Comparison table of intel and amd processors. Intel vs AMD processors: analysis and comparison of models

Let's figure out what the main differences are between the processors of the world leaders - Intel and AMD.

We will also consider their positive and negative sides.

Major CPU Manufacturers

Everyone understands perfectly well that there are two leading companies in the computing market that are engaged in the development and production of the Central Processing Unit (central processing unit), or, more simply put, processors.

These devices combine millions of transistors and other logic elements, and are electronic devices of the highest complexity.

The whole world uses computers whose heart is an electronic chip from either Intel or AMD, so it’s no secret that both of these companies are constantly fighting for leadership in this area.

But let's leave these companies alone and move on to the average user, who is faced with a choice dilemma - what is preferable - Intel or AMD?

Whatever you say, there is not and cannot be a definite answer to this question, since both manufacturers have enormous potential, and their CPUs are capable of meeting the current requirements.

When choosing a processor for your device, the user primarily focuses on its performance and cost - relying on these two criteria as the main ones.

The majority of users have long been divided into two opposing camps, becoming ardent supporters of Intel or AMD products.

Let's look at all the strengths and weaknesses of the devices of these leading companies, so that when choosing a particular one, we rely not on speculation, but on specific facts and characteristics.

Advantages and disadvantages of Intel processors

So, what are the advantages of Intel processors?

• First of all, this is very high performance and speed in applications and games, which are most optimized for Intel processors.
• Under the control of these processors, the system operates with maximum stability.
• It is worth noting that the second and third level memory of Intel CPUs operates at higher speeds than in similar processors from AMD.
• Multithreading, which is implemented by Intel in CPUs such as Core i7, plays a big role in performance when working with optimized applications.

Advantages and disadvantages of AMD processors

• The advantages of AMD processors include, first of all, their affordability in terms of cost, which is perfectly combined with performance.
• A huge advantage is the multi-platform, which allows you to replace one processor model with another without the need to change the motherboard.
• That is, a processor designed for socket AM3 can be installed on socket AM2+ without any negative consequences.
• One cannot fail to note multitasking, which many AMD processors cope well with, simultaneously running three applications.
• In addition, FX series processors have quite good overclocking potential, which is sometimes extremely necessary.

• The disadvantages of AMD CPUs include higher power consumption than that of Intel, as well as operation of the second and third level cache memory at lower speeds.
• It should also be noted that most processors belonging to the FX line require additional cooling, which will have to be purchased separately.
• And another disadvantage is that fewer games and applications are adapted and written for the AMD processor than for Intel.

Current connectors from Intel

Today, many leading manufacturers of central processors are equipped with two current connectors. From Intel they are as follows:

• LGA 2011 v3 is a combined connector that is aimed at quickly assembling a high-performance personal computer for both servers and the end user. The key feature of such a platform is the presence of a RAM controller that successfully operates in multi-channel mode. Thanks to this important feature, PCs with such processors are characterized by unprecedented performance. It must be said that within the framework of such a platform an integrated subsystem is not used. Unlocking the potential of such chips is only possible with the help of discrete graphics. To do this, you should use only the best video cards;
• Thanks to LGA, you can easily organize not only a high-performance computing system, but also a budget PC. For example, a socket LGA 1151 It is perfect for creating a mid-price computing station, while at the same time it will have a powerful integrated graphics core of the Intel Graphics series and support DDR4 memory.

Current AMD connectors

Today AMD is promoting the following processor sockets:

• The main computing platform for such a developer is considered AM3+. The most productive CPUs are considered to be the FX model range, which includes up to eight computing modules. In addition, such a platform supports an integrated graphics subsystem. However, here the graphics core is included in the motherboard, and is not integrated into the semiconductor crystals;
• the latest modern AMD processor socket – FM3+. AMD's new CPUs are intended to be used in desktop computers and media centers not only at entry-level, but also at mid-level. Thanks to this, the most modern integrated solution will be available to the average user for a fairly small amount.

