlon x4-860K
- Processor cores: 4;
- Power consumption: 95 watts;
- Graphics controller: No;
- Clock frequency: 3.7 GHz;
- Processor socket: FM2+;
- L2 cache: 4 MB.
Like most of the other processors from AMD on our list of the best processors of 2016, this is an old processor that has retained its relevance. It combines high performance and affordable price. It's also great for overclocking.
The processor has four cores clocked at 3.6 GHz, and thanks to the 28nm manufacturing process, it has a reasonable power consumption of 95 watts.
conclusions
In this article, we have reviewed the best processors of 2017 that you can buy at a more or less affordable price and get excellent performance. I hope this article helped you decide which processor to choose in 2017. Don't forget that the new Ryzen processor from AMD is coming out soon and it might be worth waiting for it if you have enough budget.
about the author
Founder and administrator of the site site, I am fond of open source software and the Linux operating system. I currently use Ubuntu as my main OS. In addition to Linux, I am interested in everything related to information technology and modern science.
Whether a processor will meet your requirements depends on two factors: how much you are willing to spend on it and what you want to use it for. It is not logical to spend £100 on best processor which will be installed in a gaming computer, and you would be crazy to buy a £500 processor and use it only for word processing: get the best value for your money and find out which processor is better- that's what this article is for. There are many options available on the market, from both AMD and Intel, and the notion of the best value for money processor at the same time is the most controversial topic. Obviously, these things depend on each other - and they are inseparable - and the rest of the system specification also plays a role, but we digress. It also plays a role in the fact that different options arise depending on what stage of the purchase you are at: you are building a new computer or upgrading an existing one (and installing a processor on the motherboard). And don't forget that some of us are more confident when it comes to overclocking computers, while others might be tempted to buy the best processor from your hands, which may be burned.
In order to simplify the information and make it understandable for everyone, we decided to narrow down the list to the most popular sockets and trade items. So neither server processors, nor soldered processors (built into a laptop), nor outdated connectors will be discussed, nothing but 84-bit processors. We also chose the cheapest processors where possible (ie without a cooler). Just be aware that stocks and prices change all the time (thanks to Amazon's dynamic pricing). Also, do you think there are better alternatives to Intel/AMD? If yes, then let me know in the comments. So let's not hesitate and proceed, in no particular order, to the consideration of 10 the best processors in the world 2016-2017 in our opinion.
10.AMD A10-7870K
* Connector: FM2+
* Specification: 4C/4T, 4MB cache, with cooler, 3.9GHz
* Suitable for: Building a decent powerful device on a minimal budget.
AMD is banking on the company's future with the APU, which combines a traditional processing unit (CPU) with a graphics processing unit (GPU). The Accelerated Processing Unit was created with the promise of improved integrated graphics. AMD's A10-7870K is currently AMD's most efficient desktop APU and comes at a reasonably affordable £105.98 on Amazon. It is built on a 28nm process running at 3.9GHz, has four processor cores and eight graphics cores, and is capable of maintaining a power dissipation of over 100W. Just make sure you use two memory modules (with the highest clock speed possible) paired with the APU. AMD says the processor was designed to run most mainstream games at 30fps at 1080p, so it should keep gamers on the budget happy.
9.Intel Core i7-5820K
* Connector: LGA2011-v3
* Specification: 6C/12T, 15MB cache, with cooler, 3.3GHz
*Suitable for: building a relatively powerful system designed for both gaming and some serious math.
As a shadow of AMD, Intel has gone back to releasing products that require a new connector almost every year; great for sales, not good for buyers because it makes upgrading difficult. Core i7-5820K is part of Broadwell, no exception, it uses a different connector, aiming at performance and market. What allows this processor to rank on the list is its 6-core system, for a not-so-great price. At £289.95 on Amazon, this is a pretty good deal. Plus 15MB of cache, 12 threads and 28 lanes of PCI Express, and you've got a convincing case for the math. The downside is TDP, a monstrous 140V for a part that runs at 3.3GHz.
8. AMD FX-8320E
* Connector: AM3+
* Specification: 8C/8T, 8MB cache, with cooler, 3.5GHz.
* Suitable for: Anyone looking for cores, lots of cores, on a small budget.
