What is the intel equivalent to amd ryzen 3: AMD Ryzen 3 3250U vs Intel Core i5-7200U @ 2.50GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

Ryzen 3 vs i3 Processor — Are they equal?

The processor is the brain of your laptop. Aside from the RAM (memory) your laptop has, it’s the most important piece of hardware in your entire laptop setup. There are many different processors out there for you to choose from, and it can be difficult to know the difference between them all.

One of the most popular processors over the last decade or more is the Intel i3 processor, and it’s become the staple for many new laptops. Many of the models in our list of the best sub £400 laptops have an i3 or Ryzen 3 processor.

But how does the Core i3 processor compare when pitted against another popular processor, like AMD’s Ryzen 3? Well, we’re going to compare the two against each other now.

Ryzen 3 vs i3 Processor

In general, an AMD Ryzen 3 processor is going to be better than an Intel i3 processor across the board. They have more cores, and most of their Ryzen 3 processors have 2 threads for every core. So, as a whole range, you’d likely be better off opting for the AMD.

However, this is a bit of an unfair question, because there are different versions and generations of both i3 and Ryzen 3 processors. So, for example a AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clocking speed of 3.8GHz, and a max of 4.3GHz.

The most likely comparison to this model would probably be the newer 10th Gen Intel Core i3-10320 Processor, which also has 4 cores, 8 threads and a base speed of 3.8GHz. However, this processor has a max frequency of 4.6GHz, so a little more than the Ryzen comparison.

Aside from directly comparing models to one another, the AMD Ryzen range as a whole has seen a massive increase in use over the last decade. This is because they tend to provide better value as a whole, and what once was an Intel-dominated market, is now more of a level playing field.

Having a multi-core processor with a lot of threads is important nowadays. Most games are multi-threaded, so they rely on your CPU to have enough threads, as well as enough physical cores too.

How many cores does the processor have?

Whilst both of these brands are worth considering, I’d be more inclined to opt for an AMD processor than an Intel processor. All of their Ryzen 3 processors are quadcore, whereas some of the i3 processors are only dual core.

The amount of cores a processor has indicates the amount of different functions it can run simultaneously. Here you can find out more about quad core and dual core processors.

At its simplest, the more cores that your processor has, the better. It also depend on your processors single-core performance abilities, but that’s getting more in depth to your CPU’s capabilities.

Looking at the cores that the processor has is the first step to deciding which to opt for. So whilst all AMD Ryzen 3 processors are quad core, not all i3s are.

But what if you have an i3 processor that’s quad core, then what other methods can you use to tell which one is better? Well, that’s when we start to look at clock rates.

Comparing Clock Rates

When you’re considering processors, you can look at their performance as another criteria in deciding which option to choose. The performance of the processor is measured in GHz.

For example, the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 has a clock rate of 3.1GHz – this just refers to the amount of cycles the clock of the processor makes. So, 3.1GHz is equal to 3.1 billion cycles per second. However, if we look at the Intel i3-4150, then this has a clock rate of 3.5GHz, which means that it has a faster clock rate.

And again, with a faster clock rate tends to come better performance. This is another way that we can decide which processor to opt for out of the two. But, this isn’t the only way that we can tell processors apart.

Considering Threads

As well as looking at the amount of cores that a processor has, we can also look at the amount of threads it has too. The threads that a processor has is essentially how many cores the processor thinks that it has.

Most processors have 2 threads of every core. This means that the processor can equally balance out its work between the different cores. In an ideal scenario, you’ll always want a processor that has 2 threads per core, as opposed to 1 thread per core.

An example of this is the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Processor, which has 4 cores but only 4 threads to match. Comparing this to the Intel i3-10320, which has 4 cores yet 8 threads, shows us that this generation of i3 would be the better choice.

Example Comparison – AMD Ryzen 3 3300X vs Intel Core i3-1125G4

Now for an example comparison, we’re going to take a look at two of the best processors from each brand. The i3-1125G4 was released at the middle of 2019, and the Ryzen 3300X is one of AMD’s best gaming processors for its price.

