Compare cpu benchmarks: PassMark — CPU Comparison

18 сентября, 2021

SPEC Benchmarks

 

 Benchmarks

  • Cloud
  • CPU
  • Graphics/Workstations
  • High Performance Computing
  • Java Client/Server
  • Machine Learning
  • Storage
  • Power
  • Virtualization
  • Results Search
  • Submitting Results

 Tools

  • SERT Suite
  • PTDaemon Interface
  • Chauffeur WDK

 Order Benchmarks

  • Purchase Benchmarks
  • Purchase Retired
    Benchmarks

 SPEC

  • About SPEC
  • Membership
  • Awards
  • Press Releases
  • Trademarks
  • Fair Use Policy
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact
  • Blog

 Mirror Sites

  • FTP/HTTP

 Resources

  • Site Map
  • Site Search
  • Glossary
  • Performance Links
  

  • Current benchmarks
  • Retired benchmarks

Current Benchmarks

Cloud

  • SPEC Cloud IaaS 2018
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [order benchmark]
    SPEC Cloud IaaS 2018 builds on the original 2016 release, updates
    metrics, and workloads and adds easier setup. The benchmark stresses the
    provisioning, compute, storage, and network resources of
    infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) public and private cloud platforms
    with multiple multi-instance workloads. SPEC selected the social media
    NoSQL database transaction and K-Means clustering using Cassandra and
    Hadoop as two significant and representative workload types within cloud
    computing. For use by cloud providers, cloud consumers, hardware vendors,
    virtualization software vendors, application software vendors, and
    academic researchers.

CPU

  • SPEC CPU 2017
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support] [order
    benchmark]
    Designed to provide performance measurements that can be used to compare compute-intensive
    workloads on different computer systems, SPEC CPU 2017 contains 43 benchmarks organized
    into four suites: SPECspeed 2017 Integer, SPECspeed 2017 Floating Point, SPECrate 2017
    Integer, and SPECrate 2017 Floating Point. SPEC CPU 2017 also includes an optional metric
    for measuring energy consumption.

Graphics and Workstation
Performance

  • SPECviewperf 2020
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [download
    benchmark]
  • SPECworkstation 3.1
    [benchmark info] [published
    results]
    [download benchmark]
  • SPECapc for Maya 2017
    [benchmark info]
    [published results ]
    [download benchmark]
  • SPECapc for PTC Creo 3.0
    [benchmark info]
    [published
    results] [download
    benchmark]
  • SPECapc for Solidworks 2021
    [benchmark info]
    [published
    results]
    [download benchmark]
  • SPECapc for Solidworks 2020
    [benchmark info]
    [published
    results]
    [download benchmark]

High Performance Computing:
OpenMP, MPI, OpenACC, OpenCL

  • SPEC ACCEL
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support] [order
    benchmark]
    SPEC ACCEL tests performance with a suite of computationally intensive
    parallel applications running under the OpenCL 1. 1, OpenACC 1.0, and
    OpenMP 4.5 APIs. The suite exercises the performance of the accelerator,
    host CPU, memory transfer between host and accelerator, support libraries
    and drivers, and compilers.
  • SPEChpc 2021
    [benchmark info][published results]
    [support][order benchmark]
    SPEChpc contains four suites, Tiny, Small, Medium, and Large, including groups of full applications
    or mini-apps covering a wide range of scientific domains and Fortran/C/C++ programming languages.
    Each suite uses increasingly larger workloads to allow for appropriate evaluation of HPC systems at
    different sizes, ranging from a single node to hundreds of nodes. All benchmarks are ported to use
    either pure-MPI or hybrid MPI+OpenACC, MPI+OpenMP (task/thread based), or MPI+OpenMP using «Target»,
    thus allowing measurement on heterogenous system.
  • SPEC MPI 2007
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support] [order
    benchmark]
    SPEC MPI 2007 is SPEC’s benchmark suite for evaluating MPI-parallel, floating
    point, compute intensive performance across a wide range of cluster
    and SMP hardware. The suite consists of the intial MPIM2007 suite
    and MPIL2007, which contains larger working sets and longer run
    times than MPIM2007. All benchmarks in the suite are developed in
    compliance with MPI 2.1 standard.
  • SPEC OMP 2012
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support] [order
    benchmark]
    The successor to the SPEC OMP 2001 suite, designed for measuring performance
    using applications based on the OpenMP 3.1 standard for shared-memory
    parallel processing. SPEC OMP 2012 also includes an optional metric for
    measuring energy consumption.

Java Client/Server

  • SPECjbb 2015
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support]
    [order benchmark]
    The SPECjbb 2015 benchmark has been developed from the ground up to measure
    performance based on the latest Java application features. It is relevant to all audiences
    who are interested in Java server performance, including JVM vendors, hardware developers,
    Java application developers, researchers and members of the academic community.
  • SPECjEnterprise 2018 Web Profile
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support]
    [order benchmark]
    SPECjEnterprise 2018 Web Profile measures full-system performance for Java
    Enterprise Edition (Java EE) Web Profile Version 7 or later application
    servers, databases and supporting infrastructure.
  • SPECjEnterprise 2010
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support]
    [order benchmark]
    SPECjEnterprise 2010 measures full-system performance for Java Enterprise
    Edition (Java EE) 5 or later application servers, databases and
    supporting infrastructure and expands the scope of the SPECjAppServer 2004 benchmark.
  • SPECjvm 2008
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support]
    [download benchmark]
    SPECjvm 2008 is a benchmark suite for measuring the performance of
    a Java Runtime Environment (JRE), containing several real life applications
    and benchmarks focusing on core java functionality. The SPECjvm 2008
    workload mimics a variety of common general purpose application
    computations.

Storage

  • SPECstorage Solution 2020
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support]
    [order benchmark]
    The most recent version of SPEC’s benchmark suite designed to evaluate
    performance using file server throughput and response time.

Power

  • SPECpower_ssj 2008
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support]
    [order benchmark]
    SPECpower_ssj 2008 is the first industry-standard SPEC benchmark
    that evaluates the power and performance characteristics of volume
    server class computers. The initial benchmark addresses the performance
    of server-side Java, and additional workloads are planned.
  • Other SPEC benchmarks incorporating power measurement
    • SPEC ACCEL
    • SPEC Chauffeur WDK
    • SPEC CPU 2017
    • SPEC Server Efficiency Rating Tool (SERT)
    • SPEC OMP 2012
    • SPEC VIRT_SC 2013

Virtualization

  • SPECvirt Datacenter 2021
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support] [order
    benchmark]
    The SPECvirt Datacenter 2021 benchmark is the third generation SPEC
    benchmark for evaluating the performance of virtualized environments
    and the first for measuring the performance of multiple hosts in
    virtualized datacenters.
  • SPEC VIRT_SC 2013
    [benchmark info] [published
    results] [support] [order
    benchmark]
    SPEC’s updated benchmark addressing performance evaluation of datacenter
    servers used in virtualized server consolidation. SPEC VIRT_SC 2013
    measures the end-to-end performance of all system components including
    the hardware, virtualization platform, and the virtualized guest
    operating system and application software. The benchmark supports
    hardware virtualization, operating system virtualization, and hardware
    partitioning schemes.

SPEC Tools

  • SPEC SERT Suite 2.0
    [benchmark info] [support]
    [order software]
    The SERT suite was created by Standard
    Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) at the request of the
    US Environmental Protection Agency. The SERT suite 2.0 adds a single-value
    metric, reduces runtime, improves automation and testing, and broadens
    device and platform support. Designed to be simple to configure and use
    via a comprehensive graphical user interface, the SERT suite uses a set
    of synthetic worklets to test discrete system components such as processors,
    memory and storage, providing detailed power consumption data at different
    load levels.

    The SERT suite metric, created with the support of the RG Power Working Group,
    rates the server efficiency of single- and multi-node servers across a broad
    span of configurations.

  • SPEC SERT Suite 1.1.1
    [benchmark info] [support]
    [order software]
    The SERT suite was created by Standard Performance
    Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) at the request of the US Environmental Protection
    Agency. The SERT suite 1.1.1 is the most current SERT version supported by the U.S. EPA
    Energy Star v2.0 program. Designed to be simple to configure and use via a comprehensive
    graphical user interface, the SERT suite uses a set of synthetic worklets to test
    discrete system components such as processors, memory and storage, providing detailed
    power consumption data at different load levels.
  • SPEC Chauffeur WDK Tool
    [kit info] [forum]
    [order software]
    The Chauffeur™ WDK (Worklet Development Kit) Tool was designed to simplify the development of workloads
    for measuring both performance and energy efficiency. Because the Chauffeur
    WDK tool contains functions that are common to most workloads, developers
    of new workloads can focus on the actual business logic of the application,
    and take advantage of the Chauffeur WDK tool’s capabilities for configuration,
    run-time, data collection, validation, and reporting.

    The Chauffeur
    WDK tool was initially designed to meet the requirements of the
    SERT. However, SPEC recognized that the framework would also be
    useful for research and development purposes. The Chauffeur framework
    is now being made available as the Chauffeur WDK (Worklet Development
    Kit). This kit can be used to develop new workloads (or «worklets»
    in Chauffeur terminology). Researchers can also use the Chauffeur WDK to configure
    worklets to run in different ways, in order to mimic the behavior
    of different types of applications. These features can be used in
    the development and assessment of new technologies such as power
    management capabilities.

    Version 2.0 is based on the SERT suite 2.0 infrastructure
    and includes significant enhancements to the hardware detection,
    customization options of generating HTML reports, and developer
    documentation. It has now reduced memory requirements for the Director
    when signing results files and reduced the size of the result output
    for large systems or clusters.

    The Chauffeur WDK tool 2.0 added worklet-specific normalization of results
    and an updated list of supported operating systems including Ubuntu
    (14.04 LTS and 16.04 LTS) as well as current versions of Windows Server,
    RHEL, SLES, AIX, and Solaris. The Chauffeur WDK tool also includes the latest PTDaemon
    integration for power analyzers and temperature sensors, along with data
    collection, validation and reporting.

  • PTDaemon
    [info]
    The power temperature daemon (also known as PTDaemon) is used to offload
    the work of controlling a power analyzer or temperature sensor during
    measurement intervals to a system other than the SUT. It hides the details
    of different power analyzer interface protocols and behaviors from the
    benchmark software, presenting a common TCP/IP-based interface that can
    be readily integrated into different benchmark harnesses. Benchmarks already
    using PTDaemon include SPECpower_ssj 2008, SPEC CPU 2017, SPEC VIRT_SC 2013,
    the SERT suite, and the Chauffeur WDK.

Retired Benchmarks

  • SPEC Cloud IaaS 2016
  • SPEC CPU 2006
  • SPEC CPU 2000
  • SPEC CPU 95
  • SPEC CPU 92
  • SPEC OMP 2001
  • SPEChpc 2002
  • SPEChpc 96
  • SPECjAppServer 2004
  • SPECjAppServer 2002
  • SPECjAppServer 2001
  • SPECjbb 2013
  • SPECjbb 2005
  • SPECjbb 2000
  • SPEC JMS 2007
  • SPECjvm 98
  • SPECmail 2009
  • SPECmail 2008
  • SPECmail 2001
  • SPEC SFS 2014
  • SPEC SFS 2008
  • SPEC SFS 97_R1 (3. 0)
  • SPEC SFS 97 (2.0)
  • SPEC SFS 93 (LADDIS)
  • SPEC VIRT_SC 2010
  • SPECviewperf 12.1
  • SPECviewperf 12
  • SPECviewperf 11
  • SPECviewperf 10
  • SPECviewperf 9
  • SPECviewperf 8
  • SPECviewperf 7.1.1
  • SPECviewperf 7
  • SPECweb 2009
  • SPECweb 2005
  • SPECweb 96
  • SPECweb 99
  • SPECweb 99_SSL
  • SPECworkstation 3
  • SPECwpc

 

What is the Best Price for Performance CPU in 2022: AMD vs Intel

One of the most interesting questions we get to dig into in our annual Cloud Report is which CPUs offer the best performance – and more importantly, the best price for performance – for large OLTP workloads.

To answer that question (among others) we test dozens of instance types across the three major public clouds – AWS, GCP, and Azure.

In previous years, we have seen Intel machines leading the pack in terms of raw performance, with AMD becoming increasingly competitive in terms of price for performance. This year, we saw something different: AMD taking the top spot for the first time.

What does that mean? Let’s dive into the details!

How to measure CPU performance

In our testing for the 2022 Cloud Report, we performed a couple of different tests that speak to CPU performance and price-for-performance.

Our main benchmark measured OLTP performance via a variation on the TPC-C benchmark called Cockroach Labs Derivative TPC-C nowait. More details on this benchmark are available in the report (which is free), but essentially it’s a variation of the TPC-C benchmark designed to separate scaling the number of transactions processed from the complexity of the workload by removing wait times, which allowed us to get a better comparative signal of performance across instances all running the same database.

While the OLTP benchmark does not only measure CPU performance, it provides a useful picture of how CPU performance impacts overall OLTP performance in a simulated real-world context. This year, we looked at both small (8 vCPU) and large (~32 vCPU) instance types.

We also measured CPU performance directly using CoreMark, an open source, cloud-agnostic benchmark that we have also used in previous years. This year, however, we only tested multi-core results – we feel this is more reflective of real-world performance – and broke those results down into per-vCPU measurements, allowing us to compare performance across different-sized instance types.

The best CPU for OLTP workloads: AMD Milan

In our OLTP testing of both large and small instance types, GCP instances running AMD’s Milan (3rd-generation EPYC) processors took the top spots in terms of overall performance.

It’s worth noting that while AMD Milan processors topped the charts in our testing, instance types with Intel’s latest-gen Ice Lake processors were highly competitive, grabbing the second- and third-place spots in both our large and small instance type testing.

(We should also note that due to our testing cutoff time, we were unable to test AWS’s m6a AMD Milan instance types. Based on the other results of our testing, we expect these instance types would have been highly competitive as well).

In our dedicated CPU benchmarking, the results were even more emphatic. Every one of the top ten instance types by CPU performance had an AMD Milan processor:

Here, we were surprised to see Intel Ice Lake processors performing worse than their older Cascade Lake counterparts – a result that contradicts what we saw in the OLTP benchmark.

The best price-for-performance CPU: AMD Milan

Machines with AMD Milan processors weren’t just the top performing instance types in our OLTP testing. They also topped the charts in terms of price for performance (which we measure in terms of cost per new-order transaction per minute ($/TPM) using the clouds’ reserved pricing (at time of testing) and assuming a one-year commitment.

In the chart above, the top two instance types both use AMD Milan processors. However, the instance types in the number 3 and 4 positions both use Intel processors, beating out the Azure instance in the number 5 slot, which has AMD Milan processors.

So, similar to the results of the OLTP performance testing, our price for performance testing results found AMD Milan instances in the top spots, but Intel Cascade Lake instance types were highly competitive.

Is AMD Milan the best CPU for OLTP workloads in 2022? It depends.

Skimming these results could give the impression that AMD’s Milan processors dominated the testing and thus are the best option for anybody with an OLTP workload they’re planning to run on one of the three public clouds.