Meet the AMD FX-8320E; it's the cheapest 8-core processor on the market and costs just under £100 on Amazon. It is built on an advanced 32nm node, which explains why it has a high TDP (95V), although not that high considering that it runs at 3.2GHz with a boost up to 4GHz. But do not place too high hopes on him; although it will outperform even the modest Haswell Core i3 in most tasks, it will really shine when you are doing multi-threaded tasks (encryption, encoding, etc.), in which it will even surpass the more expensive Core i5 models. And one more thing, many users were able to overclock it with ease using non-standard coolers, some even up to 4.8GHz. YOU can read our FX-8320E review.
7.Intel Core i5-4690K
* Connector: LGA 1151
* Specification: 4C/4T, 6MB cache, with cooler, 3.5GHz
*Suitable for: Building a mid-range system with some overclocking potential.
There is a good reason why the Intel Core i5-4690K is the top selling processor on Amazon. This Devil Canyon's is one of the most if not the most affordable Intel Core K-series processors at £168, and as such can be overclocked fairly easily with modest effort. It has a 3.5GHz base clock with plenty of user reporting, and it able to exceed a 25% increase in speed when using a decent aftermarket HSF.It doesn't come with hyper-threading, but it costs just under £168, which is not expected.The processor has a 6MB L2 cache, built using 22nm process, has a TDP of 88V and is compatible with Intel HD Graphics 4600 GPU.
6.Intel Core i7-6700K
* Connector: LGA 1151
* Specification: 4C/8T, 8MB cache, with cooler, 4GHz
*Suitable for: Modern, cutting-edge technologies from Intel aimed at extreme overclocking of the processor.
This Skylake generation from Intel is six-core (yes, six). The i7-6700K, which costs just under £300 at Eclipse Computers, is the company's most powerful Skylake model and will replace Broadwell-based desktop processors in the short term; we have a fairly powerful processor with four cores, eight threads, 8MB of cache, base clock speed of 4GHz, turbo boost from 4.2GHz and Intel HD Graphics 530 inside the subsystem. Some enthusiasts can achieve overclocking of the processor, this is a K-model based on a 14nm process. Paired with decent 100-series chipsets, an oversized HSF, and a couple of overclockable DDR4 memory modules, you'll see it fly. 5GHz (though with caution for 91V TDP)? Check out our review of the Core i7-6700K.
5. Intel Pentium G3258
* Connector: LGA 1150
* Specification: 2C/2T, 3MB cache, with cooler, 3.2GHz
*Suitable for: Overclocking a gaming PC on a very limited budget.
There are cheaper Intel processors on the market, the Celeron G1840 being the cheapest we've found. However, the Pentium G3258 is probably the best option on the low cost processor market for a good reason. It's a great overlocker, priced a little over £52, Haswell microarchitecture, 3MB L2 cache, 3.2GHz dual core, dual thread setup with a TDP of 53V. What makes it special, if only in that it has an unlocked multiplier, is essentially Intel's way of thanking the community enthusiasts (the G3258 was launched to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Pentium brand). Don't buy it unless you want to run it at 3.2GHz. Buy a decent aftermarket cooler and you can probably overclock it beyond 4GHz. Just make sure it's compatible with your motherboard and don't over-voltage it too much (keep an eye on the temperature).
4. AMD Sempron 3850
* Connector: AM1
* Specification: 4C/4T, 2MB cache, with cooler, 1.3GHz
* Suitable for: Those who want to build a low cost system, main PC and stick the AMD logo on it.
At the other end of the spectrum is the Sempron 3850, AMD's cheapest quad-core processor. It is based on the Kabini core and is built on a 28nm process, which explains why its TDP only reaches 25V, almost one-seventh of the FX-9590. Obviously, the fact that it only works at 1.3 GHz also matters. Throw in the fact that it comes with an AMD Radeon HD 8280 GPU (basic but decent) and you have it better than most Baytrail-based systems on the market. The best part has to be the price. At £25.78, it's cheap, especially since the price includes the heatsink and cooler; this means you can expect a complete motherboard package for £50. The only annoying thing is that it has only one memory channel. Note that the Athlon X2 340, a completely different beast (different socket and no GPU) is AMD's next cheapest processor at just under £20.
