Intel and amd cpu comparison: AMD vs Intel: Which CPUs Are Better in 2022?

AMD vs Intel: Which CPUs Are Better in 2022?

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

If you’re looking for the best CPUs for Gaming or the best workstation CPU, there are only two choices to pick from – AMD and Intel. That fact has spawned an almost religious following for both camps, and the resulting AMD vs Intel flamewars make it tricky to get unbiased advice about the best choice for your next processor. But in many cases, the answer is actually very clear. In fact, for most users, it’s now a blowout win in Intel’s favor, as you can see in our CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy. That’s a fast reversal of fortunes for the chipmaker after its decade of dominance was completely overturned by AMD’s Ryzen 5000 chips. It also gives Intel a leg up as we head into the Raptor Lake and Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 era.

This article covers the never-ending argument of AMD vs Intel desktop CPUs (we’re not covering laptop or server chips). We judge the chips on seven criteria based on what you plan to do with your PC, pricing, performance, driver support, power consumption, and security, giving us a clear view of the state of the competition. We’ll also discuss the lithographies and architectures that influence the moving goalposts. Overall, there’s a clear winner, but which CPU brand you should buy depends mostly on what kind of features, price, and performance are important to you.

If you’re looking for the fastest overall chips on the market, you should look to Intel’s potent new Alder Lake series. Even though AMD clings to the distinction of having the single fastest gaming chip available, Intel’s Alder Lake chips take the gaming crown from AMD in all of the most important price bands. Alder Lake also rivals or beats AMD in all meaningful performance metrics, like single- and multi-threaded productivity workloads. You can see the disruptive results in our Intel Core i9-12900K and Core i5-12600K review, and we’ve also added both our Windows 10 and 11 testing to our CPU benchmark database. We’ve also thrown in results with both DDR4 and DDR5 memory for good measure.

Intel’s Alder Lake has completely redefined x86 desktop PC chips with a new hybrid architecture that delivers amazing levels of performance. Not to be upstaged, AMD released its Ryzen 7 5800X3D, a new CPU with 3D V-Cache. This chip takes the overall leadership spot for gaming, if only by a slight percentage, courtesy of an almost-unthinkable 96MB of L3 cache bolted onto the souped-up processor.

You can see how all of these processors stack up in our AMD vs Intel CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy, but the landscape had changed in the wake of AMD’s Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 5900X, not to mention the Ryzen 5 5600X. At their debut, the Ryzen 5000 series were the highest-performing chips on the market and beat Intel in every metric that matters, including gaming, application performance, power consumption, and thermals, but Intel’s successful Alder Lake counterattack swung the tables in Team Blue’s favor.

AMD recently released six other new Zen 3 chips to shore up its defenses against Alder Lake, but we’ve found that they don’t impact the competitive positioning much. AMD also has its Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 chips coming on September 26. Intel also has its Raptor Lake chips coming, and they’re expected in October. That means the AMD vs Intel battle could shift very soon, but this is the tale of the tape for the current state of the market.

AMD vs. Intel: Which CPU is Best?

AMD vs Intel CPUs in 2022
	Intel	AMD
CPU Pricing and Value	X	X
Gaming Performance	X
Content Creation/Productivity	✗
Specifications	✗
Overclocking	✗
Power Consumption		✗
Drivers and Software	✗
Process Node		✗
Architecture	X	✗
Security		✗
Winner: Intel — Total	7	5

Here are the results of our analysis and testing. In the following sections, we’ll go over the in-depth details of how we came to our conclusions for each category.

AMD’s relentless onslaught with its Zen-based processors has redefined our expectations for both the mainstream desktop and the HEDT markets, originally catching Intel flatfooted as it remained mired on the 14nm process and Skylake architectures. The past several years have seen AMD CPUs go from value-focused and power hungry chips to leading-end designs that deliver more cores, more performance, and lower power requirements.

Intel fought back by slowly adding features and cores across its product stack, but that also resulted in negative side effects, like more power consumption and heat generation. That only served to highlight the company’s struggles on the design and fabrication side of its operation.

The AMD vs Intel CPU conversation has changed entirely, though, as Intel has now undercut AMD’s price-to-performance ratio entirely with the Alder Lake chips. Additionally, Alder Lake comes with the most disruptive change to Intel’s CPU overall SoC design methodology, not to mention core architectures, that we’ve seen in a decade. They also come with the new ‘Intel 7’ process that has proven to be exceptionally competitive, particularly against AMD’s superior process node that comes from TSMC. That shifted our rankings from a 7-to-4 advantage for AMD to a 7-to-5 advantage in Intel’s favor.

Intel even moved forward to PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 technologies, leaving AMD’s PCIe 4.0 and DDR4 support looking rather dated. DDR5 does add significant cost to motherboards, but Alder Lake also supports DDR4 memory. However, Intel still hasn’t eased its draconian segmentation policies that limit features, like overclockability, to pricey chips and motherboards.

Intel’s Alder Lake also holds the crown on overclockability. If you spend the cash on a Z690 motherboard, you’ll attain far more overclocking headroom than you’ll get with the Ryzen 5000 chips. You can see our head-to-head testing in our How to Overclock a CPU feature.

AMD’s current mix of price, performance, and value, recently resulted in deep price cuts to its flagship Ryzen 5000 processors. AMD isn’t taking the challenge lying down, though, as it recently released its Ryzen 7 5800X3D, a new CPU with 3D V-Cache. This chip takes the overall leadership spot for gaming courtesy of an incredible 96MB of L3 cache bolted onto the souped-up specialized processor that delivers up to 15% more gaming performance on average. However, it still features the Zen 3 architecture, so it lags Intel’s processors in more general desktop PC application performance.

Despite AMD’s recent refresh, Intel wins the CPU war overall right now. An AMD processor could still be the better choice depending on your needs, like if you prize the lowest power consumption or less-expensive motherboards. For now, if you want the best in gaming or application performance, overclocking or software support, or if you want productivity performance without buying a discrete GPU (see our best graphics cards), Team Blue deserves your hard-earned dollars.

That could change soon, though. As we mentioned in the introduction, AMD has its Ryzen 7000 processors coming to market soon, and they come packing the Zen 4 microarchitecture, which will bring a new level of performance to the table. Intel isn’t standing still, though, as it has its Raptor Lake processors also ready to launch this year. These chips build upon the goodness of Alder Lake but bring expanded core counts and frequencies. As such, if you’re on the fence about buying a system, it might be wise to wait another month or so. The tables below include the new Ryzen models and outlines how we think the Raptor Lake vs Ryzen 7000 battle will play out, but be sure to head to the links above for more detail.

AMD Ryzen 7000 Zen 4 Specifications
	Price	Cores / Threads (P+E)	Base / Boost Clock (GHz)	Cache (L2+L3)	TDP / Max	Memory
Ryzen 9 7950X	$699	16 / 32	4.5 / 5.7	80MB	170W / 230W	DDR5-5200
Ryzen 9 7900X	$549	12 / 24	4. 7 / 5.6	76MB	170W / 230W	DDR5-5200
Ryzen 7 7700X	$399	8 / 16	4.5 / 5.4	40MB	105W / ?	DDR5-5200
Ryzen 5 7600X	$299	6 / 12	4.7 / 5.3	38MB	105W / ?	DDR5-5200

Raptor Lake vs Ryzen 7000
	Intel Raptor Lake	AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 7000
Release Date: Rumored	Mid- to Late-October	September 15th
Node / Design	Intel 7 — Monolithic Die	TSMC 5nm Compute die, 6nm I/O DIe
Cores / Threads	Up to 8P + 16E \| 24 Cores / 32 Threads	Up to 16 Cores / 32 Threads
Peak Clocks	5. 8 Observed / 6.0 Rumored	5.5+ GHz
TDP / PBP / MTP	125W / 241W	170W / 230W
Memory	DDR4-3200 / DDR5-5200 (5600)	DDR5 Only (No DDR4 support)
PCIe	PCIe 5.0 x16, PCIe 4.0 x4 (SSD)	PCIe 5.0 — 24 Lanes
Graphics	?	?

AMD vs Intel CPU Pricing and Value

Pricing is the most important consideration for almost everyone, and AMD has generally been hard to beat in the value department. The company offers a plethora of advantages, like full overclockability on most models, not to mention complimentary software that includes the innovative Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) auto-overclocking feature. At first, the company’s Ryzen 5000 series processors brought an across-the-board $50 price hike, but the faster chips earned their higher price tags. That calculus has changed now that Intel’s Alder Lake chips have retaken the performance crown and have brutally competitive pricing, thus forcing price cuts from AMD.

You also benefit from the broad compatibility of motherboards with the AM4 CPU socket that supports both forward and backward compatibility, ensuring that not only do you get the most bang for your processor buck, but also your motherboard investment (there are caveats with the 5000 series). However, AMD’s long-lived support for the AM4 socket now finds it trailing in connectivity options while Intel’s chipsets have more modern amenities. The company’s new AM5 socket will arrive with the Ryzen 7000 chips later this year, but AMD says we can expect the AM4 socket to thrive for quite some time.

AMD also allows overclocking on all but its A-Series motherboards (see our article on CPU overclocking), which is a boon for enthusiasts. And, in this battle of AMD vs Intel CPUs, we haven’t even discussed the actual silicon yet.

Processor Pricing by Family	AMD	Intel
Threadripper — Cascade Lake-X	$900- $3,750	$800 — $1,000 ($2,999)
AMD Ryzen 9 — Intel Core i9	$450 — $600	$422 — $739
AMD Ryzen 7 — Intel Core i7	$294 -$449	$298 — $409
AMD Ryzen 5 — Intel Core i5	$149 — $225	$157 — $289
AMD Ryzen 3 — Intel Core i3	$95 — $120	$97 — $154

The arrival of Intel’s Alder Lake-S models has found the company adding more cores, threads, and features to its mainstream lineup, but without increased gen-on-gen pricing for similar models. That equated to a substantial reduction in price-per-core and price-per-thread metrics, allowing it to steal the value crown from AMD in the Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 ranges. The addition of the hybrid x86 architecture, which brings a mix of high-performance and efficiency cores, has also wrung out more performance. Meanwhile, AMD still owns the high end desktop (HEDT) segment entirely with its Threadripper processors — but it is noteworthy that we haven’t seen new HEDT chips from either chipmaker over the last few years.

Intel includes bundled coolers with its non-overclocking SKUs (you have to pay more to overclock), but they are flimsy and ‘good enough,’ at best. We’ve even seen cases where Intel’s stock coolers don’t provide full performance at stock settings. Intel did slightly bulk up its bundled coolers, but the aesthetic and slight thermal improvements aren’t enough to match AMD’s competent coolers, and they aren’t available on all models.

Intel also doesn’t throw in a cooler at all for its pricey overclockable K-series SKUs. So be sure to budget in a cooler (and a beefy one at that) if you plan on overclocking an Intel processor. Meanwhile, most of AMD’s bundled coolers are suitable for at least moderate overclocking. Still, those only came as a standard add-in with the previous-gen Ryzen 3000 series, most of which haven’t been supplanted with new Ryzen 5000 equivalents yet. Moreover, only three of the first seven AMD Ryzen 5000 processors, the Ryzen 5 5600X, Ryzen 7 5700G, and Ryzen 5 5600G, come with a bundled cooler.

Intel not only charges a premium for its overclockable K-Series chips, but you’ll also need to shell out for a pricey Z-Series motherboard for the privilege of overclocking your processor — Intel doesn’t allow full overclocking on B- or H-series motherboards. However, Intel has now enabled memory overclocking on its B560 and H570 chipsets, a big win for enthusiasts.

Intel also has a long history of rapid socket transitions, meaning the odds of dropping a new chip into your existing motherboard, or taking the older processor over to a newer board, aren’t as high. Intel’s Socket 1700 for Alder Lake will extend for at least one more generation, but plan for limited forward and backward compatibility on the Intel side.

AMD’s Zen 3 chips are the end of the line for the tried-and-true AM4 socket, so you shouldn’t expect those chips to work in future AMD platforms. However, AMD has its new CPUs with 3D V-Cache headed to production later this year. Zen 4 processors will come with a new AM5 socket, but AMD plans for it to have a similarly-long lifespan as the AM4 socket.

