Which is better AMD or Intel? Intel or AMD problems. AMD and Intel. Which processors are better? Conclusions

In one of our previous articles we already wrote about that, now let’s approach this issue a little more carefully, namely, let’s look at: “What better than AMD or Intel? The choice of these two companies is not accidental, since they are the main giants in this area, however, even when choosing from two options, users may get lost, since AMD captivates us with its low prices, and Intel – powerful characteristics And positive reviews. So what then should you give your preference to?! Let's find out!

Each chip has its own architecture, manufacturing process, cache, number of cores and their frequency. Intel and AMD have completely different architectures, which determine the stability and power of the CPU. If you take two processors with the same number of cores and identical clock speeds, you will get completely different performance. The site’s specialists thus hint to you that, for example, 4 nuclear processors: AMD Athlon II X4 740 3.2GHz ($70) and Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz ($200) will differ greatly in power. Therefore, cores and frequency are not an indicator when comparing chips. You need to compare based on performance. For such purposes, there are sites where you can select any processor and see its performance in tests and comparison with the performance of analogues and competitors.

Is it really cheap?AMD is better expensiveIntel?
However, despite the above, AMD chips can be considered an excellent solution for a budget PC, and Intel chips can be considered for the purpose of gaming assembly and other tasks that require high computing power. But Intel also has inexpensive processors. Many people are familiar with the dual-core Pentium and Celeron. In terms of performance, in many tests they are superior to similarly priced AMD ones. But in multitasking with 4-core cheap AMDs they lose a little. If your preference is towards Intel, then we recommend immediately buying the latest generation chip. Currently it is Haswell with socket 1150.

Comparison and selection of processors (between AMD and Intel) by price range

As for the price of 100-150 dollars, then the situation here is similar. In this segment, Intel has a Core i3 chip, which has 2 cores with hyper threading technology, making 2 more virtual cores. That is, the PC recognizes 4 threads. This means that in some tests the Core i3 will outperform the 4-core AMD FX with socket AM3+. So for multitasking the best solution will be a 6-core AMD. But the fact is that many games are designed only for 4 cores, and operating systems for one core, and only starting with Windows 8 - for two. Conclusion: there is no point in 6 and 8 cores, since it is better to choose 4 cores with good architecture and high performance. The Core i5 fits perfectly into these parameters, with a price starting at $190. In the highest category, AMD has only 8-core processors, with differences in frequency and memory Cache.

Intel's Core i7 processor is considered the best (4 cores, 8 threads with hyper threading technology). Compared to its competitor, it is far superior to AMD with 8 cores, which according to some tests is even comparable to Core i5. This suggests that 8 cores is just a marketing ploy. In addition, if you look at the AMD architecture, the cores are arranged in blocks of 2. That is, in a 4-core CPU there are 2 blocks, each containing 2 microprocessors. In a 6-core one there are 3 blocks, etc.

Ultimately, we cannot say accurately and unconditionally that this or that processor is better. We can only give simple but effective advice: always compare test performance of each selected processor. They will show which tasks the desired CPUs are better at. Also proceed from the tasks that you set for the computer. And only then will you be able to answer yourself main question: Intel or AMD and choose the right option for yourself.

Also, do not forget that each processor has its own specific type, so most likely you will have to replace it too. As for, everything here is extremely simple and no questions should arise.

To the question: why is an AMD processor better than a Pentium? given by the author Victor Markizov the best answer is I wrote an article on this topic, unfortunately it won’t fit here completely, I’ll send it to anyone interested.
which is better) heh, do you know that they for a long time collaborated together, and Intel was often accused of allegedly cloning its processors. and this trick continued for a long time. Real differences only began in 1999, when the first athlone was released.
their main slogan (AMD) is Equivalent performance at a price 20% lower. however, this is not observed at the price now. Cache. in one of my answers I wrote about Inclusive and Exclusive cache. the fact that Inclusive is worse than Exclusive, and unfortunately for Intel, and fortunately for AMD, Intel has inclusive.
scope of application:
Previously, AMD used hemp in games until 3D Now technology appeared, if you remember, then AMD introduced it, and Intel found itself in a soft spot. Firstly, AMD was torn on 87 teams, and then there is an expanded set of commands).
Heat dissipation:
Yes, AMD made a mistake with the K5 and K6, which overheated terribly and gave the company a bad reputation. but now the opposite trend is observed, Intel heats up more than AMD.
more details in the article, whoever wants to write) I will send)
Source: history + personal experience