3.Intel Core i3-6100
* Connector: 1151 connector
* Specification: 2C/4T, 3MB cache, with cooler, 3.7GHz
* Suitable for: For those who are going to build their own reliable system that will last for several years.
If you want to do some serious work but don't want to spend hundreds of pounds on a piece of silicon then check out this processor. The Intel Core i3-6100 is the cheapest Core processor based on the new Skylake architecture and you won't have to shell out a fortune for it. It's available for less than £93, though you'll need to pair it with a motherboard with a decent chipset (Z710) in order to boost the processor's clock speed (2.66GHz), but that's not necessary. This is not a K model and there are two SKUs, 6100 (higher TDP and clock speed) and 6100T (lower TD, lower clock speed), so make sure you pick the right one. Using a 14nm node, it reaches 3.7GHz with a TDP of 51V; its 2-core/4-thread configuration should suit your gaming system well and support 4K Intel HD 530 GPU running at 350MHz.
2. AMD FX-9590
* Connector: AM3+
* Specification: 8C/8T, 16MB cache, CPU only, 4.7GHz
* Suitable for: Wealthy fans who want to get the most out of their AMD setup at any cost.
This is the best processor that AMD has to offer its regular users. This is a two year old product based on Vishera which was based on 32nm technology - not even the 28nm used on its own APU - and has a TDP of 220V. The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor from Intel was more often subjected to malicious attacks regarding the outdated 130V cooler. Why is the FX-9590 included in this list? To quench the thirst of AMD fans by and large. With a total 16MB cache (8MB L2 and 8MB L3) and a base clock speed of 4.7GHz (turbo boost up to 5GHz), it proved to be very, brutally hard to cool down. Check if your motherboard and cooling system will support it before making a purchase. Sellers on ebay are selling it for £183, a price that (fairly for AMD, at least) does not include the heatsink and cooler. Yes.
1.AMD A10-5800K
* Connector: FM2
* Specification: 4C/4T, 4MB cache, with cooler, 3.8GHz
* Best for: FM2 users looking to extend the life of their system.
The best processor 2017. This first choice is likely to be a bit controversial as it comes with a £70 investment in an APU that is over two years old and was built around an old 32nm CPU. However, it - the AMD A10-5800K - has a relatively high TDP of 100W, which explains why its turbo boost only reaches 4.2 GHz, not the most outstanding 10% of volume, although you can overclock it even more if you replace the bundled HSF to a more powerful one. The A10-5800K combines a Radeon HD 7660D GPU, a 12-core processor, and a 3-year warranty on the cooler model. Check out our AMD A10-5800K review.
For an office, home or gaming computer, it is not so difficult to choose the right processor. You just need to decide on the needs, a little orientation in the characteristics and price ranges. It makes no sense to thoroughly study the smallest nuances if you are not a “geek”, but you need to understand what to pay attention to.
For example, you can look for a processor with a higher frequency and cache memory, but without paying attention to the chip core, you can get into a mess. The core, in fact, is the main performance factor, and the rest of the characteristics are plus or minus. In general terms, I can say that the more expensive the product in the line of one manufacturer, the better, more powerful, faster it is. But AMD processors are cheaper than those of Intel.
- The processor should be chosen depending on the tasks. If in normal mode you have about two resource-intensive programs running, then it is better to buy a dual-core “stone” with a high frequency. If more threads are used, it is better to opt for a multi-core of the same architecture, even if with a lower frequency.
- Hybrid processors (with an integrated graphics card) will save on the purchase of a graphics card, provided that you do not need to play fancy games. These are almost all modern Intel and AMD processors of the A4-A12 series, but AMD has a stronger graphics core.
- A cooler must be supplied with all processors marked "BOX" (of course, a simple model, which is not enough for high loads, but it's what you need to work in the nominal mode). If you need a cool cooler, then .
- Processors marked "OEM" are covered by a one-year warranty, while BOX is covered by a three-year warranty. If the warranty period provided by the store is shorter, it is better to think about looking for another distributor.
- In some cases, it makes sense to buy a percentage from the hands, so you can save about 30% of the amount. True, this method of purchase is associated with a certain risk, so you need to pay attention to the availability of a guarantee and the reputation of the seller.