Win: Tie. When you’re comparing Intel vs AMD CPUs, Team Red still has a compelling value story across the full breadth of its product stack, but Intel’s Alder Lake currently offers the most bang for your buck. However, that is only when we take chip pricing into account. Intel’s decision to support PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 with Alder Lake has resulted in increased motherboard pricing, so those price differences can offset each other in certain price bands. Intel still holds the overall price-to-performance advantage, though, even when we factor in motherboard pricing. Of course, you can also opt for DDR4 motherboards to avoid the DDR5 tax.

If you’re looking for integrated graphics paired with a processor with more than eight cores, Intel is currently your only choice for chips at retail. AMD does have its ‘Cezanne’ Ryzen 5 5600G and Ryzen 7 5700G APUs with integrated graphics. However, these chips come with pared-back CPU performance in exchange for beefy integrated graphics, meaning they won’t offer nearly the same level of performance in CPU-centric tasks.

Not that we’d recommend integrated graphics for most users, particularly if you’re interested in gaming—check out our recent comparison of integrated graphics on AMD and Intel processors for more detail.

AMD vs Intel CPU Gaming Performance

In the AMD vs Intel CPU battle, Intel holds the lead in all critical price bands. Below we have a wide selection of collective gaming performance measurements for the existing chips in the different price bands. In addition, we have two series of test results below that encapsulate performance in both Windows 10 and Windows 11 because Intel’s Alder Lake offers more performance in Windows 10 than 11. Regardless, the Blue Team holds the lead in both operating systems. You can see a much more holistic view in our CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy.

Our first four slides encapsulate Windows 11 gaming performance with the new Alder Lake and Ryzen 5000 processors included, while the Windows 10 slides show a larger selection of processors.

Image 1 of 10

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

As you can see, Intel’s Alder Lake chips are faster than AMD’s Zen 3-powered Ryzen 5000 processors in all areas but one — the Ryzen 7 5800X3D that takes the overall lead in gaming. However, you have to be aware of the tradeoffs with this highly-specialized chip — the 3D V-Cache doesn’t boost performance in all games, though we found that it impacted nearly every single game we tested. Additionally, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is optimized specifically for gaming, but as you’ll see below, it can’t keep pace with similarly-priced chips in productivity applications.

That said, while the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is faster than Intel’s Core i9-12900KS, even after overclocking, most users would be hard-pressed to notice the difference between the two in real-world gaming sessions unless they’re doing multiple other tasks at the same time, like gaming.

The Core i9-12900K and Core i9-12900KS slot in as Intel’s fastest gaming chips, price be damned, but the Core i7-12700K delivers basically the same gaming performance for far less cash, making it the go-to choice for performance addicts. For mainstream gamers, the Core i5-12600K offers the best blend of price and performance that you can find on the market, bar none. The Core i5-12400 offers stellar performance for its price, and the Core i3-12100 is the chip to beat in the ~$110 price class.

The Ryzen 9 5900X slots in as AMD’s second-fastest fastest gaming chip, but not by much. The Ryzen 5 5600X offers nearly the same level of performance at a friendlier $300 price point, and AMD’s Ryzen 7 5700X represents a small step up the ladder over the 5600X.

We have in-depth head-to-head comparisons for Alder Lake against Ryzen 5000 in each of the key price brackets in the following articles:

Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Core i7-12700K and Core i9-12900K Face-Off: The Rise of 3D V-Cache

Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X: Alder Lake and Ryzen 5000 Face Off

Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen

Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X Face Off: Intel Rising

Intel Core i5-12400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Face-Off: The Gaming Value Showdown

However, bear in mind that the performance delta between Intel and AMD’s comparably-priced chips often isn’t worth paying a huge premium, at least for the vast majority of enthusiasts. You’d be hard-pressed to notice the small differences in gaming performance at the top of the AMD vs Intel stack, but things are more complicated in the mid-range.

You’ll need a fire-breathing high-end GPU and one of the best gaming monitors with a high refresh rate to get the most out of a small performance advantage, and you’ll need to game at the mundane 1080p resolution, too. Kicking your resolution up to 1440p and beyond typically pushes the bottleneck back to the GPU, so you won’t gain as much from your CPU’s gaming prowess. However, a bit of extra CPU gaming performance could pay off if you plan on updating your graphics card with a newer generation while keeping the rest of your system intact. We expect most builds in the mid-range to come with lesser GPUs, which generally serve as an equalizer in terms of CPU performance.

In terms of integrated graphics performance, there’s no beating AMD. The company’s current-gen Cezanne APUs offer the best performance available from integrated graphics with the Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G. Hit those reviews for a dedicated breakdown, or head to our CPU Benchmark hierarchy for even more detail.

Winner: Intel. Intel’s Alder Lake chips have wrested the gaming crown from AMD in the critical price bands. AMD has the overall lead with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, but that chip comes with a string of caveats that you should be aware of if you plan on the upgrade — the cache doesn’t accelerate all games and it also doesn’t impact performance in applications. That said, taken as a whole, both companies have extremely competitive chips in the respective price ranges — you’ll often be hard-pressed to notice a difference between them in real-world gaming.

If you’re a gaming fanatic that prizes every single last frame you can squeeze out in the broadest range of titles, Intel’s Core i9-12900K is the answer on the high-end, and that will also pay off if you plan to upgrade your GPU soon. If you’re looking for a lower-priced chip that offers the same gaming performance but exchanges some heft in productivity applications for a lower price tag, the Core i7-12700K is your chip. For the vast majority, the Core i5-12600K offers the best blend of price and performance, making it the uncontested best CPU for gaming.

AMD vs Intel Productivity and Content Creation Performance

Image 1 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

In the non-gaming performance battle of AMD vs Intel CPUs, Intel’s Alder Lake chips have also made great strides against AMD’s finest and offer a superior price-to-performance ratio in a broad swath of workloads. That said, AMD’s highest-end chip takes the outright win in terms of the ultimate performance in threaded productivity and content creation applications in a few workloads. That comes courtesy of its copious slathering of cores, threads, and cache on its flagship Ryzen 9 5950X. However, those wins come at the expense of a much higher price point, and it isn’t enough to justify the premium.

Alder Lake marks the debut of a mixture of two types of cores for the mainstream desktop PC. The big performance cores (P-cores) are best for latency-sensitive work, giving Intel the uncontested lead in single-threaded applications. The efficiency cores (E-cores) step in to add some additional heft in threaded and background applications, which pays big dividends in heavily-threaded content creation and productivity applications. The E-cores have proven to be the unsung hero for Alder Lake in creativity and productivity workloads, allowing Intel to take the lead from AMD in the most important pricing bands.

Solid performance in single-threaded work equates to faster performance in all manner of workloads, particularly day-to-day applications that rely on snappy responsiveness from the processor. The Alder Lake Core i9-12900K has taken the uncontested lead in single-threaded performance across the full spate of our benchmarks, but that’s Intel’s most expensive mainstream CPU. If you’re on the hunt for snappy single-threaded performance, the other Alder Lake processors also take comparatively large leads over competing AMD processors. That means Intel’s Alder Lake family holds the single-threaded performance crown.

Winner: Intel. For professionals on the hunt for performance in content creation and productivity applications, the winner of AMD vs Intel CPUs goes to Intel on the strength of its x86 hybrid architecture. This new design blends two types of cores to create a single powerhouse processor architecture that’s just as agile in single-threaded work as it is powerful in threaded applications.

AMD vs Intel Processor Specifications and Features

AMD has its Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, Ryzen 9, and Threadripper lines, while Intel breaks up its offerings into Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9, and Cascade Lake-X families. To compare Intel vs AMD CPUs based on specs and features, we could chart the entire product stacks, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll focus on the top chips in the respective families. Be aware that both companies have value options within each tier, but we can get a general sense of the current competitive landscape with these (relatively) short lists. We’re using both vendors’ recommended pricing and street pricing to give you a sense of the current state of the market.

The high end desktop (HEDT) used to be the land of creative prosumers with fire-breathing multi-core monsters for just about every need. Intel had long enjoyed the uncontested lead in this segment, but while AMD’s first-gen Threadripper lineup disrupted the status quo, the Threadripper 3000 lineup destroyed it.

However, AMD introduced a Threadripper Pro 3000WX-series lineup with professional-class amenities and performance, and they came with the eye-watering price tags to match. With the Threadripper Pro 5000WX series, AMD decided that it would put an end to the HEDT era by ‘unifying’ the consumer and professional lineup under the ‘Pro’ brand. AMD literally muscled Intel out of the HEDT market —Intel hasn’t released a new HEDT chip since the Cascade Lake-X processors in 2019 — and AMD’s decision to abandon the market marks the end of the HEDT era, at least for now.

**AMD vs Intel CPUs HEDT Specs and Pricing**
High End Desktop (HEDT)	MSRP / Retail	Cores / Threads	Base / Boost GHz	L3 Cache	TDP	PCIe	Memory
Threadripper Pro 5995WX	$6,499	64 / 128	2.7 / 4.5	256 (8CCD + I/OD)	280W	128Gen4	Eight-Channel DDR4-3200
Threadripper 3990X	$3,990 / $3,750	64 / 128	2.9 / 4.3	256	280W	72 Usable Gen4	Quad DDR4-3200
Intel W-3175X	$2,999 / N/A	28 / 56	3. 1 / 4.8	38.5	255W	48 Gen3	Six-Channel DDR4-2666
Threadripper Pro 5975WX	$3,299	32 / 64	3.6 / 4.5	128 (4CCD + I/OD)	280W	128 Gen4	Eight-Channel DDR4-3200
Threadripper 3970X	$1,999 / $1,899	32 / 64	3.7 / 4.5	*128	280W	72 Usable Gen4	Quad DDR4-3200
Threadripper Pro 5965WX	$2,399	24 / 48	3.8 / 4.5	128 (4CCD + I/OD)	280W	128 Gen4	Eight-Channel DDR4-3200
Threadripper 3960X	$1,399 / $1,399	24 / 48	3. 8 / 4.5	*128	280W	72 Usable Gen4	Quad DDR4-3200
Xeon W-3265	$3,349 / N/A	24 / 48	2.7 / 4.6	33	205W	64 Gen3	Six-Channel DDR4-2933
Core i9-10980XE	$979 / $1,099	18 / 36	3.0 / 4.8	24.75	165W	48 Gen3	Quad DDR4-2933

Here we can see that when it comes to AMD vs Intel HEDT CPUs, AMD’s final HEDT-only lineup holds the uncontested lead with 64 cores and 128 threads in its flagship Threadripper 3990X, and the 32- and 24-core Threadripper 3970X and 3960X models cement the overwhelming lead over Intel’s chips. AMD’s 64-core AMD Threadripper Pro 5995WX and 32-core Threadripper Pro 5975WX, and 24-core Threadripper Pro 5965WX slot in for the workstation market.

Intel splits its highest-end lineup into two classes, with the Xeon W-3175X and W-3265 dropping into exotic LGA3647 motherboards that carry eye-watering price tags to match the chips’ insane pricing. These aren’t really enthusiast-class systems, though; think of these as more for the professional workstation market.

Intel’s HEDT lineup truly began with its 18-core Cascade Lake-X Core i9-10980XE that dropped into LGA2066 motherboards. That chip was powerful given its price point, but Threadripper’s 3.5X advantage in core counts was impossible to beat, so Intel ceded the HEDT market to AMD.

You’ll get more cores, cache, and faster PCIe 4.0 connectivity with AMD’s Threadripper lineup, but they do come with higher price tags befitting such monstrous processors. However, when we boil it down to per-core pricing, or how much you pay for each CPU core, AMD does offer a compelling value story.

