Comparison of processor performance in the form of a table. Generations of Intel processors: description and characteristics of models

Now smartphones can process a mountain of information if desired. Their processor power is enough to solve absolutely any problem. At the same time, modern chipsets consume a minimal amount of electricity, for which we should thank the improved technical process. Our rating of smartphone processors will tell you about the most powerful models. Devices based on them can be blamed for anything, but certainly not for lack of power!

Good to know!

Now the most famous companies in the mobile processor market are the following:

• Qualcomm- produces chipsets from the Snapdragon series;
• Samsung- creates Exynos chips;
• MediaTek- flagship processors are distributed under the Helio brand;
• Huawei- chipsets under the HiSilicon sub-brand are mainly built into their own smartphones.

At the same time, it is impossible to say exactly which chips are more powerful and which are weaker. Of course, there are all kinds of tests and benchmarks. But their result can be called conditional, hypothetical. In practice, each processor operates in its own mode, rarely raising clock speeds to maximum. And yet, our rating can be considered correct - the mobile processors left out of it suffer from certain shortcomings, and devices based on them cannot be called ideal.

Our top may not include recently announced models. We decided to talk only about those products whose smartphones are already on store shelves.

Samsung Exynos 8 Octa 8890

• Year of manufacture: 2016
• Technical process: 14 nm
• Architecture: Samsung Exynos M1 + ARM Cortex-A53 (ARMv8-A)
• Video accelerator: Mali-T880, 12 cores, 650 MHz

Geekbench result: 5940 points

If not the best processor for a smartphone, then at least one of those worthy of this title. It’s not for nothing that all variations of the South Korean Galaxy S7 are equipped with it. Is it possible to blame this flagship for lack of power? The chipset can easily handle 4K video at 60 fps. It consists of eight cores. The maximum frequency is 2290 MHz. But it rarely comes to raising it to such a level, since lower frequencies are quite enough to solve most problems.

Unfortunately, the processor also has certain problems. It just so happens that South Korean chipsets are not equipped with the best video accelerator (GPU). Here too, the Mali-T880, despite its 12 cores, performs strictly to the “good” rating, but nothing more. This is proven by tests in GFXBench, where in terms of graphics, the Samsung Exynos 8 Octa 8890 is ahead of some other chipsets reviewed today.

Advantages

• Supports video in 2160p resolution at 60 frames/s;
• Not very hot;
• Low energy consumption;
• High scores in benchmarks.

Flaws

• The memory test does not show the best results;
• The graphics accelerator could perform better.

Samsung Galaxy S7, Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Samsung Galaxy Golden 4

Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996

• Year of manufacture: 2015
• Technical process: 14 nm FinFET
• Architecture: Qualcomm Kryo
• Video accelerator: Adreno 530, 624 MHz

Geekbench result: 4890 points

Qualcomm does not have its own production facilities. However, it has many patents at its disposal. And with them, developing a processor close to ideal is not difficult, after which all that remains is to place an order for production from other companies. Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 pleases with both computing power and graphics processing capabilities. Many flagships released in 2016 were equipped with this chipset. And none of their customers complained about the graphics in mobile games!

The chip consists of only four cores. However, this did not stop it from scoring record scores in benchmarks - not least thanks to the graphics accelerator. The maximum frequency of this processor is 2150 MHz. At the hardware level, the chipset supports HDMI 2.0, USB 3.0, and Bluetooth 4.1. In short, the processor could easily cope even with the tasks assigned to a laptop! It also features support for a camera with a resolution of up to 28 megapixels - which is why Sony chose this processor, whose flagship smartphones have just such a sensor.

Advantages

• Very high resolution camera support;
• Capable of processing Full HD video at up to 240 frames/s;
• Supports 10-bit 4K video;
• Windows devices use DirectX 11.2;
• Very high clock speed;
• Not very high energy consumption;
• High scores in benchmarks;
• The memory test leads to high results;
• Excellent performance in games.

Flaws

• Sometimes it gets quite hot.

The most popular smartphones: Motorola Moto Z Force, Elite X3, ASUS ZenFone 3, HTC 10, Samsung Galaxy S7, Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Sony Xperia X Performance, Sony Xperia XR, Xiaomi Mi5 Pro, ZTE Nubia Z11

HiSilicon Kirin 95

• Year of manufacture: 2016
• Technical process: 16 nm
• Architecture:
• Video accelerator: Mali-T880, 4 cores

Geekbench result: 6000 points

This chipset is manufactured using a 16-nanometer process technology, which indicates its decent energy efficiency. The maximum frequency here is increased to 2.5 GHz. The creators had to take this step because of the Mali-T880 graphics accelerator, which does not cope with its task in the best way.

The Chinese chipset consists of eight cores, four of which can be called auxiliary. Paired with a GPU, it is capable of playing 4K video at 60 fps. But the processor is only capable of playing back - independently creating video recordings - in 1080p resolution. And this despite the fact that the chip even supports dual cameras, the total resolution of which is 42 megapixels. It is also able to recognize Bluetooth 4.2 and USB 3.0 modules.

Advantages

• Supports many modern wireless technologies;
• Almost record clock speed;
• There are no big problems with overheating;
• Can decode 4K video at 60fps;
• Supports dual high definition cameras.

Flaws

• The graphics accelerator shows poor results.

The most popular smartphones: Huawei P9, Huawei P9 Plus, Huawei Honor V8, Huawei Honor Note 8.

HiSilicon Kirin 950

• Year of manufacture: 2015
• Technical process: 16 nm
• Architecture: 4x ARM Cortex-A72 + 4x ARM Cortex-A53
• Video accelerator: Mali-T880, 4 cores, 900 MHz

Geekbench result: 5950 points

In 2015-2016, this processor was used by many Huawei smartphones. The chipset consists of eight cores, the power of four of them can reach 2300 MHz. It would seem that the result is quite good. But not everything is so simple. The weak point of the chip is the graphics accelerator. The first version of Mali-T880 is used here. It copes well with video decoding - in theory, you can even run 4K video at 60 frames/s. But in games this GPU performs disgustingly, especially by flagship standards.

However, you can’t find fault with the computing power of this chipset, which is why it made it into our top processors. The product supports Bluetooth 4.2 and USB 3.0 standards, although the Chinese giant has not really produced smartphones with such high-speed interfaces, preferring to save money. Also, in theory, the processor copes with the data stream from a dual camera with a total resolution of 42 megapixels.