Main technical characteristics of processors
Now about some characteristics, which are still worth mentioning. It is not necessary to delve into, but it will be useful to understand my recommendations for specific models.
Each processor has its own socket (platform), i.e. the name of the connector on the motherboard for which it is intended. Whichever processor you choose, be sure to look at socket matching. At the moment there are several platforms.
- LGA1150 - not for top processors, used for office computers, gaming and home media centers. Integrated entry-level graphics, except for Intel Iris/Iris Pro. Already out of circulation.
- LGA1151 is a modern platform, recommended for a future upgrade to newer "stones". The processors themselves are not much faster than the previous platform, i.e., it makes no sense to upgrade to it. But on the other hand, there is a more powerful integrated graphics core of the Intel Graphics series, DDR4 memory is supported, but it does not give a strong performance gain.
- LGA2011-v3 is a top platform designed for building high-performance desktop systems based on the Intel X299 system logic, expensive, outdated.
- LGA 2066 (Socket R4) - socket for HEDT (Hi-End) Intel processors of Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X architecture, replaced 2011-3.
- AM1 for weak, energy efficient processors
- AM3+ is a common socket, suitable for most AMD processors, incl. for high-performance processors without an integrated video core
- AM4 is designed for microprocessors with Zen microarchitecture (Ryzen brand) with and without integrated graphics, and all subsequent ones. Added support for DDR4 memory.
- FM2/FM2+ for budget Athlon X2/X4 without integrated graphics.
- sTR4 is a socket type for the HEDT family of Ryzen Threadripper microprocessors. Similar to server sockets, the most massive and for desktop computers.
There are outdated platforms that you can buy to save money, but keep in mind that new processors will no longer be made for them: LGA1155, AM3, LGA2011, AM2 / +, LGA775 and others that are not on the lists.
The name of the kernel. Each line of processors has its own kernel name. For example, Intel currently has Sky Lake, Kaby Lake, and the latest eighth-generation Coffee Lake. AMD has Richland, Bulldozer, Zen. The higher the generation, the more high-performance chip, at lower power consumption, and the more technologies are introduced.
Number of Cores: from 2 to 18 pieces. The bigger, the better. But there is such a moment: programs that do not know how to distribute the load among the cores will run faster on a dual-core with a higher clock frequency than on a 4-core, but at a lower frequency. In short, if there is no clear technical task, then the rule works: more is better, and the further, the more correct it will be.
Process technology, measured in nanometers, for example - 14nm. Does not affect performance, but does affect CPU heating. Each new generation of processors is manufactured according to a new process technology with a smaller nm. This means that if you take a processor of the previous generation and about the same new one, then the latter will heat up less. But, since new products are made faster, they heat up in about the same way. That is, process improvements enable manufacturers to make faster processors.
Clock frequency, measured in gigahertz, for example - 3.5 GHz. Always the more - the better, but only within the same series. If you take an old Pentium with a frequency of 3.5 GHz and some new one, then the old one will be many times slower. This is due to the fact that they have completely different nuclei.
Almost all "stones" are capable of accelerating, i.е. operate at a higher frequency than the one indicated in the specifications. But this is a topic for those who understand, because. you can burn the processor or get a non-working system!
Cache size 1, 2 and 3 levels, one of the key characteristics, the more, the faster. The first level is the most important, the third is less significant. Directly depends on the kernel and series.
TDP- dissipated thermal power, well, or how much at maximum load. A lower number means less heat. Without clear personal preferences, this can be ignored. Powerful processors consume 110-220 watts of electricity in the load. You can see the diagram of the approximate power consumption of Intel and AMD processors under normal load, the less the better:
Model, series: does not apply to the characteristics, but nevertheless I want to tell you how to understand which processor is better within the same series, without really delving into the characteristics. Processor name, for example " consists of a series Core i3" and model numbers "8100". The first digit means the line of processors on some core, and the next ones are its “performance index”, roughly speaking. So we can guess that:
- Core i3-8300 is faster than i3-8100
- i3-8100 is faster than i3-7100
- But the i3-7300 will be faster than the i3-8100, despite the lower series, because 300 strongly more than 100. I think you get the point.