**AMD vs Intel High End Specs and Pricing**
	Price Street/MSRP	Design — Arch.	E/P – Core\|Thread	P-Core Base/Boost (GHz)	E-Core Base/Boost (GHz)	TDP / PBP / MTP	Memory Support	L3 Cache
Core i9-12900KS	$739	Alder Lake	>8P + 8E \| 16C / 24T	3. 4 / 5.5	2.5 / 4.0	150W / 241W	DDR4/5-3200/4800	30MB
Ryzen 9 5950X	$600 ($799)	Zen 3 — Vermeer	16P \| 32T	3.4 / 4.9	—	105W	DDR4-3200	64MB (2×32)
Core i9-12900K / KF	$589 (K) — $564 (KF)	Alder Lake	8P+8E \| 16C/24T	3.2 / 5.2	2.4 / 3.9	125W / 241W	DDR4/5-3200/4800	30MB
Ryzen 9 5900X	$450 ($549)	Zen 3 — Vermeer	12P \| 24T	3.7 / 4.8	—	105W	DDR4-3200	32MB (1×32)
Ryzen 7 5800X3D	$449	Zen 3 — Vermeer	8P \| 16T	3.4 / 4.5	—	105W	DDR4-3200	96MB
Core i7-12700K / KF	$409 (K) — $384 (KF)	Alder Lake	8P+4E \| 12C/20T	3. 6 / 5.0	2.7 / 3.8	125W / 190W	DDR4/5-3200/4800	25MB
Ryzen 7 5800X	$350 ($449)	Zen 3 — Vermeer	8P \| 16T	3.8 / 4.7	—	105W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Ryzen 7 5700X	$299	Zen 3 — Vermeer	8P \| 16T	3.4 / 4.6	—	65W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Ryzen 7 5700G (APU)	$295 ($359)	Zen 3 — Cezanne	8P \| 16T	3.8 / 4.6	—	65W	DDR4-3200	32MB

In the battle of high-end AMD vs Intel CPUs, AMD’s Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 families square off against Intel’s Core i9 and Core i7 lineup. Here Intel holds plenty of platform advantages, like support for DDR5 and PCIe 5.0, while AMD tops out at PCIe 4.0 and DDR4.

The Core i9-12900K holds the throne as the best all-around processor for gaming, single- and multi-threaded work, while the Ryzen 9 5950X takes a few scant leads in some types of multi-threaded work. However, that comes at a big tradeoff in performance in the other categories. Technically the 12900K falls into the same price bracket as the Ryzen 9 5900X, but that isn’t a fair fight — the 12900K wins hands down. You can see these three processors go head to head in our Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 5900X faceoff.

A similar story plays out in the decidedly more mainstream Ryzen 7 and Core i7 markets. Honestly, these are the chips the majority of gamers should buy if they have enough cash, though the Core i5 and Ryzen 5 models in the next category are even better for that task. Here Intel’s Core i7-12700K offers nearly the same gaming performance as the Core i9-12900K, albeit at the expense of some threaded horsepower in productivity applications, but at a far lower price point.

Without a doubt, the Core i7-12700K dominates its price point as it easily beats the price-comparable Ryzen 7 5800X and offers a far better blend of performance than the Ryzen 9 5900X. You can see those battles in more detail in the Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X faceoff.

**AMD vs Intel CPUs Mid-Range and Budget Specs and Pricing**
	Price Street/MSRP	Design — Arch.	E/P – Core\|Thread	P-Core Base/Boost (GHz)	E-Core Base/Boost (GHz)	TDP / PBP / MTP	Memory Support	L3 Cache
Core i5-12600K / KF	$289 (K) — $264 (KF)	Alder Lake	6P+4E \| 10C/16T	3.7 / 4.9	2.8 / 3.6	125W / 150W	DDR4/5-3200/4800	16MB
Ryzen 5 5600X	$225 ($299)	Zen 3 — Vermeer	6P \| 12T	3.7 / 4.6	—	65W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Ryzen 5 5600G (APU)	$220 ($259 )	Zen 3 — Cezanne	6P \| 12T	3.9 / 4.4	—	65W	DDR4-3200	16MB
Ryzen 5 5600	$199	Zen 3 — Vermeer	6P\|12T	3. 5 / 4.4	—	65W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Core i5-12400 / F	$192 — $167 (F)	Alder Lake	6P+0E \| 6C/12T	4.4 / 2.5	—	65W / 117W	DDR4/5-3200/4800	18MB
Ryzen 5 3600X	$250 ($240)	Zen 2	6P \| 12T	3.8 / 4.4	—	95W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Ryzen 5 3600	$229 ($200)	Zen 2	6P \| 12T	3.6 / 4.2	—	65W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Ryzen 5 5500	$159	Zen 3 — Cezanne	6P \| 12T	3.6 / 4.2	—	65W	DDR4-3200	16MB
Ryzen 5 4600G (APU)	$154	Zen 2 — Renoir	6P \| 12T	3. 7 / 4.2	—	65W	DDR4-3200	8MB

AMD and Intel Low-End Specs and Pricing
	Price Street/MSRP	Design — Arch.	E/P – Core\|Thread	P-Core Base/Boost (GHz)	TDP / PBP / MTP	Memory Support	L3 Cache
Ryzen 5 5500	$199	Zen 3 — Cezanne	6P \| 12T	3.6 / 4.2	65W	DDR4-3200	16MB
Ryzen 5 4600G (APU)	$154	Zen 2 — Renoir	6P \| 12T	3.7 / 4.2	65W	DDR4-3200	8MB
Core i3-12100 / F	$122 — $97 (F)	Alder Lake	4P+0E \| 4C/8T	3. 3 / 4.3	60W / 89W	DDR4/5-3200/4800	12MB
Ryzen 5 4500	$129	Zen 2 — Renoir	6P \| 12T	3.6 / 4.1	65W	DDR4-3200	8MB
Ryzen 3 4100	$99	Zen 2 — Renoir	4P \| 8T	3.8 / 4.0	65W	DDR4-3200	4MB

When it comes to AMD vs Intel mid-range and budget CPUs, the Core i5 and i3 families do battle with AMD’s Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 processors. This market segment comprises the most substantial portion of AMD and Intel’s sales, so pricing and value here are paramount. Unfortunately, due to supply issues, both AMD and Intel have largely neglected this segment of the market with their latest releases as they focus on more profitable higher-end chips. That means the Ryzen 5000 and Alder Lake families have limited options on the low end.

AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X was the mainstream gaming darling for over a year, but the Core i5-12600K has thoroughly unseated it with class-leading performance in all facets, including gaming, single- and multi-threaded applications. In fact, the Core i5-12600K is even a better value than the more expensive Ryzen 7 5800X that resides in a higher pricing tier.

AMD also leans on its prior-gen Zen 2 APUs, like the Ryzen 5 4600G, to fend off Intel’s lower-end chips. If you’re looking for a sub-$200 chip for gaming, Intel wins by a vast margin. That said, AMD’s APUs come with potent Vega graphics units that enable low-end gaming across a broad spate of titles. Intel’s chips can’t hold a candle there—you’ll need a discrete GPU if you plan to do any meaningful gaming.

Neither vendor offers integrated graphics units (iGPU) with their HEDT chips. Still, even though Intel sells its graphics-less F-Series chips for a discount, it holds the advantage of having a graphics option across the full breadth of its mainstream product stack.

In contrast, AMD only offers integrated graphics on its APU models, which means you’ll need a discrete graphics card (GPU) for any retail chip that has more than four cores (or costs more than ~$150). That’s a significant disadvantage for most mainstream users who aren’t interested in gaming and eliminates a big chunk of the professional/OEM markets. Intel’s iGPUs are mostly useless for gaming but are useful for display and QuickSync purposes, while AMD’s iGPUs offer the best gaming experience, hands down. However, AMD’s limited selection cuts it out a significant portion of the market.

Winner: Intel. When you compare AMD vs Intel CPU specifications, you can see that Intel offers options with lower pricing, more performance, and a more modern platform that supports both DDR5 and PCIe 5.0. Meanwhile, AMD’s aging AM4 ecosystem has soldiered on for six long years now, hamstringing the company’s ability to move forward to faster interfaces.

AMD vs Intel CPU Power Consumption and Heat

When comparing AMD vs Intel CPU power and heat, the former’s 7nm process node makes a huge difference. Power consumption comes as a byproduct of design choices, like lithography and architecture, which we’ll discuss below. However, higher power consumption often correlates to more heat generation, so you’ll need beefier coolers to offset the heat output of greedier chips.

Image 1 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware`)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

As we can see, the Alder Lake chips consume far less power than the Rocket Lake chips. Overall, Intel has reduced its power consumption from meme-worthy to an acceptable level. Besides, Alder Lake is much faster than the previous-gen chips, earning it some forgiveness.

Intel had improved its 14nm processes to strengthen its power-to-performance ratio by more than 70% in the five long years it’s been on the market, but Intel’s later 14nm generations were known for high power consumption and heat than AMD’s Ryzen 5000. That’s because Intel has had to turn the power dial up further with each generation of chips to provide more performance as it fended off the resurgent AMD.

That made Intel a notorious power guzzler, but that has changed with Alder Lake. Paired with the x86 hybrid architecture, the debut of the ‘Intel 7’ process has brought big improvements to Intel’s power consumption and efficiency metrics.

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Yes, the Intel Alder Lake chips still suck more power than AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series chips, but pairing the Intel 7 process with the hybrid architecture brings big improvements, particularly in threaded work.

Still, in aggregate, AMD’s 7nm chips either consume less power or provide much better power-to-performance efficiency. As a result, you’ll get more work done per watt of energy consumed, which is a win-win, and AMD’s cooling requirements aren’t nearly as overbearing.

In fact, the Ryzen 5000 series chips are the most power-efficient desktop PC chips we’ve ever tested, with the Ryzen 5 5600X offering the best efficiency.

Winner: AMD. In judging AMD vs Intel CPU performance per watt, It’s impossible to overstate the importance of having the densest process node paired with an efficient microarchitecture, and TSMC’s 7nm and AMD’s Zen 3 are the winning combination. The latest Ryzen processors consume less power on a performance-vs-power basis, which equates to less heat generation. That eases cooling requirements.

AMD vs Intel CPU Overclocking

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

There’s no debate when you compare Intel vs AMD CPU overclocking. Intel offers the most overclocking headroom, meaning you can gain more performance over the baseline speed with Intel chips than you can with AMD’s Ryzen processors. To learn more about overclocking, head to our How to Overclock a CPU guide.

Above you can see that in chart form, and here’s that same data in table form, showing that Intel’s Alder Lake offers far more overclocking headroom than Ryzen 5000:

Alder Lake vs Ryzen 5000 Overclock Uplift — Stock configuration used as baseline — Windows 11

Tom’s Hardware — %age Change 1080p Gaming Single-Thread Multi-Thread

Core i9-12900K DDR4/ DDR5 +9.7% / +5.2% +1.6% / +3.2% +3.3% / +7%

Ryzen 9 5950X +5% -2.3% +5.7%

Core i7-12700K DDR4/ DDR5 +9.8% / +7.1% +2.3% / +2.1% +3.9% / +6.4%

Ryzen 9 5900X +3.7% -0.6% +2.1%

Core i5-12600K DDR4/ DDR5 +15.2% / +12.9% +4% / +4.2% +8.8% / +11.3%

Ryzen 5 5600X +6.7% +3. 8% +2.7%

As mentioned, you’ll have to pay a premium for Intel’s K-Series chips and purchase a pricey Z-Series motherboard, not to mention splurge on a capable aftermarket cooler (preferably liquid), to unlock the best of Intel’s overclocking prowess. However, once you have the necessary parts, Intel’s chips are relatively easy to push to their max, which often tops out at over 5 GHz on all cores with the 11th-Gen Rocket Lake and 12th-Gen Alder Lake processors.

Intel doesn’t allow full overclocking on B- or H-series motherboards, but it has infused memory overclocking into its B560 and H570 chipsets, and that works with any chip that is compatible with the platform, meaning all 10th-Gen Comet Lake, 11th-Gen Rocket Lake, and 11th-Gen Comet Lake Refresh processors. However, these changes only apply to 500-series models. That can provide a big boost to locked chips, like the Core i5-11400 we recently reviewed, and we expect those gains to carry over to Intel’s forthcoming lower-end Alder Lake chips.