Working possibilities

Many people first pay attention to the price of the processor. It is also important for them that he can easily solve the tasks assigned to him.

So, what can both organizations offer on this point? AMD is not known for outstanding achievements.

But this processor represents an excellent price-performance ratio. If you configure it correctly, you can expect stable operation without any complaints.

It is worth noting that AMD managed to implement multitasking. Thanks to such a processor, various applications can be easily launched.

With its help, you can simultaneously install the game and surf the vast expanses of the Internet.

But Intel is known for more modest results in this area, which is confirmed by the comparison of processors.

It would not be superfluous to pay attention to the availability of overclocking, during which the performance of an AMD processor can easily be increased by twenty percent compared to standard settings.

To do this, you just need to use additional software.

Intel beats AMD in almost everything except multitasking. In addition, Intel is working with

So you should select the motherboard and power supply much more carefully to prevent freezes due to insufficient power.

Power consumption chart for Intel and AMD It's the same story with heat dissipation. It is quite high in older models. As a result, a standard cooler has difficulty coping with increased cooling.

Therefore, when purchasing a CPU from AMD, you must additionally purchase high-quality cooling from any decent company. Don't forget that high-quality fans make much less noise.

Socket type and performance

We should also say something about performance. After AMD acquired ATI, its creators were able to successfully integrate most of the graphics processing capabilities into the processor cores. Such efforts have paid off successfully.

Those who use an AMD chip for gaming should have no doubt that they are getting good performance, which is much better than the performance of equivalent chips from Intel (this is especially true for those who use a card with ATI graphics).

If it comes to heavy multitasking, then it is better to choose Intel, since it has HyperTreasing technology.

However, this advantage can only be exploited when the software application is capable of multitasking, that is, the ability to divide tasks into several small parts.

If the user needs a gaming processor, it is better to combine an AMD processor with a video card.

So, there is a big difference between intel and amd processor sockets. When choosing the right option, consider the differences between them listed in this article. This will make choosing the right option much easier.

Almost every year a new generation of Intel Xeon E5 central processors enters the market. Each generation alternates between socket and process technology. There are more and more nuclei, and heat generation is gradually decreasing. But a natural question arises: “What does the new architecture give to the end user?”

To do this, I decided to test the performance of similar processors of different generations. I decided to compare models from the mass segment: 8-core processors 2660, 2670, 2640V2, 2650V2, 2630V3 and 2620V4. Testing with such a generational spread is not entirely fair, because Between V2 and V3 there is a different chipset, a new generation of memory with a higher frequency, and most importantly, there are no direct peers in frequency among the models of all 4 generations. But, in any case, this study will help to understand to what extent the performance of new processors has increased in real applications and synthetic tests.

The selected line of processors has many similar parameters: the same number of cores and threads, 20 MB SmartCache, 8 GT/s QPI (except 2640V2) and the number of PCI-E lanes is 40.

To assess the feasibility of testing all processors, I turned to the results of the PassMark tests.

Below is a summary graph of the results:

Since the frequency is significantly different, it is not entirely correct to compare the results. But despite this, conclusions immediately arise:

1. 2660 is equivalent in performance to 2620V4
2. 2670 is superior in performance to 2620V4 (obviously due to frequency)
3. 2640V2 sags, and 2650V2 beats everyone (also due to frequency)

I divided the result by frequency and got a certain performance value at 1 GHz:

Here the results are more interesting and clear:

1. 2660 and 2670 - an unexpected turnaround for me within one generation, 2670 is justified only by the fact that its overall performance is very high
2. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - a very strange low result, which is worse than the 2660
3. 2630V3 and 2620V4 - the only logical growth (apparently due to the new architecture...)

