Amd or Pentium. Which is better AMD or Intel


The processor industry does not stand still, as, in principle, does information technology in general. Over the past fifteen years, humanity has achieved a revolutionary breakthrough in the computer field. As for processors, today developers present us with a huge selection of their products with the latest micro architectures and technologies. We just have to adapt to our financial capabilities. When buying a computer, the question arises: which processor to choose AMD or Intel?

In this article I will try to reveal the answer to a frequently asked question, based not on personal preferences, but only on facts and examples. Anyone can support my opinion or refute it. So, if you're ready, let's go.

Let's go back in time a little. Two companies, Advanced Micro Devices and Intel Corporation, were created in 1969 and 1968. Just imagine, both megacorporations have almost half a century of experience in creating central processors. These two sides have been competing with each other since their founding and this is not surprising. With all this, no matter what, the two companies are on par with each other. However, among ordinary users the name Intel is better known, for some reason, than AMD. At that time, processors were created with a clock frequency of 3 Megahertz and an 8-bit bus. We are interested in modern processors with higher parameters.

Tales of AMD

Friends, many of you have probably heard myths about “hot” and “not overclockable” AMD processors. Today it is stupid to say that AMD overheats or does not overclock, because this statement is based on ordinary rumors. Yes, in the 2000s, processors like the Athlon 1400 got hot, and if the cooler failed, they burned out. But now it’s the beginning of 2016 and modern AMD processors are equipped with good thermal protection.

Do not forget that the thermal regime, in addition to the central processor itself, can be influenced by various factors:
- poor quality of thermal paste application;
- debris in the cooling cooler;
- presence of a large amount of dust;
- faulty power supply, etc.

As for overclocking. Today, some AMD processors set world records for overclocking, so the opinion that they “cannot be overclocked” is no longer relevant. There are also processors of the “Black Edition” series, in which the possibility of overclocking is already provided by the manufacturer.

So, with the fables about AMD processors, I think it's clear. Now a few words about Intel. I personally have not heard any negative reviews for these processors. Even back when the Athlons were getting hot, the Intel Pentium received quite positive reviews. Remember, the phrase “What kind of stump do you have?” was still in circulation, that is, Pentium, and those who had Pentium-4 were generally cool.

Intel vs AMD battle of the titans

To be honest, there is no specific universal answer to the question “which is better than intel or amd”, since each user has his own needs, because a simple “user” needs one thing, and an experienced gamer needs something completely different. Each company releases new generation processors almost every year. Today Intel can lead by releasing processors with a modified architecture, and tomorrow, for example, AMD will release a new generation architecture, taking first place. There have been and will be “fights” between the two corporations, and this is not surprising, because each of them wants to attract the attention of users with its central processors with individual unique features.

In the processor industry, there is such a pattern: the more expensive a product within one manufacturer, the more powerful, better and faster it is. However, AMD processors, as a rule, have always been cheaper than products from Intel. For myself personally, I came to the conclusion: if you don’t have enough money or don’t have enough money, take AMD; if finances are not a problem, then take Intel. For the latter you will pay more money and get a slightly better product. As for reliability, both products cannot break, like, for example, a monitor or a hard drive, and will last for many years, provided that they are not subject to constant overclocking.

Pros and cons of AMD and Intel

AMD processors
Pros:
- ideal performance/price ratio;
- affordable price for all segments of the population;
- the ability to control the voltage in the microprocessor cores;
- almost any AMD processor accelerates up to 20%;
- multitasking (you can easily work in several demanding programs and not notice the strain on your computer);
- AMD's multiplatform makes it possible to replace old processors with new ones without changing the motherboard. Competitors lag significantly behind in this regard.

Minuses:
- significantly high energy consumption;
- applications created for Intel do not work well on AMD computers;
- within the “FX” series, a native cooler (standard) is not enough; a more powerful cooling system is needed;
- performance in computer games is slightly worse than that of Intel, however, there is a significant difference in price.