AMD doesn’t have as much room for manual tuning. In fact, the maximum achievable all-core overclocks often fall a few hundred MHz beneath the chips’ maximum single-core boost. That means all-core overclocking can actually result in losing performance in lightly-threaded applications, albeit a minor amount.

Part of this disparity stems from AMD’s tactic of binning its chips to allow some cores to boost much higher than others. In tandem with AMD’s Precision Boost and innovative thread-targeting technique that pegs lightly-threaded workloads to the fastest cores, AMD exposes near-overlocked performance right out of the box. That results in less overclocking headroom.

However, AMD offers its Precision Boost Overdrive, a one-click auto-overclocking feature that will wring some extra performance out of your chip based on its capabilities, your motherboard’s power delivery subsystem, and your CPU cooling. AMD’s approach provides the best performance possible with your choice of components and is generally hassle-free. In either case, you still won’t achieve the high frequencies you’ll see with Intel processors (5.0 GHz is still unheard of with an AMD chip without liquid nitrogen cooling), but you do get a free performance boost.

AMD has also vastly improved its memory overclocking capabilities with the Ryzen 5000 series, which comes as a byproduct of the improved fabric overclocking capabilities. That allows AMD memory to clock higher than before while still retaining the low-latency attributes that boost gaming performance.

Winner: Intel. When it comes to AMD vs Intel CPU overclocking, Team Blue has far more headroom and much higher attainable frequencies. Just be prepared to pay for the privilege – you’ll have to buy a K-series processor. Intel has added memory overclocking to the newest B- and H-series motherboards, which is an improvement.

AMD’s approach is friendlier to entry-level users, rewarding them with hassle-free overclocking based on their system’s capabilities, but you don’t gain as much performance.

Alder Lake vs Ryzen 5000 Overclock Uplift — Stock configuration used as baseline — Windows 11
Tom’s Hardware — %age Change	1080p Gaming	Single-Thread	Multi-Thread
Core i9-12900K DDR4/ DDR5	+9.7% / +5.2%	+1.6% / +3.2%	+3.3% / +7%
Ryzen 9 5950X	+5%	-2.3%	+5.7%
Core i7-12700K DDR4/ DDR5	+9.8% / +7.1%	+2.3% / +2.1%	+3.9% / +6.4%
Ryzen 9 5900X	+3.7%	-0.6%	+2.1%
Core i5-12600K DDR4/ DDR5	+15.2% / +12.9%	+4% / +4.2%	+8.8% / +11.3%
Ryzen 5 5600X	+6.7%	+3. 8%	+2.7%

AMD vs Intel CPU Lithography

There are a few major underlying technologies that dictate the potency of any chip. The most fundamental rule of processors still holds true: The densest process nodes, provided they have decent power, performance, and area (PPA) characteristics, will often win the battle if paired with a solid microarchitecture. When you judge AMD vs Intel CPUs based on these criteria, AMD has the lead in lithography.

But whether or not AMD actually owns the process lead is a topic of debate: Unlike Intel, AMD doesn’t produce its processors. Instead, the company designs its processors and then contracts with outside fabs that actually produce the chips. In the case of AMD’s current-gen Ryzen processors, the company uses a combination of GlobalFoundries 12nm process and TSMC’s 7nm node for its chips, with the latter being the most important.

TSMC’s 7nm node is used by the likes of Apple and Huawei, among many others, so it benefits from industry-wide funding and collaborative engineering. In contrast, Intel itself says its process tech won’t retake the leadership crown until it releases its ‘Intel 20A’ node (2024 time frame).

The benefits of TSMC’s 7nm node mean AMD can build cheaper, faster, and denser chips with more performance cores, and all within a relatively low power consumption envelope.

Intel has seen a bit of a resurgence with its new Alder Lake lineup. Intel etches those cores on its ‘Intel 7’ process, finally ending the misery of the 14nm node after six long years that ultimately cost the company its performance lead over AMD in desktop PCs. We previously knew this ‘Intel 7’ manufacturing tech as 10nm Enhanced SuperFin, but Intel recently renamed its process nodes to match industry nomenclature. Technically, this is the second generation of Intel’s 10nm process, but it’s a first for desktop PCs.

(Image credit: Fritchenz Frinz)

The new ‘Intel 7’ node brings the company into much closer competition with AMD on the process node front. Yes, Alder Lake still sucks more power than AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series chips, but the arrival of the Intel 7 process does mark a big improvement. Overall, Intel has reduced its power consumption from meme-worthy to an acceptable level. Alder Lake is also much faster than its predecessor, which lends itself to vastly improved power efficiency metrics.

AMD’s only concern is production capacity: While AMD has access to 7nm production, the company can’t source enough silicon from TSMC, at least in the near term, to match the power of Intel’s captive fabs. That leaves AMD exposed to shortages and potentially restricts market penetration, particularly during chip shortages. Meanwhile, Intel doesn’t suffer from such extreme production shortages.

Winner: AMD (TSMC). The ‘Intel 7’ process does bring Team Blue back into closer competition with AMD than it has been over the last several years, but AMD still holds the overall power efficiency and transistor density crown due to the virtues of TSMC’s 7nm process.

Intel vs AMD CPU Architecture

When comparing AMD vs Intel CPUs, we must consider that two design decisions have a big impact on performance, scalability, and performance-per-dollar: Interconnects and microarchitecture.

AMD’s Infinity Fabric allows the company to tie together multiple dies into one cohesive processor. Think of this as numerous pieces of a puzzle that come together to form one larger picture. The approach allows the company to use many small dies instead of one large die, and this technique improves yields and reduces cost. It also grants a level of scalability that Intel might not be able to match with its new mesh interconnect inside its HEDT chips, and it undoubtedly takes the lead over Intel’s aging ring bus in its desktop processors.

AMD first paired that advantage with its Zen microarchitecture, designed from the ground up for scalability, yielding an explosive 52% increase in instructions per clock (IPC) throughput over AMD’s previous-gen ‘Bulldozer’ chips. The Zen 2 microarchitecture another 15% improvement to IPC. Paired with the 7nm process, AMD lunged forward another (up to) 31% in per-core performance (a mixture of frequency and IPC). Zen 3 brings another 19% jump in IPC, giving AMD its largest single step forward in the post-Bulldozer era.

The move to the Zen 2 architecture brought AMD’s processors to near-parity with Intel’s finest in terms of per-core performance. That’s largely because Intel is stuck on 14nm, and its architectures are designed specifically for the nodes they are built on. That means promising new Intel microarchitectures can only ride on smaller processes, like 10nm, leaving the company woefully unprepared for its prolonged issues productizing 10nm products.

Zen 3 gave AMD a sizable lead in per-core performance, an incredibly important metric that quantifies the speed of the most important building block in a chip design. Intel’s Rocket Lake chips take huge steps forward in per-core performance, leaving both companies on a relatively even playing field in terms of per-core performance.

Image 1 of 1

(Image credit: Intel)

Intel’s 12th-Gen Alder Lake chips bring the company’s hybrid x86 architecture, which combines a mix of larger high-performance cores paired with smaller high-efficiency cores, to desktop x86 PCs for the first time. The Golden Cove architecture powers Alder Lake’s ‘big’ high-performance cores, while the ‘little’ Atom efficiency cores come with the Gracemont architecture. Intel etches the cores on its ‘Intel 7’ process, marking the company’s first truly new node for the desktop since 14nm debuted six long years ago.

Intel’s new Thread Director is the sleeper tech that enables the huge performance gains we’ve seen with Alder Lake. However, due to Alder’s use of both faster and slower cores that are optimized for different voltage/frequency profiles, unlocking the maximum performance and efficiency requires the operating system and applications to have an awareness of the chip topology to ensure workloads (threads) land in the correct core based on the type of application.

Overall, the Alder Lake architecture has proven to be a big win for Intel, with class-leading performance in gaming, not to mention in both single- and multi-threaded workloads in standard applications. However, while the hybrid x86 architecture hails from a similar ethos as the big. LITTLE designs pioneered by Arm, it doesn’t have the same tuning for power efficiency. Instead, Intel unabashedly tunes its design for performance at any cost, so AMD still holds the power efficiency crown in most types of workloads.

Winner: Tie. In judging AMD vs Intel CPU architecture, it’s clear that the competition is now far closer than it has been over the last few years. AMD’s Zen 3 architecture is a marvel that allows for enhanced scalability, and due to the efficiency-minded design paired with the TSMC 7 node, it delivers superior power consumption metrics. On the other hand, Intel’s Alder Lake architecture is also a marvel in its own right, bringing the first pairing of small efficient cores with large performance cores to x86 desktop PCs for the first time. That lends it the performance advantage, but it still trails in power efficiency metrics, resulting in a tie in this category.

AMD vs Intel CPU Drivers and Software

When we look at AMD vs Intel CPU software support, Team Blue has a stronger reputation. AMD has suffered plenty of issues with its CPU and chipset drivers, a natural byproduct of its limited resources compared to its much-larger rivals. Intel isn’t without its missteps on the driver front, but its reputation for stability helped earn it the top spot in the processor market, particularly with OEMs.

In terms of its established products, Intel’s graphics drivers have become much better lately as the company ramps up to bring its dedicated Xe Graphics cards to market. Day-zero game drivers have become the norm for the chip producer.

You might be a little more cautious when approaching Intel’s more exotic solutions, though. In the past, the company has developed innovative new products that have been relegated to the dustbin of history due to pricing and market forces, and long-term support for those products might not always be clear-cut.

AMD still has its work cut out for it. The company has had several issues with BIOS releases that failed to expose its chips’ full performance, though AMD has mostly solved those issues after a long string of updates. As a side effect of being the smaller challenger, AMD also faces a daunting challenge in offsetting the industry’s incessant optimization for Intel’s architectures above all others.

Upsetting the semiconductor industry is hard, particularly when you’re fighting an entrenched and much-larger rival, and sometimes things get broken when you’re redefining an industry. In AMD’s case, those broken things consist of operating systems and applications that weren’t tuned to extract the full performance of its fledgling first-gen Zen architecture, let alone the core-heavy designs of Zen 3.

Intel also continues to face challenges, though. The company’s Alder Lake architecture is the first hybrid x86 design and uses large performance cores (P-cores) and small efficiency cores (E-cores) for different types of tasks. Placing the correct workloads on the correct cores requires a new Intel Thread Director technology, but that’s only supported in Windows 11. That means some programs might need extra handholding to extract the best performance in Windows 10.

Winner: Intel wins the battle of AMD vs Intel CPU drivers and software. Over the last year, Intel has addressed its laggardly driver updates for its integrated graphics, and the company has an army of software developers at its disposal that help ensure its products get relatively timely support with the latest software. AMD has made amazing progress convincing the developer ecosystem to optimize for its new Zen architectures. However, there’s still plenty of work to be done as the company moves forward.

AMD vs Intel CPU Security

The last few years have found security researchers poking and prodding at the speculative execution engine that’s one of the key performance-boosting features behind all modern chips. The resulting research has spawned an almost never-ending onslaught of new vulnerabilities that threaten the safety of your system and private data. Unfortunately, these types of vulnerabilities are incredibly dangerous because they are undetectable—these tactics steal data by using the processor exactly as it was designed; thus, they are undetectable by any known anti-virus program.

The rash of fixes required to plug these holes also continues to grow, and many of them result in reduced performance. That’s particularly painful for Intel because it suffers from more of these vulnerabilities than other vendors. The company has developed in-silicon mitigations with newer processors that can reduce or eliminate the performance overhead, but some older processors are subject to drastic reductions in performance.

Intel has now suffered a new round of Spectre v2-variant attacks, too, that has reduced its performance further. These new Spectre Branch History Injection (BHI) vulnerabilities can result in substantial performance losses that vary by workload.

AMD isn’t immune to vulnerabilities, though. It’s hard to ascertain if the initially limited discoveries in AMD processors were due to a security-first approach to hardened processor design, or if researchers and attackers merely focused on Intel’s processors due to their commanding market share: Attackers almost always focus on the broadest cross-section possible. We see a similar trend with malware being designed for Windows systems, by far the predominant desktop OS, much more frequently than MacOS, though that does appear to be changing.