After analyzing the result, I decided to weed out some of the uninteresting models that are of no value for further testing:

1. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - an intermediate generation, and not very successful, in my opinion - I’m removing them from the candidates
2. 2630V3 is an excellent result, but it costs unreasonably more than 2620V4, given the similar performance and, moreover, this is the outgoing generation of processors
3. 2620V4 - reasonable price (compared to 2630V3), high performance and, most importantly, this is the only model of the latest generation 8-core processor with Hyper-threading on our list, so we definitely leave it for further tests
4. 2660 and 2670 - an excellent result in comparison with 2620V4. In my opinion, it is the comparison of the first and last (at the moment) generations in the Intel Xeon E5 line that is of particular interest. In addition, we still have sufficient stocks of first-generation processors in our warehouse, so this comparison is very relevant for us.

The cost of servers based on 2660 and 2620V4 processors can differ by almost 2 times, not in favor of the latter, so by comparing their performance and choosing a server on V1 processors, you can significantly reduce the budget for purchasing a new server. But I will tell you about this proposal after the test results.

For testing, 3 stands were assembled:

1. 2 x Xeon E5-2660, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
2. 2 x Xeon E5-2670, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
3. 2 x Xeon E5-2620V4, 8 x 8Gb DDR4 ECC REG 2133, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb

PassMark PerformanceTest 9.0

A more detailed testing report allows us to draw some conclusions:

1. Mathematics, incl. and floating point, mainly depends on frequency. The difference of 100 MHz allowed the 2660 to outpace the 2620V4 in computational operations, encryption and compression (and this despite the significant difference in memory frequency)
2. Physics and calculations using extended instructions are performed better on the new architecture, despite the low frequency
3. And, of course, the test using memory was in favor of V4 processors, since in this case different generations of memory were competing - DDR4 and DDR3.

It was synthetic. Let's see what specialized benchmarks and real applications show.

Archiver 7ZIP

Here the results have something in common with the previous test - a direct link to the processor frequency. It doesn’t matter that slower memory is installed - V1 processors confidently take the lead in frequency.

CINEBENCH R15

The Xeon E5-2670 pulled up the frequency and beat the 2620V4. But the E5-2660, which has a not so visible advantage in frequency, lost to the 4th generation processor. Hence the conclusion - this software uses useful additions of the new architecture (although perhaps it’s all a matter of memory...), but not so much that this is a decisive factor.

3DS MAX + V-Ray

The results were similar to CINEBENCH: the Xeon E5-2670 showed the lowest rendering time, and the 2660 could not beat the 2620V4.

1C: SQL/File

When testing a database with file access, the E5-2620V4 processor confidently leads. The table shows the average values ​​of 20 runs of the same test. The difference between the results of each stand in the case of a file database was no more than 2%.

A single-threaded SQL database test showed very strange results. The difference turned out to be insignificant, given the different frequencies of the 2660 and 2670, and the different frequencies of DDR3 and DDR4. There was an attempt to optimize the SQL settings, but the results turned out to be worse than they were, so I decided to test all the stands on the basic settings.

The results of the multi-threaded SQL test turned out to be even more strange and contradictory. The maximum speed of 1 thread in MB/s was equivalent to the performance index in the previous single-threaded test.

The next parameter was the maximum speed (of all streams) - the result was almost identical for all stands. Since the results of different runs fluctuated greatly (+-5%) - sometimes they were at different stands with a significant gap in both directions. The same average multi-threaded SQL test results lead me to 3 thoughts:

1. This situation is caused by an unoptimized SQL configuration
2. The SSD became a system bottleneck and did not allow the processors to overclock
3. There is almost no difference between the frequency of memory and processors for these tasks (which is extremely unlikely)

The result for the “Recommended number of users” parameter also turned out to be inexplicable. The average result of 2660 turned out to be the highest - and this despite the low results of all tests.
I will also be glad to see your comments on this issue.

Conclusions

Of course, I’m not saying that there is no difference at all between processors, I just want to point out that for certain applications there is no point in a “planned” transition to a new generation.