Advantages

• Supports USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 4.2;
• High computing power;
• Support for modern memory formats;
• Not very expensive to produce;
• Decodes high definition video;
• Capable of handling a dual 42-megapixel camera.

Flaws

• The graphics accelerator could be much better;
• Cannot provide the camera with 4K video recording.

The most popular smartphones: Huawei Honor 8, Huawei Honor Note 8, Huawei Mate 8, Huawei Honor V8.

Apple A9X APL1021

• Year of manufacture: 2015
• Technical process: 16 nm
• Architecture: Apple Twister 64-bit ARMv8-compatible
• Video accelerator: PowerVR Series 7X, 12 cores

Geekbench result : 5400 points

Why do game developers primarily target Apple smartphones and tablets? Is it really only their owners who can afford to buy a toy? No, everything is much simpler. This is the technique that games work best on. The Apple A9X APL1021 processor is equipped with an almost ideal graphics accelerator, which can solve absolutely any problem! If Apple wanted, it could even implement a 4K video recording feature at 60 frames per second!

As for computing power, everything is fine here, although the processor still does not score record scores in benchmarks. It would seem that only two cores are used here. But for solving everyday problems this is quite enough. Not least because of the better optimized operating system.

Advantages

• High power of two cores;
• Excellent 12-core graphics accelerator;
• Full support for 4K video at 60 fps;
• Support for many modern technologies;
• Recognizes modern memory formats.

Flaws

Apple iPad Pro

MediaTek MT6797 Helio X25

• Year of manufacture: 2016
• Technical process: 20 nm
• Architecture: 2x ARM Cortex-A72 + 4x ARM Coptex-A53 + 4x ARM Coptex-A53
• Video accelerator: Mali-T880MP4, 4 cores, 850 MHz

Geekbench result: 4920 points

A processor with a fairly complex structure. It consists of ten nuclei belonging to two varieties. The two cores are the most powerful - they belong to the Cortex-A72 type, and their clock speed can reach 2500 MHz. The remaining computing cores belong to the Cortex-A53 type. Moreover, half of them are overclocked to a frequency of 2000 MHz, while the rest are limited to 1550 MHz.

All this allows the processor to score a lot of points in benchmarks. And the result would have been even higher if not for the graphics accelerator. This element here is seriously limited in its capabilities. Yes, it supports full work with 4K video, including its creation, but only at 30 fps. And in games the GPU copes with its task even worse. As for other characteristics, we should highlight support for 32-megapixel cameras and the Bluetooth 4.1 standard. The maximum display resolution of a smartphone with such a chipset can reach 2560 x 1600 pixels.

Advantages

• Support for 32 MP camera;
• Very high computing power;
• Relatively low power consumption;
• Although limited, there is support for 4K video;
• Low cost chipset.

Flaws

• The GPU performs poorly in games;
• No Bluetooth 4.2 support.

The most popular smartphones: Meizu Pro 6, Oukitel K6000 Premium, Xiaomi Redmi Pro, Zopo Speed ​​8, Vernee Apollo.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 MSM8953

• Year of manufacture: 2016
• Technical process: 14 nm
• Architecture: ARM Cortex-A53 (ARMv8)
• Video accelerator: Adreno 506

Geekbench result: 4900 points

One of the most popular creations from Qualcomm. It is endowed with a huge number of smartphones from the mid-budget and even top segments. The manufacturer did not bother with the architecture, giving the chipset eight identical cores. The maximum clock frequency is 2000 MHz, which is quite enough for the average user.

The graphics accelerator here is optimized for processing video content. Theoretically, a smartphone built on the basis of this processor is capable of playing and recording 4K video at 60 frames per second. But in games some problems begin. Although their presence is surprising, because the GPU even has support for DirectX 12, which is activated on devices with Windows on board. The chipset also supports a dual camera, the total resolution of which does not exceed 24 megapixels. The only thing missing here is USB 3.0 support. However, smartphone creators do not like to integrate such high-speed connectors into their creations.

Advantages

• Dual camera supported;
• Fast charging technology is well implemented;
• High power of all eight cores;
• Full support for 4K video content at 60 fps;
• Relatively low cost.

Flaws

• Camera resolution cannot exceed 24 megapixels;
• No Bluetooth 4.2 support;
• Display resolution cannot exceed 1920 x 1200 pixels;
• In games, the chipset does not perform well.

The most popular smartphones: Huawei G9 Plus, ASUS ZenFone 3, Fujitsu Easy, Huawei Maimang 5, Lenovo Vibe P2, Motorola Moto Z Play, Samsung Galaxy C7.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 620 APQ8076

• Year of manufacture: 2016
• Technical process: 28 nm
• Architecture: 4x ARM Cortex-A72 + 4x ARM Cortex-A53
• Video accelerator: Adreno 510

Geekbench result: 4886 points

This chipset is also known as the Snapdragon 652. It is one of the last processors that is still produced on the 28nm process. The creators are not at all embarrassed by the relatively large size of the chip, since it is built mainly into tablets.

The processor consists of eight computing cores. The clock frequency of four of them can reach 1800 MHz. This is quite enough for the tablet to solve basic tasks without any hesitation. The chipset also includes the Adreno 510 graphics accelerator. There are no special complaints about it, because no one will expect excellent graphics performance from the tablet. It should be noted that theoretically the chip supports video processing in 2160p resolution at 30 frames/s. It also boasts support for Bluetooth 4.1 and proprietary Quick Charge 3.0 fast charging technology.

Advantages

• Supports devices with high screen resolutions;
• Great computing power;
• Albeit limited, but still support for 4K video;
• Built-in fast charging technology.

Flaws

• No Bluetooth 4.2 support;
• Still not the best graphics accelerator.

Most popular devices: Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 Plus 8.0, Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 Plus 9.7.