Both of these processors have the same amount of cores, but the 3300X has more threads, which helps to make it better for gaming. Although you can look at this very simply and decide that, this isn’t the entire story with a processor.

It’s always a good idea for you to check with an online compare website to see how the processors actually perform. There’s so many different variables at play, it’s not just down to these specs. Of course, you can assume an 8 core processor will be better than a 4 core, but when they’re very similar in specs, it’s much harder to do so.

At the end of the day, the higher TDP Intel processor will cost more for you to run (it’s only a few quid but it all counts) whilst not being as good as the Ryzen 3 3300X if you compare the two.

So, it’s important to look at processors a little bit harder before you decide on one. Plus, your processor isn’t the only thing that matters in your laptop’s performance. You also need to think about your RAM and graphics card too, which also contribute to how fast your laptop is.

Conclusion

In conclusion, you can find Ryzen 3 processors that are better than i3s, and you can find i3 processors that are better than Ryzen 3s. To really find the difference between them, we really need to take a closer look at the processor’s details.

Nowadays, I’d suggest that you opt for something a little better if you’re looking for something premium. Checking out the Intel Core i5 or i7 line is a good idea, as well as the Ryzen equivalent for better value. You can also look at Apple’s new M1 chip too, which is pretty impressive.

Whilst the new 10th Gen Intel i3 processors are good, for most people the AMD Ryzen series will provide better value for money. The Ryzen 3 series is known for creating some of the best value for money processors, so it’s a safe bet to go for a Ryzen 3.

SEE ALSO: Our Ryzen 3 vs Ryzen 5 comparison

Ryzen for the Rest of Us: AMD’s New Ryzen 3 Takes On Intel Core i3

By Joel Hruska on July 27, 2017 at 9:08 am

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

It’s been a little less than five months since AMD launched its first Ryzen 7 products, and the company is finally ready to introduce its Ryzen 3 family of CPUs. While Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 may have captured more headlines, Ryzen 3’s lower price points are targeted at the mass market of gamers that want a decent CPU with solid performance, but who don’t want to spend an arm and a leg on it.

Let’s take a look at what AMD is launching, and how it compares with Intel’s offerings in-market. As we expected, AMD is launching two Ryzen 3 CPUs today — the Ryzen 3 1300X and the Ryzen 3 1200.

The Ryzen 3 1300X is capable of maintaining an all-core boost of 3.6GHz, with XFR options to clock as high as 3.9GHz if thermal and power envelopes allow the CPU to hit that clock. The Ryzen 1200, in contrast, is more limited by default, with an all-core boost clock of 3.1GHz (identical to its base clock) and a 3.45GHz limit on its XFR scaling.

AMD is obviously doing some market subdivision here, though not nearly to the same degree that Intel does. The Ryzen 3 1200 is a $109 CPU that competes most directly with Intel’s Core i3-7100 at $119 (3.9GHz base) while the Ryzen 3 1300X costs $129 and doesn’t actually have a great competitor. The Core i3-7100 may be $119, but Intel’s other 7th-generation Core i3 chips are considerably more expensive, starting at $149 for the Core i3-7350K.

Ryzen 3 uses the same Zeppelin die as Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, which means each chip contains two CCXs, with each CCX having four cores. All of AMD’s quad-core chips in both the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 product lines are what is known as a 2+2 configuration, with two cores active on each CCX. The performance impact of 2+2 vs. 4+0 doesn’t appear to be very large and is somewhat workload-dependent in any case, meaning some workloads perform best in one state and some in the other.

What sets Ryzen 3 apart from the other Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 CPUs is its lack of SMT support. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense for AMD to segment its own lineup in this fashion. Its Ryzen 5 CPUs all support SMT (unlike Intel’s Core i5, generally speaking) and its Ryzen 3 chips are quad-core designs competing against Core i3 dual-cores with HT enabled. So far, so good — at least, in multi-threaded workloads.

