Hello everyone, friends! Today the topic of the article will concern such a part of the computer as the processor. When choosing a PC, beginners often face the question: which processor is better to choose Intel or AMD? Usually, everything comes down to financial resources, but there are some nuances that every user needs to know about when choosing a computer. Let's find out which is better, Intel or AMD.

It's almost 2017, friends! Happy New Year everyone! Surely many are thinking about upgrading their car for the holidays or buying for the first time a normal one with a good processor, video card, power supply, RAM, etc. Choosing a processor is an important step when purchasing a computer, so you must decide for yourself one hundred percent correctly according to your needs. There are two megaleaders in the processor industry - Advanced Micro Devices, which produces micro AMD processors, And Intel company Corporation, which manufactures Intel microprocessors respectively. The competition between these giants is colossal, however, they are on par with each other.

AMD Past and Present

Once upon a time in the 2000s, AMD processors got hot during operation, like irons, and if the cooler failed, they completely burned out. It was almost impossible to disperse such stones, since, by lifting clock frequency, the processor immediately began to overheat. By the way, don’t miss the instructions about. While AMD processors were heating up, Intel processors behaved quite confidently, not knowing what overheating even was. Now 2017 is coming and AMD microprocessors are equipped with excellent thermal protection, so if you heard somewhere that they overheat, do not believe it, because this was almost twenty years ago. Also, AMD processors today can be overclocked without problems, especially the Black Edition series.

By the way, if you really overheat CPU, then know that this is influenced by one or more factors:
- the cooling radiator is teeming with dust;
- thermal paste that has dried out over time (especially low-quality thermal paste);
- malicious software, which constantly loads the processor to the maximum value;
- failed power supply, etc.

AMD vs Intel: fight for the top

To determine for yourself which processor is better than amd or intel, you need to set a goal for what the computer is being assembled in general (for games, office, what programs the user will often work in, etc.). It just so happens that AMD processors have always been lower in price than products from Intel. If you want to save money when building a computer, I advise you to purchase a central processor from AMD. If you want to build a more powerful computer, then it makes more sense to buy a product from Intel. In terms of operation, both Intel and AMD will last a long time, provided that the power supply does not fail or the processor does not overheat due to improper overclocking.

Each processor has its own advantages and disadvantages. Let's look at the main ones.

Pros and cons of Intel and AMD processors

Processors from Intel
Positive sides:
- work with RAM is better than that of AMD microprocessors,
- many programs and games are optimized specifically for Intel products,
- power consumption is lower than that of AMD processors,
- as a rule, performance is higher when performing computational operations within one program (when unzipping, converting, video editing, etc.).

Negative sides:
- when releasing a new line of products from Intel, you have to change motherboard due to a change in the socket (by the way, you don’t know - read the instructions),
- high price,
- when using two or more resource-intensive programs, processor performance drops,
- stones with the prefix “K”, as a rule, get quite hot, so such processors must have a good cooling system,
- when replacing a processor with a new one, you will have to purchase not only it, but also other components.

Processors from AMD
Positive sides:
- since 2008, most AMD processors can squeeze out gains of up to 20% when overclocked,
- it is possible to change the voltage in each of the processor cores,
- every user can purchase a product from AMD due to its affordable price,
- excellent price-quality ratio,
- when working in two or more powerful programs, there is no significant decline in performance,
- when replacing a processor from this manufacturer with a new one, there is no need to change the motherboard.

Negative sides:
- all applications designed for Intel processors work worse on PCs with AMD,
- processors from the “FX” series need a good cooling system (a regular cooler that comes with the processor will not be able to cool it properly during overclocking),
- higher power consumption than Intel processors,
- gaming performance is lower than that of competing processors.

As you can see, friends, each processor has its own advantages and disadvantages, which compensate for each other and as a result, it is really difficult to say in general which one is better. For an ordinary user, the needs are the same, but for a gamer they are completely different, so in one situation it will be better to choose a processor from AMD, in another - Intel. I think now you will choose the right processor for yourself.

That's all, thank you for your attention! See you again!

For several decades now, the debate about which manufacturer's processors are better has not subsided. Now comparing Intel and AMD processors is meaningless, since these companies cannot compete with the Russian MCST :). Elbrus are so good that they simply do not reach ordinary buyers, being snapped up almost instantly by organizations. Ordinary users have to be content with Intel and AMD processors on the “outdated” X86 architecture. Of course, they cannot stand comparison with MCST, but essentially there is nothing else to choose from. Because of this, it won't hurt to figure it out Which is better - AMD or Intel? by comparing them with each other.

Which is better for gaming: Intel or AMD?