However, it’s important to remember that the CPU benchmark isn’t as reflective of real-world performance as the OLTP benchmarks, and those – both the overall performance and price for performance – were very close. Intel’s latest-generation Cascade Lake processors were very competitive, and we expect that they would offer superior performance under some circumstances. Every workload is different, and no real-world workload is going to precisely match the demands of our OLTP benchmarking.

If you’re trying to choose an instance type for your OLTP workload, we strongly recommend checking out the report (which is free) to dig into all of the details and see the cloud-specific results. Whether you’ve already chosen a cloud provider or you’re looking to pick a cloud and an instance type, the 2022 Cloud Report has in-depth per-cloud results for 56 different instance types, and includes reporting on storage (read and write IOPS) and network latency and throughput (both intra-AZ and cross-region) as well as cost analysis to help you pick the instance type that offers you the overall best bang for your buck.

PassMark PerformanceTest — PC benchmark software

For Windows, Linux, macOS and, Android and iOS

  • Compare the performance of your PC to similar computers around the world.

  • Measure the effect of configuration changes and hardware upgrades.

  • Industry standard since 1998.

Is your PC performing at its best?

Compare your results

PassMark Rating

Create your own tests


Compare your PC with over a million
computers worldwide through our searchable baseline database
as submitted by other PerformanceTest users.


After running the test, PerformanceTest provides you with an overall
“PassMark Rating” that has been a standard for quantifying PC performance since 1998.


Use the Advanced Tests to create your own benchmark scenarios.
This allows you to pinpoint and quantify the actual
performance differences from your hardware upgrades or configuration changes.

Standard Test Suites

CPU tests

2D graphics tests

3D graphics tests

Disks tests

Memory tests


Extensive CPU testing supporting hyper-threading and multiple CPUs.
Executes complex mathematical calculations involving compression,
encryption and physics simulations.


This suite tests the ability of your video card to carry out 2D graphics operations for
every day applications such as Word Processing, Web browsing and CAD drawing. This includes
rendering of simple and complex vectors, Fonts and Text,
Windows User Interface components, Image filters, Image Rendering, and Direct 2D.


Measure the performance of the 3D graphics hardware installed on your computer.
Supports DirectX 9 to DirectX 12 in 4K resolution, DirectCompute and OpenCL.


This suite will exercise the mass storage units (hard disk, solid state drives, optical drives, etc.)
connected to your computer.
Involves sequential read, sequential write, random seek read+write and IOPS measurements.


This suite exercises the memory (RAM) sub-system of your computer.
This includes database operations, cached and uncached reads, write,
latency, and threaded read tests.

Over a million computers compared


PassMark has collected the baselines benchmarks of over a
million computers and made them available in our network of industry
recognized benchmark sites such as
pcbenchmarks.net,
cpubenchmark.net,
videocardbenchmark.net,
harddrivebenchmark. net and more.


Using PerformanceTest, you can search and download these baselines, and submit your own benchmark to our site.

Run from USB


You can run PerformanceTest directly from a USB drive.
No network connection required. Perfect for IT admins, technicians and computer enthusiasts on the go.

No nonsense Licensing


Flexible, no nonsense licensing. Once purchased, you can move the software between computers as required.

No hardware locking.

No online activation process.

No time based expiry.

No annual fees.

Multi-user and site licenses also available.

See here for more licensing information.

Advanced testing


Seven advanced configurable tests allow experienced users to create their own test scenarios and conduct in-depth analysis of their hardware’s behavior.

Disk

CPU

3D graphics

Networking

Memory

Visualized Physics

GPU Compute


Test the speed of your disk using different file sizes,
block sizes and caching options. Test with multiple threads and measure IOPS.
Read more


Test the cabaility of your CPU by running our advanced individual CPU tests on a specified number of threads.
Read more


Test the speed of your 3D video card by selecting from options such as fogging,
lighting, alpha blending, wire frame, texturing, resolution, color depth, object
rotation and object displacement.


Separate tests for DirectX 9,10,11 & 12. Supports 4K resolution.
Read more


Measure the network speed between any two computers using TCP/IP.
The network speed test can be conducted across a company LAN or across the
Internet to determine the point to point throughput.


Adjust parameters such as the host name,
IP address, port number and block size. Works with dialup modems, ADSL, cable and LANs.
Read more


Measure the read and write speed of your RAM. Parameters include data size
(8 bits to 64 bits) and a selection of two test modes. Linear sequential
access across various block sizes or non sequential access with a varying step size.


This allows both the effect of RAM
caching and the optimizations in the memory controller to be investigated.
Read more


View a visual representation of what the standard CPU Physics test is doing.
You can also tweak the simulation parameters to get different effects.
Read more


Test your Videocard’s compute performance with a series of tests. Both DirectCompute and OpenCL.
Read more

Multi-Platform Support


Versions of Performance Test are avilable for FREE on Linux, Mac, Android, and iOS.

All CPU Tests have been designed to be fully comparable across all operating systems and CPU architectures.

Linux

Mac

Mobile


PerformanceTest Linux

Available for both x86 and ARM Linux systems.

Our full suite of CPU, and Memory Tests in a convenient command line tool.


PerformanceTest Mac

Both a Mac App and command line tool are available.

Support for Intel and Apple Silicon Mac Computers.


PerformanceTest Mobile

Our entire Suite of tests; CPU, Memory, Disk, Graphics.

Available on iOS and Android devices.

Understanding your PerformanceTest Results


In this video, we will look at understanding our PerformanceTest results through the various charts available in PerformanceTest.

Right-click to download in MP4 format. 49MB

DOS Benchmark Pack — philscomputerlab.com

DOS Benchmark Pack

dosbench_v_1.4_jan_2017.zip

Download File

Download the above file and unpack it onto your retro DOS PC! I usually put it as C:\DOSBENCH folder, but it doesn’t have to be!

This pack consists of a range of 3D and CPU benchmarks as well as tools. I made this because I want to make life easy for anyone new to DOS retro gaming. If you’ve built a DOS retro PC, how do you know that it performs like it should? Sometimes you can forget about the turbo button and the machine runs slower without you knowing. So a consistent set of benchmarks makes it easy to compare your machine with others.

To use the Benchmark pack, after you have unpacked the ZIP file, just run DOSBENCH.BAT. It’s a simple batch file driven menu that looks like the screenshot below. Just press the corresponding numbers or letters and the benchmark will commence. I recommend booting without any drivers, no mouse, no optical drive. This can be accomplished by pressing F5 when you see the «Starting MS-DOS» screen. You can also make a boot floppy.​

Latest Version 1.2 of my DOS Benchmark Pack

I will now talk about each benchmark a little bit!

3D Benchmarks

​The first benchmark is the Superscape Benchmark, short 3D Bench version 1.0. This is the old version, can only do up to 99. 9 FPS and isn’t very precise at higher FPS. Best used on slower 386 and 486 machines.

Option 2 is version 1.0c of the same benchmark. This one can go up to 999.9 FPS and is recommended for faster machines like a Pentium, Pentium 2 or Pentium III. On a 386 or 486, why not run both benchmarks, just make it clear when publishing what benchmark you’re using please.

Option 3 is Chris’s 3D Benchmark. This is VGA and runs at 320×200 resolution. At the end of the benchmark it outputs a score as well as FPS. It’s the FPS figure that is of interest.

Option 4 is the same benchmark but runs at 640×480 resolution and is much more demanding.  At the end of the benchmark it outputs a score as well as FPS. It’s the FPS figure that is of interest. If the benchmark doesn’t work for you, you might have a VESA issue with your graphics card. You can try the menu options for loading Display Doctor or UniVBE.

Option 5 runs the famous PC Player Benchmark. This was created for a popular German computer magazine back in the day. It runs at 320 x 200 resolution and after a short while you can see the FPS figure in the bottom right corner of the screen.

Option 6 runs the PC Player Benchmark at 640×480. After a short while you will see a FPS figure in the bottom right corner of the screen. This benchmark also requires VESA support.

No DOS benchmark session is complete without Doom! This is the shareware release and runs a timedemo. On a slow machine this can take quite some time, therefore I’ve added a separate benchmark running Doom with minimal details. This works great for 386 machines, a SX 33 for example gets around 15 FPS.

At the end of the benchmark you will see a value for realticks. To workout the FPS you need to use this formula:

FPS = 74690 / realticks.

So let’s say your machine gets 5000 realticks, the FPS would be

74690 / 5000 = 14.938 FPS.

Note that I have configured the screen to be fullscreen in order for the benchmark to be more demanding for faster machines. Keep this in mind when comparing results.

Quake at 320×200 resolution. Note that this benchmark needs a FPU, so it won’t run on a 486SX or 386DX unless you have a separate maths co-processor installed.

On a 486 this benchmark is very demanding and can take a long time. After the benchmark, the console will open and show the frames per second.

There are also options for 360 x 480 and 640 x 480. The latter requires a VESA 2.0 compatible card. Do look at the screen, because the game won’t give an error, but just run at 320 x 200 instead.

CPU Benchmarks

Norton System Information 8.0. Just select select the menu at the top > Benchmarks > CPU Speed. The benchmark is in real-time, so pressing the turbo button for example has an immediate effect.

Landmark System Speed Test 6.00. It also runs in real-time, so pressing the turbo button for example has an immediate effect. There are two results that should be published, the score for CPU and FPU. I take the numbers in the graphs as they have decimal digits for extra precision.

TOPBENCH 3.8. It also runs in real-time, so pressing the turbo button for example has an immediate effect. 

Speedsys, also a very cool and popular benchmark. It will show a CPU score after a short moment, but has much more to offer, especially plotting nice graphs about memory, cache and hard drive performance.

Tools

Finally there are some tools that can help you out. They are:

  • CHKCPU which can ID your CPU and show you clock speeds, multiplier and cache information
  • CACHECHK which runs tests and tells you how much L1 and L2 cache you have
  • MTRRLFBE and FASTVID which enable Write Combine for extra VGA performance on certain CPUs. Works mostly on Intel systems, like a Slot 1.
  • For adding VESA support we have three versions of Display Doctor and UniVBE. These might not work properly and have to be installed, let me know, I might have to remove these options

Ultimate Guide to CPU Benchmarking Tools and Software

In this blog post we are going to deep dive into the world of CPU benchmarking tools. From Passmark, to Dhrystone, we’ll review the most popular CPU benchmark tools and talk about how CPU benchmarking should affect your decision on purchasing a Dedicated Server.

Table of Contents

Today our world, literally, runs digitally. Just as keystrokes iterate algorithmically putting characters on a laptop screen as this sentence is typed; the same happens as traction control is enabled on a modern All-Wheel-Drive vehicle.

The same CPU concept is the heart of all actions when consumers click “Buy” at their favorite online retailer from a handheld phone. There is a CPU computing 1’s and 0’s making all the magic happen.

The CPU, or Central Processing Unit, has become more efficient as predicted by Moore’s law; consuming less power in terms of wattage, shrinking in physical size, being able to handle multiple actions simultaneously (as seen with Hyper-Threading and multi-core technologies), and run at speeds performing billions of calculation per second.

As consumers, to gain insight into benchmarking a CPU we must first understand what separates one CPU from another. A Central Processing Unit can be designed to specialize in multiple areas.

KPI’s that define CPUs

  1. Energy efficiency

    How much wattage is being used compared to how much data is being processed (lower wattage consumption equates to lower temperatures)

  2. Raw processing power

    How fast data is being processed in a given time period

  3. Processing efficiency

    How much data is being processed simultaneously.

  4. Stability

    How long a CPU can process data at peak load without failure

 

Key Takeaway

These four categories are the cornerstones in the design of any transistor based CPU. From a now standard smartphone to a word-class server entrusted to mission critical business operations. Each key area is taken into consideration when supplying the “brain” to a power an electronic computing device.

Related Resources
  • Computer History Website Outlining uses of Microprocessors in Today’s World
  • Intel Page Highlighting Moore’s Law

PCMark 8.0 Performing Real-World Web
Browsing Simulation Test

Some Benchmarking applications will even perform application level tests such as: parsing HTML5 Document Object modeling and SQL database access (most larger applications actually use a compact SQL database on the local machine called SQLite to store data.).

As a CPU is rated in each category a software-application-specific algorithm is performed to rate the CPU as a whole by combining all sub-scores. This will give the CPU a final score. Benchmark users can then submit their scores to see how their system compares against other end-users.

Real World Example of Evaluating CPU Architecture via Benchmarking

Let’s compare two CPUs architectures and see how they perform.

 Intel i5 4278U  AMD FX-8350
  • Dual Core, 2.6Ghz Hyper-Threaded
  • Turbo Boost to 3.10Ghz
  • 3MB L3 Cache
  • Octa Core, 4.0Ghz
  • 8MB L3 Cache
  • 4×2 MB L2 Cache

Cumulative Scores in single-core GeekBench Benchmark Scores

One might ask, why did the slower clock speed beat the faster cycling CPU in single core performance?

This is a great demonstration of how CPU architecture, core design, caching speeds can allow a CPU to do more per clock cycle in certain operations.

Simply, the Intel has more FPU’s (floating point processing units) per execution core. While the AMD has a shared L2 cache per execution core, causing CPU Stall on single threaded executions.

CPU Cache prevents CPU Stalling

CPU stalling is latency in moving data from disk, to memory, through the cache pipeline, then finally to CPU’s core for execution operations.

Preventing CPU stalling is accomplished by more and faster cache on the CPU’s L1, L2 and L3 cache that can be distributed amongst each core.

CPU Stalling in terms of end-user class computing is not a big deal. As we mentioned, end-user class computing is designed for smaller burstable tasks calling a few worker threads for a limited amount of time.

 

Modern multicore CPUs with also have an L3 cache that is shared amongst all CPU cores.

 

Related Resources
  • Detailed Discussion on AMD vs. Intel Architecture

What are CPU Benchmarks for?

As they relate to a consumer, CPU benchmarks can serve a few primary purposes

  1. Allow non-tech-savvy consumers a comparison of archived CPU scores assisting in making a somewhat educated choice of purchase
  2. Allow avid and technically inclined computer hardware enthusiasts to get an accurate baseline of computer customization, hardware upgrades and advance the performance of computer systems through a process called overclocking the CPU.
  3. Allow system builders to simulate real world computer usage, letting them know a system will perform demands of required tasks for clients.
  4. Let consumers as a whole know the latest advertised technologies actually improves performance as claimed by a hardware manufacturer.

CPU benchmarking tools define a myriad of uses, above are the four main uses for consumers. As technology advances, CPU benchmarking tools let us know the latest architectures by AMD, Intel, IBM are actually worth our hard-earned dollars paid out in upgrades.

A new automobile, we can see how it is nicer than an older one. Not always so with a new computer unless we have four years of specialized CS training to decipher all the acronyms bombarding us on showroom floors and manufacturer advertising.

For more specialized uses, these tools can be used by software developers or even hardware Architecture Engineers to assist in designing and refining both software and hardware.

 

Top, All Time Overall CPU Benchmarks on Passmark Web Archive

 

Related Resources:
  • Categorized Passmark CPU Benchmarking Archive
  • GeekBench Archived CPU Benchmarking Archive
  • PCMark CPU Benchmarking Archive

How Accurate are CPU Benchmarking Tools?

Most CPU Benchmarking tools are accurate in what they do. However, time should be taken to understand what is being evaluated in a benchmark.

It is also important to use a widely known CPU benchmarking tools. This way benchmarks can be compared to past contributors. Only then is it possible to accurately gauge the performance of a CPU with benchmarking utilities.