Intel processors
Pros:
- good performance when working in a resource-intensive program, provided that it is running alone (converters, archivers, photo and video editors, games, etc.);
- gaming performance is higher than that of competitors, but not significantly;
- work with RAM is better than that of AMD processors;
- energy consumption is lower;
- a large number of games and programs are optimized for Intel stones;

Minuses:
- Intel processors perform poorly when running two powerful programs;
- exorbitant price;
- when a new line of processors appears, both the motherboard and other components must be replaced;
- processors with the letter “K” heat up significantly, so you need to install good cooling for them;
- from the previous paragraph it follows that upgrading your computer will lead to significant costs, since you will have to purchase not only a processor.

From the positives and negatives of the two leaders AMD and Intel, it is difficult to say which one ranks 1st. Each processor has its own characteristics and is good in its own way.

Test of Core i7-3770K and FX-8350 processors

To test the two giants in practice, I took two processors for the test:
- from AMD processor on the new FX-8350 architecture (Vishera, 8 MB level 3 cache, AM3+ socket, 4.0 GHz, overclocked to 4.4 GHz);
- Intel processor Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge, 8 MB level 3 cache, 3.5 GHz, overclocked to 4.4 GHz).
To make everything fair, when testing these processors, we used an Asus Sabertooth motherboard. By the way, the product from Intel is more expensive.

Test results:











From the tests we can draw a conclusion. The AMD processor has an acceptable cost and fairly good performance, but it consumes more power. The competitor has low power consumption and is superior in performance. But at the same time, the price for Intel is much higher.

As I already said, each processor from both giants has its own characteristics, disadvantages and advantages. Personally, I would choose an AMD processor, and with the remaining money I would buy a solid cooling system or add some more money and replace the video card. But, if money is not a problem, then buy Intel. That's all, friends!

This issue is also covered here

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 the key differences between the processors of the “blue” and “red” companies, the 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 at the end of the microarchitecture’s life cycle (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. The new, eighth generation of Intel 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), has 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, and at the same time he also has an incentive to buy an AMD Radeon gaming video card.

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.

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, the heart of which is an electronic chip from either Intel or , 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 , 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, such processors provide 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, work with Intel has always been at the highest level.

Power consumption

Energy consumption is one of the important criteria for laptop owners. This is due to the fact that with low power consumption, the device will work longer without the need to recharge.

In addition, during such operation, a slight generation of heat occurs, which also affects the service life of the main components of the PC.

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.

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.

Main differences between processors

The difference between Intel and AMD processors lies, first of all, in the sockets - the sockets in which they are installed.

When choosing a motherboard, you must first of all pay attention to this fact, since it is simply impossible to find a compromise solution.

Sockets for AMD processors

  • 1. A little history
  • 2. Pricing policy
  • 3. Overclocking options
  • 4. Processor for computer games
  • 5. Final instructions

Every computer, no matter how it is used, is made up of identical basic components. The main element in any PC is the processor, which performs all computing operations, and the performance of this small part determines the performance of the system as a whole. Only two companies are fighting for leadership in the processor market, which we will talk about today and try to answer the age-old question - AMD or Intel, which is better?

A little history

Both companies began their journey in an era when computers occupied entire rooms, and the concept of a personal computer was just beginning to come into fashion. The first in this field was Intel, created in 1968 and becoming practically the only developer and manufacturer of processes. The brand's initial products were integrated circuits, but pretty soon the manufacturer focused only on processors. AMD was founded in 1969 and was initially aimed at the process market.

At that time, AMD processors became a product that appeared through active cooperation between two manufacturers. Intel's technical department supported the young competitor in every possible way and shared technologies and patents. After the company firmly found its feet, the manufacturers' paths diverged in different directions, and today the two global manufacturers collide with each other in every generation of processors.

Price policy

There are many solutions on the market, both from one manufacturer and from another. Taking the side of one company and completely abandoning the other is not so easy, because when choosing a processor you need to take into account many factors. To begin with, it is worth noting that both companies produce processors for all applications and for any budget:

  • Office. Such processors have minimal technical characteristics and low cost, are designed to run office applications and are not designed for programs with high computing needs.
  • Homemade. This type of process is usually more powerful than the office version, since it provides a performance reserve for casual gaming, but the cost of such an element is much higher.
  • Gaming or professional. Computer games place certain demands on CPU power, and such a processor will cost a pretty penny.