In the course of the research into the new class of Spectre vulnerabilities, Intel actually discovered that AMD’s existing Spectre mitigation is broken, which has resulted in AMD using a different, slower approach to addressing the issue.

However, AMD has also had several other new vulnerability disclosures in the recent past, including a Meltdown-esque variant that requires software re-coding. Like Intel, AMD has made a few targeted in-silicon fixes for its Ryzen 5000 processors, thus lowering its exposure to the vulnerabilities.

Winner: AMD. The AMD vs Intel CPU security debate continues to evolve as researchers and nefarious actors alike turn more of an eye towards AMD’s newer architectures. As things stand, Intel still suffers from more known vulnerabilities than AMD, and the impact of the Spectre mitigations on previous-gen Intel processors leads to larger performance losses (at times equivalent to a few generational gains worth of improvement) than the fixes we’ve seen from AMD, granting Team Red the win.

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
MORE: All CPUs Content

Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom’s Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.

Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen

(Image credit: Shutterstock, Tom’s Hardware)

The Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X rivalry is a pitched battle for dominance right in the heart of the gaming desktop PC market — the $275 to $300 price point. That might make it seem odd to throw the decidedly more expensive ~$390 Ryzen 7 5800X into the pit with the $289 Core i5-12600K and $299 Ryzen 5 5600X, but make no mistake, Intel’s Alder Lake chips punch far above their pricing weight class. That’s allowed them to score key upsets against higher-priced Ryzen 5000 chips in the suddenly more competitive AMD vs Intel battle.

AMD’s Ryzen chips have absolutely dominated our list of Best CPUs for gaming and our CPU Benchmark hierarchy for the last year, but Intel’s new design philosophy is a game-changer. As seen in our previous Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X faceoff, Intel’s hybrid x86 Alder Lake design represents the company’s most disruptive architectural shift in a decade, upsetting AMD’s highest-end mainstream chips.

However, this same design is even more disruptive in the mid-range and value segments, too. Alder Lake combines big and fast Performance cores (P-cores) for latency-sensitive work with a smattering of small and powerful Efficiency cores (E-cores) that chew through background and multi-threaded workloads. Intel also baked in new next-gen connectivity tech like the DDR5 memory and PCIe 5.0 interfaces that outstrip AMD’s venerable AM4 platform.

Intel is on the pricing attack with Alder Lake, perhaps looking to smash AMD’s Ryzen once and for all. The $289 Core i5-12600K is $10 less than AMD’s mainstream champion, the $299 Ryzen 5 5600X, and $210 less than the suggested $449 pricing for the Ryzen 7 5800X, though we often see the 5800X on sale for ~$390.

Even though Intel’s chip pricing game is strong, it made a few decisions that impact overall pricing, like launching the Core i5-12600K without the affordable B- and H-series motherboards that tend to be the favorite for mainstream gamers. That means you’ll have to pony up for a pricey Z690 motherboard for a mainstream chip, and DDR5 pricing continues to be a sore spot — if you can even find it in stock. The new hybrid design also has a few early performance teething pains in Windows 10.

This means the rivalry is anything but the clear-cut victory it appears to be on the benchmark charts. Below we’ve put the Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X in a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let’s see how the chips stack up.

Features and Specifications: Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X

	U.S. Price	Cores \| Threads	P-Core Base/Boost	E-Core Base/Boost	TDP / PBP / MTP	DDR4-3200	L3 Cache
Ryzen 7 5800X	$449	8P \| 16 threads	3.8 / 4.7 GHz	—	105W	DDR4-3200	32MB
Core i5-12600K / KF	$289 (K) — $264 (KF)	6P + 4E \| 10 Cores / 16 threads	3.7 / 4.9 GHz	2.8 / 3.6 GHz	125W / 150W	DDR4-3200 / DDR5-4800	16MB
Ryzen 5 5600X	$299	6P \| 12 threads	3.7 / 4.6 GHz	—	65W	DDR4-3200	32MB

Intel’s hybrid architecture brings what we would normally consider ‘odd’ thread arrangements. That’s because the P-cores are hyper-threaded, while the E-cores only have a single thread.

As a result, the $289 10-core 12600K comes with six threaded P-cores that operate at 3.7 / 4.9 GHz and four E-cores that run at 2.8 / 3.6 GHz, for a total of 16 threads. That’s a 33% increase in the number of threads over the Core i5-11600K. The chip also has 20MB of L3 and 9.5MB of L2 cache.

The 12600K comes with the integrated UHD Graphics 770 engine with 32 EUs that run at a 300 MHz base and boost to 1,450 MHz. That’s a big advantage over the graphics-less 5600X and 5800X. If you don’t plan to use a discrete GPU, Intel wins by default. Intel also has the Core i9-12600KF, an identical chip that lacks the integrated graphics engine, for $264. That might not sound like much of a discount, but a $25 price reduction is tempting if you plan to use this chip for a gaming rig that doesn’t need integrated graphics — you’ll end up paying $35 less than you would for the similarly graphics-less Ryzen 5 5600X.

Intel has replaced its old TDP rating and now uses a Processor Base Power (PBP) value (PL1) in place of TDP and a secondary Maximum Turbo Power (MTP) value that represents the highest power level during boost activity (PL2). You can read more about that change here.

The 12600K comes with 125W PBP (base) and 150W MTP (peak) power ratings, but be aware that Intel changed its default boost duration for all K-series chips to an unlimited value. This means the 12600K can always operate at the 150W MTP when under load, but actual power consumption will vary by application.

The 12600K goes toe-to-toe with the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X that has long been the favorite for enthusiasts because of its incredible blend of pricing and performance. The 12600K also rivals the 8-core 16-thread Ryzen 7 5800X that has been a tough sell in the face of its closely-priced Ryzen 5000 siblings. These chips come with 65W and 105W TDP ratings, respectively, 32MB of L3 cache, and have only high-performance cores. Both chips support DDR4-3200 memory and the PCIe 4.0 interface.

Like the rest of the Alder Lake chips, the Core i5-12600K has the most cutting-edge connectivity options that money can buy. All Alder Lake chips support DDR4-3200 or up to DDR5-4800 memory (odd DDR5 population rules apply). Alder Lake chips also expose up to 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 and an additional four lanes of PCIe 4.0 from the chip for M.2 storage. These new technologies add cost to the Z690 motherboards that house the chips, and the current pricing for DDR5 memory is eyewatering. However, Intel’s Z690 supports DDR4, too, but it appears that you’ll only find DDR4 support on lower-end Z690 boards. Intel hasn’t launched the value-centric B- and H-series chipsets yet, so platform pricing will be high for now. That’s particularly painful down at the 12600K’s price point, but it is noteworthy that there is quite a pricing spread between the flagship and bottom-of-the-barrel Z690 options.

Intel also added 12 lanes of PCIe 4.0 to its chipset (in addition to its 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0), and now offers a total of 28 lanes. Intel has also widened the DMI connection between the chip and the chipset, which now serves up twice the throughput. The increased DMI throughput is also beneficial for Z690’s bolstered connectivity options, like the new second USB 3. 2 Gen 2×2 20 Gbps connection (other new features are listed here).

The 5600X comes with a bundled Wraith Stealth cooler that will serve basic needs, while the Core i5-12600K comes without a cooler. The 12600K comes with graphics, or as a graphics-less variant that’s $35 less than the 5600X, helping offset that cost delta.

Winner: Intel

AMD’s AM4 platform has soldiered on for five long years (and counting), earning the company plenty of cachet with enthusiasts because they didn’t have to upgrade motherboards with every new chip generation. However, even though we did see the move from PCIe 3.0 to 4.0 a few years ago, the AM4 platform has restricted forward progress on the connectivity front — there’s only so much you can do with a fixed number of pins.

As such, Intel’s Z690 platform has a clear connectivity advantage: With DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 on the menu, AMD’s aging AM4 platform finds itself simply outclassed. Intel’s new features do make for more expensive motherboards, though, and the lack of B- and H-series boards at launch stings. Fortunately, there are options for DDR4 variants to save you at least some coin.

Given its new hybrid architecture with two types of cores, Intel’s core counts aren’t directly comparable to AMD’s due to their different capabilities. Our performance results will dictate the value of the overall designs.

The Core i5-12600K comes with integrated graphics by default, though you can sacrifice those for a lower price point. Meanwhile, you’ll have to look to AMD’s Ryzen 7 5700G APUs if you want integrated graphics.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X

This article is an overview of our much more in-depth testing in our Intel Core i9-12900K and Core i5-12600K review. We’re focusing on our Windows 11 test results in this article, but be aware that you could encounter odd performance in some cases with Windows 10. We have the full details and Windows 10 testing in our review.

Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests with the Core i5-12600K vs the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X at 1080p and 1440p, with each resolution split into its own chart. As per usual, we’re testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 to reduce GPU-imposed bottlenecks as much as possible, and differences between test subjects will shrink with lesser cards or higher resolutions.

Image 1 of 24

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

In Windows 11, the $289 Core i5-12600K with DDR5 memory is ~2. 7% faster than the $299 Ryzen 5 5600X, but that gap widens slightly with less expensive DDR4 memory. The Core i5-12600K also effectively ties the Ryzen 7 5800X, but for ~$100 less. And that’s with both the DDR4 and DDR5 memory configurations.

Naturally, moving over to 1440p pushes the bottleneck to the GPU, so the difference between the chips shrinks tremendously. Here the Core i5-12600K effectively ties the 5600X and 5800X, so you might pay closer attention to overall pricing if you plan to game at higher resolutions. Gamers with lower-resolution panels with high refresh rates will benefit more from Alder Lake’s faster frame rates.

Flipping through the 99th percentile charts shows larger deltas between the chips, but we have to view those with caution. Windows 11 is still a bit raw and seems to suffer from more framerate variability than Windows 10. This could stem from yet-to-be-updated game code, the relatively new GPU drivers for Windows 11, or some other combination of factors that could improve in the future.

Intel’s E-cores could come in handy for gamers and streamers alike. The Intel-sponsored Hitman 3 offloads low-priority tasks like audio and physics to the small cores, giving the chips a big advantage. We could see more games adopt that type of tuning in the future. In addition, Intel says that streaming your gaming session with OBS, which runs on the smaller E-cores, can result in 84% more fps than its prior-gen chips. We’re working on putting that to the test, but it does show that the E-cores could have a big impact on gaming as more games and applications add support.

We also included our overall gaming results with Windows 10 at the end of the album. We used a different set of games from our previous Windows 10 test suite, and here DDR4 memory yielded better gaming results than DDR5.

As a result, the 12600K was roughly 8% faster with DDR4 than with DDR5, which is the difference between beating the Ryzen 5 5600X or losing to it. That could be from the motherboard firmware on the board we used for testing, or just some tuning that’s needed in Windows 10 to extract the most from the higher-bandwidth memory. Conversely, it could just be that the higher latency of DDR5 has a bigger impact on Windows 10, but that could improve as DDR5 matures.

The AMD vs Intel gaming competition is closer now, with some games favoring one architecture over the other. As such, it’s best to make an informed decision based on the types of games that you play frequently. Be sure to check out the individual tests in the above album. In either case, Intel holds the lead.

Winner: Intel

The Core i5-12600K speeds past AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X and the Ryzen 7 5800X during almost all of our gaming tests in Windows 10 and 11, but there is a caveat: The 12600K led with DDR4 memory in both operating systems, but our DDR5 test system didn’t respond as well in Windows 10. In either case, the 12600K led convincingly in 3 of the four configurations, which is impressive given its price point.

Of note: The Denuvo DRM falsely identified Intel’s E-cores as a separate system, and thus ~20 Denuvo-enabled game titles currently don’t work with Alder Lake chips. You can read about the simple fix and find the impacted games here. Denuvo says that all affected games will be patched soon.

Application Performance: Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X

We’re focusing on Windows 11 application test results for this article, but be aware that we encountered subpar performance in Windows 10 with some of the programs that worked perfectly in Windows 11. These problems arise due to a lack of software optimizations for hybrid architectures.

There are methods to correct those issues in Windows 10, but it could require some manual adjustment until more patches arrive from software vendors. Aside from the odd performance in the Handbrake x264, y-cruncher, Corona and POV-Ray tests, our comparative Windows 10 performance results largely mirrored what we see in Windows 11. Head to our review for more detailed information.