The first thing we want to avoid are benchmarks that rate a complete system for gaming. Video gaming, when rated in frames per second (FPS) is highly dependent on a high-performance video card. These will really measure how well the CPU keeps up with offloaded processing of a high-end GPU. Not really how well the CPU is performing as an individual component.

The second thing we must note is most CPU benchmarking tools (all covered in this guide) will evaluate a CPU based on consumer computing and not server demands. Instead of measuring how well a CPU will process data in a 4-month period, tests are done in short bursts to simulate use of an end-user (versus a server).

With a little education of business versus consumer-computing and what each benchmark specializes in, we as consumers can accurately tell if a certain CPU will satisfy our needs.

End-User vs. Business Class CPUs

End-user CPU performance is usually burstable into smaller, single action based tasks. Each task can then call a few worker threads. Most benchmarking covered, unfortunately, scores a CPU based on how an office worker would make use of it.

Let’s look at our work day
  • Get into the office and check email.
  • See an attachment of our proofs for the latest ad in a trade magazine.
  • Download, then unzip these files.
  • Finally loading them into our favorite graphics program to see how they look.
  • Then open a faulty application and get a kernel panic (or blue screen) and simply reboot the computer.
  • Finally, load each image back into the graphics app from disk one at a time.

A server-class CPU architecture represents many people doing the same actions simultaneously. It is widely known in Computer Science multi-core or multi-CPU parallel processing will exceed single core performance with a higher clock-speed.

Frames Per Second Benchmarks Are Only Useful
For Gaming. Photo credit Assassin Creed 4

Unless the distributed workers are magnitudes slower, like a 4GHZ clock rate versus four 80486 CPU’s. This is true for any operation from calculating multiple floating point numbers to encrypting multiple files.

Also worth a note that business class CPU’s such as a Xeon make use of ECC memory. Error Correcting Code in memory will not only assist in preventing crashes but also protect against hardware failure (as noted by a Microsoft paper entitled: Cycles, Cells, and Platters: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs). Due to the error correction checking, a hit will be taken on overall CPU execution time.

With this in mind let’s look at business class computing:
  • 24/7 a CPU is never resting
  • Similar tasks to consumer computing are being performed simultaneously, non-stop
  • Recovery from a blue screen for a server or a high-end workstation can result in loss of up to 8 hours in work or more in lost revenue.

So when we see CPU architectures like the XEON being rated very close to (and greatly exceeding in some operations) performance in terms of office-user tasks, in say a benchmark score from Passmark: that is saying a lot. While not even touching on better processing efficiency found in business CPU architecture.

Related Resources
  • Cycles, Cells, and Platters: Researched article by Microsoft determining Consumer PC Failure probability and causes
  • Detailed Explanation of CPU Cache Registries

Dhrystone Benchmarking Review

Dhrystone is included for historical significance. This was released in the 1980’s then gained popularity when it was ported for Unix in C. The original Dhrystone benchmark was coded in Ada.

Dhrystone, though popular at the time is not really used much in today’s world. As it suffers several flaws that can cause misrepresented benchmarks.

Disadvantages of Dhrystone CPU benchmarking:
  • String sorting is done with aligned strings
  • No floating point math tests, so FLU is left untested
  • The entire application is small and will fit into a modern CPU’s EX Core cache.

The above shortcomings amount to benchmarks not showing results from real-world operations, architecture deficiencies not being exposed (as in the previous Intel to AMD architecture benchmark comparison). Also system operations such as memory speed and Front-side Bus architecture not represented in bench tests.

But this is not what Dhrystone is used for any longer. Its main purpose in today’s world is testing embedded CPU’s like those found in machinery and other equipment.

Advantages of Dhrystone CPU benchmarking:
  • Benchmarking embedded CPU’s in small devices
  • Giving a great comparison of compiler performance
  • Performing synthetic benchmarks to compare different system architectures (for example Intel x86 vs. ARM)

Dhrystone is unique, in that its binary footprint is small enough to benchmark embedded CPU’s found powering smaller devices. Also, the entire program is self-contained, meaning it will compile without system specific libraries.

Dhrystone running on a modern Ubuntu Linux Workstation

In order to even start to use Dhrystone, one must be somewhat savvy with researching and editing source code. In order to get it running the author needed a little help and made about 5 modifications to source code as instructed from here.

Related Resources
  • Wikipedia Dhrystone Reference
  • Modern Usage of Dhrystone on Linux

PassMark CPU Benchmarking Review

Passmark can be considered the current reigning champion of CPU benchmarking for tech-savvy system builders. These are people who build high-performance desktop computers, overclocking their CPU. Overclocking means making a stock CPU exceed the limits in terms of clock-cycles defined by the OEM manufacturer.

PassMark does an excellent job of rating a CPU in several areas as noted in “Understanding CPU Benchmarks”. PassMark then calculates a score that is widely known as a standard in the CPU overclocking community.

It is common to boast about one’s PassMark score to tech savvy friends and in online enthusiast forums (a good PasskMark score with screenshots will get instant street cred in some circles).

Advantages of Passmark CPU Benchmarking Software:
  • Standard score that is known amongst skilled system builders
  • Will show system ranking as compared to all other rankings
  • Low cost of ownership: $27.00 USA
  • Baseline Management features
  • Granular control of CPU Benchmarking tests
Disadvantages of PassMark CPU benchmarking software:
  • Only Supports Windows operating system
  • Just gives CPU performance testing, no simulated real-world or application testing
  • Does not depict testing servers in real-world scenarios in terms of weeks, months and years
  • Does not test power efficiency, only pure processing speed



PassMark CPU Mark is the accumulated rating of combined individual CPU tests

PassMark features a comprehensive CPU Mark database searchable by CPU Type

In closing, PassMark is the current leader in benchmarking CPU performance on Windows-based laptops, desktops and servers.

Unless one finds a need to perform specific benchmarking for applications, compare Apples to Windows, benchmark Embedded Microprocessors; PassMark is the clear leader of the bunch for testing high-performance CPUs and systems.

GeekBench5 CPU Benchmarking Review

The first thing catching my eye about GeekBench was its support to run the same tests on multiple operating systems. Then the simplicity of the Graphical User Interface; to run a GeekBench CPU benchmark the user simply clicks a single button.



The GeekBench main form screen is both simple and elegant

GeekBench Mac CPU test

GeekBench Windows Result

GeekBench is definitely a great benchmarking tool for those with minimal technical knowledge or prefer Windows alternative operating systems. GeekBench also has a benchmarking app for both iOS and Android. The paid version will benchmark nVidia’s Cuda hardware acceleration.

It was a sad note GeekBench5 for Linux would not work out of the box. Downloading GeekBench5 for Linux, then launching the executable resulted in an error. Even though the application functionality was not simple as Mac or Windows versions this is to expected on Linux.

Perhaps because I do not use Ubuntu and GeekBench5 was tailored for it. I’m sure with a little tweaking and a few posts on the GeekBench5 forums this could be ironed out.

GeekBench5 is a great application for those who want simple but rounded and comparable benchmarking scores across a range of operating systems.

Like the application user interface, the GeekBench Chart website containing user-contributed benchmarks is both simple and elegant in function.

 

It may fall a little short of the granularity offered in PassMark and real-world benchmarking simulations are not as complete like PCMark.

It is quick, simple and easy to use. In the “Comparing Architectures Section”, we used GeekBench5 to quickly spot a design difference between Intel and AMD CPU architectures that resulted in Intel’s great single core performance.

GeekBench5 may not a good choice as PassMark for benchmarking server or modified desktop systems, however. It simply doesn’t offer the granularity or end-user base of Passmark.

PCMark 8 CPU Benchmarking Review

PCMark is a little different from the aforementioned CPU benchmarking tools. In that PCMark will test an entire system then formulate a benchmark based on scores for combined component performance.

PCMark will offer system benchmark testing in five categories of use. So this would be an excellent tool for those who need to figure out performance based on specific usage. Or would like to rate a laptop to see its performance in each category.



PCMark Offers benchmarking in specified categories of intended use


Judging from the benchmarking process, PCMark will probably excel in testing real-world desktop system usage.

PCMark has put a lot of attention into detail and excels at offering a polished and professional look and feel. Even the website of contributed benchmarks has gone the extra mile to look polished.

The final PCMark tallied benchmark is cumulative of overall system performance. But does not really reflect how the CPU benchmarks as a component.

CPU Benchmarks and Dedicated Servers

CPU benchmarking is important for dedicated servers. However, only to get a brief overview of comparative performance in certain areas with consumer benchmarking tools.

Basic, limited actions performed in the PassMark CPU benchmarks will give great approximations of how the CPU architecture performs:

All these components factors into CPU performance
  • Clock speeds
  • Cache pipelines
  • Front-side Bus efficiency/speed
  • Memory speed
  • Disk speed

However, these do not account for operations being performed at the Hypervisor level, or these tasks being performed simultaneously by more than one user at a time.

This is what separates business-class CPU architecture from consumer-level CPU architecture.

Put simply: architectures like the Xeon are made for high-demand, distributed workloads with reliability. While consumer level CPU’s are designed to operate on sheer burst processing that relies mostly on sheer clock-cycles per second.

This usually equates to server-class CPU design having more cache, better at distributing loads (called Parallel Processing), and superior performance at the Hypervisor level.

With this comes more cost in development and materials. But will return that cost in money saved by being able serve more customers with greater reliability.

With a consumer CPU, the architecture is simply (usually) measured in sheer clock-cycles to gain less expensive (in terms of design, R&D, and materials) performance increases. This architecture design sacrifices: longevity, reliability, and will equate to greater cost down the road for server use.

Conclusion

There are several great CPU benchmarking tools that are well respected in their ability to evaluate and compare CPU performance of dedicated servers.

These utilities are important to assist consumers in:

  • Getting the right computer for intended use
  • Keep CPU manufacturer claims honest
  • Comparing CPU hardware across operating systems
  • Gauging performance of different CPU architectures
  • Comparing systems amongst contributed benchmarks

All these are important to both end-users and server architects. Gauging server CPU performance is a little more difficult in real-world terms: hundreds of variables over months of processing. With tools like PassMark, we get some tangible indicators of CPU performance.

  • CPU
  • Tools


  • Share on Facebook



  • Share on Twitter



  • Share on Linkedin



  • Send email

Thomas


Bash scripting enthusiast who can also cook up a pretty amazing lasagna. If you don’t find me in the datacenter or in deep thought troubleshooting customer tickets, well… You’re probably not looking hard enough!



Subscribe to this feed and keep playing.

Best CPU Benchmarking Software [September 2022 ]

When most people hear about computer benchmarks and benchmarking software, the first thing they think of is overclocking. It is easy to see why they make that connection as a lot of PC enthusiasts overclock their GPUs, CPUs and RAM.

However, benchmarking software is not only used for overclocking. In fact, such software should be used regularly to ensure that a computer is performing as expected.

Of course, you don’t need to test your computer every day, but running a few benchmarks to compare results with systems similar to yours will give you a better insight into your hardware’s capabilities.

Whatever your intention, you will need good CPU benchmarking software. To help you choose, we have created this list of the best and most popular benchmarking software used in [seo_year].

Table of ContentsShow

    Table of ContentsShow

      Cinebench

      The Pros:

      • Free
      • Quick benchmarks
      • Large benchmark database (great for comparison)

      The Cons:

      • CPU-only benchmarks

      Cinebench is real-world test software that can determine the capabilities of a system. However, because its tests are essentially rendering tasks, what you will be truly testing is your CPU’s power.

      Some people believe that Cinebench cannot replicate a real-world performance, but most PC enthusiasts beg to differ. The scores do translate well to a CPU’s usual performance.

      Cinebench is also very popular, which is always a huge positive. Why? Well, as it is used by so many people with different systems/setups, an extensive database is created, allowing users to compare their rigs with others easily.

      That’s not all!

      We also have to mention that this software is completely free, unlike some of the other options available. That isn’t something to scoff at.

      The benchmarks themselves are overall pretty quick. If you want to run several tests to find an average, you will be able to do it in less than half an hour. It can be frustrating and boring having to wait hours for a few benchmarks to be completed.

      3DMark

      The Pros:

      • Number of benchmarks to choose from
      • A large database of tests

      The Cons:

      • $30 price tag
      • Certain benchmarks locked behind extra fees

      Another very popular benchmarking tool for both CPUs and GPUs is 3DMark. This software has been around since 1998. That means decades of testing, so you can imagine the size of their database of users and different systems that you can compare to your rig.

      However, unlike Cinebench, 3DMark is not free. It is pretty costly, with a $30 price tag. This isn’t too much, as it is a one-time purchase, but most users will only want to run a couple of tests per year.

      If your CPU benchmarking is going to be a one-time thing, we recommend looking at other tools.

      For people that want to do extensive testing because of CPU overclocking, 3DMark might be a good option.

      Keep in mind that there are multiple tools you can purchase that provide different types of benchmarks. We recommend going for the 3DMark program as it provides the most popular benchmarks.

      Some of the benchmarks to try include Time Spy (DirectX 12 benchmark to give any GPU a run for its money, Time Spy Extreme (the same test at 4K), Fire Strike (DirectX 11 benchmark, and a few more.

      For CPU testing, it’s best to use Fire Strike as it won’t stress the GPU much but will push the CPU to its maximum.

      Geekbench 5

      The Pros:

      • Fair price
      • Useful browser to search for existing results

      The Cons:

      • Not as popular

      Geekbench is­ a solid pick as it is cross-platform. It doesn’t matter whether you are using Linux, macOS, or Windows; you will be able to run these tests. There are even results charts for mobile chips (laptops, tablets, phones, etc.).

      If you want to do some CPU testing on your desktop or laptop, Geekbench 5 provides you with a score for both single-core and multi-core performance.

      The benchmark includes all kinds of testing to determine where it excels and where it struggles. This covers everything from the most basic folder browsing up to complex machine learning.

      In other words, the results at the end are an accurate representation of your processor’s power.

      There is also a pretty large database for comparison. Use their Browser to find your CPU and compare the single-core and multi-core results.

      Geekbench 5 is considerably cheaper than 3DMark with a $10 price tag. For a license that covers all operating systems, it’s $15. There is a Pro version that costs $100, but that is intended for commercial use, so you are unlikely to need it.

      Prime95

      The Pros:

      • Best stress test to ensure CPU overclock stability
      • Good stress test to ensure thermals are normal

      The Cons:

      • No database for comparison
      • Not exactly a benchmark

      Unlike some of the other software in this article, Prime95 is not strictly intended for benchmarking and comparing scores. Prime95 is more focused on stress testing.

      Stress testing is useful for ensuring that you have enough airflow in your computer to keep your CPU’s temperatures balanced or that your overclock is stable for daily use.

      It is completely free, semi-frequently updated, and available for Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows.

      If you also want to test your GPU, you can ramp up the graphical settings of the benchmark to force the GPU to its max.

      Monitoring Software

      When benchmarking a computer, it’s vital to have some sort of software monitoring the status of your components. Monitor the temperatures of your GPU, CPU, RAM, drives, keep track of the CPU’s clock speeds, power usage, and more.

      Here are some of the best monitoring programs available.

      HWInfo

      HWInfo is widely used by many tech reviewers and enthusiasts as it provides accurate and real-time information on all hardware. It has an abundance of info for CPUs.