MediaTek MT6797M Helio X20

• Year of manufacture: 2016
• Technical process: 20 nm
• Architecture: 2x ARM Cortex-A72 + 4x ARM Cortex-A53 + 4x ARM Cortex-A53
• Video accelerator: Mali-T880MP4, 4 cores, 780 MHz

Geekbench result: 5130 points

Many mobile processors have four or even eight cores. In the case of the MediaTek MT6797M Helio X20, their number has been increased to ten. As a result, the performance of the chipset is very high. Especially in applications that do not require serious graphics processing. It should be noted that only two computing cores are particularly powerful here - their clock frequency reaches 2300 MHz. The remaining nuclei are divided into two groups. One can please you with a frequency of 1850 MHz, while the other has this parameter fixed at 1400 MHz. But the result in any case is very good, which is confirmed by synthetic tests, and by the smartphones themselves - the interface on them does not slow down at all thanks to the chipset.

As for the graphics accelerator, everything is much worse here. Theoretically, it copes with viewing and recording 4K video at 30 fps. But in games you immediately feel a lack of power. Modern games will run on a smartphone with such a processor, but with simplified graphics. Especially if the device has a screen with Full HD resolution or higher. It should also be noted that the processor supports almost any mobile camera - as long as the module resolution does not exceed 32 megapixels.

Geekbench result: 4610 points

There are two versions of the Qualcomm Snapdragon 620 processor, also known as the Snapdragon 652. The first is the MSM8976, which was released in 2015. A year later, a slightly more improved version was released - APQ8076, which was received by some Samsung tablets. The products are practically no different from each other. They have eight cores, half of which are capable of increasing the frequency to 1800 MHz. Both processors are equipped with a far from ideal Adreno 510 graphics accelerator.

Qualcomm's creation is capable of supporting smartphones whose display has a resolution of no higher than 2560 x 1600 pixels. As for the camera, it is possible to process data coming from a dual module, the total resolution of which does not exceed 21 megapixels. Everything is fine with the module and its capabilities for processing data coming from dual-channel LPDDR3 memory.

Advantages

• High performance;
• View 4K video at 30 fps;
• Theoretical possibility of recording video in 1080p and 120 frames/s;
• Not very high cost;
• Dual camera support;
• Screen resolution can reach 2560 x 1600 pixels.

Flaws

• Bluetooth 4.2 is not supported;
• The maximum camera resolution cannot be very high.

The most popular smartphones: Vivo X6S A, Vivo X7, Vivo X7 Plus, LeEco Le2, G5 SE, Oppo R9 Plus, Samsung Galaxy A9 Pro (2016), ZTE Nubia Z11 Max, Xiaomi Mi Max

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, new generation 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 - excellent results compared to 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 do not agree with me or you 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.

The quality and speed of operation of a personal computer, as well as its performance, largely depend on the processor. This becomes clearly understandable when the PC refuses to cope with the tasks that the user sets for it. There is only one way out - to upgrade your computer and look for a new, more productive and modern processor. To ensure that the purchase does not turn out to be useless, you need to clearly understand how to choose a processor and what parameters it should have in order to cope with specific tasks. Similar problems arise for those who decide to assemble their own car. Let’s try to answer all the questions as briefly and succinctly as possible, as well as study the modern market and determine the best processors of 2018.

The main subject of debate when choosing a processor is the manufacturer. There are currently two companies competing in the market: AMDAndIntel. Arguments over whose products are better are reminiscent of the eternal debate about iOS and Android, or Canon and Nikon. Fans of this or that system are ready to tirelessly prove their point of view, but there is always an “arms race” between the companies themselves, so it is impossible to definitively answer which processors are better, AMD or Intel. Someone once said that this is like a matter of religion or even a matter of habit.

We will return to the manufacturer’s question and try to understand their proposals in more detail, but for now we note that when choosing a processor, you should still pay attention to its architecture, number of cores, clock frequency, cache memory size and other parameters.

Processor socket or socket type

The processor is installed in a special socket on the motherboard, so their socket type must match. Different types of connectors are incompatible with each other - a system assembled in this way will not work. Motherboard manufacturers indicate which processors a particular model is compatible with. Information is available in the instructions for the motherboard or on official websites. If you are assembling a computer yourself, then do not buy an outdated motherboard: in a couple of years, when you want to upgrade your PC, you will have to buy not only a new processor, but also a new motherboard.

There are up to 30 different types of sockets, many of them are already considered obsolete.

Intel processors are now available with the following sockets:

For processorsAMDThe following sockets are relevant:

• FM2/FM2+– inexpensive simple processors that are suitable for assembling ordinary office systems and simple gaming PCs;
• AM3+– one of the most common sockets, on its basis you can assemble systems of any power, up to the most advanced gaming computers;
• A.M.4 – socket for the most powerful processors, which are used to build professional and gaming PCs;
• A.M.1 – a socket for the simplest processors.

Sockets LGA1155, LGA775AM3, LGA2011, AM2/+ are considered obsolete.

Number of cores and threads

The core of a process is its heart, brain and soul. The first multi-core processor was introduced to the world by Intel, but there is still an opinion that the idea was stolen from AMD. Let's not bring up the past - the main thing is that today single-core processors can no longer be found. It remains to be figured out how many cores are actually needed.

If we simplify it a little, we can come to the following conclusions:

• 2 cores– an option for a computer that will be used to work with a basic set of office programs, launch a browser and watch videos;
• 4 cores– an option for both office use and for launching medium-sized toys. It all depends on the frequency and architecture;
• 6, 8 and 10 cores– powerful computers for running 3D programs and the most modern and demanding games. A good option for a gamer.

Please note that there are programs that cannot load balance across cores and will run faster on a 2-core processor with a higher clock speed than on a 4-core processor at a lower clock speed.

Please note that there is processors with virtual additional cores. Special technology (Hyper-Threading for Intel, or SMT for AMD) allows you to clone each physical core, That's why the number of data processing threads does not always equal the number of cores. If you are told about an eight-thread processor, then it may have 4 or 8 actual cores.

CPU frequency

Many users naively believe that the higher the clock speed, the better and faster the computer will work. This is not entirely true, or rather it is, but under certain conditions. Let's figure it out.

Clock speed refers to the number of operations a processor performs per second. Hence, the higher the frequency, the faster the “brains” work, and a 3.5 GHz processor will be preferable to a 2.8 GHz processor, for example. This is indeed true if we are talking about processors of the same line, where the same kernels are used.

Performance depends not only on the frequency, but also on the processor architecture and cache size, so you should not focus only on the frequency, but within the same line it is a significant factor.