Reply from User deleted[guru]
Stump is better!! The stump is much more productive... Let's overclock it more... =) And when it overheats, the stump simply turns off the computer and that's it... And the AMD heats up and starts smoking... =)

Reply from Mr.Alex[newbie]
AMD is faster, and Pentium is more reliable!

Reply from Smart girl[newbie]
I have AMD and I'm not complaining

Reply from Alexey Druzhin[active]
Nothing. AMD will never be better than Intel!!
For reference: Intel processors have a built-in chip that prevents the processor from burning out.

Reply from Ruslan[guru]
At a price, yes. And this is why they are taken more often, especially by those who play and are a little into graphics. Sorry, but nothing else.

Reply from Alexander Maikov[active]
$$$$$$$$$$$ Yes they say the Pentium heats up quickly. I bought AMD and I'm not worried!

Reply from Yergey[guru]
read it

Reply from Artyom[active]
at the cost

Reply from Maxime Esprit Fort[guru]
Religious wars. Both are good.
PS: Intel does not rule in that lately lays off many of its employees.

Reply from User deleted[active]
Yes, in terms of price and quality, AMD has recently taken the lead, while Intel has lost the lead.

Reply from Yoliton[guru]
What, is there such a thing?
Joke. There were videos of them scorching beautifully.

Reply from 1 [master]
Amd in general, before Intel, used to be cheaper by about 1.5 times, so I took AMD and now I take it because I don’t want to change traditions and that’s it... now the prices are almost equal... bad luck, we’ve seen enough of all the videos about burning (it’s the melting quality of thermal paste and not percent) this video is probably 3 years old, if not more... and technology has already changed...
and in general they are both good, they secretly write shorter agreements on the exchange of technologies and here we are arguing which is better...

Reply from Dmitry Lezin[active]
So it is! firstly, not CONROY, but CONRO (as in Monroe).
Secondly: don’t believe that Intel cannot burn out! We've seen enough videos... But you yourself try to remove the cooler from the processor. You won't even have time to boot into Windows. It will burn in an instant!
And in what place is Intel more reliable?
I don’t argue that CONRO is cool. But AMD is better in terms of price/quality/performance. When buying Intel, you overpay 30% for the brand. Do you need it?

Reply from Dragon[newbie]
AMD is more reliable than Intel's, and according to the latest data, it surpasses them in performance.

Reply from Izel[newbie]
A similar question has already been asked. Lower price, lower heat dissipation with equal performance. About the videos where AMD is on fire, this is as of 2001.
Well, about dual-core processors with crazy frequencies and prices, this is for those who
ready to throw away money and bend your fingers.

The processor industry is no less dynamic than other areas information technology. Constant improvements to the latest microarchitectures and the release of new ones, although they did not make revolutionary breakthroughs at the beginning of 2016, but gave us a wider choice within certain classes central processing units.

Once again we will discuss which processor is better - Intel or AMD, and also compare processors for the system for different tasks. I’ll say right away that the opinion in this article is subjective and can be either supported or refuted by anyone and without consequences. This article will not defend one side or another; everything will be based on the real state of affairs of the global central processor market.

In addition, we will touch a little on the segment of mobile solutions. Specific answers for systems for certain types of tasks will be given in the conclusions, I advise you to hold on and read to the end.