The same goes for AMD.
Will you play on the computer?
The next point that you need to decide in advance: the gaming future of the computer. For Farm Frenzy and other simple online games, any built-in graphics will do. If buying an expensive video card is not included in the plans, but you want to play, then you need to take a processor with a normal graphics core Intel Graphics 530/630/Iris Pro, AMD Radeon RX Vega Series. Even modern games will run in Full HD 1080p resolution at minimum and medium graphics quality settings. You can play World of Tanks, GTA, Dota and others.
If so, then it makes sense to take a processor without integrated graphics at all, and save on it (or get more power for the same price). The circle can be narrowed like this:
- AMD has FX series processors for the AM3+ platform and A12/10/8/6/4 hybrid solutions, as well as Athlon X4 for FM2+/AM4
- Intel has SkyLake and Kaby Lake series processors for LGA1151 and LGA2066 platforms and obsolete BroadWell-E for LGA2011-v3 (there are only a few models).
You also need to take into account that a powerful video card and processor need to match. I will not give clear answers to questions like “what kind of processor is needed for this video card”. This question needs to be studied independently by reading relevant reviews, tests, comparisons, forums. But I will give you a couple of suggestions.
First, you need a processor with at least 4 cores. Even more cores will not add much fps in games. At the same time, it turns out that 4-core AMD is better suited for games than 2-core Intel at the same or even lower price.
Secondly, you can navigate like this: the cost of the processor is equal to the cost of the video card. In fact, despite dozens of models, making the right choice is not difficult.
A note about AMD
The most budget line is called "Sempron". With each new generation, performance increases, but still these are the weakest processors. Recommended only for working with office documents, surfing the Internet, watching videos and music.
The company has a series of FX - these are outdated top-end chips for the AM3 + platform. Everyone has an unlocked multiplier, i.e. they are easy to overclock (if necessary). There are 4, 6 and 8 core models. Supports automatic overclocking technology - Turbo Core. Only DDR3 memory works. It is better when the platform works with DDR4.
There are also mid-range products - Athlon X4 and A4/A6/A8/A10/A12 APU line (with integrated graphics). This is for FM2/FM2+/AM4 platforms. A-series is divided into 2 and 4 cores. The power of integrated graphics is higher in older models. If the name has the letter “K” at the end, then this model comes with an unlocked multiplier, i.e. easier to overclock. Supported by Turbo Core. It makes sense to take something from the A-series, only on the condition that there will be no separate video card.
For socket AM4, the newest processors are the Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 series. They are positioned as competitors to Intel Core i3, i5, i7. There are without integrated graphics and with it, then the letter G will be in the model name, for example AMD Ryzen A5 2400G. The top-end line with 8-16 core processors is AMD Ryzen Threadripper with a massive cooling system.
Note about Intel
The LGA1151 platform includes a complete set of models, listed in ascending order of performance: Celeron, Pentium, Core i3/i5/i7. There are economical processors, they have the letters "T" or "S" in their name. They are slower and I see no reason to put them on home computers unless there is a special need, for example for a home file storage / media center. DDR4 memory is supported, embedded video is everywhere.
The most budgetary dual-core processors with integrated graphics are Celeron, AMD's analogue of Sempron, and more powerful Pentiums. For domestic needs, it is better to install at least a Pentium.
Top LGA2066 for Skylake and Kabylake with i5/i7 and top i9 series processors. They work with DDR4 memory, have 4-18 cores on board and no integrated graphics. Unlocked multiplier.
For information:
- Core i5 and i7 processors support Turbo Boost technology
- Kaby Lake socket processors are not always faster than their Sky Lake predecessors. The difference in architecture can be offset by different clock speeds. As a rule, a faster processor costs a little more, even if it is Sky Lake. But Skylake accelerates well.
- Iris Pro integrated graphics processors are suitable for quiet gaming builds, but they are quite expensive
- processors based on the LGA1151 platform are suitable for gaming systems, but it will not make sense to install more than two video cards, because. a maximum of 16 PCI Express lanes are supported. For a complete separation, you need an LGA2011-v3 or LGA2066 socket and the corresponding pebbles.