Technical process

The technical process determines the size of the transistors on the processor and the distance between them. Photolithography is used to deposit conductors, insulators and other elements onto a silicon substrate. The resolution of the equipment used determines a certain technical process and affects the sizes of transistors and the distance between them.

The technical process is measured in nm and the smaller it is, the more elements can be placed in the same area. At the moment, the most modern processors have a 14 nm process technology.

This parameter has a very indirect effect on performance. It affects the heating of the processor much more significantly. Improvements in technology make it possible to release a processor each time with a lower technological process; they heat up less. If you compare an old generation processor and a new one with the same performance, the new one will heat up less. Since performance increases in new models, the old and new “stones” heat up approximately equally. Thus, reducing the technical process allows manufacturers to create ever faster and more productive processors without increasing their heat.

Cache memory

Cache is built-in, ultra-fast memory that helps store and process data across cores, RAM, and other buses. Essentially this is the link between RAM and processor. Thanks to this buffer, you can quickly access frequently used data. In modern processors, the cache has several levels (usually three, less often two). The larger the amount of memory on them, the faster the “stone” will work, but again this is only true for processors of the same line.

Memory is distributed unevenly across levels:

• L1 is first level cache, its volume is minimal (8-128 KB), but the speed is the highest. The frequency usually reaches the processor frequency level;
• L2 – second level cache, larger in volume (from 128 KB) than the first, but slower than it;
• L3 is the most capacious, but slowest cache. On the other hand, even the third level cache is faster than RAM

If you need to choose a processor for a gaming computer or to run powerful professional programs with high graphics requirements, then it is better to take processor with the maximum possible amount of third-level memory(the parameter usually ranges from 2 to 20 MB). This established truth has recently been destroyed by tests of new processors, which show that cache memory has virtually no effect on performance in games. However, this parameter should not be written off - a good amount of cache memory will speed up data archiving and writing data from flash memory to the hard drive.

Integrated graphics core

Improvements in production technology have made it possible to place various microcircuits inside the processor, incl. graphics core. The main advantage of this solution is that there is no need to buy a video card separately. Typically, video cards that are quite mediocre in terms of capabilities are built into the processor, so models with an integrated graphics core Suitable for users for whom graphics capabilities are secondary. These are budget processors for an office environment, but they can handle videos from the Internet, most non-specific programs, regular toys, and even entry-level 3D games.

If your goal is to build a powerful gaming computer, then it is better to take a processor without a built-in graphics core and then buy a powerful video card. Taking into account the fact that it costs a lot, and many still have to save some time for it, a processor with a built-in video card can be useful in this case too.

What is processor bit depth, and is it so important?

The processor capacity shows how many bits the computer can process in one clock cycle. This setting affects performance. Currently the most commonly used processors are 32 and 64 bit, there are also 128-bit processors, but their segment is still very limited.

Is a 64-bit processor always better than a 32-bit processor, and what are the differences? If the processor has 2 cores and 2-3 GB of RAM is used, then you will not feel the difference. A 64-bit processor when using multi-core processors can significantly improve performance when running 64-bit applications. To be fair, it is worth noting that an increase in productivity will not always be noticeable.

The main advantageous difference between 64-bit processors– this is the ability to work with RAM of 4 GB or more. If you have even 8 GB of RAM in your computer, the 32-bit processor will see and use only 3.75 GB of them.

Heat dissipation

The more powerful the processor, the hotter it gets. It’s good that improving the technical process can significantly reduce heating. Today, the TDP value, W, is used to assess heat dissipation. The lower the value, the less heat generation. In laptop computers, everything is well calculated, installed and works without additional cooling. If you need to build a very powerful computer, then you will hardly be able to do without a cooler built into the processor (such models are marked as BOX, without a cooler - OEM).

If the TDP of the system 60 W or less, then even a complete or the simplest cooling system can be used. When heat is generated up to 95 W It’s better to take high-quality medium format fans – the kit ones won’t do the job. At TDP 125 W or more You can't do without a tower cooler with several copper pipes.

Unlocked multiplier

If you are going to overclock the processor, then make sure that this can be done using standard methods. It is important that the function of changing the multiplier is supported by the motherboard.

AMD or Intel – which is better?

There is no and cannot be an objective answer to this question. Thousands of pages on the Internet have been created on this topic; disputes sometimes turn into scandals with the use of obscene language - this is how users defend the products of their favorite manufacturer. Often, all these disputes resemble attempts to figure out which is better, pineapple or sausage - there cannot be a consensus here.

In some segments AMD is better, in others Intel is better, but often even these opinions are subjective, so when choosing, rely purely on your subjective opinion - we will not interfere with you. Well, for those who have not yet decided on their subjective opinion, we will present a few facts.

The competition between the two leaders is fierce, but it is believed that Intel produces more powerful processors that AMD cannot keep up with, and AMD, in turn, offers the best budget solutions. But this opinion is too generalized, since Intel also has good inexpensive processors, and AMD offers good top-end solutions. In terms of durability and reliability, the products of both companies are equal.

To decide which processor is better, AMD or Intel, you need to clearly determine your goals and answer the question of why the computer is being assembled. Moreover, the number of cores and frequency do not always determine performance - it’s all about completely different architecture. Therefore, use special sites where you can view test results, compare with analogues and see which tasks a particular processor copes best with.

We understand that we are touching on a very sensitive and controversial topic, but still, let’s talk about the common advantages of the processors of the two companies.

Advantages of processorsIntel:

• high performance and speed. Work with RAM is better optimized than that of AMD;
• a large number of games and programs that are optimized specifically for Intel;
• L2 and L3 cache often operates at higher speeds than on AMD processors;
• lower power consumption.

Disadvantages of processorsIntel:

• higher price;
• they are inferior to AMD processors in multitasking, despite the fact that they are superior when working with a single process;
• strong binding to specific sockets, so when buying a new process you will most likely have to change the motherboard.

Recently there was a real scandal. It was detected in processors from Intel vulnerability, which allows third-party malicious programs to gain access to the structure of a protected part of the kernel memory and discover where confidential information is stored. Our passwords, messages, photos and payment card data can be read and used by criminals. Fixing this problem and urgently updating the operating system will slow down computers by 20-30%. While the company was trying to resolve the conflict, it turned out that such There is also a vulnerability in processors fromAMD.