For convenience and quick transition the contents of the article are given:

AMD vs Intel. A short historical introduction

So, let's go. Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices were founded around the same time: in 1968 and 1969, respectively. That is, both companies have vast experience both in the production of processors and in competition with each other. But for some reason, Intel is much more famous among ordinary “users”. And even in some antediluvian technical schools they study in detail the old i8080 processor, which is sore for all technical students. AMD at this time simply released clones of the 8080 in the form of Am9080 processors. And the first successful AMD processor of its own design can be called the Am2900 processor.

Okay, let's not talk about sad old processors with frequency at 3 MHz, made according to technical process 6 microns and equipped with an 8-bit data bus. Better yet, let's slowly move directly to the topic of our discussion, and to modern processors with more joyful characteristics.

Myths about AMD

I would immediately like to dispel the myths about “burning” and “not subject to” overclocking AMD processors. To date, such statements are based on “naked” rumors. About ten years ago there were many precedents for the failure of processors like the Athlon 1400, which simply burned out after the cooler cooling the processor radiator failed. Yes, it was relevant then, but talking about it when it’s 2015 and AMD processors are equipped with excellent thermal protection technology is simply blasphemy.

And the thermal regime depends on various factors, and not just on the processor itself, for example, the efficiency of the processor cooler, as well as the quality applying thermal paste. Regarding overclocking, I won’t say or give much specific models processors, but simply stating the fact that there are processors on sale from the “Black Edition” series, which are oriented towards overclocking by the manufacturer itself. It’s the same with the new FX from AMD, they have not only proven themselves to be suitable for good overclocking, but also boast world records in overclocking.

The negative myths about AMD are over, now we can remember about Intel. There seemed to be no negative myths about Intel. In those days when Athlones were burning, one could only hear flattering reviews about the Pentium. This processor was known and revered by many, and even now when asked: “What kind of computer do you have?” Sometimes you can hear a proud answer -"Pentium".

2016 Comparison of the main processor lines from AMD and Intel

Let me sharply declare that as of 2016, among AMD and Intel we can confidently identify the clear leader in the processor hit parade. And based on this article, you can choose and buy a processor, truly taking into account all your needs. If, in the article which video card is better Since we were unable to identify a large-scale leader, here everything is a little clearer. But this leader will be voiced with rather general notes, since no one has canceled the specifics of the work and budget spheres, but more on that later.

In this subsection of the article we will go through the main lines of processors from two companies and analyze their performance when various types loads, and in the conclusions, as promised, recommendations will be given for choosing a processor for certain tasks. Accordingly, taking into account specific tasks, the advantage of certain processors will change significantly.

The description and resolution of the dilemma “which is better: amd or intel” should be approached comprehensively and from different viewing angles, because an ordinary consumer needs one thing, but an avid gamer or overclocker needs something completely different. I’ll say right away that the answer will be dynamic, and I will try to update the article as radically new lines of processors from both companies are born, because this year one is leading, and next year the other.

Let's start a little from afar. When Intel company quietly and peacefully continued to produce good and high-quality processors, the AMD Athlon 64 line with a modified K8 microarchitecture was born. It was after the appearance of these processors that many started talking about AMD, and many even moved away from Intel at that time. Several years ago there were more or less equal battles between Phenom K10 processors and the corresponding Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad models from Intel. During these periods, a widespread opinion emerged that AMD processors in the mid-range and budget price range were superior to Intel in terms of price/quality ratio. For AMD, everything seemed to be going very, very well, but then the Nehalem microarchitecture appeared, which dealt a significant blow to AMD and revolutionized the processor market.

Core i3/i5/i7 on Sandy Bridge began to actively sell out, raising Intel higher and higher above AMD. A little later, Intel added heat to the fire by releasing second-generation Sandy Bridge processors. They turned out to be no less successful than their predecessors: many people loved the i5-2400, 2500, i7-2700, and for good reason. Let's not delve into microarchitecture, I’ll just say that Intel developers have thoroughly refined it, adding many different technologies and features.