The problem for AMD is that its SMT implementation gives it significantly more performance compared with Intel. We’ve seen different numbers quoted as the average gap size, with more conservative figures of +1.3x performance for AMD vs. 1.2x performance for Intel when SMT is enabled. In other cases, I’ve seen SMT add up to 1.6x more performance for AMD. The reason AMD gets more “out” of SMT than Intel is fairly straightforward: AMD has more execution units per individual CPU core and can therefore achieve a higher level of relative gain when using SMT. Without SMT to draw on, the Ryzen 3 can’t achieve the same gains.

One other thing to note: Ryzen 3 does not contain an integrated GPU. It can’t, since it’s based on exactly the same die as Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5, and neither of those CPUs have an integrated GPU, either. AMD will launch Raven Ridge APUs based on Zen later this year; Lisa Su promised they’d be in shipping systems in time for the holiday season.

Hot Hardware’s test results are an interesting example of how AMD’s SMT segmentation affects various tests. In lightly threaded applications Ryzen 3 (and Ryzen in general) struggles more against Intel’s Core i3 and Core i5 CPUs. This is friendly territory for CPUs like the Core i3-7350K. As threading support increases, Ryzen 3 finds its sea legs. We suggest reading HH’s entire review, but we will use Cinebench R15 scores to examine how this plays out. Cinebench R15 is well-known for essentially being a core architecture test and its CPU benchmarks aren’t really affected by DRAM speeds.

Image and data by Hot Hardware

In the single-threaded test, the Ryzen 3 1300X is far behind the Core i3-7350K, 147 to 179. In the multi-threaded benchmark, however, those results flip. Intel’s Core i3 goes from leading by 1.22x to offering just 0. 84x of the Ryzen 3 1300X’s performance. In fact, even Intel’s Core i5-7500 is only 1.1x faster than the Ryzen 3 1300X in the multi-threaded version of this test, despite a vastly higher price ($204.99 for the Core i5-7500 vs. $129 for the Ryzen 3 1300X). Cinebench R15 captures both of Ryzen 3’s strongest and weakest points in one graph.

Based on what we’ve seen so far, AMD’s own Reviewer’s Guide, and HH’s review, we’d characterize Ryzen 3 as follows:

Single-Threaded: Ryzen 3 tends to lag the Core i3-7350K, though this is partially offset by the Core i3-7350K’s price (1.15x more expensive than the Ryzen 3 1300X). The Core i3-7100, which is the closest price competitor to Ryzen 3, is also clocked 300MHz slower than the base clock on the Core i3-7350K, which would also close the price/performance gap somewhat. Put those two factors together, and AMD has a reasonable (but not bulletproof) price/perf argument for itself, even in single-threaded tests.

Multi-Threaded AMD’s Ryzen 3 is at its strongest in tests that serve up at least four threads. In these tests, it tends to serve up scores that float between the Core i5 and Core i3, depending on the specific factors and optimizations of the test. It’s not unusual to see Ryzen 3 split wins between single-threaded and multi-threaded versions of a test. Piledriver, when it debuted back in 2012, had a similar performance differential, with the primary difference being that AMD’s single-threaded performance has vastly improved since the FX-8350 launched. Because its single-threaded performance is stronger, its multi-threaded performance is also stronger, and it performs quite well against the Core i3, if typically not quite as well as a Core i5.

Gaming: HH’s results show Ryzen 3 losing against the Core i5, but suggest better performance against the Core i3. AMD’s own Reviewer’s Guide seems to confirm this, with FPS measurements that are close to HH’s, and a small gap in favor of AMD in average frame rate. Ashes of the Singularity also suggests that the Core i3-7300 and the Ryzen 3 1300X are matched against each other (with the Intel chip costing substantially more) while the Ryzen 1200 and Core i3-7100 are also fair matches against each other. There is, however, still a gap between the Core i5 and Ryzen 3. AMD is only claiming to outpace the Core i3-7300 by 10-13 percent, and that seems broadly in-line with what we’ve seen to-date.

We’ll hold our gaming comments there until we’ve seen more results, but the bottom line is that the Ryzen 3 family seems to hold its own fairly well.