Advantages of processors fromAMD:

• affordable price, so many recognize the manufacturer’s processors as the best in terms of price/quality ratio;
• multitasking;
• multiplatform;
• The company's modern processors have good overclocking potential, so they are catching up with Intel in terms of performance.

Disadvantages of processors fromAMD:

The best processors of 2018

Best Intel Processors 2018

The kings of performance, Intel processors come in different price ranges. IN in the budget sector these are the Celeron and Pentium lines. By the way, in terms of performance they are superior to AMD processors of similar cost, but are inferior to them in multitasking. Processors suitable for entry-level gaming PCs and multimedia computers Core i3 , for more powerful ones - Core i5 , for the most powerful gaming – Core i7 .

Core i7-7700K

Despite the existence of more productive Core i7-6950X, Intel Core i7-7820X, Intel Core i9-7900X and some others, the Core i7-7700K can be considered the most balanced in terms of price and quality. The frequency is 4.2-4.7 GHz, there are 4 cores, there is a built-in video card, but it won’t be enough for top games, but it can easily handle running video in the highest resolution. Price about 400$.

Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition

It is obscenely expensive (about $1,700), is equipped with 10 cores, has 25 MB of third-level cache, has a frequency of 3 GHz, and supports Hyper-Threading technology. Power and strength! However, for assembling a gaming computer, the processor capabilities will be too much. This solution is only for those who use very specific and highly demanding programs, and even then it is possible to find a suitable solution at a cheaper price.

Core i5-7500

If you want to build a gaming PC, but the budget for purchasing a processor is modest, then a Core i5-7500 for $200 is a good solution. Performance and third-level cache (6 MB versus 8 MB) are almost as good as the Core i7-7700K, and if you have a good video card, the processor can handle any game. There is a built-in graphics core that supports 4K video. 4 cores operate at a frequency of 3.4-3.8 GHz.

Core i3-7100

Two cores, four threads, a frequency of 3.9 GHz and low power consumption combined with an affordable price ($110-170) make this processor a popular favorite. Users note that when using enough RAM and graphics memory, this processor can even handle games where the requirements include Core i5 and Core i7.

Pentium G4560

The processor has 2 cores, but 4 threads, frequency 3.5 GHz. The cost is about $70, so if you need to build an inexpensive gaming PC, then this is a good option. It cannot be compared with more expensive solutions, but if you have an appropriate video card, it will run modern games at minimum settings, older and less demanding games will generally fly.

Pentium Haswell

Not a bad option for an office PC. There are 2 cores, an integrated graphics processor, a frequency of 2.3-3.6 GHz. The volume of the third level cache is 3 MB. The heat generation is low. Cost about $85.

Celeron Skylake

A simple, inexpensive processor for computers designed to work with documents, browsers, and watch videos. Main characteristics: 2 cores, frequency 2.6-2.9 GHz, third level cache 2 MB, minimal heat dissipation, has a graphics core. Cost $45.

Best AMD processors 2018

Ruler budget processors – Sempron, Athlon, Phenom, A4 and A6. A8 and A10 can be used for multimedia and simple games, series FX– for middle-class gaming computers, and Ryzen These are top processors. You can purchase AMD processors on the website: potential buyers are presented with all the modern developments of AMD, as well as photographs of models, detailed lists of characteristics, brief descriptions and instruction manuals. To make it easier for you, we have selected several of the most interesting models suitable for different tasks.

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X

The honorable first place goes to the processor from the flagship Ryzen series – Threadripper 1920X. The 12-core “beast” with a clock frequency of 3.5-4 GHz simply could not remain outside our rating. An incredible 24 threads allow you to get the most out of your personal computer's performance. The processor is equipped with DDR4 memory (4 channels) with error correction function, which guarantees extremely high data transfer speeds. Cost about $990.

Ryzen 7 1800X

Second place also goes to the Ryzen representative – 7 1800X. This processor differs from the leader in the lack of virtualization technology, the number of cores (Ryzen 7 has eight) and, accordingly, threads (16), as well as RAM channels. There is support for an unlocked multiplier. This model is great for gamers - it runs 3D games and modeling programs even at maximum settings. Costs about $480.

Ryzen 5 1600X

The top three also includes the Ryzen 5 1600X, a strong rival to the competing Core i5 family. Its characteristics are, first of all, 6 cores/12 threads, Socket AM4 connector and two channels of RAM. Frequency – 3.6 GHz with the possibility of overclocking to 4 GHz. There is support for an unlocked multiplier. Costs about $260.

AMD A10-7860K

In fourth place is a powerful 4-core processor designed for home PCs and office use. Model with integrated graphics. Clock frequency – 3.6 GHz. It copes well with running games online (medium settings) with good performance and without overheating the hardware. Price about $100.

AMD FX-6300

A good alternative to productive solutions from Intel. The processor works with 6 cores, has an unlocked multiplier, a clock frequency of 3.5 GHz with the ability to overclock to 4.1 GHz. Socket – Socket AM3+. Performance is good, suitable for games and demanding applications, there is no built-in graphics core. Cost about $85.

Athlon X4 880K

The TOP model from the Athlon 880K family is closed - a 4-core processor for home PCs. The clock frequency of the model is 4.0-4.2 GHz. When paired with a Radeon Athlon 880K video card, it delivers excellent performance and demonstrates all the positive qualities of AMD products. Cost $84.

There is also a more budget-friendly solution from this series. The Athlon X4 860K runs on 4 cores, 3.7 GHz, but there is no integrated graphics core. Cost $45.

You can still write a lot, argue for a long time, argue, test and reflect. We’ll wrap it up here and leave you alone with your thoughts.

62 processors and 80 different configurations

Another year has changed on the calendar, we have prepared new methods for testing computer systems, which means that it is time to sum up the results of processor testing (which is a special case of system testing) in 2015. Last year's results were quite brief - they included the results of only 36 systems, differing only in processors and obtained exclusively using the GPU built into them. This approach, for obvious reasons, left behind a considerable number of platforms that lack integrated graphics, so we decided to modify it a little by sometimes starting to use a discrete video card - at least where it is needed. However, the 2015 tests became to some extent “educational and training” - in 2016 we plan to further refine the approach to testing in order to further bring it closer to real life. But be that as it may, today we will present the results of 62 processors (more precisely, there are 61 different ones, but thanks to cTDP, one of them is worth two). And that's not all: 14 of them were tested with two “video cards” - an integrated GPU (different for everyone) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X. We also tested four processors for the latest LGA1151 platform with two types of memory: DDR4-2133 and DDR3-1600. Thus, the total number of configurations was 80 - this is much less than 149 in the results before last, but for those we collected information for two and a half years, and the “lifetime” of the current test method was approximately eight months, i.e. almost three times less. In addition, the unification of tests for different systems allows you to compare the results with those obtained when testing laptops, all-in-one PCs and other complete systems.