Image 1 of 10

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

We can boil down productivity application performance into two broad categories: single- and multi-threaded. The first slide above shows the geometric mean of performance in several of our most important tests in each category, but be sure to look at the expanded results below.

The deltas in favor of Alder Lake are plenty convincing — the Core i5-12600K is 21% faster than the Ryzen 5 5600X and 15% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X in the single-threaded tasks listed in the chart title. That’s impressive.

Naturally, those big performance deltas won’t carry over to every type of workload, but flipping through the album reveals that the Core i5-12600K delivers amazing performance for its price point. The chip regularly beats the Ryzen 9 5950X and 5900X, not to mention the much less-expensive chips we’re focusing on, the 5600X and 5800X. The Core i5-12600K trailed the 5800X in a single test (application start-up) but won every other benchmark.

Image 1 of 20

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Intel clung to its single-threaded advantage for several chip generations as Ryzen destroyed it in threaded work and then slowly took the lead in single-threaded performance, too. Now that Intel has regained the single-threaded lead quite convincingly, the onus is on the company to retake the threaded crown in the lower price ranges.

The Core i5-12600K succeeds in that mission. Overall, the chip is an incredible 38% faster than the 5600X in threaded work, and 7% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X. That 7% might not sound very impressive, but bear in mind that the 5800X costs $100 more than the 5600X — and that’s when the 5800X is on sale.

Flipping through the album finds the 12600K beating the Ryzen 5 5600X in every threaded benchmark, while the Ryzen 7 5800X scored slight wins in one Blender render, v-ray, and Corona. We also see the 5800X edge past the 12600K with DDR4 memory in y-cruncher and Adobe Lightroom, but DDR5 gives the 12600K the lead in both of those tests.

Overall, it’s quite impressive to see the sheer amount of threaded heft unleashed from the 10-core 12600K, especially in the exceedingly branchy code in the LLVM compilation workload and the massively parallel molecular dynamics simulation code in NAMD. These heavily-parallelized high-throughput applications respond very well to the E-cores. The 12600K also shines in more standard fare, like threaded encoding tasks, like Handbrake x264 and x265, SVT-HEVC, and SVT-AV1.

Winner: Intel

The Core i5-12600K wins in nearly every single-threaded benchmark, meaning the chip will deliver exceedingly snappy performance with many of the lighter types of work, like web browsers and office applications. At its price point, the 12600K is untouchable for this type of work.

The 12600K also beat the Ryzen 5 5600X in every multi-threaded workload, it really wasn’t a contest at all, but the Ryzen 7 5800X put up more of a fight. However, given the 5800X’s sale pricing, which is still $100 more expensive than the 12600K, those few narrow wins aren’t worth the pricing delta.

The 12600K’s superior blend of both single-and multi-threaded performance creates quite the compelling chip, especially given its price point. However, it is noteworthy that the Core i5-12600K can suffer in some multi-threaded workloads in Windows 10 due to difficulties with code with certain prioritization settings. You can correct those issues either via command-line utilities or third-party software, like Process Lasso, and receive the full expected performance. We expect the industry to correct many of those issues over time. Still, it is important to know that Windows 10 could require additional handholding to extract the utmost performance from the Alder Lake processors.

Overclocking: Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X

Overclocking has become a lot more complex with the addition of a myriad of new knobs to turn, and much of that has to do with the shrinking frequency headroom. Over the last few years, both Intel and AMD have rolled more of their frequency headroom right into the stock settings, a byproduct of fierce competition. Luckily for mid-range system builders, you tend to find the most headroom in mid-range parts, like the Core i5-12600K and Ryzen 5 5600X. Enthusiasts have also turned to wringing out extra bits of performance from memory and fabrics as the companies expose more tuning knobs.

Both Intel and AMD expose a wealth of tunable parameters, along with sophisticated software overclocking utilities like XTU and Ryzen Master. Both companies also support per-core frequency and hyper-threading control (enable/disable) to help eke out more overclocking headroom.

Intel’s Dynamic Memory Boost adds a new wrinkle. This new tech works with both DDR4 and DDR5 and allows the system to dynamically switch between standard memory frequencies and timings and an XMP profile, meaning that it will auto-overclock the memory as needed based on the current usage pattern. And yes, this occurs while the operating system is running and doesn’t require a reboot — it’s a real-time dynamic adjustment. Intel also continues to support its existing mechanism for live memory timing adjustments from within the operating system, giving users a plethora of on-the-fly memory overclocking options.

Intel has long locked overclocking to its pricey K-series models, while AMD freely allows overclocking with all SKUs on almost any platform. However, we see signs of some improvement here from Intel, as it has now enabled memory overclocking on its B- and H-series chipsets with the 500-series chipsets, and it appears that the same policy will hold true with the 600 series.

AMD’s Ryzen 5000 chips come with innovative boost technology that largely consumes most of the available frequency headroom, so as we see with Intel’s flagship, there is precious little room for bleeding-edge clock rates. In fact, all-core overclocking with AMD’s chips is lackluster; you’re often better off using its auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) feature that boosts multi-threaded performance. AMD also has plenty of Curve Optimization features that leverage undervolting to increase boost activity.

Intel generally has higher attainable peak frequencies, while AMD’s more adaptive auto-overclocking tends to have less headroom. However, it’s always important to remember that chip quality can vary for both vendors, so the silicon lottery always comes into play.

Winner: Tie

Both platforms have a wealth of tunable parameters for enthusiasts, their respective overclocking advantages, and a suite of both auto-overclocking and software utilities. However, there’s still room for a sizeable performance boost from overclocking the core, fabric, and memory, so this contest will often boil down to personal preference.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X

Image 1 of 14

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Intel’s Alder Lake marks a much-needed drastic improvement to the company’s power consumption and efficiency metrics. Those improvements come not only from the new architecture that shuffles heavily-threaded work to smaller, more efficient cores but also the new Intel 7 process that reduces power consumption and improves efficiency. As a result, the Core i5-12600K is far more power-efficient, meaning it draws less power for each unit of work done, than its predecessor.

The Ryzen 5 5600X remains one of the most power-efficient chips we’ve ever tested, and Alder Lake still sucks more power than AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series chips. However, the Intel 7 process marks a big improvement over the old power-guzzling 14nm Rocket Lake chips — we measured a peak of 135W with the 12600K, while the previous-gen 11600K peaked at 203W.

Peak power consumption isn’t the end-all-be-all, though. The Core i5-12600K is also much faster than its predecessor, earning it some leeway. As you can see in our renders-per-day measurements, the Core i5-12600K is roughly twice as efficient as the 11600K.

Overall, Intel has reduced its power consumption from meme-worthy to an acceptable level. The Core i5-12600K ran just fine with our 280mm liquid cooler, but you could get away with a 240mm or equivalent air cooler and still get the full performance.

The last four slides in the above album give us a different view of power efficiency. Here we calculate the cumulative amount of energy required to perform a given task. We plot this ‘task energy’ value in Kilojoules on the left side of the chart. These workloads are comprised of a fixed amount of work, so we can plot the task energy against the time required to finish the job (bottom axis) to give us a better look at efficiency.

Bear in mind that faster completion times and lower task energy are ideal. That means processors that are closest to the bottom left corner are best. It’s easy to see that Intel has made a massive generational improvement here; the Core i5-11600K serves as quite the contrast to the 12600K.

However, AMD still holds the advantage in all of the key power criteria, with the Ryzen 5000 models retaining the crown of the most efficient desktop CPUs that we’ve ever tested.

Winner: AMD

Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. The Ryzen 5000 chips consume less peak power and also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in a clean sweep in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you’ll end up with a cooler and quieter system.

Pricing: Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X

Given the performance we’ve seen in our testing, the Core i5-12600K lands with an amenable $289 price tag. You can also snag the $264 graphics-less Core i5-12600KF for $25 less. The 12600K destroys the $299 Ryzen 5 5600X in every meaningful performance metric and beats the $390 Ryzen 7 5800X in most workloads.

However, the CPU is but one factor in the equation — you also need a motherboard and memory. Naturally, DDR5 memory is the elephant in the room, but that is pretty simple: You should expect to pay a massive early adopter premium for DDR5 memory, and more for the higher-end DDR5 motherboards. If you plan on going the DDR5 route, be ready to open your wallet wide — DDR5 memory is mostly out of stock or up to 50% more expensive than DDR4. If you’re looking for bang-for-the-buck, DDR5 is off the table for now. Besides, we’re not sure that DDR5 makes sense for this class of chip. Luckily, DDR4 offers nearly the same performance in most applications and faster gaming performance in Windows 10 (at least in our test environment).

Core i5-12600K systems will be built on Z690 motherboards for now, as Intel hasn’t released the B- or H-series chipsets yet. That’s particularly painful in this chip price class. In addition, all high-end Z690 motherboards support DDR5, but most (if not all) of the DDR4-compatible Z690 boards land in the lower- to mid-ranges of the Z690 stack.

For now, if you’re looking to build a Ryzen 5 5600X system on a B- or A-series chipset, you’ll have a lower overall platform cost than you’ll see with the 12600K. We expect the pricing delta to decline significantly when Intel releases its own H- and B-series chipsets. However, the Ryzen 7 5800X’s higher price point means you’ll still pay more for a system built with that chip.

We can make a few comparisons with X570 and Z690 boards, though. It’s still a bit early to get the complete picture on motherboard pricing; we’re seeing the normal spotty availability in the wake of a big launch. Here are a few like-for-like comparisons, but this could vary (pricing is valid only at the time of publication):

	Price
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4	$239
MSI X570-A PRO	$153
ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4	$180
ASRock X570 PHANTOM GAMING 4	$154
ASUS Prime Z690-P D4	$220
ASUS PRIME X570-P	$160

As you can see, we’re looking at price deltas that range from $26 to $86 between the X570 and Z690 DDR4 motherboards, with the latter being more expensive. Of course, you’ll have to add in those costs if you plan to build around the 12600K.

However, there are a lot of factors in play. While you will pay more for a DDR4-equipped 12600K system than you would with the Ryzen 5 5600X, you get 5% faster gaming performance, 21% faster performance in single-threaded work, and 38% more performance in multi-threaded applications. Additionally, the Z690 platform offers more robust connectivity options.

Winner: Tie

Intel Core i5-12600K systems outfitted with DDR5 memory will come at a big premium that might not be worth the slim performance gains over DDR4 in most applications, especially with Alder Lake chips with lower core counts. Given the early state of DDR5 availability, it’s hard to nail down firm estimates. However, the high pricing of DDR5 isn’t worth it for most users, which removes one of the key reasons to go with an Alder Lake system.

Suppose you’re building around a DDR4-based system. In that case, a Ryzen 5 5600X system will come in at considerably lower pricing if you opt for B- and H-series chipsets that aren’t available yet for the 12600K, but the Alder Lake platform provides more than enough extra performance and connectivity to justify the price tag. The Ryzen 7 5800X is also competitive here, but its higher chip pricing means that platform costs could equate to a wash, giving the nod to the 12600K due to its faster performance and superior connectivity.

Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X
	Intel Core i5-12600K	AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X
Features and Specifications	X
Gaming	X
Application Performance	X
Overclocking	X	X
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling		X
Pricing	X	X
Total	5	3

The Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X battle ends in a five to three win in Intel’s favor, with much of that advantage coming from the 12600K’s outstanding performance for its price point.

In performance testing, the $289 Core i5-12600K beat the $299 Ryzen 5 5600X in every meaningful test by large margins, with 5% faster gaming performance, 21% faster performance in single-threaded work, and 38% more performance in multi-threaded applications. That makes for an incredibly well-balanced system.

Additionally, even though the ~$390 Ryzen 7 5800X is ~$100 more than the 12600K, the Alder Lake chip was 3% faster in gaming, 15% faster in single-threaded work, and 7% faster in multi-threaded productivity applications. Yes, the Ryzen 7 5800X beats the Core i5-12600K in a few threaded tasks, but by comparatively slim deltas given its higher pricing.