Gaming performance has become the main criterion for choosing a processor for ordinary users. Many people generally assemble a computer just for gaming. In principle, we have more people who like to play than people who like to work! =)))

The performance of any more or less modern 8-thread (not cores, but threads!) processor is sufficient even for AAA projects. However, models with less thread should not be discounted - in many cases they cope well with games. Sometimes this is necessary. If gaming performance is limited by the capabilities of the video card (in the vast majority of cases), the requirements for the processor are even lower. The main thing is that it does not give freezes and stutters in games.

And yet, which company’s processors perform better in games? It is very difficult to answer this question unambiguously; ideally, you should always consider and compare specific models. In short, AMD's low- and mid-range processors are better than Intel's. In addition, AMD processors in general have a much better price/performance ratio. Intel is the undisputed leader of the highest price segment desktop processors. The older processors of this company have the highest absolute performance in games.

It's worth noting that gaming performance is not indicative of overall processor performance. So AMD Ryzen shows rather modest results in games, significantly lagging behind Intel. In rendering and some other tasks, AMD is better than Intel (if we consider processors of equal cost).

Intel or AMD: which processor to choose for a laptop

Laptops, due to the requirements for high autonomy and low power consumption, receive significantly weakened “stuffing”. CPU performance and energy efficiency are very important to them.

In terms of energy efficiency, the leaders in the laptop market are modern processors AMD. Already now Ryzen has smaller size chip than Intel processors. In 2019, AMD chips will begin to be produced using the 7nm standard. This will further reduce their size, which means increasing energy efficiency. Well, Intel just can’t master the 10nm process technology.

AMD-based laptops also have better price/performance ratio. Built into her mobile processors The graphics are significantly superior to those from Intel. This provides a noticeable advantage, most pronounced in low-end laptops that do not have discrete graphics.

Intel mobile processors boast the highest absolute performance. Built in them GPU quite weak compared to AMD. However, in the case of discrete graphics, this becomes unimportant.

Intel and AMD in 2019: clash of the titans

After the release by AMD in 2017 of its newest generation processors based on Zen architecture, a new round of confrontation between “red” and “blue” began. AMD Ryzen turned out to be such a successful product that Intel had to urgently increase the number of cores. The performance increase in the 8th generation of Intel processors reached 50%, while over the previous 5 years the “blue” giant offered an average of +5% in each new generation.

The increase in cores in the 8th generation of Intel seemed small. In the second half of 2018, it released the 9th generation of its desktop processors, the flagship of which has 8 physical cores and 16 threads. This was a response to the Ryzen 2 and possibly the upcoming Ryzen 3 next year.

Intel uses marketing successfully. So the company gave birth to a new line of processors, . Intel also emphasized at the presentation of its server processors that AMD Epyc does not have hardware support for AVX-512. By the way, there are literally only a few applications that support these instructions.

The confrontation between these titans affects all segments of the processor market. In the server market and in HEDT, both manufacturers offer solutions with big amount cores. For example, AMD's current flagship in the server market, EPYC 7601, has 32 cores and 64 threads. Already in solutions based on the next Zen 2 architecture, AMD will increase the number of physical cores to 64 in server processors. AMD's HEDT flagship, Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, has 32 physical cores. At this time, Intel's flagship, the Core i9-7980XE, competing with it, has only 18 cores.

What do you think about this? Which processor manufacturer would you buy and why? Please answer in the comments.

Did you read to the very end?

Was this article helpful?

Not really

What exactly did you not like? Was the article incomplete or false?
Write in comments and we promise to improve!

In ancient times, when the question “how many cores does your processor have?” could only cause bewilderment, and the monitors were thick and heavy; half a dozen large companies were engaged in the production of x86 processors for PCs. But competition took its toll, and in the new millennium there were only two large manufacturers of such chips left in the semiconductor market, Intel and AMD. Somewhere far behind is VIA Technologies, but in the consumer segment its market share tends to near zero.

Against the backdrop of the current “dual power,” disputes regularly arise among consumers about which is better, Intel or AMD, and what is the difference between their processors. In such disputes, the thread of a healthy discussion is very often lost, the discussion develops into a “pen-pal box,” and it becomes impossible to find the truth. Therefore, we will not delve into the arguments specifically for or against each of the companies, but will only consider key differences between processors of “blue” and “red” companies, approaches to their creation and promotion.

Development approach

AMD and Intel approach the development of new processor architectures differently. AMD prefers to periodically introduce fundamentally new architectural solutions approximately every 5 years. The company is devoting enormous resources to creating a new architecture, which should significantly surpass the current one, and its development takes more than one year. While research continues, the current architecture receives only “cosmetic” improvements: the frequency increases, energy consumption decreases, and the cost of chips decreases.