But in this particular article, as mentioned above, we will limit ourselves to processors. More precisely, systems that differ mainly only in processors - it is clear that “testing processors” (especially for different platforms) has long no longer had any other meaning, although for some it is still a revelation :)

Test bench configuration

Since there are many subjects, it is not possible to describe their characteristics in detail. After thinking a little, we decided to abandon the usual short table: it still becomes too vast, and at the request of the workers, we still included some parameters directly on the diagrams. In particular, since some people are asking to indicate right there the number of cores/modules and computational threads running simultaneously, as well as operating clock frequency ranges, we tried to do just that. If readers like the result, we will save it for other tests in the coming year. The format is simple: “cores/threads; minimum/maximum core clock speed in GHz.”

Well, all other characteristics will have to be looked at in other places - the easiest way is from manufacturers, and prices - in stores. Moreover, for some devices the prices are still indeterminable, since these processors themselves are not available in retail (all BGA models, for example). However, all this information is, of course, also in review articles devoted to these models, and today we are engaged in a slightly different task than the actual study of processors: we collect all the data obtained together and look at the resulting patterns. Including paying attention to the relative position not of processors, but of entire platforms that include them. Because of this, the data in the diagrams is grouped precisely by platform.

Therefore, all that remains is to say a few words about the environment. As for memory, the fastest one supported by the specification was almost always used. There are two exceptions: what we called “Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)” and Core i5-3427U. For the second, there were simply no suitable DDR3-1600 modules, so it had to be tested with DDR3-1333, and the first - processors for LGA1151, but paired with DDR3-1600, and not the faster (and “main” according to the specifications) DDR4-2133 . The amount of memory in most cases is the same - 8 GB, with the exception of two versions of LGA2011 - here there were 16 GB DDR3 or DDR4, respectively, since the four-channel controller directly provokes the use of a larger amount of RAM. The system drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) is the same for all subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: discrete Radeon R7 260X and built-in video core. The video core was always used when the processor had one (with the exception of the Core i5-655K, since the first version of Intel HD Graphics is no longer supported by modern operating systems), while a discrete video card was used where there was no built-in video. And in some cases - where there is an embedded video: to compare the results.

Testing methodology

To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using a benchmark. We normalized all test results relative to the results of the reference system, which last year was the same for laptops and all other computers, in order to make it easier for readers to make the hard work of comparison and selection.

Thus, these normalized results can be compared with those obtained in the same version of the benchmark for other systems (for example, we take it and compare it with desktop platforms). For those who are interested in absolute results, we offer them as a file in Microsoft Excel format.

Video conversion and video processing

As we have noted more than once, in this group a discrete video card allows you to increase performance, but this effect is clearly visible only on older platforms (such as LGA1155), where the power of the integrated GPUs itself was small. Actually, this is the answer - why did they increase it in new generations: and so that there would be no incentive to buy a video card as well :)

The dependence of performance on the number of threads of executed code is also clearly visible here. As a result, we come to a very wide range of results - they differ by more than an order of magnitude, since low-end dual- and quad-core CULV solutions (such as the old Celeron 1037U or the slightly newer, but also outdated Pentium J2900) give only ≈55 points, and the top eight-core Core i7-5960X - all 577. But the main “crush” is unfolding in the mass segment (up to $200): modern Core i5s can increase productivity (relative to the “floor level”) five times, but further investments only double it. Actually, there is nothing surprising in this: the higher, the more expensive.

As for comparing platforms, then... they don’t need to be compared. Indeed: desktop AMD FM2+ roughly corresponds only to Intel ultrabook processors, and formally, the top-end AM3+ only corresponds to the long-outdated LGA1155. However, Intel's growth from generation to generation is small - even in such well-optimized tasks we can only talk about 15-20% at each step. (This, however, sometimes leads to qualitative changes - for example, the Core i7-6700K has actually caught up with the once top six-core i7-4960X, despite a significantly lower price and a simpler device.) In general, it is clear that manufacturers are dealing with completely different issues , and not at all attempts to greatly increase the performance of desktop systems.

Video Content Creation

As we have already written more than once, in this group the multi-threaded test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 turned us down. For it to work properly, it is recommended to have at least 2 GB for each calculation thread - otherwise the test may “fall out” into single-threaded mode and start working even slower than without using Multiprocessing technology (as Adobe calls it). In general, for full operation with eight threads, 16 GB of RAM is desirable, and an eight-core processor with NT will require a minimum of 32 GB of memory. On most systems, we use 8 GB of memory, which is enough for “eight-thread” systems when using integrated video (if they have it: this is done for desktop Core i7s, but the FX-8000, for example, has it worse), but not discrete. Another stone in the garden of those who still believe in “processor testing” as something independent - in isolation from the platform and other environment: as we see, sometimes attempts to make it equal lead to extremely interesting effects. A “pure” comparison is perhaps only possible within the same platform, and even then not always: the amount of memory required by some programs may depend on the processor itself and not only it. Which just hits the top models hard, because they need more, and “more” in this case means more expensive.

However, in any case, in this group of applications the “processor dependence” is less pronounced than in the previous one - there the older Core i5 outperformed the low-voltage surrogates by five times, and here only a little more than four. In addition, a more powerful video card can increase the results noticeably less, although it should not be neglected (if possible) either.

Digital Photo Processing

This group is interesting in that it is absolutely different from the previous ones - in particular, the degree of “multi-threading utilization” is much lower here, which noticeably reduces the range of results obtained, but here are the differences between the Core i5 (we will continue to be tied to this family as the top level mass segment - sales of systems based on more expensive processors are incomparably lower) and entry-level devices exceed six times. What is this connected with? Firstly, there is a noticeable dependence of performance on the GPU. First of all, integrated: discrete cannot develop to its full potential due to the need for frequent data transfers. But the power of integrated graphics in low-end and high-end processors differs significantly! And we should not forget that not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences between junior and senior processors still remain - for example, in terms of supported instruction sets. This hits hard both on the younger Intel families (remember that Pentium, for example, still does not support AVX) and on outdated processors from both companies.