Power Consumption: Power consumption for Ryzen has been quite favorable for AMD, and that seems to hold for the Ryzen 3 as well. Idle power competes well against the Core i3-7350K at 48W for both platforms (keep in mind, Ryzen 3 requires a discrete GPU, while the Core i3 doesn’t). At full load, the 1300X can draw more than the Core i3-7350K, but the difference (82W vs. 88W) isn’t very large. The Ryzen 3 1200 is a true power-sipper, only pulling 41W idle and 69W at full load. All measurements refer to total system power.

Conclusions

With Ryzen 3, AMD is targeting (relatively) budget gamers who don’t have a lot of cash to throw around, but who want more performance in multi-threaded applications than Core i3 can provide. True budget buyers who only require a basic system will be best served by the Core i3-7100, which offers an integrated GPU that Ryzen 3 lacks. But Intel’s GPUs, while far better than in the past, still never get the chance to strut their stuff on that platform. Intel reserves its highest performing GPUs for mobile products, which means you can’t really expect great 1080p performance out of a Core i3 without buying a GPU as well. AMD is betting that a true quad-core that frees up $20-40 in spending is more attractive to the budget gamer than the prospect of paying for an iGPU that never gets used at a higher price. Time will tell if they’re right about this.

Beyond that, Ryzen neatly slides into place at the bottom of AMD’s refresh cycle. If you’ve followed the launch of Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, this won’t be a surprise. AMD’s decision to standardize its CPU configurations make performance fairly easy to predict. And in this case, Ryzen 3’s overall performance establishes it as competitive relative to the Core i3, though exactly how competitive will depend on what tests you care about and whether you want an iGPU. If you’ve got the cash to spend, we’d argue that the 1600X is the best multi-threaded performer in AMD’s lineup, with the best balance between price, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance. But buyers who choose to save some money and opt for Ryzen 3 can count on a capable, solid CPU.

Now read: AMD Beats Q2 2017 Expectations on Strong Ryzen, Epyc Sales

Tagged In

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G processor and similar AMD and Intel models without a discrete graphics card

Once upon a time, we conducted all tests of computer systems and processors for them with the same discrete graphics cards. This approach did not cause problems — basically, I had to work with modular desktop computers, which also provided the necessary flexibility in configuring them. Yes, and fixing the video card was required mainly for games — other applications at that time, as a rule, did not rely on their capabilities. And then games were part of the standard methodology — which is why it was required. Yes, and integrated graphics then took its first steps, and many of its implementations simply “slowed down” processors in general-purpose programs as well.

Later, the ability to maintain this approach disappeared as the number of “non-configurable” systems under study grew. However, the GPU still did not affect the work of the vast majority of programs, but the games had to be moved to the optional set. Outside of it, it remains possible to compare the performance of processors directly with each other — regardless of the specific GPU. At one time, most tests, even on desktop systems, could be carried out exclusively with a focus on the IGP. Simply because in the period from 2014 to 2017, most of the new products were supplied with it: AMD then developed only APUs, while Intel supplied all desktop processors with an integrated GPU. HEDT, as well as special game tests, did not fit into the main canvas, but both could be done according to locally adapted methods .

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G and Intel Core i5-9600K with integrated and discrete graphics in applications of our test method