Intel approaches the development of new processors differently. The company alternates between small architecture updates and larger ones. This process is smoother than that of its competitor; there are practically no sudden architectural changes. The last major change was the transition from NetBurst to Core in 2005, the next leap (but smaller) was the improvement of this architecture in the second generation Core i line. And Intel hasn’t had such large-scale transitions as AMD’s from Bulldozer to Ryzen for a long time.

Because of this difference, Intel processors are getting a little better every year, but steadily. AMD's improvements happen in leaps and bounds. The time graph of Intel performance growth can be expressed by a line going forward and upward, AMD - in the form of steps.

The transition from Excavator to Zen is the same “step”, a sharp increase in productivity

Due to this feature, AMD processors eventually life cycle microarchitectures (that is, six months to a year before the release of a new one) can significantly lag behind their competitors. But the platform allows you to upgrade, since new processors remain compatible with old boards (for the same architecture), and the prices of new models fall. For example, you can still upgrade a 2012 computer on the AM3+ socket by installing an eight-core FX series processor. In the case of Intel, this will not work: CPUs on socket 1155 (of the same year) are practically not on sale, and if they are, they can be more expensive than newer ones.

System Upgrade Approach

Despite the fact that Intel processor architectures have long been developing through gradual evolution, new generations of CPUs often turn out to be incompatible with older boards. During the time that AMD supported the AM3/AM3+ socket, Intel changed as many as four sockets in the mass segment. Following socket 1156 came 1155, then 1150, and then 1151. Outwardly they are almost indistinguishable, but a processor for socket 1151 will not work on a board with socket 1150. New, eighth Intel generation Core should come out with the same socket 1151, but they will not be compatible with older boards.

AMD, on the contrary, after almost ten years of supporting AM3/AM3+ sockets (from 2008 to 2017), switched to AM4, which will support at least until 2020. This allows you to now build a computer based on AMD Ryzen 5 1400, and in the future upgrade your PC by installing some kind of second-generation Ryzen eight-core processor.

But such upgradability has one drawback: AMD’s performance gains in top processors within the same architecture are traditionally small. That is, if you immediately build a PC based on some Ryzen 7 1800X, then installing some Ryzen 7 2800X or 3800X in 2-3 years is unlikely to give a colossal increase. Anything can happen, but you shouldn’t rely heavily on it. As a result, upgrading a computer on a top-end AMD will be cheaper than on an Intel one (since you will also have to buy a new board for Intel), but the increase will be smaller.

Price policy

While maintaining its leadership position, Intel has no reason to dump and sell its processors at cost or with a minimal markup. AMD, wanting to take a piece of the market from a competitor, often resorts to such measures, and as a result, its chips are sold cheaper than equivalent rivals. The same Ryzen 5 1500X is sold a couple of thousand rubles cheaper than its competitor Intel Core i5-7600.

Due to AMD's pricing policy, its processors often look more profitable, but you shouldn't take it as a rule that this is always the case. There are exceptions, prices change, and to understand which processor is better, consider benchmark data and application tests at the time of selection. Exceptions are not uncommon; the same Pentium G4600 is not particularly inferior to the Ryzen 3 1200, but at the same time costs almost a third less.

Performance

Having considered the key points describing the development strategies of Intel and AMD in general, in theory, it’s time to move on to practice. From a practical point of view, that is, in terms of performance, AMD and Intel processors differ in approach. Intel is moving rather on an intensive development path, primarily increasing the specific performance of its cores. The number of cores in the processor is of secondary importance.

AMD, due to not always successful measures to improve core performance, prefer to develop extensively. The increase occurs due to an increase in the number of cores, when it is not possible to sharply increase their speed. When Intel offered 8 cores only in the server segment, and asked several thousand dollars for them, AMD had already created eight-core processors for the consumer segment. However, if in terms of overall computing speed such an AMD chip was close to that of an equivalent Intel chip, then in terms of computing speed on a single core it was approximately half as good.

As a result, AMD processors are good for tasks that can load all cores evenly. These include web surfing, video encoding and decoding, scientific and engineering calculations, and the parallel use of several programs. Intel processors are strong where powerful cores are required, and this is often games and office software (but not all: working with a dozen tables in parallel is a little better on AMD). And in the overall standings, the “blues” are practically not inferior to the “reds,” since powerful cores make them more universal.