- The Xeon line is designed for servers.
Which is better AMD or Intel?
This is an eternal dispute, to which thousands of pages of forums on the Internet are devoted, and there is no definite answer to it. Both companies follow each other, but for myself I made a choice which is better. In a nutshell, AMD produces optimal budget solutions, while Intel produces more technologically advanced and expensive products. AMD rules in the low-end sector, but this company simply has no analogues to the fastest Intel processors.
Processors do not break, such as monitors or, so the question of reliability is not at issue here. That is, if you do not overclock the “stone” and use a fan no worse than a boxed (complete) one, then any processor will last for many, many years. There are no bad models, but there is a feasibility of buying depending on the price, characteristics and other factors, such as the availability of a particular motherboard.
For reference, I provide a summary table of approximate performance in games of Intel and AMD processors on a powerful GeForce GTX1080 video card, the higher -> the better:
Comparison of processors in tasks. close to everyday, normal load:
Archiving in 7-zip (less time - better result):
To independently compare different processors, I suggest using tables. So, let's move from verbosity to specific recommendations.
Processors under $40
Of course, you should not expect high performance for this money. Typically, such a processor is bought in two cases:
- For an office computer that does not require high performance
- For the so-called "home server" - a computer whose main purpose is to store and play video and audio files.
These PCs will run high-definition movies and simple games without any problems, but don't expect much more. AMD A4, A6 processors are suitable for working in nominal mode (the higher the model, the slightly more expensive and faster). The cheapest models from the A4 series are NOT recommended, these are slow processors with slow graphics, worse than Intel.
An excellent choice would be the Intel Celeron G3900-3930 processor (LGA1151 socket) with support for DDR4 memory and a more powerful integrated graphics core. These processors overclock well.
If you have an external video card, then you can save a little more and take the AMD Athlon A4 X2, but it's better to aim for 4 Athlon II X4 cores or, because. This processor does not have an integrated graphics core. Separately, it is worth mentioning that you should NOT pay attention to the quad-core AMD Sempron and Athlon Kabini X4 for socket AM1. These are slow processors, unsuccessful products of the company.
Up to 80$
There are a few more opportunities here, since for this amount you can buy a good quad-core. This also includes the initial kits motherboard + built-in processor. Their purpose is to ensure the stable operation of stationary computers of low and medium power. Usually they are enough for comfortable work on the Internet, but such a kit is not suitable for a serious load.
To work in the nominal mode, it is best to choose an AMD Athlon X4 processor for the AMD AM4 platform. If you need integrated graphics, then take any price you like from the AMD A8 series, or the Intel Pentium Dual-Core G4600 microprocessor for the Intel LGA1151 platform.
Good performance in overclocking mode is shown by AMD FX or Athlon X4 xxxK series processors; with the letter "K". These models have an unlocked multiplier, which means they can be easily overclocked. But when buying it, you need to consider that not every motherboard is suitable for overclocking. Can be used with NVidia GTX1050Ti level graphics card.
About 120$
You can choose from an AMD quad-core APU from the Ryzen 3 series based on the AMD AM4 platform, which is suitable for creating a media center and even gaming at medium settings. These "stones" have a very good graphics card Radeon Vega R8 Series. If you look towards Intel in the price category up to $120, then there is nothing interesting, except perhaps the Pentium G5600.
To work in overclocking mode, and not only, choose the Intel i3-7100 processor. Not the best option for games, because. there are only 2, but very fast cores. But the AMD FX-8350 processor with its 8 cores will come in handy. And the clock frequency can be raised from the standard 4 to 4.5 GHz.
Up to 200$
The best performance in this category is provided by Intel processors on the LGA1151 platform, although AMD is still trying to hold its ground. The best choice would be the Intel i5-7400. Despite its 4 cores, multithreading is supported up to 8. It will show good performance in games and ideal in home applications. AMD Ryzen 5 draws attention with an excellent Vega 11 graphics card.
At a slightly lower price, AMD may be more efficient in multi-threaded operations. In other words, you can take the Ryzen 5 series for games, you can save money. For other tasks where multithreading is not required, it is better to take a closer look at Intel.