Vector graphics

But here's a good example of how modern software can be different. Even if we are talking about, to put it mildly, not the cheapest programs, and not for “home use”. In fact, as we have noted more than once, the last time any serious optimizations of Illustrator were made was about 10 years ago, so for the program to work quickly, it needs processors that are as similar as possible to Core 2 Duo: a maximum of a couple of cores with maximum single-threaded performance and without support for new ones sets of commands. As a result, modern Pentiums look the most advantageous (taking into account the price), while higher-class processors may turn out to be faster only because of their higher clock speed. Processors of other architectures feel very bad under such conditions. Actually, even in the Intel line, such intensive methods of increasing performance as adding a fourth level cache, in this case only hinder, not help. However, in any case, trying to greatly speed up work in this program (and similar ones) is not a very promising endeavor: only a fourfold difference between the best Core i5 and surrogate platforms speaks for itself.

Audio processing

Here is an example of a situation where, it seems, the computational cores are not superfluous, and even the GPU matters, etc., but the difference between the Celeron N3150 (the slowest in this test) and the Core i7 for mass platforms is only about five times . Moreover, a considerable part of it can be attributed to the surrogacy of younger architectures - the very old Celeron 1037U (albeit very limited, but a full-fledged Core) is almost one and a half times faster than the N3150, and the younger desktop Pentiums are three times faster. But further... the more expensive it is, the less effective the amount of the “additional payment for the processor” is. Even within the same architecture - AMD's "construction equipment" with its "budget multi-threading" in this case is only able to compete with the same Pentium: six threads are faster than four from the same manufacturer, but do not look convincing against the background of only two cores from a competing design.

Text recognition

Not at all the same as in the previous case - here the FX-8000 still easily outperforms any Core i5. Note that AMD positioned them this way at the time of release: between i5 and i7. Including the price. Which, unfortunately, later had to be radically reduced, since the number of such “convenient” tasks turned out to be not too large. However, if the user is specifically interested in them, this provides an opportunity to save a lot of money. Considering, of course, that this family has not been updated for more than three years (in a serious way, in any case), and Intel processors are slowly but growing.

And the problem of scalability is also clearly visible - no matter how good the additional cores and threads are, the more there are, the less effect the increase in number gives. Actually, in the end, you shouldn’t be surprised that this process stopped long ago in mass-produced processors - we need even more convincing arguments for multi-cores than can still be found. Here are four modern cores - good. Four dual-threaded cores are even better. And then that’s it.

Archiving and unarchiving data

If archiving uses all cores (and additional computing threads) of processors, then the reverse process is single-threaded. Considering that it has to be used more often, this could be considered a nuisance if the process itself were not significantly faster. Yes, in fact, packaging has become a fairly simple operation to pay close attention to when choosing a processor. In any case, this is true for mass-produced desktop models - low-power specialized platforms can still “tinker” with such tasks for a long time.

Speed ​​of installation and uninstallation of applications

In principle, we introduced this task into the test methodology mainly because of the need to test ready-made systems: and on the same processor in different environments, as we already know, performance can differ by one and a half to two times. But when the system uses a fast drive and enough memory, the processors themselves do not differ fundamentally from each other. However, surrogate platforms may well turn out to be just two to three times slower than “normal” desktop ones. But the latter differ little from each other - be it Pentium or Core i7. Essentially, all that may be needed from a processor is one thread of calculations with maximum performance. But mobile systems aside, this is almost always done to about the same extent.

File operations

And these are especially “platform-cumulative” tests rather than processor tests. As part of this line of tests, we use the same drive - with all that it implies. But the “platform” can matter - for example, the results of LGA1156 turned out to be a bit of a surprise: it seems not the worst desktop solution, which until recently could be considered even fast (the LGA775 still found among users is even worse), but it turned out that under such loads it can only be compared with Bay Trail or Braswell. And even then, the comparison will not be in favor of the “old lady” who was once close to the top level. But modern budget systems are practically no different from non-budget ones - simply because the former are already enough for performance to begin to be determined by other components of the system, without being limited by the processor or even the chipset.

Total

In principle, we made the main conclusions about processor families directly in the reviews, so they are not required in this article - this is primarily a generalization of all previously obtained information, nothing more. And generalizations, as we see, can sometimes turn out to be interesting. Firstly, it is easy to notice that the influence of discrete video cards on performance in mass-produced programs can, in general, be considered absent. More precisely, in some applications it is, but being “spread out” across all tests, it quietly and peacefully evaporates. In any case, this is true for more or less modern platforms - it’s easy to see that weak integrated graphics from the LGA1155 era, even overall, can reduce the results by five percent, which is more or less noticeable, although not critical. The same should apply to older discrete video cards, which will also be inferior to slightly newer ones, but in this case, the border between “good” and “bad” solutions is no longer pushed back by three, but by five or more years from the current moment. In short, modern platforms are free of such problems. So, for a quality comparison, it is not at all necessary to require the same video part, which means that if you need, for example, to compare a laptop with a desktop system, we find a suitable article about a laptop (not even necessarily about the same one - another one on a similar platform will do) and compare. The data storage system is even more important, so if there is no parity in the articles on it, you will have to limit yourself to the results of groups of tests that do not depend on the drive. As for video... Let us repeat: among the mass applications there are no such strongly tied to it, but gaming applications are a completely different story.

Now let's try (as usual) to look at the range of performance that we managed to cover this year. The minimum result in the overall standings is the Celeron N3150: 54.6 points. The maximum is for the Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. “Professional” platforms like LGA2011/2011-3 failed to take first place, although in some tests its “multi-core” representatives were confidently in the lead. The reasons for this have been voiced more than once: manufacturers of mass software mainly focus on the fleet of equipment available to users, and not at all on some “shiny peaks”. There are (and always have been and always will be) tasks for which computing resources are “always in short supply”, and it is for them that top-end systems are required (sometimes going far beyond the scope of our testing), but the bulk of problems can be easily solved on a mass-produced computer. Often even outdated.