If you disagree with me or have suggestions for testing, the stands have not yet been dismantled, and I will be happy to test your tasks.

Economic benefit

Below is an approximate calculation.

AMD processors of the Phenom II, Bulldozer and Vishera architectures were tested repeatedly within the laboratory, both their overclocking and performance levels were studied. But there are few head-to-head comparison tests, so it is difficult to assess the presence (or absence) of progress when moving from one CPU generation to another. It's time to fill in the gaps.

This review will feature top AMD solutions of recent years - AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, AMD FX-8150 and AMD FX-8350. To complete the picture, all CPUs will be tested not only in normal mode and at equal frequencies, but also at maximum overclocking. In addition, a comparison will be made of the power consumption of processors. The Core i7-2600K was taken as a reference from Intel's camp.

Test bench and software

Testing was carried out on the following configuration:

• Motherboards:
• ASUS Crosshair V Formula;
• ASUS Sabertooth Z77;
• Processors:
• AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3 GHz (16.5x200);
• AMD FX-8150 3.6 GHz (18x200);
• AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz (20x200);
• Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4 GHz (34x100);
• Cooling system: Zalman CNPS10X Performa (120*120*25, ~2000 rpm);
• Thermal interface: Prolimatech PK-1;
• RAM: G.Skill TridentX F3-2400C10D-8GTX;
• Video card: ASUS ARES II, CrossFireX Disabled;
• Hard drive: Western Digital Caviar Blue (WD500AAKS), 500 GB;
• Power supply: Corsair CMPSU-750HX, 750 W;
• Housing: open test bench.

Software

• Operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64;
• Video card driver: Catalyst 13.5 beta 2;
• Additional software:
• FRAPS 3.5.9, build 15586;
• AutoHotkey 1.0.48.05.

Testing methodology

The following applications were used for the performance test:

• LinX 0.6.4 + Linpack 11.0.1.005;
• TrueCrypt 7.1a;
• SVPmark 3.0.3a;
• Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2;
• Maxon Cinebench 11.5 x64;
• POV-Ray v3.7 RC7;
• x264 HD Benchmark 5.0.1;
• TOC F@H Bench v.0.4.8.1;
• WinRar 4.2 X64;
• 7-Zip 9.30 X64.

The following games used built-in performance measurement tools:

• Batman: Arkham City;
• Hitman: Absolution;
• Metro 2033;
• Sleeping Dogs;
• Tomb Raider (2013).

In these games, performance measurements were carried out using Autohotkey scenes:

• Crysis 3 (Welcome to the Jungle);
• Far Cry 3 (Harvest The Jungle);
• The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Goldflower Estate);
• The Witcher 2 (On the Frontlines).

To analyze gaming performance results, both Min/AVG FPS numbers and performance ratings based on frametimes results were used.

The frametimes analysis was carried out using the Fraps-Calc utility, which allows you to see the main features associated with system performance in a particular application. This program, based on the average (AVG) FPS and its stability characteristics, calculates the value of the so-called performance rating. We can say that the performance rating is a numerical characteristic of the comfort of the gameplay, where a value of 1 and above means the absence of visible “brakes” when displaying an image.

Each of the processors was tested in three operating modes:

• Normal mode: completely factory system settings obtained by resetting the BIOS, respectively - the results “out of the box”, which will be if the system is not touched. I note that both motherboards used the Turbo Core/Turbo Boost functions in this mode, and for all CPUs the memory operating mode was set to DDR3-1600 11-11-11;
• Comparison of CPUs at the same frequency (4 GHz). Memory operating mode DDR3-1600 7-8-8-21-1T, Turbo Core/Turbo Boost disabled, HT/CPU_NB frequencies for AMD processors are set to standard values;
• Maximum overclocking mode for each processor.

For AMD Phenom II X6 1100T This:

• Processor frequency: 4174 MHz (260.88x16);
• CPU_NB operating frequency: 2870 MHz;
• HT operating frequency: 2609 MHz;
• Memory operating mode: DDR3-2087 8-10-10-25-1T.