With DDR4, the Core i5-12600K is the fastest gaming chip in its price bracket in both Windows 10 or 11, but it does lose some steam with DDR5 on Windows 10. AMD will fire back with its 3D V-Cache processors that will come with up to 192MB of L3 cache per chip, which the company says imparts up to 15% more gaming performance. Those chips arrive next year, but the impact on gaming beyond eSports titles is unknown.

The Core i5-12600K’s advantages also include platform additives, but the DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 interfaces add cost to the overall picture. Support for DDR4 can help reduce that premium, but we haven’t seen any flagship DDR4 motherboards yet; the highest-end models appear to be confined to DDR5. If you’re going with a DDR5 build, prepare yourself for eye-watering pricing, at least until supply improves. Luckily, you won’t need expensive DDR5 memory to unlock the best gaming performance — unless you have a very specific need for DDR5, it’s probably best to skip it until it matures further.

But even lower-end Z690 platforms don’t make the best sense with the 12600K. Intel needs to solidify the 12600K’s value prop with B- and H-series motherboards, but they aren’t on the market yet. Intel’s decision to launch with only the Z690 series leaves some pathways to less expensive Ryzen 5 5600X systems with a pretty competitive price-to-performance ratio. If you’re on a budget, you can still find great motherboard deals on B-series AMD boards that will be perfectly serviceable if you aren’t after the absolute best performance. We could also see price cuts for the Ryzen 5 5600X in the future.

That means that while Intel has delivered a staggering blow on the performance front, it has deferred the Ryzen 5 5600X’s complete execution by delaying its own B- and H-series boards. That said, Intel’s competitive chip pricing does take some of the sting out of the high platform costs.

AMD still holds the power and efficiency crown, but the 12600K’s ‘Intel 7’ process reduces peak power consumption by up to 33% and roughly doubles power efficiency, reducing AMD’s overwhelming lead. Overall, if we take performance into account, Intel has reduced its power consumption from meme-worthy to an acceptable level.

Software updates should help resolve many of the early issues in Windows 10, but you might need to engage in some manual tweaking for the 12600K with some specific programs. However, despite those early hiccups with Windows 10, Intel’s gamble to adopt a hybrid x86 architecture has clearly paid off.

Overall, Alder Lake marks a massive generational leap forward, allowing the 12600K to lead its price class in all performance metrics, like gaming and lightly- and heavily-threaded work, while also punching up against the more expensive Ryzen 7 5800X in incredibly convincing fashion.

Whip in the improved power consumption and efficiency, cutting-edge platform connectivity options, and aggressive chip pricing, and the Core i5-12600K wins the faceoff with the Ryzen 5 5600X and the Ryzen 7 5800X.

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: All CPUs Content

Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 9 5950X Test System Configurations
Intel Socket 1700 DDR5 (Z690)	Core i9-12900K, Core i5-12600K
	MSI Z690 Carbon WiFi
	2 x16GB G.Skill Ripjaws S5, DDR5-5200 @ DDR5-4400 36-36-36-72
Intel Socket 1700 DDR4 (Z690)	Core i9-12900K, Core i5-12600K
	MSI Z690A WiFi DDR4
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 — Stock: DDR4-3200 14-14-14-36
Intel Socket 1200 (Z590)	Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K, Core i5-10600K
	MSI Z590 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 — Stock DDR4-3200/2933 Gear 1
AMD Socket AM4 (X570)	AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, Ryzen 9 5900X, Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 5 5600X
	MSI MEG X570 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 — Stock: DDR4-3200 14-14-14-36
All Systems	Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle — Gaming and ProViz applications
	Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE — Application tests
	2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
	Silverstone ST1100-TI
	Open Benchtable
	Windows 10 Pro version 2004 (build 19041. 450)
	Windows 11 Pro version
Cooling	Corsair h215i

Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom’s Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.

Topics

CPUs

Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X Face Off: Intel Rising

(Image credit: Shutterstock, AMD, Intel)

The Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X battle is yet another example of Intel’s new bare-knuckle approach to pricing with its Alder Lake processors. Intel’s pricing places the 12700K against mid-range Ryzen 5000 models, but today we’re putting the $408 Core i7-12700K up against the decidedly more expensive $549 Ryzen 9 5900X as well as the ~$390 Ryzen 7 5800X. That’s because Intel’s Alder Lake chips are surprisingly powerful, already earning key upsets against higher-priced Ryzen chips on our list of Best CPUs for gaming and CPU Benchmark hierarchy.

As seen in our previous Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X and Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X faceoffs, Intel’s hybrid x86 Alder Lake design represents the company’s most disruptive architectural shift in a decade. As a result, Intel upsets AMD’s highest-end mainstream chips, particularly in price-to-performance metrics.

However, Alder Lake does have an Achilles heel: Intel launched the chips without the B- and H-series motherboards that tend to be the affordable favorites for mainstream gamers. That means you’ll have to buy a pricey Z690 motherboard, but at least you get cutting-edge connectivity as part of your purchase — Intel baked in leading-edge exclusive options like the DDR5 memory and PCIe 5.0 interfaces that outstrip AMD’s venerable AM4 platform. You can also opt for DDR4 models, which is good given that DDR5 is hardly available and selling for scalper pricing.

While Intel’s new hybrid design is a game-changer, it also has a few early performance teething pains in Windows 10. This means the AMD vs Intel rivalry is anything but the clear-cut victory it appears to be on the benchmark charts. Below we’ve put the Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X through a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let’s see how the chips stack up.

Features and Specifications: Intel Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X

	U.S. Price	Cores \| Threads	P-Core Base/Boost	E-Core Base/Boost	TDP / PBP / MTP	DDR4-3200	L3 Cache
Ryzen 9 5900X	$549	12P \| 24 threads	3.7 / 4.8 GHz	—	105W	DDR4-3200	32MB (1×32)
Core i7-12700K / KF	$409 (K) — $384 (KF)	8P + 4E \| 12 Cores / 20 threads	3.6 / 5.0 GHz	2.7 / 3.8 GHz	125W / 190W	DDR4-3200 / DDR5-4800	25MB
Ryzen 7 5800X	$449 (typ. $390)	8P \| 16 threads	3.8 / 4.7 GHz	—	105W	DDR4-3200	32MB

Alder Lake combines big and fast Performance cores (P-cores) for latency-sensitive work with small and powerful Efficiency cores (E-cores) for background and multi-threaded workloads. As a result, Intel’s hybrid architecture brings what we would normally consider ‘odd’ thread arrangements. That’s because the P-cores are hyper-threaded, while the E-cores only have a single thread.

The Core i7-12700K lands with the same $409 pricing as the previous-gen Core i7-11700K, but it comes with 33% more threads. The Core i7-12700K has eight P-cores and four E-cores, for a total of 20 threads. The P-cores run at a 3.6 / 5.0 GHz base/boost, while the E-cores weigh in at 2.7 / 3.8 GHz. The chip is fed by 25MB of L3 cache and 12MB of L2.

The 12700K comes with the integrated UHD Graphics 770 engine with 32 EUs that run at a 300 MHz base and boost to 1,500 MHz, an advantage over the graphics-less Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X. That means Intel wins by default if you don’t have a discrete graphics card. For a more direct comparison, you can look at Intel’s own Core i7-12700KF, an identical chip that lacks the in-built GPU, for $384. That $25 price reduction is tempting if you plan to use this chip for a gaming rig that doesn’t need integrated graphics — you’ll end up paying $65 less than the graphics-less Ryzen 7 5800X. None of these chips in the faceoff come with a bundled cooler, and the 12700K comes with 125W PBP (base) and 190W MTP (peak) power ratings.

The 12700K goes toe-to-toe with the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X that has long been the favorite for enthusiasts because of its incredible blend of pricing and performance. These chips come with 65W and 105W TDP ratings, respectively, 32MB of L3 cache, and have only high-performance cores. Both chips support DDR4-3200 memory and the PCIe 4.0 interface.

All Alder Lake chips support DDR4-3200 or up to DDR5-4800 memory (odd DDR5 population rules apply). Alder Lake chips also expose up to 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 and an additional four lanes of PCIe 4.0 from the chip for M.2 storage. Intel also added 12 lanes of PCIe 4.0 to its chipset (in addition to its 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0), and now offers a total of 28 lanes. Intel has also widened the DMI connection between the chip and the chipset, which now serves up twice the throughput. The increased DMI throughput is also beneficial for Z690’s bolstered connectivity options, like the new second USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 20 Gbps connection (other new features are listed here).

These new technologies add cost to the Z690 motherboards that house the chips, and DDR5 memory is largely unavailable. However, there are DDR4-powered Z690 options available. Intel hasn’t launched the value-centric B- and H-series chipsets yet, so platform pricing will be high for now. It is noteworthy that there is quite a pricing spread between the flagship and bottom-of-the-barrel Z690 options, but, as expected, prices are generally high this close to the launch.

Winner: Intel

Intel’s chip pricing is an advantage. The Z690 platform also has a clear connectivity advantage: With DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 on the menu, AMD’s AM4 platform finds itself looking a bit long in the tooth, but Intel’s new features do make for more expensive motherboards. The lack of B- and H-series boards at launch doesn’t help matters, either. Additionally, DDR5 pricing is currently brutal, and we can expect that to continue for some time. Fortunately, the 12700K is just as fast with DDR4 in the majority of tasks.

The Core i7-12700K comes with integrated graphics by default, though you can sacrifice those for a lower price point. Meanwhile, you’ll have to look to AMD’s Ryzen 7 5700G APU if you want integrated graphics, but that chip isn’t really directly comparable to the 12700K. That means Intel wins by default if you need an iGPU.

Gaming Benchmarks and Performance: Intel Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X

This article is an overview of our much more in-depth testing in our Intel Core i7-12700K review. We’re focusing on our Windows 11 test results in this article, but be aware that you could encounter odd performance in some cases with Windows 10. We have the full details in our review.

Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests with the Core i7-12700K vs the Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X at 1080p and 1440p, with each resolution split into its own chart. As per usual, we’re testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 to reduce GPU-imposed bottlenecks as much as possible, and differences between test subjects will shrink with lesser cards or higher resolutions.

Image 1 of 20

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Paired with affordable DDR4 memory at the 1080p resolution, the $409 Core i7-12700K is 12% faster than the ~$390 Ryzen 7 5800X in our cumulative gaming performance measurement. The 12700K is also 7.5% faster than the $549 Ryzen 9 5900X that holds the title as AMD’s fastest gaming chip.

Pairing the Core i7-12700K with DDR5 causes performance to decline, slightly reducing the leads to 10.4% over the 5800X and 5.5% over the 5900X at 1080p, but we have to keep things in perspective — that’s only a 3 fps difference between the DDR4 and DDR5 setups. It’s clear that you don’t need an expensive DDR5 kit or motherboard to extract the best of the 12700K’s performance, especially given the markup for a DDR5-capable motherboard and the scalper pricing on DDR5 kits.

The Core i7-12700K is plenty impressive against AMD’s chips, but it really stands out when we compare it to Intel’s flagship $589 Core i9-12900K: The difference between the two chips is in the noise of expected run-to-run variance. That means the 12700K delivers a 12900K-class gaming experience, but for $180 less. Notably, the 12900K will have a bit more heft for background tasks like streaming due to its additional four E-cores, and perhaps a bit more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades due to its 200 MHz higher boost clock.

Naturally, moving over to 1440p pushes the bottleneck to the GPU, so the difference between the chips shrinks tremendously. Gamers with lower-resolution panels with high refresh rates will benefit more from Alder Lake’s faster frame rates. Flipping through the 99th percentile charts shows larger deltas between the chips, but Windows 11 is still a bit raw and seems to suffer from more framerate variability than Windows 10.

The AMD vs Intel gaming competition is closer now, with some games favoring one architecture over the other. As such, it’s best to make an informed decision based on the types of games that you play frequently. Be sure to check out the individual tests in the above album. In either case, Intel holds the lead.

Winner: Intel

The Core i7-12700K beat the Ryzen 7 5800X by substantial amounts in our Windows 11 testing, and though the lead narrowed against the Ryzen 9 5900X, it still led by ~7%, but for $150 less. Overall, you get the 12900K gaming experience, but for significantly less cash, which is hard to beat. You can head to our CPU Benchmark hierarchy to see comparisons in Windows 10, but the deltas are similar, giving the 12700K the win in this category.