Up to 280$
For nominal work, the Intel Core i5-8600 is best suited. If you need to save a little, then the i5-8500 will do. Among AMD, without hesitation, you can take the Ryzen 5 2600X. This is a great LATEST processor from AMD that makes sense to buy (and overclock;).
For work in overclocking mode, the best choice would be the Intel Core i5-8600k processor for LGA 1151, which in this case has no competitors. High frequency and unlocked multiplier make this gem ideal for gamers and overclockers. Among the processors used for overclocking, it is he who so far shows the best price / performance / power consumption ratio.
The Broadwell generation Core i5-5675C carries the most powerful Iris Pro 6200 integrated graphics card (GT3e core) on board, and at the same time it does not get very hot, because. Made in 14nm process technology. Suitable for compact and uncompromising gaming systems.
Processors starting at $400
If we talk about the best model in this price range, it is worth highlighting the Intel Core i7-8700K for the Intel LGA 1151 platform. This processor is the best for both nominal use and overclocking, and is also great for top games at high settings, at corresponding video card. Its antipode is AMD Ryzen 7 products.
If you can afford to spend more on a stone, the choice here is clear - the Intel Core i7-7820X processor for the LGA 2066 socket. For an adequate price, you will get fast 8 cores, but without integrated graphics. Yes, I think who takes such a smart guy and thinks to work on an integrated chip AMD has a worthy competitor - this is the monster Ryzen Threadripper 1920X with 12 cores.
But the flagship Intel Core i9-7980XE with 18 cores is worth buying except for greater solidity, because, despite the significant difference in price (the flagship costs three times more), the processor does not come off much in terms of performance in desktop PC tasks. This animal is the sole leader in this price category, both for nominal use and for overclocking.
Is it worth changing the processor?
Unlike smartphones and tablets, the desktop and laptop industry has not seen as much progress. As a rule, the processor does not change for several years and works fine. Therefore, it is better to take his choice responsibly, preferably with a small margin.
So, processors 2 or even 3 years old are not really inferior to their modern brothers. The increase in performance, if we take similar ones at a price, is on average 20%, which is almost imperceptible in real life.
Finally, I want to give a couple of tips:
- Do not chase top models with super power. If you do not play or work in highly demanding applications, then a powerful processor will only eat extra electricity and quickly become cheaper over time.
- New items are not much faster than their predecessors, by 10-20%, and this is almost imperceptible in everyday work, but they are more expensive and sometimes require a replacement motherboard for installation.
- When choosing a powerful processor, consider that your power supply has enough power based on the power consumption of the "stone" and the entire system unit as a whole!
The central processing unit is the heart of the computer and it is on it that the speed of computing operations depends. But the speed of work depends not only on it. With slow other components, such as a hard drive, your computer will slow down even with the coolest animal!
It seems that everything I wanted to say, now if something is not clear, ask in the comments! Only one request - do not write, such as "which processor is better than Intel i5-xxxx or amd fx-xx" and similar questions. All processors have long been tested and compared with each other. There are also ratings that include hundreds of models.
Edited: 2019-04-15
My name is Alexey Vinogradov I am the author of this wonderful site. I am fond of computers, programs, programming. Over 20 years of experience and a lot of spent nerves behind me :)
Comments (225 )
- In contact with
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
-
Answer
Answer
-
Elena Malysheva
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Sergei
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
-
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
-
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
-
Answer
-
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Gregory
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
-
Answer
-
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Leonid
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
-
Answer
-
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Minsk Repairman
Answer
BRedScorpius
Answer
aleksandrzdor
Answer
Dmitriy
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Leonid
Answer
Leonid
Answer
Sergei
Answer
Answer
Stanislav
Answer
Vladislav
Answer
Answer
Alexander
Answer
Alexander
Answer
Igor Novozhilov
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Alexey Vinogradov
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Answer
Vyacheslav
Answer
Dmitriy
Answer
Answer
Konstantin
Answer
Vitaly
Answer
Answer
Dmitriy
Answer
Answer
Alexander S.
Answer
Answer
Leonid
Answer
Answer
Vladimir
Answer
Answer
earring
Answer
Answer
Leonid
Answer
Natalia
Answer
Andrey
Answer
Andrey
Answer
Andrey