For AMD FX-8150 This:

• Processor frequency: 4615 MHz (200.66x23);
• CPU_NB operating frequency: 2609 MHz;
• HT operating frequency: 2609 MHz;
• Memory operating mode: DDR3-2140 8-10-10-25-1T.

For AMD FX-8350 This:

• Processor frequency: 4592 MHz (199.66x23);
• CPU_NB operating frequency: 2396 MHz;
• HT operating frequency: 2596 MHz;
• Memory operating mode: DDR3-2396 10-11-11-28-1T.

For Intel Core i7-2600K This:

• Processor frequency: 4700 MHz (47x100) with HT enabled and 4800 MHz (48x100) with HT disabled. Both settings have been tested;
• Memory operating mode: DDR3-2133 8-10-10-25-1T.

Energy consumption measurements were made using a Mastech MY64 multimeter and a 50 A 75 mV shunt (75SHIP1-50-0.5) at the positive break of the 8-pin power cable. Measurements were made for two modes: for standard mode and for maximum processor overclocking mode. LinX 0.6.4 was used as a load for measurements.

Performance testing

LinX

Testing was carried out with a task size of 20014 (3072 MB of memory). The final result is the best based on the results of five passes.

Gflops
Normal mode

When comparing participants in standard mode among AMD models, the results were arranged in order of processor release, the main progress was observed in the transition from Phenom II to Bulldozer, while the advantage of the FX-8350 is more likely explained by the 400 MHz difference in frequencies than by architectural features.

I note that this balance of power was not always the case: at the time of the release of the FX-8150, the Linpack test did not yet support instruction sets of new CPUs, and the results of AMD FX processors were a couple of times lower than in modern versions of Linpack; accordingly, the results of Phenom II were for AMD FX are not available. As for the results of the i7-2600K, we can say that it does not work at its full potential - turning on HT in this test reduces performance, as a result, the Intel CPU is in the middle between the FX-8150 and FX-8350.

When compared at equal frequencies, the difference between AMD processors decreases significantly: the results of the Phenom II X6 have increased noticeably (no wonder, since it has the lowest operating frequency among the test subjects - 3300 MHz), and the FX-8150 and FX-8350 are equal. The i7-2600K is already ahead in this mode.

After switching to the maximum frequency mode, the status quo did not change. The Phenom II is behind, and the FX-8150 and FX-8350 have swapped places according to the frequencies achieved, but the frequency potential of the Vishera is slightly lower. As for the Core i7-2600K, its advantage only increased thanks to higher overclocking, and is especially noticeable when HT is turned off.

TrueCrypt 7.1a

A multi-threaded benchmark that measures the speed of encryption operations. The result is taken as Mean Speed ​​in the AES-Twofish-Serpent test. The result is the best based on the results of five measurements.

True Crypt AES-Twofish-Serpent

MB/s
Normal mode

Please enable JavaScript to see graphs

For normal operation, the balance of forces is approximately similar to what was observed when considering the LinX results - both when moving from Phenom II to Bulldozer, and when moving from Bulldozer to Vishera, performance varies significantly, and the progress cannot but rejoice. What has changed is the performance level of the Core i7-2600K, which this time is already between the Phenom II X6 1100T and FX-8150, and not between the FX-8150 and FX-8350.

The transition to comparison at equal frequencies this time does not change the conclusions - the status quo this time remains the same at 4 GHz. The AMD FX-8350 remains unrivaled, and the i7-2600K becomes even closer to the Phenom II X6 1100T than the FX-8150.

The results with maximum overclocking do not bring any surprises. It's interesting to see the performance of the i7-2600K with HT turned off, where the performance level becomes even lower than that of the Phenom II X6 1100T, despite the more than 600 MHz difference in processor frequency. It can be noted that despite the lower frequencies, the FX-8350 remains a leader compared to the FX-8150; apparently, architectural optimizations have benefited.