Overclocking

Another important difference between Intel and AMD is their approach to custom overclocking. For those who like to experiment and want to speed up the processor themselves, Intel offers special versions of chips with the letter K in the name (for example, Core i7-7700K), as well as special motherboards (with Z-series chipsets). They cost more than regular versions.

AMD prefers not to artificially limit enthusiasts; most of its processors support custom overclocking. And you don’t need to buy an expensive top-class motherboard for it; a mass-produced model will do, thousands for 6 rubles.

Graphic arts

Intel equips almost all of its processors with an integrated video core. The only exception is the segment for enthusiasts and professionals: chips on 20xx sockets. This approach is due to the fact that Intel does not have a discrete graphics business, but AMD does. And in this way the corporation is trying to deprive its rival of part of its earnings and reduce sales of its budget video cards.

AMD’s position is fundamentally different: if you are building a gaming PC, then you probably don’t need integrated graphics; integrating it into the chip will only make a powerful processor even more expensive. Therefore, FX and Ryzen series CPUs do not have an integrated graphics accelerator. As a result, the user does not overpay for a part of the chip that he does not need, but at the same time he also has an incentive to take gaming video card AMD Radeon.

If, on the contrary, you need a built-in GPU, then AMD also has such products. Its APUs (all-purpose computing units) contain entry-level gaming-level processor and graphics cores in one package. They allow you to solve work problems and play, and at the same time they are inexpensive. Intel, on the other hand, equips Iris Pro gaming-grade graphics only to mobile CPUs for expensive ultrabooks and nettops.

Which is better - AMD processor or Intel processor? This issue is constantly the subject of heated debate on the Internet. Owners of components of one and another brand argue fiercely with each other, although in fact in most cases they dealt only with their “favorites”. Accordingly, during such a dialogue, it is not possible to establish the truth.

We will approach the comparison as an independent party and compare both solutions according to a number of distinctive parameters

Price policy

The first thing most people pay attention to is the price of the processor. After all, not everyone can afford to spend an extra hundred dollars on computer components, and it is not advisable to overpay in all cases.

AMD processors can be safely classified as middle and even economy class. If you are very limited in budget, but your goal is to assemble a current generation system, then you should give preference to this company. For example, a quad-core AMD FX-4350 with a frequency of 4.2 GHz costs about four and a half thousand rubles (as of the beginning of 2014), and the most expensive of the freely available AMD FX X8 9590 models costs just over ten thousand.

Intel took a different path, significantly increasing the prices of their processors. Therefore, they are unlikely to be an economical solution for an accountant’s work computer or office employee. The cost of mid-level Intel Core i5 and Intel Core i7 models ranges from six to ten thousand rubles (there are cheaper and more expensive configurations, but we won’t take them into account). The top six-core i7 on the s-2011, in general, costs from 32 thousand rubles. The difference with AMD's offerings is clearly not in Intel's favor, but everything falls into place when you look at both processors in action.

Working possibilities

What we buy a powerful processor for is its performance, speed, and ability to solve the tasks assigned to it. Let's see what both companies can offer their clients in this regard.

AMD, although not a stellar performer, offers an excellent cost-to-performance ratio. At correct setting everything works stably and does not cause any complaints. Multitasking is perfectly implemented - with an AMD processor you can easily run several applications at the same time: unpack an archive, surf the browser, play music in the player, install a repack of a game, and so on. A similar Intel model will show much more modest results in this regard. It is also worth paying attention to the predisposition to overclocking: the performance of most AMD processors can be increased without problems by 10-20% compared to factory settings using standard software tools.

With the exception of multitasking, Intel is ahead of AMD in everything. Already due to the fact that application and game developers optimize their creations specifically for this brand of processors, Intel’s performance is significantly higher. In addition, the clock speed of the second and third level memory is much faster, and work with RAM is implemented at the highest level. Working with 3D graphics, photo and video editing, and other resource-intensive tasks - for these purposes it is recommended to take Intel solutions (one for now running application actively, there is a significant increase in productivity). According to the same reason Intel is a favorite brand of processors among computer game players, where CPU power plays the second most important role after the power of the video card.

Energy consumption and heat dissipation

A very important criterion not only for those who want to save money, but also for owners, for example, of laptops. The lower the power consumption, the longer the device will last without recharging. With heat generation, everything is clear - overheating leads to interruptions in operation and failure of components.

AMD brand processors consume comparatively more energy than their competitors, which is why you need to be more careful when choosing a motherboard and power supply. Otherwise, critical problems, brakes, and freezes may occur. The same applies to heat dissipation, which is quite high (especially in older models), which is why the standard cooler supplied with the processor cannot cope with cooling under increased load. It is strongly recommended that when buying a CPU from AMD, you also purchase high-quality cooling from Zalman or another well-known company - it will also make much less noise during operation.