If you are selecting a processor for work, then AMD offers inexpensive options for “stones” with good technical performance. The budget line from the manufacturer is characterized by low cost, excellent performance and reasonable energy consumption. However, Intel products, according to all experts, have a much higher power reserve. Thus, an AMD processor is excellent for a budget computer, but for work in resource-intensive applications, gaming and stable system operation in general, it is better to opt for Intel.


Overclocking options

Overclocking is a fairly popular way to increase the performance of a computer without the need to purchase additional hardware. However, for full overclocking, the processor must have a certain architecture and meet specific requirements.

If an Intel processor is better for gaming, then it is recommended to purchase an AMD processor for overclocking. Unlike its competitor, AMD has created processors that can operate at different clock speeds, which provides ample overclocking options. At the same time, you can overclock any processor from the line, but Intel allows you to experiment only with some models with the K index in the name. Other processors simply do not support overclocking and cannot change the clock speed.

For those who plan to overclock a PC platform, it is better to purchase AMD, which operates stably at any frequency. At the same time, this effect is supported by both expensive eight-core processors and budget options.

Processor for computer games

Fans of clear graphics definitely choose Intel Core i5 and i7. The latest models from this manufacturer have shown high performance in the most “heavy” games and do an excellent job of visualizing any picture. Such processors belong to the gaming category.

However, AMD is not giving up its position so easily. Not long ago, a solution appeared that is perfect for a budget gaming computer - six-core Ryzen 5 chipsets. The result is an inexpensive and quite productive working platform. Although the verdict still adheres to Intel products, which are recognized as the best solution for a gaming computer.

One of the main factors when choosing a processor for gaming is its energy efficiency. Traditionally, Intel processors are better optimized both in terms of power consumption and operating temperatures. Therefore, if you do not want your computer to “heat like a stove,” it is better to join the blue camp, or save on the processor and take AMD, but additionally buy a powerful cooling system.

Final instructions

In 2019, both companies will introduce a new generation of processors that will have more advanced characteristics. At the moment, the best choice for a home computer in terms of price/quality ratio are two processors - Intel Core i5 and AMD Ryzen 5 1600.

Both stones have approximately the same parameters, but there are several very obvious differences:

  • Both stones have the same number of cores, but in the case of AMD there is the notorious possibility of fairly simple overclocking. Therefore, it will be better suited for the future, and Intel will work more stable.
  • Specific RAM format. An AMD processor reaches its full potential if it has a certain RAM frequency, which can create some difficulties. The Intel processor is much more interesting in this regard, because it does not create such strict restrictions.
  • An Intel processor heats up much less, meaning you don’t have to spend additional money on organizing a cooling system. AMD gets quite hot and you will have to purchase a powerful cooler for it.

In any case, offers from all manufacturers have their own advantages and are tailored to meet specific tasks. If you are forced to stick to a strict budget, AMD offers an excellent line of inexpensive processors. In the case when you want to build a computer that can cope with any task, then Intel products have not yet been developed better for this purpose.

The question of which processor is better than AMD or Intel does not have a clear answer, because each component has a number of specific parameters and the choice of one or another option should be based on the purpose of the PC itself. An effective platform will demonstrate high performance only with the correct selection of all components that will enhance each other's performance.

Which processor is better: Intel or AMD?

It's an interesting time for CPU manufacturers. The time when laptop battery life was measured in just a few hours and was considered efficient, and when the bulk of computer enthusiasts had noisy, hot desktop PCs in their homes, is long gone. Sales of desktop PCs fell 9.8 percent. In new markets, the story is even worse: a drop of 11.3 percent. It's simple, users now prefer smaller, cheaper and less power-intensive devices.

In 2014, the position of desktop PCs strengthened slightly, and only because companies were replacing their PCs that were running the no longer supported Windows XP, but in 2015 sales fell again. According to analysts, there will be a “moderate decline” across the board because sales of Windows tablets and 2-in-1 laptop/tablet hybrids have increased.