      It is also highly customizable, allowing you to adjust exactly which values you want available or hidden.

      The only downside is that it can be difficult to operate as it is pretty complicated. This is why we can only recommend it to experienced users.

      HWMonitor

      A simpler alternative to HWInfo. HWMonitor is more user-friendly and provides enough info on your processor’s thermals, power usage, clock speeds, and more.

      Still, HWinfo is a bit more in-depth.

      CPU-Z

      Made by the creators of HWMonitor, this application is even friendlier for users. You can acquire information on your GPU, CPU, RAM, and motherboard via CPU-Z, but you won’t have access to monitoring sensors that some of the previous applications feature.

      Which CPU Benchmarking Software Do You Need?

      Even when the options are reduced to just four, it can still be difficult to make a decision. To help you with that, let’s summarize.

      For quick and easy benchmarks that test the overall performance of your CPU, go with Cinebench.

      For those that want to do extensive testing for CPU overclocking stability and to benchmark other components, we recommend Geekbench 5 or 3DMark. Both are good options.

      Finally, for only testing the GPU or CPU overclocking stability, we recommend Prime95.

      2022 CPU performance rating. Intel and AMD benchmarks

      AMD Athlon II X3 425

      AMD Phenom II X2 555

      AMD Ryzen 3 3200U

      AMD A12-9800E APU (2016 M. BR)

      HX

      578

      AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS

      578

      Cinebench R20 Multi Core

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX

      5711

      Intel Core i7-11700K

      5709

      Intel Core i7-11700KF

      5709

      Intel Core i9-11950H

      5547

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS

      5524

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

      5517

      AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX

      5474

      Intel Core i7-11700F

      5472

      Intel Core i7 -11700

      5472

      Intel Core i9-11900H

      5342

      Intel Core i7-11850H

      5342

      Cinebench R15 Single Core

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600x

      258

      Intel Core i9-12900H

      257

      Intel Core i9-12900HK

      257

      AMD RYZEN 7 5700X

      253

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS

      252

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700g

      250

      AMD RYZEN 7 5800X3D

      24 245980HS

      247

      Intel Core i5-11600KF

      245

      Intel Core i3-12100

      242

      Intel Core i3-12100F

      242

      Cinebench R15 Multi Core

      AMD Ryzen TR 1920X

      2433

      Intel Core i9-10900X

      2358

      Intel Core i7-10700KF

      2344

      Intel Core i7-10700K

      2344

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

      2307

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

      2307

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

      2307

      Intel Core i7-10700

      2291

      Intel Core i7-10700F

      2291

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS

      2276

      Intel Core i9-9900K

      2245

      Geekbench 5 Single Core

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS

      1640

      Intel Core i7 -11850h

      1634

      AMD RYZEN 7 5700X

      1634

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800x3D

      1633 1033

      Intel i9-11900h

      AMD RYZEN5

      Intel Core i7-11375H

      1592

      Intel Core i7-1185G7

      1578

      Intel Core i7-11370H

      1578

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600x

      1572

      Intel Core i7-12700H

      1567

      Geekbench 5 Multi Core

      Intel Core i9-9900x

      10490

      AMD Ryzen TR

      10405

      Intel Core

      10-7900X

      10199

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

      10179

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

      10097

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS

      10094

      AMD Ryzen 7 6800H

      9874

      Intel Core i7-11700F

      9872

      Intel Core i7-11700

      9872

      Intel Core i9-11900F

      9872

      iGPU — FP32 Performance GFLOPS

      Intel Core i7-12700H

      2146

      Intel Core i7-11370H

      2070

      Intel Core i7-1185G7

      2070

      Intel Core i7-11375H

      2070

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800U

      2048

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

      2048

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800U

      2048

      AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

      1971

      AMD RYZEN 7 5700U

      1946

      AMD RYZEN 9 5900HX

      1946

      AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS

      FPS. . Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.

      On average for all gaming tests, the processor scored 80.2 points out of 100, where 100 is the fastest gaming processor to date.

      Select game

      Accessories

      Motherboards

        105

      AMD Ryzen TR 3990X 64 128
      AMD Ryzen TR 3970X 32 64
      AMD Ryzen TR 3960X 24 48 1689 $
      AMD Ryzen TR 2990WX 32 64 2095 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 5950x 16 32
      Intel Core i9-7980XE 18 36 1010 $
      Intel Core i9-12900KS 0 0 750 $
      Intel Core i9-12900K 16 24 569 $
      Intel Core i9-12900KF 16 24 550 $
      Intel Core i9-12900 16 24 530 $
      Intel Core i9-12900F 16 24
      Intel Core i9-10980XE 18 36
      AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16 32 773 $
      Intel Core i7-12700KF 12 20 324 $
      Intel Core i7-12700K 12 20 350 $
      Intel Core i9-7960X 16 32 880 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12 24 369 $
      Intel Core i7-12700 12 20
      Intel Core i7-12700F 12 20 313 $
      AMD Ryzen TR 2950X 16 32 980 $
      Intel Core i9-10940X

      AMD Ryzen 9 5900

      		14 28
      12 24
      AMD Ryzen TR 1950X 16 32
      AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT 12 24 745 $
      Intel Core i9-12900HK 14 20
      AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 24 529 $
      Intel Core i5-12600K 10 16 278 $
      Intel Core i5-12600KF 10 16 280 $
      Intel Core i9-10850K 10 20 375 $
      Intel Core i7-12700H 14 20
      Intel Core i9-12900H 14 20
      Intel Core i9-11900KF 8 16
      Intel Core i9-11900K 8 16 385 $
      Intel Core i9-10900KF 10 20 400 $
      Intel Core i9-10900K 10 20 390 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8 16 309 $
      Intel Core i7-11700KF 8 8 299 $
      Intel Core i7-11700K 8 16 275 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D 0 0
      Intel Core i9-7900X 10 20 550 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX 0 0
      Intel Core i7-11700F 8 16
      Intel Core i7-11700 8 16
      Intel Core i9-10900X

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800

      		10 20
      8 16
      8 16 273 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS 0 0
      Intel Core i9-11980HK 8 16
      AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX 8 16
      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X 0 0 287 $
      Intel Core i9-9900KS 8 16
      0 0
      Intel Core i7-9800X 8 16 650 $
      Intel Core i5-12500 6 12 215 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT 8 16
      8 16 266 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS 8 16
      Intel Core i9-11950H 8 16
      8 16
      AMD Ryzen 7 5800H 8 16
      Intel Core i7-6950X 10 20 428 $
      Intel Core i7-10700K 8 16 300 $
      Intel Core i7-10700KF 8 16 290 $
      Intel Core i5-12400F 6 12 168 $
      Intel Core i5-12400 6 12 194 $
      Intel Core i9-9900K 8 16 $599
      Intel Core i9-9900KF 8 16 480 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8 16 302 $
      Intel Core i9-11900H 8 16
      Intel Core i7-11850H 8 16
      Intel Core i7-10700F 8 16 250 $
      Intel Core i7-10700 8 16 269 $
      Intel Core i9-9900 8 16 568 $
      Intel Core i7-11800H 8 16
      Intel Core i7-6900K 8 16 350 $
      Intel Core i5-11600K 6 12 200 $
      Intel Core i5-11600KF 6 12 205 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 5800U 8 16
      AMD Ryzen5 5600 0 0 199 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 5600G 6 12 167 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 4900H 8 16
      8 16
      6 12 200 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS 8 16
      8 16
      AMD Ryzen 5 5500 0 0 139 $
      Intel Core i5-10600KF 6 12 180 $
      Intel Core i5-10600K 6 12 204 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS 8 16
      Intel Core i7-9700K 8 8 370 $
      Intel Core i7-9700KF 8 8 250 $
      Intel Core i7-8086K 6 12 549 $
      Intel Core i5-11400F 6 12 152 $
      Intel Core i5-11400 6 12 171 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 5600H 6 12
      8 16
      AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 16 390 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT 6 12 341 $
      Intel Core i9-10980HK