A little time passed, and Intel announced third generation processors - Ivy Bridge. The intel core i5-3570K, i7-3770K and many others processors did not go unnoticed, although they cannot boast of significant improvements. But given the fact that the prices for Ivy and Sandy Bridge are not separated by an abyss, it would be more reasonable to purchase a slightly polished Ivy Bridge.

What did AMD do at this time? AMD calmly continues to refine the K10 microarchitecture, slowly adding frequencies to the Phenom. Although AMD Phenom II 9xx processors look very good on the processor market, due to their capabilities and price, they are already obsolete and it is quite difficult for them to compete with new products from Intel.

Then the AMD Llano line of hybrid processors is announced, with a focus on integrated graphics directly on the processor chip. The solution is quite interesting, considering that Llano graphics show good performance, but in computing tests these hybrid chips show the result of dual-core Intel Core i3-2100. Some people will like the option of saving on a video card, especially since the savings are significant and we will mark Llano processors as interesting in the results budget option. In addition, more than new line A-series processors are Trinity processors, they offer more powerful graphics than Llano, which looks even more tasty for home systems entry level. Trinity graphics are rightfully considered the best in the world among those integrated on a processor chip.

Things didn't go well in the top segment. Everyone was looking forward to the enchanting launch of the legendary processors based on the Bulldozer architecture. Everyone was expecting a revolution in the processor market, but instead a crude 8-core product was born. In addition, these 8 cores are not entirely complete, since the developers combined every two cores in the Bulldozer microarchitecture into 1 module, which can be compared (conditionally) with one core Ivy processors Bridge. But I’ll emphasize once again that this comparison is very conditional, since depending on the type of tasks, this very convention can be broken to smithereens both in favor of Intel and AMD.

Then a revision of Bulldozer was announced - Vishera processors with microarchitecture Piledriver – which, according to AMD representatives, gives an increase of around 10-15%, while having a lower TDP and all this is supported by a very tempting price.

Of course, it should be noted that the Bulldozer processors and, in particular, their improved version - Vishera– show excellent results under multi-threaded loads, this is clearly visible in the 3d max working tests:

Less is more

FX8350 beats i7-3770K. Approximately the same situation will be observed in all applications that can create 8 high-quality threads, that is, in most graphics packages, as well as in any other types of complex calculations. If we analyze the results, we can see that the gap from the i7-3770K is insignificant, but given the approximate prices of these models - $340 for the i7-3770K and $209 for the FX-8350, I think questions about a more profitable processor specifically for these types of tasks should be removed. Also, the even cheaper FX-8320 will be interesting for these tasks.

But when a single-threaded load falls on the processor, then due to the same unfinished microarchitecture, the bulldozer often loses to opponents from Intel. Those same games typically fail to load more than four cores, which ends up exposing the shortcomings of the Bulldozer cores individually. AMD Vishera processors have corrected the situation a little, but the lag is still noticeable. For clarity, here are some game tests:

Of course, the gaming load falls largely on the video card, but the processor is an equally important link here. Moreover, games that are quite demanding on processor resources often slip through.

The sample of tests presented is too small, but the general trend of testing results on both domestic and foreign sites is exactly this: from the tests it is clearly visible that the i5-3570K confidently outperforms opponents from AMD in the form of the new FX-4300, FX-6300 and FX-8350.

Already in 2015, the Sunnywell company AMD, which had practically no hopes for innovation, announced, of course, the introduction of a new line called Carrizo. The representatives stipulated that the Carizzo is the sixth generation, but it is not clear why the little-known Brazos is not included in the accounting. Well, okay, it’s worth highlighting the following points of this sensational line presented in Germany.