Overall, this was a revolution for the major players in the industry. Just ten years ago, Intel and AMD had peace and quiet. Intel's distinctive logo appeared everywhere laptops were sold, and AMD's future was bright thanks to the acquisition of ATI graphics. And in such a cloudless atmosphere, these giants little by little began to lag behind the times. The technology environment was changing rapidly and Intel, and especially the slower AMD, were slow to pivot to mobile devices, allowing other chip makers, especially ARM, but also VIA and Qualcomm, to dominate this huge new market.

Why AMD and Intel

If you're buying a traditional laptop or PC, you only have two processor options - AMD and Intel - and the sharp decline in PC popularity doesn't mean they've gone beggarly. Keep in mind that Intel's total revenue in 2014 was $55.8 billion. But, of course, Intel receives its income not only from the sale of processors for PCs and laptops. The company also produces graphics processors, wired and wireless network adapters, servers, workstation processors, and much more. And although you are unlikely to find Intel processors in most smartphones or tablets, the company produces quite a lot of SoCs for mobile devices.

AMD is in some ways the weaker of the two companies. On the one hand, while Intel is creating its own manufacturing, opening more than a dozen facilities in the US, Ireland, Israel and China; AMD sold off its last fabs back in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and many others, AMD designs its own chips but manufactures them outsourced. Microprocessor production is terribly expensive and AMD, compared to Intel, looks pale at only $5.51 billion.

History and breakthroughs

Both companies have their own history. When Intel released the 8080 processor in 1974, it laid the foundation for all x86 processors, which powered all desktop PCs for nearly 30 years. They later demonstrated commercial acumen: in the mid-2000s, the Centrino platform, consisting of a low-power processor, a wireless chip, and a mobile chipset, took the market by storm, with a reputation for desktop-class computing power and long battery life. And the company's switch from the x86 brand to "Pentium" was like the brush of a PR genius.

Intel's marketing department's ability to think continues to this day. True, the success of the Intel-branded ultrabook was riskily associated with Microsoft's efforts to promote its Windows 8 OS.

AMD's position as an underdog is consistent. AMD now has a 17 percent market share, partly due to console gaming devices: the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are powered by an 8-core AMD Jaguar processor.

Perhaps AMD's biggest relatively recent innovation was the acquisition of an ATI graphics processing unit (GPU). Thanks to this, AMD has almost caught up with Intel in the ability to install integrated graphics processors - that is, GPUs located on the same chip as the CPU. The result is less graphics power, but a significant reduction in power consumption and heat. Forget fire-breathing, discrete graphics cards (last year's Radeon R9 280X ran at 250W at peak and needed two fans). AMD realized that the future of silicon is not only about increasing computing power, but also about reducing power consumption and size. These days, most people don't need more computing power, they want better battery life on their portable devices.

Intel or AMD problems

At first glance, AMD and Intel were well positioned in the market and answered all the needs of mobile device users. The desktop PC market was in a steady decline, laptop sales were rising, and mobile phones were in need of a rethink. Intel, with its Centrino-based laptop, already had an incredibly strong reputation, and its rival AMD's Turion was just a second behind, the race was on to win a market that already knew that mobility was the future of computing.

Intel started strong. Remember your netbook? The first netbooks - such as the Asus Eee PC 701, released in the UK in 2007 - cost less than £200, weighed less than a kilogram and still offered enough processing power to run basic work applications and applications running in web browsers. What processor is it based on? An ultra-low version of the humble Celeron.

The netbook was a major commercial success, and Intel capitalized on its Atom processor. This was Intel silicon at its cheapest. Thousands of the earliest CPU Atoms found on netbooks cost manufacturers less than $30. Consumers wanted small, cheap computers, and Intel, with its extensive experience in mobile processors, was able to answer the call.