      AMD Ryzen 5 3600X

      		8 16
      6 12 363 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 5700U 8 16
      AMD Ryzen7 1800X 8 16
      Intel Core i9-10885H 8 16
      Intel Core i5-11400H 6 12
      AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6 12 189 $
      Intel Core i5-10600 6 12 204 $
      Intel Core i7-8700K 6 12 300 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 2700 8 16 400 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 4600H 6 12
      6 12
      Intel Core i7-10875H 8 16
      AMD Ryzen 7 1700X 8 16
      Intel Core i9-9880H 8 16
      Intel Core i7-9700F 8 8 220 $
      Intel Core i7-9700 8 8 356 $
      Intel Core i3-12100 4 8 144 $
      Intel Core i3-12100F 4 8 108 $
      Intel Core i9-9980HK 8 16
      Intel Core i5-10500 6 12 200 $
      Intel Core i5-10400 6 12 145 $
      Intel Core i5-10400F 6 12 124 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 1700 8 16 393 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 4600U 6 12
      Intel Core i7-8700 6 12 320 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6 12 290 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 6 12 321 $
      Intel Core i7-10850H 6 12
      Intel Core i7-10750H 6 12
      Intel Core i5-9600KF 6 6 178 $
      Intel Core i5-9600K 6 6 210 $
      Intel Core i7-9750H 6 12
      AMD Ryzen 7 4700U 8 8
      Intel Core i5-8600K 6 6 280 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF 6 12 193 $
      Intel Core i5-10500H 6 12
      AMD Ryzen 3 3300X 4 8
      Intel Core i7-6800K 6 12 327 $
      Intel Core i7-11375H 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4930K 6 12 276 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 6 12 289 $
      Intel Core i7-1185G7 4 8
      AMD Ryzen 5 1600 6 12 120 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 5600U 6 12
      Intel Core i7-1165G7 4 8
      Intel Core i7-7700K 4 8 778 $
      Intel Core i7-8750H 6 12
      Intel Core i5-1135G7 4 8
      Intel Core i7-11370H 4 8
      Intel Core i3-10105F 4 8 79 $
      Intel Core i7-5820K 6 12 500 $
      Intel Core i7-6700K 4 8 291 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 4500U 6 6
      Intel Core i5-8500 6 6 227 $
      Intel Core i3-10100 4 8
      Intel Core i3-10100F 4 8 78 $
      Intel Core i5-9400F 6 6 144 $
      Intel Core i7-7700 4 8 351 $
      AMD Ryzen 3 3100 4 8
      Intel Core i5-11300H 4 8
      Intel Core i5-10300H 4 8
      Intel Core i7-8850H 6 12
      Intel Core i5-8259U 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4790K 4 8
      Intel Core i7-6700 4 8 291 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 4 8
      4 8 200 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8600T 6 6
      Intel Core i7-8550U 4 8
      Intel Core i7-5775C 4 8 240 $
      Intel Core i7-4770K 4 8 220 $
      Intel Core i7-4790 4 8 220 $
      Intel Core i7-1065G7 4 8
      Intel Core i5-1035G7 4 8
      Intel Core i5-1035G4 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4770S 4 8 295 $
      Intel Core i7-6820HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i7-7700HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i5-1035G1 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i7-6700HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i7-7820HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i5-10310U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-10210U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-6600K 4 4 209 $
      Intel Core i3-9100F 4 4 137 $
      AMD FX-8350 8 8
      Intel Core i5-6600 4 4
      Intel Core i7-3770 4 8
      Intel Core i3-8100 4 4 205 $
      AMD Ryzen 3 2200G 4 4 309 $
      Intel Core i7-8650U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4690 4 4 88 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 3500U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4670 4 4 190 $
      Intel Core i5-4670K 4 4 168 $
      Intel Core i5-7400 4 4 185 $
      Intel Core i7-3635QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-2600 4 8 150 $
      Intel Core i7-10510U 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4770HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i3-8100T 4 4
      Intel Core i5-4590 4 4
      Intel Core i7-1160G7 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3615QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4800MQ 4 8 240 $
      Intel Core i3-7350K 2 4 240 $
      Intel Core i5-1130G7 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8250U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-6500 4 4 190 $
      Intel Core i5-8350U 4 8
      AMD Ryzen 5 2500U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4570 4 4 109 $
      Intel Core i5-3570 4 4
      Intel Core i5-3570K 4 4 157 $
      Intel Core i7-2860QM 4 8
      Intel Core i3-1115G4 2 4
      Intel Core i7-10510Y 4 8
      Intel Core i5-3470 4 4
      AMD Ryzen 7 2700U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4570S 4 4 100 $
      Intel Core i5-2500 4 4
      Intel Core i7-7567U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2500K 4 4
      Intel Core i7-2760QM 4 8
      Intel Core i3-10110U 2 4
      Intel Core i3-1005G1 2 4
      Intel Xeon X3440 4 8
      AMD Athlon 3000G 2 4 81 $
      Intel Core i7-2720QM 4 8
      Intel Celeron G3900 2 2 125 $
      AMD Phenom II X4 955 4 4
      Intel Core i5-2400S 4 4
      Intel Core i5-2400 4 4
      Intel Core i5-7200U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-6500U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-6300U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-5287U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5450 4 4 220 $
      Intel Core i7-7660U 2 4
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 4 4
      Intel Core i5-6200U 2 4
      AMD Athlon II X4 860K 4 4
      Intel Core i5-8265U 4 8
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 4 4
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 4 4
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 4 4 250 $
      Intel Core i5-5250U 2 4
      4 4
      Intel Core M-5Y71 2 4
      Intel Celeron J4105 4 4
      4 4 70 $
      AMD Athlon II X4 635 4 4
      Intel Core i7-7Y75 2 4
      Intel Core i3-8130U 2 4
      4 4
      Intel Core i5-4210M 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2450M 2 4
      4 4
      Intel Core m3-7Y32 2 4
      Intel Core i7-3520M 2 4
      Intel Core i5-3317U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4650U 2 4
      Intel Atom x5-Z8350 4 4
      Intel Celeron N3350 2 2
      0 0
      AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 0 0
      0 0
      Intel Celeron 2. 40GHz 0 0
      Intel Celeron 2.53GHz 0 0
      Intel Core i3-12300 0 0
      Intel Core i5-12500H 0 0
      Intel Core i5-12600H 0 0
      Intel Core i7-12650H 0 0
      Intel Core i7-12650HX 0 0
      Intel Pentium 4 1.70GHz 0 0
      Intel Pentium II processor 0 0
      Intel Pentium M processor 1700MHz 0 0
      Intel i9-12900HX 0 0
      Intel i9-12950HX 0 0
      Intel Atom Z520 1 2
      Intel Atom 230 1 2
      Intel Atom Z2760 2 4
      Intel Atom N270 1 2
      Intel Atom N435 1 2
      Intel Atom D410 1 2
      Intel Atom N280 1 2
      Intel Atom N450 1 2
      Intel Atom N455 1 2
      AMD A4-1250 APU 2 2
      AMD A4-1200 APU 2 2
      Intel Atom D510 2 4
      Intel Atom N550 2 4
      AMD E1-2100 APU 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Atom 330 2 4
      Intel Atom N2600 2 4
      AMD C-50 2 2
      Intel Atom N570 2 4
      Intel Celeron M processor 1. 50GHz 1 1
      Intel Atom D525 2 4
      Intel Celeron 2.80GHz 1 1
      Intel Celeron D 3.06GHz 1 1
      Intel Celeron N3050 2 2
      AMD C-60 APU 2 2
      AMD E-300 APU 2 2
      Intel Pentium M processor 1.60GHz 1 1
      AMD E1-2500 APU 2 2
      Intel Atom N2800 2 4
      Intel Celeron M 430 1 1
      AMD E1-1200 APU 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 2. 40GHz 1 1
      Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 1 1
      Intel Atom D2700 2 4
      Intel Celeron N3060 2 2
      AMD E1-7010 APU (2015 M.Ca) 2 2
      Intel Atom x5-Z8300 4 4
      Intel Celeron N3000 2 2
      1 1
      Intel Celeron 723 1 1
      1 1
      Intel Pentium 4 2. 93GHz 1 1
      Intel Pentium M processor 1.73GHz 1 1
      AMD E-350 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 3.06GHz 1 2
      Intel Celeron N3010 2 2
      Intel Pentium M processor 1.86GHz
      AMD Phenom 9500       		1 1
      4 4
      AMD E-450 APU 2 2
      Intel Pentium D 2.66GHz 2 2
      1 1
      AMD Sempron 3000+ 1 1 35 $
      AMD E2-1800 APU (2012 M. Za) 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 2.60GHz 1 2
      AMD E2-2000 APU (2012 M.Za) 2 2
      Intel Atom x5-Z8330 4 4
      Intel Celeron N2815 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo L7100 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz 1 2 100 $
      Intel Pentium Dual T2310 2 2
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 T5200 2 2
      AMD Phenom 9600 4 4
      Intel U2300 1 2
      Intel Pentium Dual T2330 2 2 150 $
      Intel T2250 2 2
      Intel 575 1 1
      1 1
      Intel U4100 1 2
      Intel Atom x5-Z8500 4 4
      Intel Celeron N2820 2 2
      Intel Core Duo T2350 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T5250 2 2 90$
      Intel T2080 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 3. 00GHz 1 2
      Intel T2300 2 2
      Intel Atom Z3740 4 4
      Intel Core2 T5300 2 2
      Intel Pentium Dual T2390 2 2
      1 1
      Intel Core i3 U 330 2 4
      Intel Pentium Dual T2370 2 2
      Intel 2140 2 2
      Intel Celeron N3150 4 4
      Intel Pentium D 2. 80GHz 2 2
      Intel Pentium Dual E2140 2 2 80 $
      AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core TK-55
      AMD E2-9000e APU (2016 M.SR)       		2 2
      2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz 1 2
      Intel T2400 2 2
      Intel U7300 2 2
      Intel Atom x5-Z8550 4 4
      2 2
      AMD Turion II Neo N40L 2 2
      4 4
      2 2
      Intel Celeron N2830 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T5450 2 2 89$
      Intel Core2 T5500 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron N3160 4 4
      AMD AthlonX2 DualCore QL-60 2 2
      Intel Celeron N2840 2 2
      Intel Pentium D 3. 00GHz 2 2
      Intel Pentium N3700 4 4
      Intel T2500 2 2
      Intel Atom x7-Z8750 4 4
      Intel Celeron E1400 2 2 14 $
      Intel Core i3 U 380 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo L7500 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T5550 2 2 180$
      Intel Core2 T5600 2 2 99$
      Intel T2600 2 2 137 $
      Intel Atom x7-Z8700 4 4
      Intel Celeron N2920 4 4
      Intel Core2 Duo U9400 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4 3. 40GHz 1 2
      Intel Pentium N3710 4 4
      Intel Pentium N3510 4 4
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron E1500 2 2
      Intel Pentium D 3.20GHz 2 2
      AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 1 1
      Intel Celeron 900 1 1
      Intel Core2 4300 2 2 97 $
      Intel Pentium Dual E2160 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo U9600 2 2
      1 1
      AMD A6-7000 APU (2014 M. Ka) 2 2
      Intel Atom Z3770 4 4
      Intel Core i5 U 470 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo L9300 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T5750 2 2 99$
      Intel Pentium 4 3.80GHz 1 2
      Intel Celeron 847 2 2 225 $
      Intel Core2 T7200 2 2
      Intel Pentium Dual T3200 2 2
      AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1 1
      Intel Core2 Duo T5670 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T7100 2 2 90$
      AMD E2-3000M APU 2 2
      4 4
      Intel Atom Z3740D 4 4
      Intel Celeron J3355 2 2
      Intel Core2 T7400 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Atom Z3775 4 4
      Intel Core2 Duo T5800 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T5850 2 2
      4 4
      AMD E2-9000 APU (2016 M. SR) 2 2
      Intel Pentium D 3.40GHz 2 2
      Intel Pentium Dual E2180 2 2 130 $
      AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-58 2 2
      AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 1 1
      Intel Core2 4400 2 2 108 $
      Intel Core2 Duo T7250 2 2
      Intel Pentium Dual T3400 2 2 80$
      AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 1 1
      Intel Core2 6300 2 2 70 $
      Intel Core2 Duo E4400 2 2 108 $
      Intel Core2 Duo T5870 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T5900 2 2
      2 2
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron N2930 4 4
      Intel Core2 6320 2 2 199 $
      Intel Core2 Duo E4500 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T7300 2 2 90$
      Intel Pentium Dual E2200 2 2 54 $
      AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-60 2 2
      AMD Turion X2 Ultra Mobile ZM-82 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron Dual Core T3100 2 2
      Intel Core2 T7600 2 2
      AMD V120 1 1
      Intel Core2 Duo E4600 2 2
      1 1
      AMD Athlon 64 4000+ 1 1
      Intel Core2 Duo T6400 2 2 99$
      Intel Pentium T4200 2 2
      2 2
      AMD A6-5200 APU 4 4
      Intel Celeron Dual Core T3300 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T7500 2 2
      Intel Pentium T4300 2 2
      AMD V140 1 1
      Intel Xeon E5310 4 4
      Intel Core2 Duo P7350 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T6500 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T6570 2 2
      2 2 90$
      Intel Pentium N3520 4 4
      Intel Pentium T4400 2 2
      AMD Athlon II M320 2 2
      Intel Celeron J1900 4 4
      Intel Core2 6400 2 2
      Intel Core2 6420 2 2 190 $
      Intel Core2 Duo T8100 2 2 78 $
      AMD A4-3300M APU 2 2 85$
      AMD A4-9120 APU (2016 M. SR) 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron N3450 4 4
      Intel Celeron N4000 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo L9400 2 2
      Intel Xeon E5320 4 4
      4 4
      1 1
      Intel Core2 Duo P7450 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T6600 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T6670 2 2
      Intel Pentium 967 2 2
      AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E6550 2 2 15 $
      AMD Athlon Dual Core 4450B 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P7550 2 2
      Intel Pentium N3530 4 4
      AMD A4-7210 APU (2015 M. Ca) 2 2
      4 4
      AMD A8-7100 APU (2014 M.Ka) 4 4
      2 2 20$
      AMD A4-3330MX APU 2 2 57 $
      Intel Core2 Duo E4700 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo L9600 2 2
      Intel Pentium N3540 4 4
      Intel Pentium T4500 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P8400 2 2
      Intel Pentium J2900 4 4
      AMD Phenom II P940 4 4
      1 1
      2 2
      4 4
      AMD A6-9220 APUs (2016 M. SR) 2 2
      Intel Celeron E3200 2 2
      Intel Celeron J3455 4 4
      Intel Core i3-2357M 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo P7570 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P9300 2 2
      AMD A10-7300 APU (2014 M. Ka) 4 4
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T7700 2 2 130 $
      AMD A6-3400M APU 4 4
      2 2
      Intel Pentium E5200 2 2 50$
      AMD A8-6410 APU R5 Graphics 4 4
      Intel Celeron E3400 2 2 15 $
      Intel Core2 6600 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4405Y 2 4
      Intel Pentium P6100
      AMD Phenom II P960       		2 2
      4 4
      Intel Celeron 877 2 2
      4 4
      4 4
      2 2
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron B800 2 2
      Intel Celeron E3300 2 2 60$
      Intel Pentium 987 2 2
      Intel Pentium D 3. 73GHz 2 4
      Intel Celeron N4020 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P8600 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P8700 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P9400 2 2
      Intel Celeron J4005 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E6750 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T8300 2 2
      4 4 60$
      AMD A9-9400 APUs (2016 M. SR) 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Celeron 1007U 2 2
      Intel Celeron 2957U 2 2
      AMD Opteron 4171 HE 6 6
      Intel Pentium E5300 2 2
      Intel Pentium P6200
      AMD Sempron 145       		2 2
      1 1
      Intel Xeon E5335 4 4
      AMD A4-3300 APU 2 2 85$
      AMD Athlon Dual Core 4850e 2 2
      Intel Core i3-2365M 2 4
      Intel Core i3-2367M 2 4
      Intel Pentium E5400 2 2
      Intel Pentium N4200 4 4
      Intel Core2 Duo T9300 2 2 70 $
      Intel Core2 6700 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E7200 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T9400 2 2
      Intel Pentium J4205 4 4
      AMD A6-3410MX APU 4 4
      AMD A6-3420M APU 4 4
      Intel Celeron 887 2 2
      Intel Pentium E5500 2 2
      AMD Phenom II N830 3 3
      2 2
      4 4
      Intel Celeron 3205U 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo P9600 2 2 190 $
      AMD FX-7500 APU (2014 M. Ka)
      AMD Phenom X3 8450       		4 4
      3 3
      Intel Celeron B815 2 2
      Intel Core i3 M 330 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo P9500 2 2
      2 2
      AMD A10-4655M APU 4 4
      2 2
      4 4 60$
      Intel Celeron 1017U 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E7300 2 2 28 $
      Intel Core2 Duo P8800 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T9550 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4410Y 2 4
      3 3
      2 2
      Intel Core i3-2375M 2 4
      Intel Core i3-4012Y 2 4
      Intel Pentium E5700 2 2
      Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y
      AMD Phenom 9150e       		2 4
      4 4
      AMD A9-9410 APU (2016 M. SR) 2 2
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T9500 2 2
      AMD A10-5745M APU 4 4
      AMD A4-3400 APU 2 2 80$
      Intel Core2 Duo E7400 2 2
      AMD Phenom II N930 4 4
      2 2
      Intel Celeron N4100 4 4
      Intel Core2 X6800 2 2
      AMD Phenom II N850 3 3
      Intel Celeron B820 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E6850 2 2 57 $
      Intel Pentium E6300 2 2
      AMD Athlon II X2 215 2 2
      Intel Core i5-4202Y 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo E8200
      AMD Phenom II N950       		2 2
      4 4
      Intel Xeon E5405 4 4
      4 4
      2 2
      Intel Celeron B830 2 2
      Intel Core i3 M 350 2 4 199 $
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9000 4 4
      Intel Xeon E5345 4 4
      AMD A8-4500M APU 4 4
      Intel Core M-5Y31 2 4
      Intel Core i7 L 620 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo P9700 2 2
      Intel Pentium E6500 2 2
      4 4
      AMD A8-7200P APU (2014 M. Ka) 4 4
      2 2
      Intel Core i5-2537M 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo E7500 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T9600 2 2
      Intel Pentium E5800 2 2
      Intel Pentium Gold 4425Y
      AMD Phenom X3 8650       		2 4
      3 3
      AMD A6-3500 APU 3 3 75$
      AMD A8-3530MX APU 4 4
      Intel Core i3 M 370 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo T9800 2 2
      2 2
      2 2
      AMD Phenom 8650 Triple-Core 3 3
      4 4
      Intel Celeron 1037U 2 2
      Intel Core i5-3339Y 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo E8300 2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo T9900 2 2
      Intel Pentium 2117U 2 2
      Intel Pentium E6600 2 2
      Intel Celeron 1000M 2 2
      Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 4 4
      Intel Core i3 M 380 2 4 200 $
      Intel Core2 Quad 4 4
      2 2
      1 2
      2 2
      Intel Core i5 M 430 2 4
      Intel Core i5-4210Y 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo E7600 2 2
      Intel Core2 Extreme X9100 2 2
      Intel Pentium 2127U 2 2
      Intel Pentium E6700 2 2
      Intel Pentium Silver N5000 4 4
      2 2
      Intel Xeon X3220 4 4
      Intel Core i3-3217U 2 4
      2 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E8400 2 2 70$
      Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 4 4 49 $
      Intel Pentium B940 2 2
      Intel Xeon E3110 2 2 200 $
      Intel Celeron 1005M 2 2
      Intel Core i3-4005U 2 4
      Intel Pentium E6800
      AMD Phenom 9550       		2 2
      4 4
      AMD Phenom II N660
      AMD Athlon II X2 245       		2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core i5 M 450 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2467M 2 4
      Intel Core i7 L 640 2 4
      Intel Pentium B950
      AMD A6-7400K APU (2014 D. Ka)       		2 2
      1 2
      AMD Athlon II X2 250 (2013 D.Ri) 4 4
      2 2
      Intel Core i3-4010U 2 4
      Intel Core2 Duo E8500 2 2
      Intel Pentium 3805U 2 2
      4 4
      AMD A12-9700P APU (2016 M.BR)
      AMD A6-9500E APU (2016 D.BR)       		4 4
      2 2
      Intel Core M-5Y51 2 4
      Intel Core i3 M 390 2 4
      Intel Core i5-4300Y 2 4
      AMD FX-7600P APU
      AMD Phenom 9650       		4 4
      4 4
      3 3
      Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 4 4
      4 4
      Intel Core M-5Y10c 2 4
      Intel Core i3-3227U 2 4
      Intel Core i5 M 520 2 4
      Intel Pentium B960 2 2
      Intel Core i5 M 460 2 4
      Intel Pentium G6950 2 2 79 $
      AMD A10-5757M APU 4 4
      AMD Athlon II X2 B24 2 2
      Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 4 4 140 $
      AMD A10-4600M APU
      AMD A12-9720P APU (2016 M. BR)       		4 4
      4 4
      1 2
      Intel Core M-5Y10 2 4
      Intel Core m3-6Y30 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5420 4 4 250 $
      AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ 2 2
      Intel Core M-5Y10a 2 4
      Intel Core i5 M 480 2 4
      4 4
      2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core i3-2310M 2 4 170 $
      Intel Core i5 M 540
      AMD Phenom 9750       		2 4
      4 4
      AMD Athlon II X2 260 2 2
      Intel Core M-5Y70 2 4
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 4 4 38 $
      AMD Phenom II X2 545 2 2
      AMD A6-5400K APU 1 2
      Intel Core2 Duo E8600 2 2 45$
      Intel Pentium B970 2 2
      Intel Core i5 M 560 2 4
      AMD Athlon II X3 435 4 4
      3 3
      Intel Core i3-4030U 2 4
      Intel Core2 Extreme Q9300 4 4 179 $
      Intel Pentium B980 2 2
      2 2
      Intel Core i3-2328M 2 4
      Intel Core i3-2330M 2 4 160 $ ​​
      Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 4 4 100 $