1. Carizzo resides exclusively on one chip, and before that south bridge And graphics chip located on two crystals. The functionality of the device is based on 28 nanometers using the Global Foundries process.
2. Four cores have Excavator architecture. The processor frequency was raised only by 1 MHz compared to the previous Steamroller, so the data processing performance per core, alas, increased slightly, but in general everything is not so bad - an increase of about 15%, while generally maintaining the previous principles of data processing .
3. The graphic side has also been updated. In particular, graphics core received 512 KB of second level memory. Significant performance improvements are seen when matching tessellation, and very importantly, color reproduction is lossless.

At the same time, Intel did not skimp on the creation and release of a new generation of processors, which were called Broadwell. And it’s worth noting right away that every fan of the Intel team was disappointed. The processor is based on Haswell, made using a 14-nm process technology. The core functionality and microarchitecture did not receive any changes, so the desktop Broadwell turned out to be, to put it mildly, not great.

One of the advantages is a reduction in heat generation. An integrated graphics core Iris Pro 6200 has also been added. These are, perhaps, all the main important additions to the operation of the processor from Intel.

But if we look at it in general, for most games, AMD processors also perform quite well.

In these tests, the main thing for us is not the specific FPS of two games, but the general trend of FX processors lagging behind in games. In the conclusions we will note this fact, which will go to AMD’s liability.

Laptop CPUs

Intel has reigned supreme in the laptop processor segment for quite some time now, and it reigns very thoroughly. Laptops of both budget and top-end classes feature Core ix processors, which we praised a little higher.

The release of Llano processors did not change the balance of power very much, but it did introduce some variety into the budget laptop segment. But the Trinity processors can be called a truly good attack from AMD. Even more powerful integrated graphics for affordable price, moreover, these processors support Dual Graphics technology. This technology allows the integrated graphics of Trinity processors to work in conjunction with a discrete adapter. As a result, the combination of “integrated Trinty graphics + discrete Radeon HD 7670M” looks very attractive, taking into account the total graphics performance indicators and low cost.

We can safely say that in budget segment laptops, AMD Trinity A4 and A6 series, are very interesting for the buyer, as they guarantee more powerful graphics than the integrated graphics in Intel processors.

In the mid-range mobile segment, A10 processors paired with HD 7670 will also delight graphics performance. But already in the fight against certain Core i5s they will have problems on the computing front. With all this middle class laptops remain subject to fierce competition and many will choose the A10 + HD 7670. So in the mid-range and budget segment, determining which processor is best for a laptop is not so easy.

Returning to the same Carrizo from AMD, which was released in 2015, it is worth noting that the system already has an integrated UVD-6 video decoder. Thanks to this decoder, it became possible to watch video in H.264 and H.265 formats. As stated by the Carrizo manufacturers, this is the world's first chip for laptops that can decode H.265.

Intel is also not asleep when it comes to laptop graphics, but it lags significantly behind AMD, as strange as it may sound. Thus, a test was conducted in which Carrizo from AMD and Broadwell from Intel competed, playing 4-K video in HEVC format. The results were stunning: when playing video, a laptop with AMD Carrizo did not load the processor even half, while its competitor Inrel was loaded at 80, and sometimes even 100%.

Thus, if back in 2013 Intel was in the lead, the situation has changed somewhat in 2015, and now a self-respecting user will prefer a laptop with greater graphics performance running Carrizo processors from AMD.

I would like to note that purchasing a high-performance laptop is a very controversial thing, I advise you to read the article “ laptop or desktop PC”, which will not allow you to stumble on this deceptive front.

Okay, let's not dwell on processors for laptops, but rather move on to the conclusions.

AMD and Intel. Which processors are better? Conclusions

It remains to sum up the battle between AMD and Intel.From what was said above, everything becomes clear, but let’s judge objectively, because everyone has the right to make a mistake, and we will believe that this mistake will be corrected. Let's pay attention to the class of tasks performed by these processors in order to ultimately judge fully.