But after 2017, we had to return to the original approach. To the extent that it was possible, of course, compact and / or portable systems cannot be flexibly configured, so you have to use as is. But already adjusted for the GPU — which many programs gradually began to use, shifting part of the work from the processor to it. However, as our last year’s testing of the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G and Intel Core i5-9 showed600K with integrated graphics and two discrete video cards, this is not particularly difficult: most of the programs of the test method do not care about the specific model of the video card: it is either not used at all, or it is used in the same way. Only Adobe Premiere Pro and Magix Movie Edit Pro work significantly differently: the versions we use already know how to use the Intel GPU, but still ignore all other solutions. Now the situation is gradually changing, but we will find out how and by how much within the framework of the new testing methodology, which will soon be ready. In the meantime, this moment should simply be taken into account, but it makes sense to return to the topic again, since both companies have updated their processors. This is Intel’s first microarchitecture change in five years, and AMD last year increased the number of cores in APUs from four to eight — and also transferred them to a new microarchitecture this year. It is clear that the «pure» processors of the company can have a larger number of cores — and if they are equal, they are cheaper, while maintaining an advantage in the amount of cache memory, support for PCIe 4.0, etc. Intel has a different problem — graphics are everywhere (just in terms of processors blocked — but without changing other characteristics), but its performance, to put it mildly, leaves much to be desired. And in models until last year, the same problem concerned even functionality. It would seem that the choice is obvious: if it is possible to install a video card, then it should be done. Even if there are no serious requirements for it — at least inexpensive. But precisely what «seemed» — since there are practically no inexpensive on the modern market. There are, perhaps, budget “plugs” that have not been updated for a long time — which, in some respects, are even worse than integrations (even Intel ones) — but in modern conditions they cost almost like real . And in such circumstances, focusing on integrated graphics (at least for a while — to wait for the normalization of prices) is fully justified. And just then the new Ryzen 5 5600G came to us, which (unlike the previous generation of APUs) the company plans to actively sell at retail, so it was decided to start working with it with just such material. For which it was necessary to test a few more AMD and Intel processors, but still they were going to do it for a long time.

Note that we will not touch on game tests today — we have already dealt with this recently with respect to most of the subjects. With the exception of the 5600G, the GPU hasn’t changed much in the new line. Over time (no later than we collect the entire new collection) we will work on this issue in more detail. In the meantime — the processor part, since this is just the main change in both AMD Cezanne and Intel Rocket Lake.

Test participants

	Intel Core i5-9600K	Intel Core i5-10600K	Intel Core i5-11600K
Core name	Coffee Lake Refresh	Comet Lake	Rocket Lake
Production technology	14 nm	14 nm	14 nm
Core frequency, GHz	3.7/4.6	4.1/4.8	3.9/4.9
Number of cores/threads	6/6	6/12	6/12
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	192/192	192/192	192/288
L2 cache, KB	6×256	6×256	6×512
L3 cache, MiB	9	12	12
RAM	2×DDR4-2666	2×DDR4-2933	2×DDR4-3200
TDP, W	95	125	125
Number of PCIe lanes	16 (3. 0)	16 (3.0)	20 (4.0)
Integrated GPU	UHD Graphics 630	UHD Graphics 630	UHD Graphics 750

Last time we settled on the Core i5-9600K, however, as part of the transition from LGA1151 to LGA1200, the manufacturer first endowed this family with Hyper-Threading support (more precisely, stopped blocking it) without significantly changing anything in the chip, and then to replace Comet Lake came Rocket Lake. In which the microarchitecture of the processor cores is already new, and the GPU is new, and the PCIe controller is already Gen4 … In general, everything is beautiful, except for one thing: all the splendor is based on the same 14-nanometer process, so the crystal turned out to be very large and voracious. Everything is like in a joke about a new comfortable airliner: and now fasten your seat belts and we’ll try to take off with all this aboard . We already know this well — since all these three processors have been tested more than once. But two of them — only with a discrete graphics card.

	AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 4650G	AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G	AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Core name	Renoir	Renoir	Cezanne
Production technology	7 nm	7 nm	7 nm
Core frequency, GHz	3.7/4.2	3.6/4.4	3.9/4.4
Number of cores/threads	6/12	8/16	6/12
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	192/192	256/256	192/192
L2 cache, KB	6×512	8×512	6×512
L3 cache, MiB	8	8	16
RAM	2×DDR4-3200	2×DDR4-3200	2×DDR4-3200
TDP, W	65	65	65
Number of PCIe lanes	20 (3. 0)	20 (3.0)	20 (3.0)
Integrated GPU	Radeon	Radeon	Radeon