      AMD Phenom II X2 550 2 2
      Intel Xeon L5420 4 4 250 $
      AMD A10-5750M APU 4 4
      1 2
      Intel Core m5-6Y54 2 4
      Intel Core m7-6Y75 2 4
      Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850
      AMD Phenom II X3 710       		4 4
      3 3
      AMD A4-6300 APU 1 2
      1 2
      Intel Celeron G530 2 2 60$
      Intel Core i3-5005U 2 4
      Intel Core i5 M 580 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5-2603 0 4 4
      Intel Core i3-2350M 2 4
      Intel Core i7 M 620 2 4
      Intel Pentium Silver J5005 4 4
      1 2
      3 3
      Intel Core i3-6006U 2 4
      Intel Core m5-6Y57
      AMD Athlon II X2 265       		2 4
      2 2
      Intel Core i5-2557M 2 4
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9400
      AMD Phenom 9850       		4 4
      4 4
      2 2
      Intel Xeon W3503 2 2
      Intel Core i3-2348M 2 4
      Intel Core i3-5015U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5462 4 4
      AMD A10-6700T APU (2013 D. Ri) 2 4
      3 3
      AMD Phenom 9950 4 4
      Intel Core i3-2370M
      AMD Phenom II X2 560       		2 4
      2 2
      Intel Celeron G540 2 2 70 $
      Intel Xeon E5430 4 4
      Intel Core i7 Q 720 4 8
      Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 4 4
      Intel Xeon E5504 4 4
      AMD A6-3650 APU 4 4
      AMD Athlon II X4 631 3 3
      4 4
      Intel Core i7-3689Y 2 4
      Intel Pentium 2020M 2 2
      Intel Pentium 4405U 2 4
      Intel Xeon W3505 2 2
      Intel Celeron G550 2 2
      Intel Core i3 530 2 4
      Intel Pentium G620 2 2
      4 4
      Intel Pentium 3550M 2 2
      Intel Xeon E5440 4 4
      Intel Core i3-5010U 2 4
      Intel Core i7 M 640
      AMD Phenom II X3 720       		2 4
      3 3
      Intel Core m3-7Y30
      AMD Phenom II X2 565       		2 4
      2 2
      Intel Core i5-8200Y 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2637M 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2677M 2 4
      AMD A6-3670 APU
      AMD Athlon II X3 455       		4 4
      3 3
      Intel Pentium G630 2 2
      Intel Core i3 540 2 4
      Intel Core i3-3110M 2 4 70$
      AMD Phenom II X4 905e
      AMD Phenom II X4 810       		4 4
      4 4
      Intel Pentium 4415U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5506 4 4 53 $
      Intel Celeron G1610 2 2 37 $
      Intel Core i5-3427U 2 4
      Intel Xeon X5450 4 4 299 $
      AMD Athlon II X3 460 3 3
      Intel Core i5-3337U 2 4
      Intel Pentium G640
      AMD Athlon II X4 641       		2 2
      4 4
      Intel Core i5-2415M 2 4
      Intel Core i7 Q 820
      AMD FX-9830P APU (2016 M. BR)       		4 8
      4 4
      Intel Pentium 4417U 2 4
      Intel Pentium 5405U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5472
      AMD A12-9730P APU (2016 M.BR)       		4 4
      4 4
      Intel Core i3 550 2 4 168 $
      Intel Core i5-3437U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-7Y54 2 4
      Intel Core i7 Q 740 4 8 250 $
      Intel Core i7-3517U 2 4
      AMD A8-3850 APU 4 4
      Intel Core i3-3120M 2 4
      Intel Core i3-7020U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5-2660 v2 10 20 73 $
      AMD A10-7800 APU (2014 D. Ka) 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2410M 2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 910e 4 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 920
      AMD Ryzen 3 2200U       		4 4
      2 4
      Intel Xeon X5472 4 4
      AMD A8-9600 APU (2016 D.BR) 4 4
      Intel Core i3-6100U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-4200U 2 4
      AMD FX-770K 2 4
      Intel Celeron G1620 2 2
      Intel Core i5-4250U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4550U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5507 4 4
      AMD A8-7500 APU (2014 M. Ka) 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2430M 2 4
      AMD A8-7600 APU (2014 D.Ka) 2 4
      2 4
      Intel Core i5 650 2 4 149$
      Intel Core i5-4210U 2 4
      Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 4 4
      Intel Pentium G645 2 2
      Intel Xeon X5460 4 4 190 $
      AMD A10-9700E APU (2016 D. BR) 4 4
      Intel Core i3-4000M 2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 925 4 4
      AMD A8-3870 APU 4 4
      Intel Core i5-2435M 2 4
      Intel Pentium G840 2 2 39 $
      AMD Phenom II X4 B40 4 4
      2 4
      AMD Athlon 300U 2 4
      Intel Core i3-2120T
      AMD Phenom II X4 830       		2 4
      4 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 840 4 4
      AMD Athlon II X4 651 2 4
      4 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 B45 4 4
      AMD A10-7700K APU (2014 D. Ka) 2 4
      Intel Celeron G1820 2 2
      Intel Core i7 Q 840 4 8
      Intel Pentium G2010 2 2
      Intel Pentium G2020 2 2
      Intel Pentium G850
      AMD Phenom II X4 940       		2 2
      4 4
      2 4
      AMD Athlon II X4 740K 2 4
      Intel Core i3-7100U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-4300U 2 4
      Intel Celeron G1840 2 2 69 $
      Intel Core i5 K 655 2 4
      Intel Core i7-3537U 2 4
      4 4
      Intel Core i5 661 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2520M 2 4 89 $
      Intel Core i5-5200U 2 4
      Intel Core i7 X 920 4 8 190 $
      Intel Core i7-3667U 2 4
      Intel Pentium G2030 2 2 29 $
      AMD Phenom II X4 840T
      AMD Phenom II X4 945       		4 4
      4 4
      4 4
      AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core 2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 850 4 4
      4 4
      AMD FX-4100 4 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 20 4 4 59 $
      Intel Core i5-8210Y 2 4
      Intel Pentium G860 2 2
      Intel Xeon E5-2609 0 4 4
      AMD A10-5700 APU (2012 D. Tr) 4 4
      Intel Core i5 660 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2540M 2 4
      4 4 135 $
      Intel Core i5-4310U 2 4
      Intel Core m3-8100Y 2 4
      2 4
      Intel Celeron G1830 2 2 89$
      Intel Core i5-3210M 2 4 52 $
      Intel Pentium G870
      AMD Phenom II X4 B50       		2 2
      2 2
      AMD Phenom II X6 1035T 6 6
      AMD A10-7870K APU (2014 D. Ka) 2 4 135 $
      AMD Athlon II X4 750K 4 4
      Intel Celeron G1850 2 2 99 $
      Intel Core X 920 4 8 190 $
      Intel Core i3-6157U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-5300U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-3687U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E7-4870 16 16
      2 4
      AMD Athlon II X4 870K 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4500U 2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 B55 4 4
      Intel Xeon L5520 4 8 77 $
      Intel Xeon X5470 4 4
      Intel Core i7-2640M 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5520 4 8
      2 4
      2 4
      Intel Core i7-2620M 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2635QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-8500Y 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2675QM 4 8
      Intel Pentium G3220 2 2 20$
      Intel Celeron G3930 2 2 99$
      Intel Core i3-3220T 2 4
      Intel Core i5-3230M 2 4 100 $
      Intel Core i7-4510U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-5500U 2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 960T 4 4
      AMD FX-6100 6 6
      Intel Pentium G2120 2 2 75$
      AMD Phenom II X6 1045T 6 6
      Intel Core i5 680 2 4
      AMD FX-4300
      AMD Ryzen 3 2300U       		4 4
      4 4
      AMD A10-7890K APU (2014 D. Ka) 2 4
      2 4
      Intel Core i3-6167U 2 4
      Intel Core i3-7130U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-3320M 2 4
      Intel Core i5-4258U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2630QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4600U 2 4
      Intel Pentium G3240 2 2 99 $
      AMD Phenom II X4 B60 4 4
      Intel Xeon E5620 4 8
      AMD A10-5800K APU (2012 D. Tr) 4 4
      AMD Athlon II X4 555 4 4
      Intel Core i3-2100 2 4
      Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 4 4
      Intel Core i5-3340M 2 4
      Intel Core i5-4200M 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5530 4 8
      AMD A10-6700 APU (2013 D.Ri) 4 4
      Intel Core i7 X 940 4 8 299 $
      AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 6 6
      AMD A10-5800B APU (2012 D. Tr) 2 4
      Intel Core i3-2105 2 4
      Intel Pentium G2130 2 2 44 $
      Intel Pentium G3250 2 2
      Intel Core i5-6260U 2 4
      4 4
      Intel Xeon X3430 4 4
      4 4
      AMD FX-6120 Six-Core
      AMD Athlon II X4 760K (2013 D.Ri)       		3 6
      2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 B65 4 4
      Intel Core i7-5600U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-6600U 2 4
      Intel Xeon E5-2620 0 6 12
      Intel Core i7-4558U 2 4
      AMD FX-8120 4 8
      Intel Pentium G3260 2 2
      2 4
      Intel Celeron G4900 2 2 125 $
      AMD Phenom II X4 970
      AMD Ryzen 3 3300U       		4 4
      4 4
      Intel Core i3-4130T 2 4 125 $
      Intel Core i7-6650U 2 4
      4 4
      Intel Core i5-3360M 2 4
      Intel Core i5-5257U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-5650U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-3380M 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2670QM 4 8
      AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core 2 4
      Intel Pentium G3420 2 2 46 $
      Intel Celeron G3950 2 2
      Intel Core i3-2120 2 4 73 $
      Intel Core i3-3210 2 4 70$
      Intel Core i5-4300M 2 4
      AMD Phenom II X4 975 4 4
      Intel Core i7-3540M 2 4 128 $
      Intel Pentium G3430 2 2
      Intel Pentium G4400 2 2 110 $
      AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 6 6
      Intel Xeon E5540 4 8
      AMD FX-4350 4 4 128 $
      AMD FX-6200 Six-Core 3 6 40 $
      Intel Xeon E5-1603 0 4 4
      Intel Xeon E5-2620 v2 6 12
      Intel Core i7-5550U 2 4
      AMD FX-6300 6 6 80$
      Intel Pentium G3450 2 2
      Intel Pentium G3440 2 2
      AMD Athlon 200GE 2 4 88 $
      Intel Core i3-2125 2 4
      Intel Core i3-2130 2 4
      Intel Core i7-2820QM 4 8
      Intel Core i3-3220 2 4 123 $
      Intel Pentium G3258 2 2 78 $
      AMD Phenom II X4 980 4 4
      AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6 6 240$
      Intel Xeon E5-2680 v2 10 20
      Intel Core i5-7300U 2 4
      Intel Pentium G4560T 2 4
      Intel Core i3-3225 2 4
      Intel Core i3-7167U 2 4
      Intel Core i5-3470T 2 4
      Intel Core i7-7560U 2 4
      Intel Xeon W3520 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4200H 2 4
      AMD FX-8320E 8 8
      Intel Core i3-3240 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2405S 4 4
      Intel Core i5-750 4 4 200 $
      Intel Core i5-10210Y 4 8
      Intel Core i7-6567U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-920 4 8 190 $
      Intel Pentium G3460 2 2
      Intel Celeron G5920 2 2 41 $
      Intel Core i7-3612QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4600M 2 4
      AMD FX-8310 4 8
      Intel Core i3-3250 2 4
      Intel Core i7-7500U 2 4
      AMD FX-8300 4 8
      Intel Pentium G4500 2 2
      Intel Xeon E5-2630 0 6 12
      Intel Xeon W3530 4 8
      AMD FX-6350 Six-Core 3 6
      AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 6 6
      Intel Core i5 760 4 4 144 $
      AMD FX-8150 8 8
      AMD Ryzen 7 3700U 4 8
      Intel Celeron G5900 2 2 35$
      Intel Core i7 940 4 8 299 $
      Intel Core i7-2920XM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-2960XM 4 8
      Intel Core i3-8145U 2 4
      Intel Core i7-3632QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4610M 2 4
      Intel Core i7-7600U 2 4
      AMD FX-8320 8 8 544 $
      AMD FX-8370E 8 8
      Intel Pentium G3470 2 2 142 $
      Intel Core i3-6100T 2 4
      Intel Core i7-5557U 2 4
      AMD Athlon 220GE 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2300 4 4
      Intel Core i5-3330S 4 4
      Intel Core i7 930 4 8
      Intel Core i7 860 4 8 285 $
      Intel Core i3-4130 2 4 79 $
      Intel Core i5-2310 4 4
      Intel Core i5-4570T 2 4
      Intel Core i5-6300HQ 4 4
      AMD Athlon 240GE 2 4
      Intel Core i3-4150 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4702HQ 4 8
      Intel Pentium G5400T 2 4
      Intel Xeon X5560 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4712HQ 4 8
      Intel Xeon L5639 6 12
      Intel Core i7-3610QM 4 8
      Intel Pentium G4520 2 2
      Intel Xeon X3450 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4750HQ 4 8
      Intel Xeon W3550 4 8
      Intel Core i3-4160 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2500S 4 4
      Intel Core i7-950 4 8 272 $
      Intel Core i7-4702MQ 4 8
      Intel Pentium G5500T 2 4
      Intel Xeon X3460 4 8
      Intel Core i5-2320 4 4
      Intel Core i5-3330 4 4
      Intel Core i5-7400T 4 4
      Intel Core i3-7100T 2 4
      Intel Core i3-4330 2 4 78 $
      Intel Core i3-6300T 2 4 147 $
      Intel Core i5-7260U 2 4
      Intel Core i7 870 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3630QM 4 8
      Intel Xeon X5570 4 8 250 $
      Intel Pentium G4560 2 4
      Intel Xeon W3565 4 8
      Intel Core i3-4170 2 4 120$
      Intel Core i7 960 4 8 240 $
      Intel Core i5-3340 4 4 278 $
      Intel Core i5-4570R 4 4
      Intel Core i7-3720QM 4 8 196 $
      Intel Core i3-4340 2 4 100 $
      Intel Core i5-3350P 4 4
      Intel Core i5-7300HQ 4 4
      Intel Core i7-4850HQ
      AMD Ryzen 5 3550H       		4 8
      4 8
      Intel Core i3-4350 2 4 100 $
      AMD Ryzen 3 1200 4 4
      Intel Xeon E31220 4 4 150 $
      Intel Core i3-6098P 2 4
      Intel Core i7 965 4 8 999 $
      Intel Core i7-2600S 4 8 301 $
      AMD FX-8370 8 8
      Intel Pentium Gold G7400 2 4
      Intel Xeon X5667 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4700MQ 4 8
      Intel Core i3-4360 2 4 200 $
      Intel Core i5-3450S 4 4
      Intel Core i7-4722HQ 4 8
      Intel Xeon E31225 4 4
      Intel Core i7 K 875 4 8 369 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 3750H 4 8
      Intel Xeon X3470 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4430 4 4
      AMD FX-9370 8 8
      Intel Pentium G4600 2 4
      Intel Core i3-6100 2 4 75$
      Intel Core i5-10200H 4 8
      Intel Core i7 880 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3820QM 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4710HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i5-3470S 4 4
      Intel Core i5-6400 4 4 183 $
      Intel Core i5-2450P 4 4
      Intel Core i7-4710MQ 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4460S 4 4
      Intel Core i5-4440 4 4 248 $
      Intel Core i7-3740QM 4 8 218 $
      Intel Core i5-3475S 4 4
      Intel Core i7 975 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3840QM 4 8
      Intel Xeon W3570 4 8 453 $
      Intel Core i7-4700HQ 4 8
      Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2 10 20
      Intel Core i3-4370 2 4
      Intel Core i3-7300T 2 4
      Intel Core i5-3450 4 4 240$
      Intel Xeon E3-1220 V2 4 4 150 $
      Intel Xeon E5-2643 0 4 8
      Intel Celeron G6900 2 2
      Intel Core i3-8109U 2 4
      Intel Pentium Gold G5400 2 4 111 $
      Intel Core i5-4460 4 4 117 $
      Intel Core i7-4720HQ 4 8
      AMD FX-9590 8 8 344 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 1400 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8365U 4 8
      Intel Core i3-7100 2 4 170 $
      Intel Core i7-4810MQ 4 8
      Intel Core i3-6300 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4960HQ 4 8
      Intel Xeon E31230 4 8
      Intel Xeon X5650 6 12
      Intel Core i7-8565U 4 8
      Intel Pentium G4620 2 4
      Intel Xeon E3-1225 V2 4 4 165 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1240 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1220 v3 4 4
      Intel Xeon E5-2670 8 16 66 $
      Intel Core i5-7500T 4 4
      Intel Core i7-8665U 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3920XM 4 8
      Intel Pentium Gold G5500 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4900MQ 4 8 626 $
      Intel Core i7-4910MQ 4 8 145 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 2600H
      AMD Ryzen 7 2800H       		4 8
      4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1225 v3 4 4 170 $
      Intel Core i5-3550 4 4
      Intel Core i7-4770T 4 8
      Intel Core i7-6820HK 4 8
      4 4
      Intel Core i3-6320 2 4 145 $
      Intel Xeon E31270 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4590S 4 4
      Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 4 4
      Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 8 16
      Intel Xeon X5660 6 12
      Intel Core i7-3940XM 4 8 164 $
      Intel Core i7-6920HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i3-7101E 2 4
      Intel Core i7-4930MX 4 8
      Intel Core i7-5700HQ 4 8
      Intel Xeon E5-1620 0 4 8
      Intel Pentium Gold G5600 2 4
      Intel Core i7 970 6 12
      Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2 4 8 190 $
      Intel Core i3-7300 2 4
      Intel Core i5-2550K 4 4
      Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 4 4
      Intel Core i5-6600T 4 4
      Intel Core i5-4670S 4 4
      Intel Core i7-3820 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4790T 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1505M v6 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1265L v3 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3770S 4 8 190 $
      Intel Core i7-4940MX 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8305G 4 8
      Intel Core i7-7920HQ 4 8
      Intel Pentium Gold G6400 2 4
      Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1245 V2 4 8
      Intel Core i7-6700T 4 8
      Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 4 8
      4 4 179 $
      Intel Core i7 980 6 12 1100 $
      Intel Core i5-8400T 6 6
      Intel Core i7 X 980 6 12 1100 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1275 V2 4 8
      Intel Core i3-7320 2 4 100 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 1500X 4 8
      Intel Xeon W3680 6 12 285 $
      Intel Core i5-7500 4 4 216 $
      Intel Core i7-2600K 4 8
      Intel Core i7-2700K 4 8
      AMD Ryzen3 4300U 4 4
      Intel Core i7-4820K 4 8 263 $
      Intel Core i7-7820HK 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 4 8 300 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1270 V2 4 8
      Intel Xeon X5690 6 12
      Intel Core i5-7600T 4 4
      Intel Core i5-8279U 4 8
      Intel Core i7-5850HQ 4 8
      Intel Core i7-7700T 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1245 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8300H 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1240 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i7 X 000 6 12
      Intel Xeon E5-1650 0 6 12 238 $
      Intel Xeon W3690 6 12 990 $
      Intel Core i7-4790S 4 8 225 $
      Intel Core i7-8705G 4 8
      Intel Core i7 X 990 6 12
      Intel Core i5-8500T 6 6
      Intel Core i7-4770 4 8 169 $
      Intel Core i5-9300H 4 8
      Intel Core i7-4771 4 8 145 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1246 v3 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3770K 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1275 v3 4 8
      Intel Xeon E5-2687W 0 8 16 565 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i3-8300 4 4
      Intel Pentium Gold G6500 2 4
      Intel Core i7-10710U 6 12
      Intel Core i7-8706G 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1271 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i5-4690K 4 4 115 $
      Intel Xeon E3-1230 v6 4 8
      Intel Core i3-10100T 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1276 v3 4 8
      Intel Core i5-5675C 4 4
      Intel Core i5-7600 4 4 176 $
      Intel Core i7-3930K 6 12 530 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 2500X 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8400H 4 8
      Intel Core i7-5950HQ 4 8
      Intel Pentium Gold G6600 2 4
      Intel Xeon E3-1286v3 4 8
      Intel Xeon E5-2690 v2 10 20 153 $
      AMD Ryzen 9 4900U 8 16
      Intel Core i7-3960X 6 12 375 $
      Intel Core i7-5775R 4 8
      Intel Core i7-3970X 6 12 500 $
      Intel Xeon E5-1650 v2 6 12
      Intel Core i3-10300T 4 8
      Intel Core i3-9100 4 4 165 $
      Intel Core i9-8950HK 6 12
      Intel Xeon E3-1270 v6 4 8
      Intel Xeon E3-1245 v6 4 8
      Intel Core i5-9400H 4 8
      Intel Core i5-10400T 6 12
      Intel Core i3-8350K 4 4
      Intel Core i7-8809G 4 8
      Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 6 12
      Intel Core i5-7600K 4 4 249 $
      Intel Core i7-4960X 6 12
      Intel Core i7-8559U 4 8
      Intel Core i5-8400 6 6 230 $
      Intel Core i7-8700T 6 12
      Intel Core i7-9850H 6 12
      Intel Core i5-10400H 4 8
      Intel Core i7-5930K 6 12 250 $
      Intel Core i5-7640X 4 4 240$
      Intel Core i5-9400 6 6 126 $
      Intel Core i5-10500T 6 12
      Intel Core i7-7800X 6 12 325 $
      Intel Core i5-10600T 6 12
      Intel Core i7-6850K 6 12 280 $
      Intel Core i5-8600 6 6 271 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 3500 6 6
      Intel Core i3-9350KF 4 4
      Intel Core i5-1145G7 4 8
      8 16 200 $
      AMD Ryzen 5 3500X 6 6
      Intel Core i3-10300 4 8
      Intel Core i7-5960X 8 16 774 $
      AMD Ryzen 3 5300G 4 8
      Intel Core i5-9500 6 6
      Intel Core i7-7740X 4 8 210 $
      AMD Ryzen 7 4700G 8 16
      Intel Core i7-10700T 8 16
      Intel Core i7-10870H 8 16
      Intel Core i5-9600 6 6
      12 24
      Intel Core i9-10900T 10 20
      Intel Core i3-10320 4 8
      Intel Core i7-7820X 8 16 400 $
      Intel Core i9-9820X 10 20
      12 24
      Intel Core i9-7920X 12 24 329 $
      Intel Core i9-9900X 10 20 685 $
      Intel Intel Core i3-12100F 4 8 130 $
      Intel Intel Core i3-12100 4 8
      Intel Core i5-12100 4 8
      Intel Core i5-12100F 4 8
      Intel Core i9-7940X 14 28
      Intel Core i9-9920X 12 24 999 $
      Intel Core i5-12600 6 12 240 $
      Intel Core i9-9940X 14 28 1050 $
      Intel Core i9-10920X 12 24
      Intel Core i5-11500 6 12 194 $
      Intel Core i7-12800H 14 20
      Intel Core i9-9960X 16 32 1600 $
      Intel Core i9-9980XE 18 36 1495 $
      Intel Core i5-11600 6 12 200 $
      Intel Core i9-10900 10 20 375 $
      AMD Ryzen TR 2970WX 24 48 848 $
      Intel Core i9-10900F 10 20 369 $
      Intel Core i9-12900H 14 20
      Intel Core i9-11900 8 16 339 $