Processor for a budget system with undemanding tasks

First, let’s answer what is better than amd or intel in the budget segment of the market. Budget systems are quite widespread. These can be both home computers and office systems, where the boss is trying to buy a fleet of machines for the price of the configuration of one normal system.
Here, it seems to me, we should give the advantage to AMD. The same new Trinity, for example A4-5300 for $50-60, will look great in budget home systems, especially when trying to load the system graphic tasks, such as games. Well, or at worst, you can equip the system with the cheapest Llano, for $40.

For an office fleet of machines, Trinity will also be a good solution, but here they are being squeezed by Pentium G, since in computing tasks they show more high level performance due to the second generation Sandy Bridge architecture and slightly larger volume cache memory.

AMD's 2015 Carrizo will be an excellent solution not only for home use, but may well take pride of place among office machines. But AMD's main goal was to release a completely new processor that would satisfy the functionality needs of laptops.

The Intel company, with Broadwell, which has become the “unloved child,” is largely losing ground to AMD’s competitors. So, in particular, although Broadwell is equipped with a powerful graphics core Iris Pro 6200, the functionality at the level of office calculations leaves much to be desired. Broadwell is not far removed from Sandy Bridge, which really handled computing tasks at the proper level.

So for an office fleet good choice there will be a budget processor Intel Pentium G on Sandy Bridge, released in 2013 or new job Carrizo 2015 from AMD.

Processor for gaming computer

Class gaming computers the most comprehensive because it covers as much as the average? so and top segment processors, there is no place for integrated graphics, and systems are usually equipped with high-performance video cards, which do the bulk of the work in games. But a lot also depends on the processor, since no one has canceled the balance in the system.

From the previously analyzed test results, we can confidently say that for the average gaming system Intel required. If you don’t mind overpaying a little, and at the same time you want to get a certain reserve for the next year or two in most games, then the Core i5 on Ivy Bridge in most cases will be the best option than any of the Vishera. In no way do I want to say that Vishera is absolutely unsuitable for games. Due to its price, the same FX-6300 will be a very good option for an inexpensive gaming system, although here it is being squeezed by the Core i3.

But primacy for gaming loads and home system type “for all tasks” still for Core i5, as a mainstream option you can call Core i5-3570 or i5-3470 . In particularly extreme gaming scenarios, a Core i7 would be an even more advanced solution, but at this stage of development of the gaming industry and the classic use case, its performance is in most cases excessive.

So it is recommended for a good gaming system Intel core i5 (in some cases i7), and for a cheaper gaming system the FX-6300 is a good choice - here you need to look at secondary tasks and, based on them, give preference to one or another option.

Processor for demanding computing work

Video/audio processing and encoding, work in complex graphics applications, as well as any other type of complex computing work or work on entry-level servers - all this can often be divided into multiple threads.

As we said earlier, multi-threading is the FX-8350's strong point. At its low cost this processor shows the level of the i7-3770K, and sometimes bypasses it in the above types of tasks. Therefore, for workloads, if you don’t want to spend extra money, use only the FX-8350.

Of course, if you have extra funds, you can overpay and get a universal i7-3770K, both for work and for games, which will also be a reasonable option, but still at the well-known price/performance ratio for complex computing tasks FX- The 8350 confidently outperforms its opponents from Intel.

Also, do not forget about the “hard solution” from Intel, in the form of the same Core i7-3970X. This processor is the best desktop option: it can do everything better than anyone else, but there’s only one thing it can’t do – be cheap, its cost is about $1000. An impeccable extreme option for those who like to throw money.

The processor options given here for different types of tasks are very general and cannot accurately reflect each individual case, where secondary, but no less important tasks may arise, and the purchase budget may also have a significant impact.

If we talk about the financial side of the issue, then the AMD Carrizo processor is included in the price range from 350 to 750 US dollars, which is determined by the category of application. Accordingly, laptop processors are comparatively more expensive than desktop processors, so again you have to choose according to your accumulated budget. But it’s just worth noting that Carrizo, based on eight graphics and four processor cores, additionally has technology to optimize operation with 15 W power. Thanks to this, the new device works 2.4 times faster than the previous generation Kaveri.