The problems started with tablets. "We don't know how to make a $500 computer without it being junk," Steve Jobs said in 2008. "A netbook is worse than this," he added when launching the first generation iPad in 2010. Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook agreed, describing the netbook as "not a very good consumer experience." This is how the iPad was born.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that they didn't anticipate consumer preference for mobile devices. The problem was the form factor: on its first day of sales in 2010, the iPad sold 300,000 units. By choosing between traditional laptops and netbooks, with traditional desktop operating systems built on traditional x86 hardware, Intel and AMD were backing the wrong horse. In fact, Intel, Microsoft and HP tried to market the tablet long before the iPad, but the combination of Windows (an OS designed for a keyboard and mouse), short battery life and heavy hardware meant that no one wanted to buy them.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that the iPad and subsequent tablets from Sony, Samsung, etc. didn't need processors. They were still needed, but in new types of processors. And the kingdom of SoC (system on a chip) - in which all the functions of a computer are built into a single chip - was already ruled by British giant ARM.

ARM processors have a completely different architecture from traditional Intel and AMD chips. The ARM reduced instruction set (RISC) architecture is physically simpler than an x86 processor, which means they are cheaper and consume less power. The rapid rise of the iPad and the sharp decline of Windows tablets showed that AMD and Intel were late to this boat. Fast forward to 2015 and the netbook has proven to be stillborn, killed in the bud by high-quality tablets that perform well, offer long battery life, and cost much less than a standard laptop.

New form factors

Even Microsoft, a longtime ally of x86-bit hardware, has added to the misery for Intel and AMD. RT Windows, released in late 2012, was the first version of Windows to run on ARM devices, theoretically giving Microsoft access to low-cost tablets. However, the RT Windows platform has taken a hit: Microsoft lost $900 million in 2013 on its unsold RT Windows devices, and the company's CFO Amy Hood said, "We know we have to do better, especially on mobile devices."

While we were all impressed with the Surface Pro 3, it turned out to be the best of a relatively poor selection of so-called two-in-one devices that supposedly offer the best of both worlds: a full Windows laptop one minute, a tablet the next. The problem is that Windows 8's touch interface isn't that great, and few developers are writing apps for it. Now, Microsoft's immediate future depends on the success of Windows 10.

However, Intel did not place all its hopes only on Microsoft. In 2015, the Curie module appeared, a miniature module the size of a button. It uses Quark SE SoC, which can be powered by a coin-sized battery. And although its spread in the world of tablets and ultra-thin computers cannot yet be called triumphant, Intel still has a lot in store.

Intel or AMD, which is better for games?

Targeting games is a completely different story. Intel is betting on graphics processing, but its interests lie in integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are ideal for small laptops. The integrated GPU doesn't add much to the price of the laptop, doesn't use up too much power, and - contrary to popular belief - actually provides decent enough 3-D processing for not very resource-intensive games.

For anyone who plays, trying to run the latest games at high detail settings has shown the inconsistency of the latest consoles. But nevertheless, discrete video cards have always been a worthy alternative, and here AMD has a significant advantage. There's a whole range of AMD graphics cards available today, from low-profile passively cooled cards to the R9 390X, which retails for $500. However, discrete graphics are not AMD's only strength. As a supplier of its chips for the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, AMD did not ignore Nintendo's Wii U. And although today they are not able to announce their new platform developments, for example, tablets or hybrids, avid gamers have something to thank them for.

What to buy AMD or Intel

If you're building a desktop PC, the choice between AMD and Intel is as clear as ever. But on the other hand, it is complicated, since in any well-known store you will be faced with a huge selection of 600 CPUs. If you're on a budget, AMD has a good selection of decent processors at lower standard prices. But choosing AMD doesn't mean giving up on high-performance computing; the upper limit of Athlon processors is comparable to the leading Intel Core i7 processor.

And yet Intel dominates both the mid-range CPU and high-end processors, where there are a huge number of them. For powerful, everyday computing, the Core i5 is great. You can buy it for about 250-300 dollars. More advanced users - those who do video editing, 3-D animation, or those who participate in leaderboards - can choose the Intel Core i7 chip.

So, when buying a desktop PC or laptop, Intel is preferable to AMD. True, if you are not strictly limited by budget.


2024 gtavrl.ru.