      Simple household tasks

      Minimum Average Maximum
      68 Memory: 84 93

      Memory

      88. 4

      180 1 core: 192 198

      1 core

      93.5

      359 2 cores: 379 388

      2 cores

      93.9

      Demanding games and tasks

      Minimum Average Maximum
      716 4 cores: 738 765

      4 cores

      93

      1328 8 cores: 1408 1456

      8 cores

      91. 1

      Extreme

      Minimum Average Maximum
      1602 All cores: 2263 2263 2263

      All cores

      40.4

      Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

      We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

      Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

      When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

      Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

      Benchmarks

      Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

      Cinebench R23 Single Core

      Intel Core i9-12900HK

      1938

      Intel Core i5-12600K

      1918

      Intel Core i5-12600KF

      1918

      Intel Core i9-12900H

      1917

      Intel Core i7-12700

      1862

      Intel Core i7 -12700F

      1862

      Intel Core i7-12700

      1862

      Intel Core i7-12700H

      1806

      Intel Core i5-12500

      1804

      e.9-11900K

      1686

      Intel Core i9-11900KF

      1686

      Cinebench R23 Multi Core

      Intel Core i7-12700KF

      22812

      Intel Core i7-12700K

      22812

      Intel Core i9-7960X

      22189

      AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

      21878

      Intel Core i7-12700

      21568

      Intel Core i7-12700F

      21568

      Intel Core i7-12700

      21568

      AMD Ryzen TR 2950X

      21444

      Intel Core i9-10940X

      21309

      AMD Ryzen 9 5900

      20955

      AMD Ryzen TR 1950X

      18780

      Geekbench 5 Single Core

      Intel Core i5-11600K

      1721

      Intel Core i3-12100

      1716

      Intel Core i3-12100F

      1716

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

      1714

      Intel Core i7-12700

      1712

      Intel Core i7-12700F

      1712

      Intel Core i7-12700

      1712

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800

      1710

      Intel Core i5-12500H

      1674

      Intel Core i5-12400

      1647

      Intel Core i5-12400F

      1647

      Geekbench 5 Multi Core

      Intel Core i7-12800H

      12465

      AMD Ryzen

      		X

      12454

      Intel Core i5-12600K

      11912

      Intel Core i5-12600KF

      11912

      Intel Core i7-12700

      11650

      Intel Core i7-12700F

      11650

      Intel Core i7- 12700

      11650

      Intel Core i9-11900k

      11645

      Intel Core i9-11900KF

      11645

      Intel Core i9-7920x

      11498

      1050X

      11420

      Game Tests

      FPS measured by us in popular games on Intel Core i7-12700F and system requirements met. Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.

      On average for all gaming tests, the processor scored 90-P WIFI D4, graphics card — UHD Graphics 770, SSD — Blue SN550 NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB.

      Characteristics

      The data is not yet complete, so the tables may be missing information or missing existing features.

      Basic

      Manufacturer Intel
      Date of Issue The month and year the processor was released. 09-2022
      Cores The number of physical cores. 12
      ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 20
      Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores in the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard for maximum FPS).
      Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 2.1 GHz
      Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. No

      Video core

      RAM

      PCI

      Data protection

      Design

      Competitors

      Please note that competitors are selected based on automatic performance. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.

      Compare

      Intel Core i7-12700F vs AMD Ryzen TR 2990WX

      Intel Core i7-12700F vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

      Intel Core i7-12700F vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

      Intel Core i7-12700F vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600H specifications, price, test, competitors

        Home
      • >
      • Processors
      • >
      • AMD
      • Ryzen 5 5600h

        Ryzen 5 56002 10. number of physical cores and increases the performance of multi-threaded applications and games.

        Ryzen 5 5600H base clock is 3.3 GHz. The maximum frequency in AMD Turbo Core mode reaches 4.2 GHz.

        Price in Russia

        Want to buy Ryzen 5 5600H cheap? Look at the list of stores that already sell the processor in your city.

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H benchmarks

        Gaming speed

        Performance in games and similar applications, according to our tests.

        The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

        The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

        Speed ​​in office use

        Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office applications.

        The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

        Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

        Speed ​​in heavy applications

        Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

        The performance of all cores and their number has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

        At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

        Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

        Speed ​​of numerical operations

        Simple household tasks

        Minimum Average Maximum
        46 Memory: 75 82

        Memory

        78.7

        60 1 core: 128 144

        1 core

        62.3

        110 2 cores: 250 288

        2 cores

        62

        Demanding games and tasks

        Minimum Average Maximum
        202 4 cores: 480 55

        4 cores

        60. 4

        386 8 cores: 780 900

        8 cores

        50.4

        Extreme

        Minimum Average Maximum
        525 All cores: 1001 114

        All cores

        18.4

        Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

        We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

        Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

        When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

        Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

        Benchmarks

        Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

        Cinebench R23 Single Core

        Intel Core i5-10600K

        1391

        Intel Core i9-10900KF

        1382

        Intel Core i9-10900K

        1382

        AMD Ryzen 9 3950X

        1371

        AMD Ryzen 5 5500

        1371

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

        1370

        Intel Core i9-10850K

        1367

        Intel Core i9-10900

        1354

        AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT

        1354

        Intel Core i9-10900f

        1354

        AMD3900XT

        1354

        Cinebench R23 Multi Core

        Intel Core i7-9700KF

        10326

        Intel Core i7-9700K

        10326

        Intel Core i7-8086K

        10209

        Intel Core i5-11400F

        10186

        Intel Core i5-11400

        10155

        AMD RYZEN 5 5600H

        10123

        AMD RYZEN 7 4800U

        9974

        AMD Ryzen 7 2700x

        10971

        AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT

        9945

        Intel Core i9-10980HK

        9923

        AMD Ryzen 5 3600X

        9704

        Cinebench R20 Single Core

        AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT

        539

        AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

        539

        Intel Core i9-10850K

        536

        AMD Ryzen 5 5500

        535

        AMD Ryzen 9 3950X

        531

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

        530

        Intel Core i5-11400

        52

      		02

      Intel Core i9-10900

      529

      Intel Core i5-11400F

      529

      Intel Core i9-10900F

      529

      Intel Core i7-10700K

      524

      Cinebench R20 Multi Core

      AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

      3847

      AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS

      3847

      AMD Ryzen 7 4800U

      3847

      AMD Ryzen 5 3600X

      3751

      Intel Core i5-11400H

      3745

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

      370

      		02

      Intel Core i7-8700K

      3689

      AMD Ryzen TR 1900X

      3678

      Intel Core i7-9700K

      3656

      Intel Core i7-9700F

      3644

      Intel Core i7-9700

      3644

      Geekbench 5 Single Core

      AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT

      1414

      Intel Core i9-10850K

      1411

      Intel Core i9-10900

      1379

      10-10900F

      1379

      AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT

      1376

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

      1376

      AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT

      1376

      AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

      1357

      Intel Core i5-1135G7

      1355

      Intel Core i5-10600KF

      1354

      Intel Core i5-10600K

      1354

      Geekbench 5 Multi Core

      Intel Core i9-9880H

      6114

      Intel Core i7-1185G7

      6102

      AMD Ryzen 7 1700X

      6034

      Intel Core i5-10400F

      6014

      Intel Core i7-6850K

      5986

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

      5967

      Intel Core i7-8700

      5891

      Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2

      5876

      Intel Core i7-1165G7

      5874

      Intel Core i5-10400

      5870

      Intel Core i5-10600

      5866

      iGPU — FP32 Performance GFLOPS

      AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS

      1433

      Intel Core i5-1130G7

      1406

      AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

      1306

      AMD Ryzen 3 3200G

      1280

      AMD Ryzen 5 3500U

      122

      		02

      AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

      1229

      AMD Ryzen 5 3500U

      1229

      AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

      1152

      AMD Ryzen 5 4600U

      1152

      AMD Ryzen 5 4500U

      1152

      AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS

      1152

      Gaming benchmarks

      FPS measured by us in popular games on AMD Ryzen 5 5600H and system requirements met. Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.