The minimum cost of Intel processors in 2015 is $380, which does not at all correspond to the parameters inherent in Broadwell. In particular, the graphics core of the latest generation Iris Pro 6200 played a major role in cost; a slightly improved microarchitecture, which simply improved its Haswell predecessor, as well as a high rate of heat reduction. And this, perhaps, is all that Intel can boast about its latest work.

This is how the comparison of processors turned out and the answer to the question: “Which processors are better, Intel or AMD?”

Perhaps there are some controversial points, I will be very glad to see your corrections or additions in the comments, but without a holivar or offensive bias.

Finally, we unanimously wish AMD to pleasantly surprise us with the Streamroller microarchitecture soon, and also try to give a worthy rebuff to Intel, because we don’t need a monopoly and inflated prices.

We wish Intel to reduce prices for its processors and continue to release the same good, powerful and high-quality products.

And to you, dear friends, I wish stable operation of the “hearts” of your computers, regardless of who and when they were released. All the best!

The question of which CPU the computer should run on - from Intel or AMD, still remains open. To answer this, let’s consider systems in two price categories.

About ten years ago the question “Who are you for - AMD or Intel?” sounded almost like “What church do you go to?” until AMD, having lost its chances, almost dropped out of the race for the title of manufacturer best processors for desktop PCs. By the way, I recommend reading the article “Choosing a processor. Intel i7-8700K vs Ryzen 7 and i7-7700K" by.

Since then processors Core line i didn't know the competition. Year after year, slightly modified new CPUs appeared on the market, although the number of processor cores from Intel did not change: i3 - dual-core, i5 - quad-core, i7 - quad-core with HyperThreading support. Only models with the suffix “K” in the name can be overclocked by changing the multiplier - other chips are protected from increasing the clock frequency. And this suffix will cost the PC owner an additional 3,000–5,000 rubles.

But at the beginning of 2017 the situation changed radically. AMD introduced the world to competitive Ryzen 3/5/7 series CPUs, changing technical rules games. Ryzen 7 processors run on eight cores and support hyperthreading, Ryzen 5 has six cores, and Ryzen 3 has four. All Ryzen solutions have removed the protection against overclocking, and unlocking the multiplier does not affect the price.

In response to such a move, Intel had to do something. And she did, releasing highly productive Core processors new X series.

The agonies of choosing a CPU Those planning to build a new PC face a difficult choice: a processor from AMD or Intel. This is what you need to start from when purchasing other components - motherboard, memory, cooling. Case, power supply and hard drive You can purchase any according to your taste.

In this article, for comparison, we offer options for assembling PCs on AMD and Intel for two price categories. The first range covers computers no more expensive than 22,000 rubles. The second is universal PCs with wide capabilities.

We will tell you about the advantages and disadvantages AMD platforms and Intel for each budget option. Let's start with the budget class.

Budget build or affordable office assistant

PC requirements for office work, web surfing and video viewing compared to performance modern processors modest. In the worst case, very large documents will take longer to open. In addition, a number of points should be taken into account when planning: The PC should take up as little space as possible and stand on the table.

Office PC assembly option. A budget of around 22,000 rubles allows you to build a good PC for office tasks.

Previously, AMD had the advantage of affordable chips, but with the advent of new central Pentium processors, released on the Kaby Lake microarchitecture, the situation has changed. They work, as usual, on two cores, but thanks to Hyper Threading they can process four threads at once, so they are not inferior in performance to more dear Core i3.

In terms of integrated HD 630 graphics, they are also identical to Core i3, only clock frequency theirs is a little lower. For office PCs, we recommend the most powerful Pentium G4620, which is on par with the modest Core i3 7100 in the CPU rating.

The Intel Pentium is one generation older than the AMD A10-9700 and the price is comparable to the G4620. Like Ryzen processors, it is suitable for the AM4 platform, but belongs to the previous generation. The A10 does not reach the level of the Intel Pentium, and its energy efficiency is worse due to the old 28-nanometer lithography - modern CPUs are produced on the 14-nm process technology.