Initially, it was decided to limit ourselves to six-core processors, since the 5600G (and today it is the main character — since it is the only completely new one) is exactly like that, however, on reflection, we added last year’s older APU to the set, even though it has eight cores. But the old ones — actually the year before last, and in desktop processors of the 3000 line (which are also Zen2) and in 2019year there were up to 16 cores. But there it happened thanks to the chiplet layout. And all APUs are more like Intel processors — they use one monolithic crystal. The 7-nanometer process technology made it possible to “shove” eight cores along with the GPU there, but more is still difficult. And without that, I had to greatly limit the capacity of the cache memory, and they still do not have support for PCIe 4.0 APUs. When switching from Renoir to Cezanne, nothing has changed significantly — for this, the company also needs new technical processes. But the cores are now Zen3, not Zen2 — and in the form of a single block: without splitting into quad-core CCX, as before. There is also a single cache of the third level, and its capacity has doubled. Despite the limited transistor budget, it was necessary to go for it — the low capacitance of L3 was perhaps the weakest point of Renoir. In chipsets of «clean» processors of both lines, we recall, it is generally 32 MiB, so the gap from them has only been reduced, but not eliminated. But this should also have a beneficial effect — as well as the new microarchitecture itself.

Test procedure

Methodology for testing computer systems of the 2020 sample

The testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format. Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and SATA SSD — this article is also directly involved in today’s article) and grouped by areas of application of the computer. Accordingly, all diagrams related to applications have dimensionless scores — so more is always better. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2020

The task is primarily for calculations, and multi-threaded calculations — therefore the number of cores and threads is important. Can we increase their number? This is more efficient than improving the quality of the kernels. That’s why the 4750G remains the leader (since it’s the only one with the 8C/16T formula), and Intel processors benefited more from the return of Hyper-Threading than from a deep upgrade. But in general, the latter is clearly visible in both companies — and the efficiency is almost the same. And the performance is at the same level: if the 4600G/4650G were direct competitors to the Core i5-10600K, then the 5600G is already head to head with the i5-11600K.

Nothing has changed. Although it couldn’t. Theoretically, software optimization could allow the Core i5-11600K to speed up somewhere (thanks to AVX512 support), but for now, parity. More precisely, its preservation is the same as last year. It was worse the year before last — then AMD APUs contained only four cores of the «old» architecture, much less efficient than Skylake. Therefore, the Ryzen 5 CPUs were at least as good as the Core i5 (in fact, at one time they competed well with the more expensive Core i7), and the Ryzen 5 APUs were incapable of such feats. Now, in pairs (2020 or 2021 edition) are the same, i.e. when choosing, first of all, you need to look at other circumstances.

Pogrom 🙂 The reasons for which are indicated above — in two out of five programs in Intel processors, the GPU took over the lion’s share of the work, but the versions used still cannot work in the same way with discrete or integrated solutions from AMD and Nvidia. It happens so — we warned more than once. However, it is clear that this is nothing more than a temporary state — Intel generally took care of video encoding and decoding issues before others, and the company’s market share has always been too large to ignore, and AMD has just yet to «convince» all programmers it is more responsible to treat (at least) APU. But, by the way, the effect of the upgrade of Intel processor cores turned out to be blurry — AMD has a larger increase. And it is clearly seen that not everything is decided by the quantity here: the new Ryzen 5 even managed to outperform last year’s Ryzen 7 even a little.0003

In this case, single-threaded performance generally comes first. And it is clear that Intel is doing better with this at times — depending on other conditions, of course. But the difference of the order of 5% can not be taken into account — all the same, you will not notice its without devices .

And again we return to the exact equality. But only in the 11600K-5600G pair — last year’s products differed slightly not in favor of AMD. Remembering the «cache-loving» nature of this program — and the fact that Cezanne L3 has doubled, the mechanism for solving the problem is clear.

And here doubling the cache is clearly not enough. Inside AMD’s own lineup, it (together with the improvement of the cores) worked perfectly — the new Ryzen 5 managed to overtake the Ryzen 7 from the previous collection. But Intel processors are still noticeably faster. Note that «pure» AMD processors do not have such a problem — but there is also L3 32 MiB, and not 16 and not, especially 8. Moreover, the archivers themselves are no longer very relevant for many users today (and when they are needed — in practice, weaker processors do just fine), but this can also manifest itself in other classes of software. For example, the behavior of games has much in common with just these programs. And how things are going there — we will definitely check in a configuration with a discrete graphics card.