In this regard, it is interesting to compare the current “Results” not with the past ones, but with the ones before last. Then testing was done according to a completely different scheme - always using a powerful discrete video card. And there were more professional applications, so the top six-core processors, in general, still turned out to be faster than the best solutions for mass platforms. However, at the same time, the Core i7-4770K scored 242 points - which is just comparable to 258.4 for the Core i7-6700K (from the point of view of time-adjusted positioning, these processors are the same: one was the fastest solution for the mass LGA1150 of 2013, and the second - the same in 2016 for LGA1151). At the same time, both then and now, various Pentium/Core i3/Core i5 were pushed in the range of 100-200 points - nothing has changed. Except that the scores have changed: the software was mentioned above, but the standard has also changed. Previously, this was the AMD Athlon II X4 620 (a budget, but desktop and quad-core processor) with a discrete video card based on Nvidia GeForce GTX 570. And now it is an (ultrabook) Intel Core i5-3317U without any discrete graphics. It seems like everything is different. But in practice it’s the same: a budget desktop gives a hundred points, any investment in it, at best, can increase productivity (on average for task classes) by two and a half times, and a compact nettop on a surrogate platform will work two to three times slower. This state of affairs in the desktop computers segment has become established and has persisted for a long time, as our summary results clearly show. In general, when going to the store to buy a new computer, you don’t need to read any articles - just analyze the amount of money in your wallet :)

When are tests still needed? Basically - when the task arises of replacing an old computer with a new one. Especially when it is planned to “move to another class”: by changing the desktop to a nettop or laptop, for example. When purchasing a new solution of the same class, you don’t have to worry: the new Core i5, for example, will always be faster than the old one of the same class, so there is no great need for accurate estimates of “by how much.” But the fact that the performance of processors for various purposes is slowly but surely growing can lead to pleasant surprises - when, for example, it turns out that an old desktop can easily replace an ultrabook, and without any negative consequences. Well, as we see, this is quite possible, since everyone “grows”.

Best processor for gaming | Benefit reduction effect

Prices for high-end processors are rising rapidly, but the performance gains in games will be less and less. Therefore, it is hardly worth recommending a processor more expensive than the Core i5-7600K. Moreover, if you have a good cooler, this model can be overclocked to 5 GHz - if higher performance is required.

However, there are a small number of games that take advantage of Core i7 processors with Hyper-Threading technology. We believe the trend of multi-core gaming optimization will continue, which is why we've added the Core i7-5820K to the list. For most games, there won't be much difference between a Core i7 and a Core i5, but if you're the kind of enthusiast who wants future-proofing and strong performance in multi-threaded applications, this CPU may be worth the extra cost.

With the advent of the LGA 2011-v3 interface, there is every reason to build an unsurpassed gaming platform on its basis. Haswell-E-based processors have more available cache and four more cores compared to leading LGA 1150/1155 socket models. In addition, thanks to the four-channel controller, greater memory bandwidth is provided. With 40 Gen 3 PCIe lanes available on Sandy Bridge-E processors, the platform natively supports two x16 slots and one x8 slot, or one x16 slot and three x8 slots, eliminating potential bottlenecks in three- and four-way CrossFire or SLI configurations. video cards.

While all of the above sounds impressive, it doesn't necessarily translate into significant performance improvements in modern games. Our tests show very little difference between the $240 LGA 1150 Core i5-4690K and the $1000 LGA 2011 Core i7-4960X, even with three SLI graphics cards installed. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe do not greatly affect the performance of current Sandy Bridge architecture systems.

Where Haswell-E's potential really shines is in CPU-intensive games like Battlefield 1's multiplayer. If you're using three or four graphics cards, it's likely that you already have enough performance. An overclocked Core i7-5960X or Core i7-5930K can help the rest of the platform catch up to the extremely powerful video system.

Overall, while we don't recommend buying a processor more expensive than the Core i5-7600K in terms of price/performance (the money saved can be spent on a graphics adapter and motherboard), there will always be those who will spare no expense in the pursuit of achieving the best possible performance .

Best processor for gaming | Comparison table

What about other processors that aren't on our list of recommendations? Are they worth buying or not?

These types of questions are entirely appropriate since the availability of different models and their prices change daily. How do you know if the processor you've got your eye on is the best buy in its price range?

We decided to help you in this difficult task by presenting a CPU hierarchy table, where processors of the same gaming performance level are on the same line. The top lines show the most powerful gaming CPUs, and as you move down the lines, performance decreases.

Proposed hierarchical table of various models processors Intel and AMD were initially based on the average performance of each in our benchmark suite. We've since added new game data as part of the evaluation criteria, but keep in mind that different games behave differently due to the unique nature of their code. For example, some of them are extremely dependent on graphics power, but others respond positively to more cores, cache memory, or even a specific architecture.

We don't have the ability to test every CPU on the market, so in some cases rankings will depend on the results of similar models. Essentially, this hierarchical table is useful as a general selection guide, but it is not a universal means of comparing different processors. For more detailed information, please refer to (English) or to the regularly updated section " Best CPU for Gaming: Current Market Analysis ".

You may have noticed that we have divided the flagship section into two levels processors and on one of them they placed several quad-core AMD models. Given that many older platforms can be used with several different generations of graphics subsystems, we wanted to highlight the highest-performance models to maintain a balance between the system and the video accelerator. For example, at the moment, any owner of a Core i7 of the Sandy Bridge generation will feel a significant increase when switching to Kaby Lake or Broadwell-E. And the flagship premises processors AMD's FX series being one step up from several Core i7s and older Core i5s means their status has risen.

Hierarchy of Intel and AMD processors | Table

Currently our table consists of 13 levels. The bottom half of the list is mostly no longer relevant: these chips will demonstrate insufficient performance in modern games, regardless of the installed video card. If your CPU belongs to this half of the list, then the upgrade will really increase your enjoyment of the games.

In fact, only chips in the top five tiers can be considered suitable for gaming today. And in this upper part of the table, the meaning of an upgrade only appears if you choose CPU at least two levels higher. Otherwise, the improvements won't be enough to justify the cost of a new CPU, motherboard and memory, not to mention the graphics card and storage drives that you'll also be considering replacing.