Intel. As I said earlier, in most cases they are much more economical and heat up less (average AMD ones are 125 Watts vs 95 Watts Intel ones). However, there were some exceptions here. The older Intel Core i5 and i7 models have already caught up with AMD's flagships and even exceeded their power consumption by 5 Watts with all the ensuing consequences. Now buying a high-quality motherboard, power supply and good cooling has become a top priority for everyone who uses a computer to its full potential. After all, it’s one thing to come to terms with the loss of a cheap budget processor, and another thing to “lose a large sum of money.”

backward compatibility

Availability backward compatibility in the processor allows it to be used with other computer components or software technologies, which can already be called outdated.

AMD is focusing on multi-platform. That is, if you have an old motherboard with an AM2 or AM2+ socket, you can easily insert not only processors with the same name, but also AM3 solutions. For example, having a system with a combination of an m2n-mx motherboard and a Phenom X3 8450 processor, it is quite possible to remove the old processor and install a Phenom II X4 955, almost doubling the performance. Thus, AMD becomes ideal option for lovers of step-by-step upgrades.

Intel processors, on the contrary, cannot be called universal. Each new line is released on a new platform (with the exception of LGA 1155 processors), which leads to the need to also replace the motherboard during the update. In principle, if you think logically, expensive solutions from Intel are bought not just to surf the Internet and watch movies, but for more resource-intensive tasks. That is, you cannot limit yourself to one processor - you need good RAM, a video card, and a powerful power supply. Therefore, it cannot be said that Intel’s single-platform nature is such a big drawback.

When buying or assembling a computer yourself, you most often pay attention to HDD, volume random access memory and central processor. The CPU is responsible for the performance and stability of the entire system and performs all major calculations on it. For a simple user processors from Intel and AMD are available. Their architecture is very different and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

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

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

Chips from Intel - expensive and fast

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

Pros of Intel

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

Flaws

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

On a note! Processors from Intel do not lose their technical characteristics even after 3-5 years, when a new line comes out or computer game. The old ones continue to cope well with their responsibilities and do not bother the PC user.

Interesting video on comparing Intel and AMD processors

AMD processors - catch up and overtake

AMD is doing well and is nipping at Intel's heels in some niches. The strongest position is in the segment of inexpensive crystals.

Advantages

To date, they strengths the following:

1. Excellent cost/performance ratio, the price per processor is 1.5-2 times lower than competitors.
2. Multi-platform functionality has been successfully resolved, when almost the entire line of processors can be installed on the popular AM2+ and AM3 sockets.
3. The number of physical cores in the chip is greater than that of a similar one from Intel, so it is well possible to work with several applications at the same time.
4. All series have high overclocking potential.

Weaknesses of AMD crystals

1. Multithreading in the kernels is not fully debugged; problems are observed in the operation of powerful graphic editors - AutoCad, Illustrator, Compass 3D and other programs.
2. Interacts worse with RAM.
3. High power consumption and the need for a powerful cooler, prone to strong heating with a standard cooling system.

CPU overclocking and power consumption

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

AMD devices have always been in the lead in overclocking. Even basic model And the series for 1,400 rubles can be overclocked, and FX processors can reach frequencies of 13 GHz. During this procedure, it is necessary to replace them with more productive ones.

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

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

Let's compare power consumption using popular chips as an example. Intel Pentium G3258 and A6-7400K have the same power - 53 Watts, but Intel performs better in graphics tests. This speaks about him efficient work with less heating, but the AMD processor in similar conditions has a much harder time, and the cooling system is forced to work at maximum.

The same situation occurs with all AMD chips - they consume more energy and heat up more. For this reason, they are rarely used in applications where battery life is important.

Video - AMD or Intel: which is better?

Processor selection

IN Lately Intel has greatly pushed aside its competitor in all segments. Even AMD's transition to the new Zen architecture doesn't help, but there are segments where they are still very strong. Approximate choice of processor for personal computer can be divided into 3 groups:

1. The first group is budget models. You can use any inexpensive chip from Intel or AMD (Athlon, Sempron, A4). The difference in performance between them will be insignificant, but the price may differ greatly.
2. Second group - graphic editors and multimedia systems. Models of the A6 and Trinity series from AMD or Intel G series chips and others are good in this segment.
3. The third group is powerful gaming devices and graphics programs, working with discrete 3D graphics. The choice here is obvious: in the mid-price range, we choose AMD FX series processors or Core i3 from a competitor. In the maximum configuration there is no alternative to i7 and i9 chips.