      On average for all gaming tests, the processor scored 70.7 points out of 100, where 100 is the fastest gaming processor to date.

      Select game

      Accessories

      Motherboards

        105

        AMD

        Manufacturer
        Date of Issue The month and year the processor was released. 09-2022
        Cores The number of physical cores. 6
        ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 12
        Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores in the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. SMT (note that some games may not work well with SMT, for maximum FPS, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard).
        Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 3.3 GHz
        Turbo frequencyThe maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. 4.2 GHz
        Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. No

        Video core

        RAM

        PCI

        Data protection

        Design

        Competitors

        Please note that competitors are selected based on automatic performance. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.

        Compare

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i7-4790K

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i9-9940X

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i5-9600K

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i7-4960X

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i7-8700T

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600H vs Intel Core i3-10320

        Simple household tasks

        Minimum Average Maximum
        12 Memory: 74 93

        Memory

        77. 9

        112 1 core: 153 158

        1 core

        74.6

        285 2 cores: 308 316

        2 cores

        76.3

        Demanding games and tasks

        Minimum Average Maximum
        578 4 cores: 605 622

        4 cores

        76. 2

        1062 8 cores: 1121 1192

        8 cores

        72.4

        Extreme

        Minimum Average Maximum
        1458 All Cores: 1519 1519

        All cores

        27.9

        Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

        We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

        Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

        When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

        Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

        Benchmarks

        Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version. AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

        1532

        AMD Ryzen

        Cinebench R23 Single Core

        5980HS

        1521

        Intel Core i7-11370H

        1517

        Intel Core i7-11850H

        1517

        AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

        1517

        Intel Core i7-11370H

        1517

        Intel Core i7-11850H

        1517

        Intel Core i5-11600

        1508

        AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

        1504

        Intel Core i7-1165G7

        1504

        Cinebench R23 Multi Core

        AMD Ryzen

      		HX

      14670

      Intel Core i7-11700F

      14327

      Intel Core i7-11700

      14327

      Intel Core i9-10900X

      14301

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800

      14065

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

      14041

      Intel Core i9-11980HK

      13977

      AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS

      13977

      AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX

      13875

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

      13802

      Intel Core i9-9900KS

      13305

      Cinebench R20 Single Core

      Intel Core i7-11370H

      590

      Intel Core i7-11850H

      590

      Intel Core i7-11700F

      589

      Intel Core i7-11700

      589

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

      588

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

      588

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

      588

      AMD Ryzen 7 6800H

      587

      AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

      585

      AMD Ryzen

      AMD

      Manufacturer
      Date of Issue The month and year the processor was released. 09-2022
      Cores The number of physical cores. 8
      ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 16
      Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores in the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. SMT (note that some games may not work well with SMT, for maximum FPS, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard).
      Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 3.8 GHz
      Turbo frequencyThe maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. 4.45 GHz
      Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. No

      Video core

      RAM

      PCI

      Data protection

      Design

      Competitors

      Please note that competitors are selected based on automatic performance. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.

      Compare

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G vs Intel Core i7-9700F

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G vs Intel Core i7-10700

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G vs Intel Core i7-10700KF

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G vs Intel Core i5-8600K

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G vs Intel Core i5-9600KF

      AMD Ryzen 7 5700G vs Intel Core i5-11600KF

      How to compare processors in terms of power, heat dissipation and performance

      How to compare processors in terms of power, heat dissipation and performance

      28 September 2016

      Often it is required to compare different processors among themselves. For example, when choosing a candidate for
      purchase from a number of favorite laptops with the same price and functionality, I want to know
      what is the difference in CPU performance. Or when buying a new laptop instead of the old one, you want
      find out how many times faster a modern PC model will work compared to an old counterpart,
      and whether it is worth overpaying for excess performance.

      When it comes to thin, light and economical models of laptops, then the first place comes out
      heat dissipation. This will affect the battery life of the battery, the heating of the case and the level
      fan noise. It’s good if the processors belong to the same generation and line and differ only
      frequency. But usually you have to deal with completely different architectures and even manufacturers
      «pebbles».

      In this article, I’ll show you how to compare two different processors with each other in terms of heat dissipation and
      performance.

      To evaluate the performance, we will use the CPU Benchmark website. Go to the section
      “ Search for your CPU Model ” and find the right processors. The list of presented pebbles is huge. fresh, only
      Recently introduced CPU models may not be on the list, but it is growing fast. And to
      by the time the laptop is on the store shelf, its processor is most likely on this list
      will be present.



      On the right is a list of processors with a convenient search. On the left is a general list of all available models (has
      large size and can slow down).

      Performance is given in conventional units in column Passmark CPU Mark . The higher it is, the
      faster processor. A twofold difference in rating means that the model with the higher rating
      about twice as fast as a slow counterpart. On different tests and in different applications, this
      ratio may differ for a number of reasons. But in general, this performance index reflects
      real balance of power.

      From my own experience, I would break the entire rating range into several parts:

      • 0-1500 . Extremely weak CPUs. Suitable only for printing texts, reading
        mail and Internet surfing. Moreover, the latter is in question, since the processors of this
        range often have a memory limit (2 GB), which for modern
        browsers is critical. Typical representatives are the extremely slow Intel Celeron N2840 or
        processors of the Atom line (a vivid example of the Atom Z3735, installed in a good half
        tablets). Recommended for purchase only with a very limited budget.
      • 1500-3000 . More powerful processors. Suitable for most tasks
        including for resource-intensive ones, such as video editing or creating virtual machines.
        Such CPUs are installed in most computers and laptops in the middle price segment.
        This category belongs to both cheap, but pretty decent performance for
        of its class Pentium N3700 and N3540, as well as weak representatives of the «full-fledged» line of Intel
        core i3.
      • 3000-8000 . Powerful and productive models. Installed on laptops
        premium and desktop PCs. Suitable for all tasks, including games. But the price
        high enough. This includes most representatives of the Core i3 and Core i5 lines. Same here
        includes advanced energy-efficient Core M processors (Core M3 and M5).
      • Above 8000 . Top and powerful processors at a very high price.
        The price/performance ratio is lower than the previous category (essentially overpaying),
        however, they achieve fantastic performance. They usually have a high
        heat dissipation, therefore installed in desktops (although there are energy-efficient
        representatives installed in laptops). This includes the fastest representatives of the Core i5,
        almost the entire range of Core i7 and processors of the Extreme line, breaking records in
        performance.

      For more information, follow the link by clicking on the processor model, —
      the rating will be displayed, in which our instance is circled in red. Click on it again and
      Let’s move on to the details.


      The site has a convenient search

      Here, in addition to the rating itself, the number of cores is indicated “ No of Cores ”, heat dissipation is “ Max TDP ”
      and the performance of a single core » Single Thread Rating: «. Now a little more about these
      quantities.


      The performance index is in bold red. The heat pack is circled in green.
      (power) of the processor, in red — the number of cores, in blue — the performance of a single core.

      The more cores, the better — this is obvious. Heat dissipation affects heating and consumption
      laptop. The larger it is, the stronger the laptop heats up, the less time it will work from
      battery and the more it needs to be cooled, which means that the cooling fan will make noise
      stronger. The performance of a single core is important for applications that do not know how to balance the load
      between cores. The processor may have four weak cores, so only an application using
      all the cores at once, will be able to work as efficiently as possible.

      Examples of such software are video editors, audio and video encoders, virtual
      machines, archivers, etc. Traditional office programs — text editor, browser, mail
      client, etc — usually use only one core at a time. So don’t ignore
      this parameter.

      In addition, I’ll tell you where this rating comes from. Users download from the specified
      above site is a program to check the performance of your computer. After benchmarking
      (tests) the program displays the result, comparing it with models similar in level, and at the same time
      sends the results to the database. Thanks to a large number of tested PCs and sent
      tests, the final results are quite accurate. The number of tests from different users for a given
      model is listed in the «Samples:» column.

      And in conclusion, it must be said that the specified performance index gives an idea of
      differences in the speed of processors in general. This ratio may vary slightly in different
      tests, applications and games depending on the number of cores, their frequencies and the skill of the program
      distribute the load among the cores. Despite this, this rating will definitely help to make
      the right choice in favor of a more powerful or energy efficient processor.

      Receive announcements of new articles directly to your mail

      AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Review — Mobile Processor Test

      AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Review — Mobile Processor Test

      The Ryzen 5 4600H is AMD’s new mobile processor for high performance and gaming laptops. There is no Ryzen 3 processor in this line, so the Ryzen 5 4600H is part of the entry-level processor of those that will be considered in this review.

      With the Ryzen 5 4600H, you get 6 Zen 2 processor cores and 12 threads running at a base frequency of 3.0 GHz (up to 4.0 GHz in Turbo mode). The processor ships with 8MB of cache and a TDP of 45W, downgradable to 35W, and upgradable to 54W.

      You also get all the benefits of AMD’s 7nm Zen 2 architecture, which means significant efficiency gains over the previous generation, increased instructions per clock, and an updated GPU architecture. The Ryzen 5 4600H features an integrated Vega GPU with 6 compute units clocked at up to 1500MHz, but in practice, most laptops using this processor will have a discrete graphics card.

      The direct competitors of the Ryzen 5 4600H are 10th generation Intel processors, as well as those that are still on sale from older generations. In contrast to this processor, Intel offers a quad-core Core i5-10300H, with a base frequency of 2.5 GHz with 8 MB cache with 45 W TDP.

      The new 10th generation Intel processors are not much different from the quad-core processors that came before it. They offer a slight increase in clock speed over the Core i5-9300H, which itself is a slight increase in clock speed over the Core i5-8300H. With Intel processors still running at 14nm, AMD is taking the opportunity to shake up the laptop market.

      The Ryzen 5 4600H was tested on an ASUS TUF Gaming A15 laptop that ships with a Ryzen 5 4600H and the new entry-level NVIDIA GTX 1650 Ti discrete graphics card. It comes with 16 GB of RAM running at 3200 MHz.

      AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Testing

      • Conclusion

      Cinebench R20

      We start testing with Cinebench R20 and immediately see that the Ryzen 5 4600H is in the upper half of the graph. With over 3200 points, it outperforms higher-end Intel processors such as the Core i7-10875H and Core i9-9880H in the multi-core test. This is impressive when you consider that AMD only has 6 cores, while Intel offers 8.

      The situation becomes even more impressive when the Ryzen 5 4600H is compared to the new Core i7-10750H in a single-core test. The AMD processor is 27% better in multi-threaded performance and equal in single-threaded performance, which is pretty good considering that the processors are not price competitive.

      The difference is even more pronounced when comparing the Ryzen 5 4600H to its direct competitor, the Core i5-9300H. There is no test of the new Core i5-10300H yet, but it will be roughly similar to the Core i5-9300H. In Cinebench R20, the Ryzen 5 4600H doesn’t give a single chance to the i5-9300H. It’s twice as good in a multi-threaded test and 8 percent faster in a single-threaded test.

      Handbrake

      The processor from AMD does not bother with video encoding for a long time. In Handbrake, the Ryzen 5 4600H delivers a devastating blow to the Core i5-9300H, beating it by 65%. What the Core i5-9300H can code in 68 minutes, the Ryzen 5 4600H does in 41 minutes. This puts the Ryzen 5 4600H right next to the Intel Core i7-10875H in terms of Handbrake performance, which is very impressive considering the huge price gap between Ryzen 5 4600H and i7-10875H laptops.

      Blender 2.80

      AMD continues to show excellent results in multi-threaded mode. Blender Ryzen 5 4600H is twice as fast as Intel Core i5-9300H and more than 30% faster than the Intel Core i7-9750H.

      Code compilation

      Ryzen also works well with code compilation. In GCC compilation, the Ryzen 5 4600H is over 50% faster than the Core i5-9300H and outperforms Intel’s six-core processors.

      Microsoft Excel

      Both the Ryzen 5 4600H and Core i5-9300H have 8MB of L3 cache, and we can see AMD’s processor outperforming its counterparts by 45% in cache. However, the Intel processor with 16MB of cache handles Excel better, albeit by a slight margin.

      PCMark 10

      As you can see from the PCMark benchmark, AMD is holding the lead with better single thread performance. We see a 10% advantage over the Core i5-9300H, as well as about a 7% lead on the Core i7-10750H and 9750H.

      7-Zip

      7-Zip is another program that works well with AMD processors. In this test, the Ryzen 5 4600H is significantly faster than the Core i5-9300H. In decompression, it outperforms six-core Intel processors by 20-25%. In terms of compression, AMD easily outperforms the Core i5 and is not inferior to the Core i7.

      MATLAB R2020a

      MATLAB R2020a is a tool widely used by engineers. The Ryzen 5 4600H is not only 28% faster than the quad-core Intel processor, but also 7% faster than the Core i7-10750H.

      Adobe Acrobat

      The weakest result for Ryzen is PDF to PNG export in Adobe Acrobat. The Ryzen 5 4600H is marginally slower than the Core i5-9 in this single-threaded test.300H, and this difference increases with more powerful Intel processors such as the Core i7-10750H.

      Adobe Photoshop

      In Adobe Photoshop, the Ryzen 5 4600H performs well, matching the performance of the Core i7-9750H, despite the slower GPU. The current test configuration with the GTX 1650 Ti easily outperforms the Core i5-9300H paired with the GTX 1660 TI, which is well suited for creatives who use Photoshop a lot on their laptop.

      Comparison of Ryzen 5 4600H and Core i5-9The 300H

      Ryzen 5 4600H is significantly faster than the Core i5-9300H in most tests, which we suspect the Core i5-10300 will also be. Ryzen 5’s multi-threaded performance is double that, and even in single-threaded tests, we see better performance in most cases. For frequent use cases like decompression, cryptography, app downloads, web browsing, the Ryzen 5 4600H is the faster processor.

      Ryzen 5 4600H versus Core i7-10750H

      The Ryzen 5 4600H is generally faster than the Core i7-10750H, Intel’s higher-end processor that shares the same six-core layout. In multi-threaded workloads, the 4600H was 20-30% faster, and also better in some tests with fewer threads. However, with a high overclock, high single-thread performance and higher cache, the Core i7-10750H scores higher in some benchmarks.

      Comparison of Ryzen 5 4600H and Core i7-9750H

      Same story with Core i7-9750H — AMD delivers better performance with the same number of cores in this generation of laptop processors.

      Ryzen 5 4600H versus Intel Core i7-10875H

      In multi-core tests, the Ryzen 5 4600H differs from the octa-core Core i7-10875H. In fact, the Ryzen 5 4600H could be up to 10 percent faster. However, with superior single-thread performance and higher clock speeds, the Core i7-10875H is faster in half of the tests.

      Conclusion

      The six-core AMD Ryzen 5 4600H shows a strong performance advantage over the quad-core Intel Core i5 processors, delivering up to 2x better results.