SVPmark 3.0.3a

SVP is software designed to increase the smoothness of the played video by calculating additional frames. The test is multi-threaded and very demanding on processor performance. The result is the best based on the results of five measurements.

SVPmark 3.0.3a

Points
Normal mode

Please enable JavaScript to see graphs

When comparing processors at stock frequencies, the results are not much different from the two previous performance tests: AMD CPUs are once again lined up according to the hierarchy, with the greatest difference observed when moving from the Phenom II X6 1100T to the FX-8150. The Intel Core i7-2600K is located between the FX-8350 and FX-8150, closer to the latter.

At equal frequencies, you can see that, despite the leveling of the difference in frequencies, the balance of power in the case of AMD solutions remains the same. But at the same time, the i7-2600K is already in the lead, albeit with a minimal difference.

The same situation among AMD models remains the same with maximum CPU overclocking, while the i7-2600K strengthens its leadership. True, with HT turned off, it is no longer in the lead, but only competes with the FX-8150.

Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2

This test forces the processor to process chess algorithms and puts a lot of stress on modern CPUs. The final result is the best based on the results of five measurements.

Fritz Chess Benchmark

knodes/s
Normal mode

Please enable JavaScript to see graphs

The balance of power here looks much more interesting than in previous tests, and interesting numbers can be seen already for the normal operating mode of the processors.

It shows that the Phenom II X6 1100T and FX-8150 are very close, despite the fact that the FX-8150 operates at 300 MHz higher, while the FX-8350's advantage over them is not so significant. This is confirmed by comparison results at equal frequencies, where Phenom II turns out to be the most productive among the three AMD flagships. Apparently, a full six cores for this test are preferable to four “dual-core” modules from AMD FX.

Do not forget that the frequency potential of the Phenom II is much lower, and as a result, with maximum overclocking, all three AMD processors show approximately the same result. With more/less luck of specific CPU instances, any of the participants could show the best result.

As for the results of the Core i7-2600K, it leads in all modes except maximum overclocking with HT turned off.

Maxon Cinebench 11.5 x64

This benchmark analyzes the rendering speed of a test scene, assigning performance points to the processor. The final result is the best based on the results of three measurements.

Cinebench R11.5

CPU
Points
Normal mode

Please enable JavaScript to see graphs

The results are very similar to the Fritz Chess Benchmark. Again, when comparing AMD solutions at standard frequencies, the Phenom II X6 1100T holds up well, especially compared to the AMD FX-8150. The only difference is that this time the FX-8350 shows more confident results. When moving to 4 GHz, the six-core “old man”, as expected, begins to lead among AMD CPUs, although the FX-8350 is still closer to it than it was in the case of the chess test.

When moving to maximum overclocking, the results of the processors are already consistent with generations of architectures, although the difference in the final results is still small, especially for the X6 1100T and FX-8150.

The i7-2600K, as in the chess test, leads in all modes except maximum overclocking with HT turned off.

POV-Ray v3.7 RC7

A program for constructing images using the ray tracing method. The built-in benchmark was used. The final result is the scene rendering time, the best result based on three measurements.

POV-Ray v3.7 RC7

Seconds
Normal mode

Please enable JavaScript to see graphs

Already from the results of the standard mode it is clear that, unlike the two previous tests, Phenom II no longer shines here, and such values ​​​​cannot be explained by clock frequencies alone.

This is confirmed by the results at 4 GHz, where the processors are arranged according to the generations of their architectures, with a similar level of performance gain when moving from one to another. At maximum overclocking, the difference between the FX-8150 and the Phenom II X6 1100T only increases.

As for the Intel Core i7-2600K, it shows poor results in this test. At equal frequencies, its performance level is close to the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-8150 and FX-8350 are more productive than the Intel processor in all test modes. At the same time, with maximum overclocking and HT turned off, the Core i7 representative remains an outsider.