And we are back to normal again, even with a slight advantage of APU. It used to be, and here Intel even “won back” a little backlog — but such a difference can hardly be considered significant.

Like this, it won’t work. However, it is due to literally two groups of applications — archivers and video editors. The first problem is “hardware” — it cannot be solved, at least until it is possible to speed up the memory system and, in particular, increase caches. It just has to be taken into account. And the second is purely software. And, in the process of updating the software, it can resolve itself, since this is purely a matter of compatibility. What is in newer versions of programs — as already mentioned, we will try to check soon. For now, let’s just say that the possibility of such a development of events cannot be ruled out. Under normal conditions, we can talk about parity between Core i5 and APU Ryzen 5.

Testing in 10 games on integrated GPUs of AMD and Intel processors and discrete GeForce GT 730, 740 and 1030

As for the processor part, as far as GPU performance is concerned, there is no “parity”, as we well know. Rocket Lake has only learned how to overtake Athlon — but at least Ryzen 3 (including the very first three-year-old models) is still far away. And this is not the only problem.

Power consumption and energy efficiency

0005 power consumption not important . In principle, if we are talking about a gaming PC with a top-end video card, then against its background … Maybe not very important. But if a simple (perhaps even compact) system is being assembled, then I would like to be smaller than .

But the old 14nm “smaller” manufacturing process does not allow. In general, and the models of three years ago did not look very good in this parameter, the LGA1200 was developed in many respects to feed the voracious updated models — but against the backdrop of Rocket Lake, this all pales. AMD APUs, on the other hand, have about twice as modest appetites (on average), so you can assemble a compact computer on AM4 and not suffer with all sorts of supercoolers. With Intel’s new products, it’s better not to be smart. With younger models and tightening the power consumption limits, if only — but in this case, performance will decrease.

Just because the «old» 14 nm do not allow you to be both rich and healthy at the same time. You can make a low-power processor, or you can make a high-performance one — but these will be two completely different processors. Although once this technical process was the best in the industry, and until recently it allowed Intel to somehow get out. But it’s good that this horse skeleton can no longer be spurred on. Alas, not yet in the desktop segment. But AMD does not have such a problem — exactly the same crystals that are designed for the mobile market go to desktop APUs. Much more power efficient than existing Intel desktop solutions.

Total

If we ignore individual hacks, then the conclusion is simple — in terms of processor performance, Ryzen 5 APUs are equivalent to Core i5 of the corresponding year of manufacture. Over the past time, both companies have increased performance — but just in approximately equal proportions. So, most likely, the same can be extended to the competition of Ryzen 7 with Core i7. But in the budget segment, AMD already has the new Ryzen 3, while Intel remains with last year’s Core i3. With all the consequences. However, Alder Lake and LGA1700 will be released soon, which can greatly change the alignment. But all this will start, as usual, with top-end processors and motherboards, then prices will drop for several more months … In general, it is unlikely that many will assemble a computer on a new platform by the New Year. And without a discrete graphics card — almost no one is for sure.

In such conditions, first of all, you have to pay attention to other parameters. For example, prices. Or prohibitive (for this segment) power consumption of Rocket Lake. Or significantly more powerful graphics in the APU — at the level of junior discrete video cards, which, in general, allows you to play many games. Although, for some, the greater functionality of Intel platforms may be more important — for example, support for PCIe 4.0 (AMD still has to choose between integrated graphics and a new interface — they do not live together) or USB3 Gen2 × 2. In general, it seems to us that AMD AM4 looks much better than the Intel LGA1200 as a platform for a home non-gaming (but with the ability to run some games) computer in terms of the totality of characteristics at the moment. In the case of the latter, the use of integrated graphics is rather a temporary measure: when a gaming system is planned, but there is no money for a gaming video card yet. And the APU is a balanced all-in-one solution: fast, inexpensive, economical.

Another interesting point: although both companies have updated their processor lines this year, old solutions still should not be discounted. Yes, they are slower — but also cheaper. At the same time, Intel’s «tenth» line is much more economical. And AMD’s IGP once again hasn’t changed much, so if you focus on it, then new items are not really needed.