The G4620 and A10-9700 support modern Intel LGA1151 and AMD AM4 sockets, respectively. For both, we recommend affordable entry-level motherboards in the microATX form factor. Both ASRock A320M-DGS for AM4 and MSI B250M Pro-VD for LGA1151 are equipped with all the necessary standard interfaces: DVI, USB 3.0, LAN - and that's it.

If desired, you can later install a drive on both motherboards SSD form factor M.2, however, for daily office work it is cheaper to purchase magnetic disk media.

It's a bit of a shame that the ASRock motherboard doesn't support fast usb 3.1 Gen 2, despite the fact that the chipset provides this capability. But it is available on the A320, which will cost 3,300 rubles.

For computers that will be placed on a desk, we recommend slim body AeroCool CS-101 - it can be positioned either horizontally or placed on its edge. This case has a 400 W power supply, but if desired, it can be changed to a silent one for an additional fee, for example, to a higher quality one, such as the SFX-250VS 2.3 from Chieftec.

Thus, the Intel platform is currently the best option in the office solutions category. However, this is not an absolute conclusion, since Ryzen APUs with integrated graphics are expected to appear within the year, which means that the Pentium G4620 will have a very serious competitor

A universal PC for any purpose

Probably, many would like to have a computer at home that, from the point of view of common sense, would represent an ideal balance: it was relatively inexpensive when purchased, but at the same time its power was enough to ensure not only the operation of resource-demanding programs like Photoshop, AutoCAD or video editors, but also the passage of new games.

We chose the most powerful Ryzen 3 - 1300X, as well as the average i5 - 7400. Both processors run on four cores and do not support multi-threading.

In our rating they are at approximately the same level, although the solution from Intel is slightly higher. But the AMD chip can be overclocked, and in this case, in terms of performance in some usage scenarios, it is even ahead of the i5.

The board has two M.2 connectors, of which only one provides the maximum speed (PCIe x4). But installing an NVMe drive on the M.2 connector is an option for retrofitting for the future, since its cost will go beyond the budget allocated for an average computer. Ryzen 3 is 3,000 rubles cheaper. This amount can be spent on other components - for example, a good maternal Gigabyte board GA-AB350-Gaming 3.

In addition to connectors for M.2 SSD and two ports with USB support 3.1 Gen 2, it is equipped with the excellent Realtek ALC1220 audio codec chip, while most of the competition uses the less powerful Realtek 892 chip. The design stands out LED backlight, customizable down to the smallest detail. For Intel platforms we settled on the ASRock B250 Pro. ASRock is limited to regular USB 3.0, including the new USB Type-C interface.

If you have a limited budget for an average computer, it makes more sense to buy an affordable one solid state drive SATA. From our rating of the top ten best drives, it follows that buyers don’t have much choice: the Samsung 850 Evo with a capacity of 250 GB is a bargain for 6,000 rubles.

From video cards alternatives NVIDIA GeForce 1060 GTX 3G with 3 GB of video memory is also not available. Almost no graphics card within 20,000 rubles achieves such performance. For a higher power model you need to pay about 5,000 rubles more. The only drawback of the GTX 1060 3G is its relatively small amount of video memory, which can lead to some problems when playing games at high detail settings.

For a "multi-purpose" PC, we can currently recommend the AM4 platform with a Ryzen processor. By speed AMD processor It is not inferior to its analogue from Intel, and also costs less. The AM4 platform supports USB 3.1 Gen 2, which cannot be said about LGA1151 (probably manufacturers should think about an additional chip).

In addition, AM4 is more promising: in the coming years, AMD will rely on this socket, so Ryzen processors next generation will be compatible with it. Ryzen 2400G and 2200G processors. Brief first APU from AMD. Intel is already for the eighth Core generation i released a new socket.