Of note: The Denuvo DRM falsely identified Intel’s E-cores as a separate system, and thus ~20 Denuvo-enabled game titles currently don’t work with Alder Lake chips. You can read about the simple fix and find the impacted games here. Denuvo says that all affected games will be patched soon.

Application Performance: Intel Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X

There are methods to correct those issues in Windows 10, but it could require some manual adjustment until more patches arrive from software vendors. Aside from the odd performance in the Handbrake x264, y-cruncher, Corona, and POV-Ray tests, our comparative Windows 10 performance results largely mirrored what we see in Windows 11. Head to our review for more detailed information.

Image 1 of 10

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

We can boil down productivity application performance into two broad categories: single- and multi-threaded. The first slide above shows the geometric mean of performance in several of our most important tests in each category, but be sure to look at the expanded results below.

The Core i7-12700K is ~17% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X in the single-threaded tasks listed in the chart title. Naturally, those impressive performance deltas won’t carry over to every type of workload, but the 12700K beats the Ryzen lineup in every benchmark. In single-threaded work, the 12700K is 19% faster than the previous-gen 11700K and 14% faster than the previous-gen flagship 11900K. The 12900K is the only chip on the market that can beat the 12700K in lightly-threaded work, though only by a comparatively slim 3% margin.

These high levels of performance in lightly-threaded apps will equate to a snappier, faster experience in all manner of light day-to-day tasks. The 12700K’s snappy performance will be most perceivable in web browsers and application start-up tasks.

Image 1 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

In our cumulative measurement, the 12-core 24-thread Core i7-12700K is 2. 5% faster than the 12-core 24-thread Ryzen 9 5900X in threaded work. It’s also 40% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X. The generational uplift is impressive, too. Against the previous-gen flagship 11900K, the 12700K is 35% faster in heavily-threaded tasks and 34% faster than the 11700K.

The current-gen 12900K is ~17% faster in threaded work than the 12700K, justifying the premium for users that are focused on productivity work. However, it’s quite impressive to see the 12700K remain this competitive with the 12900K, especially because the difference between the two largely boils down to higher boost clocks and four fewer E-cores for the 12700K. Despite that disparity, the 12700K puts up strong results in applications with branchy code like LLVM compilation and the massively parallel molecular dynamics simulation code in NAMD. These heavily-parallelized high-throughput applications respond very well to the E-cores, giving the 12900K a leg up.

Given its more forgiving price tag, the 12700K also shines in more standard fare, like threaded encoding tasks, like Handbrake x264 and x265, SVT-HEVC, and SVT-AV1.

Winner: Intel

The $409 Core i7-12700K beats the Ryzen competition in every single-threaded benchmark, so it delivers exceedingly snappy performance in many of the lighter applications, like web browsers and office applications. At its price point, the 12700K is untouchable in lightly-threaded work — the $589 Core i9-12900K is the only chip on the market that can beat the 12700K in this type of work.

The 12700K beat the Ryzen 7 5800X in every multi-threaded workload — it really wasn’t much of a contest. The Ryzen 9 5900X is much more competitive here, with the 12700K only being 2.5% faster in our cumulative measurement. However, the 5900X carves out quite a few wins in specific applications, like Blender.

The Core i7-12700K wins this round due to its compelling blend of both single-and multi-threaded performance and its more forgiving price tag.

Notably, like the other Alder Lake chips, the Core i7-12700K can suffer in some multi-threaded workloads in Windows 10 due to difficulties with code with certain prioritization settings. You can correct those issues either via command-line utilities or third-party software, like Process Lasso, and receive the full expected performance. We expect the industry to correct many of those issues over time. Still, it is important to know that Windows 10 could require additional manual tuning to extract the utmost performance.

Overclocking: Intel Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X

Overclocking has become much more complex with the addition of a myriad of new knobs to turn, and much of that has to do with the shrinking frequency headroom. Due to fierce competition, both Intel and AMD have rolled more of their frequency headroom right into the stock settings over the last few years. Luckily for mid-range system builders, you tend to find the most headroom in the lower- to mid-range parts. Enthusiasts have also turned to wringing out extra performance from memory and fabrics as the companies expose more tuning knobs.

Winner: Tie

Both platforms have a wealth of overclocking options for enthusiasts, their respective overclocking advantages, and a suite of both auto-overclocking and software utilities. However, there’s still room for a sizeable performance boost from overclocking the core, fabric, and memory, so this contest will often boil down to personal preference.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling: Intel Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X

Image 1 of 15

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Intel’s Alder Lake marks an overdue and drastic improvement to the company’s power consumption and efficiency metrics. Those improvements come not only from the new architecture that shuffles heavily-threaded work to smaller, more efficient cores, but also the new Intel 7 process that reduces power consumption and improves efficiency.

The Ryzen processors are still the most power-efficient chips we’ve ever tested, and Alder Lake still sucks more power. However, Intel’s improvement here is noteworthy: We measured a peak of 195W with the 12700K, while the previous-gen 11700K peaked at 239W.

Peak power consumption isn’t the most important metric, though. The Core i7-12700K is also faster than its predecssor. As you can see in our renders-per-day measurements, the Core i7-12700K is nearly twice as efficient as the previous-gen 11700K. Overall, Intel has reduced its power consumption to an acceptable level. The Core i5-12700K ran just fine with a 280mm liquid cooler, but you could get away with a 240mm or equivalent air cooler.

The last four slides in the above album give us a different view of power efficiency. Here we calculate the cumulative amount of energy required to perform a given task. We plot this ‘task energy’ value in Kilojoules on the left side of the chart. These workloads are comprised of a fixed amount of work, so we can plot the task energy against the time required to finish the job (bottom axis) to give us a better look at efficiency.

Bear in mind that faster completion times and lower task energy are ideal. That means processors that are closest to the bottom left corner are best. It’s easy to see that Intel has made a massive generational improvement here; the Core i7-12700K is far more efficient than the 11700K.

However, AMD still holds the advantage in all of the key power criteria, with the Ryzen 5000 models retaining the crown of the most efficient desktop CPUs that we’ve ever tested.

Winner: AMD

Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. The Ryzen 5000 chips consume less peak power and also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in a clean sweep in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you’ll end up with a cooler and quieter system.

Pricing: Intel Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X

The Core i7-12700K has a $409 suggested price point, but you can also snag the $384 graphics-less Core i7-12700KF for $25 less. Black Friday sales aside, you’ll typically find the Ryzen 7 5800X for around $390, and the 5900X for $549.

However, while the CPU is one of the most important components in the build, it is but one factor in the equation — you also need a motherboard and memory. Naturally, DDR5 memory is the elephant in the room, but that is pretty simple: You should expect to pay a massive early adopter premium for DDR5 memory, and more for the higher-end DDR5 motherboards. If you plan on going the DDR5 route, be ready to open your wallet wide — DDR5 memory is mostly out of stock or up to 50% more expensive than DDR4. If you’re looking for bang-for-the-buck, DDR5 is off the table for now. Luckily, DDR4 offers nearly the same performance in most applications and faster gaming performance in Windows 10 (at least in our test environment).

For now, you have no choice but to use a Z6900 motherboard for Core i7-12700K systems, as Intel hasn’t released the B- or H-series chipsets yet. In addition, all high-end Z690 motherboards support DDR5, but most (if not all) of the DDR4-compatible Z690 boards land in the lower- to mid-ranges of the Z690 stack.

In terms of pricing, building a Ryzen 7 5800X system is roughly a wash compared to a DDR4-equipped 12700K system, but you gain significantly more performance in exchange. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 9 5900X costs significantly more for the chip (at least at suggested pricing) than the Core i7-12700K, giving the Intel chip some leeway to absorb higher motherboard pricing and still maintain the performance-per-dollar edge.

	Price
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4	$219
MSI X570-A PRO	$159
ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4	$179
ASRock X570 PHANTOM GAMING 4	$154
ASUS Prime Z690-P D4	$220
ASUS PRIME X570-P	$157

As you can see, we’re looking at price deltas that range from $25 to $63 between the X570 and Z690 DDR4 motherboards, with the latter being more expensive. So, of course, you’ll have to add in those costs if you plan to build an Alder Lake system.

However, there are a lot of factors involved. For instance, the Z690 platform offers more robust connectivity options, like PCIe 5.0, but you do have to pay extra for those capabilities.

Winner: Intel

Alder Lake systems equipped with DDR5 memory will carry a big premium that isn’t worth the slim performance gains over DDR4 in most applications, especially with Alder Lake chips with lower core counts. Given the early state of DDR5 availability, it’s hard to nail down firm estimates. However, the high pricing of DDR5 isn’t worth it for most users, which removes one of the key reasons to go with an Alder Lake system.

Platform pricing for a Ryzen 7 5800X system will be close enough to a wash with the 12700K to push the focus to the 12700K’s 12% faster gaming performance, 17% gain in lightly-threaded applications, and 40% advantage in threaded work. In other words, the 12700K has a clear performance-per-dollar win against the 5800X.

The Ryzen 9 5900X also carries much higher suggested chip pricing, which means the 12700K offers a lower platform cost while leading the 5900X by 7.5% in gaming, 17% in lightly-threaded work, and ~2% in threaded work, though the latter is closer to a tie when we zoom out to the overall broader picture.

Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X
	Intel Core i7-12700K	AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X
Features and Specifications	X
Gaming	X
Application Performance	X
Overclocking	X	X
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling		X
Pricing	X
Total	5	2

The Core i7-12700K offers the lion’s share of the Core i9-12900K’s performance, but at a much more forgiving price point. That goes a long way to boosting the value proposition, giving the chip a five-to-two lead in this Core i7-12700K vs Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X battle.

In performance testing, the $409 Core i7-12700K beat the ~$390 Ryzen 7 5800X convincingly in just about every category, with 12% faster gaming, 17% faster performance in single-threaded work, and 40% more performance in multi-threaded applications. Given the Core i7-12700K’s performance lead, it more than makes up for the roughly equivalent platform pricing with the 5800X.

Additionally, even though the ~$549 Ryzen 9 5900X costs $140 more, the 12700K was 7.5% faster in gaming, 17% faster in single-threaded work, and ~2% faster in our overall measurement of multi-threaded productivity applications. The Ryzen 9 5900X does take the lead in some heavily-threaded applications, however, so you’ll have to carefully weigh your priorities and decide if the markup is worth the extra performance in some areas, or the sacrifices in others. Overall, the 12700K holds the value crown here.

The 12700K is the fastest gaming chip in its price range with both DDR4 and DDR5 memory and Windows 10 and 11. Given its aggressive pricing and 12900K-like performance, it reigns supreme as the high-end chip for gaming — the 12900K isn’t worth the premium for gaming-only rigs. However, AMD will fire back with its 3D V-Cache processors that will come with up to 192MB of L3 cache per chip, which the company says infuses up to 15% more gaming performance. Those chips arrive next year, but we aren’t sure if the performance gains will apply to games.

The Core i7-12700K’s advantages also include platform additives, but the DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 interfaces add to platform costs. Intel’s decision to hold back the B- and H-series motherboards hurts here, as pricey Z690 boards are your only option, at least for now. Support for DDR4 can help reduce the premium associated with DDR5, but that comes with a compromise: We haven’t seen any flagship DDR4 motherboards yet; the highest-end models appear to be confined to DDR5. If you’re going with a DDR5 build, prepare yourself for eye-watering pricing, at least until supply improves. Luckily, you won’t need expensive DDR5 memory to unlock the best gaming performance — unless you have a very specific need for DDR5, it’s probably best to skip it.

AMD still holds the power and efficiency crown, but the ‘Intel 7’ process reduces peak power consumption drastically improves power efficiency. Overall, if we take performance into account, Intel has reduced its power consumption from meme-worthy to an acceptable level.

Be aware that software updates should help resolve many of the early issues in Windows 10, but you might need to engage in some manual tweaking with some specific programs.

Despite those early challenges, Alder Lake marks a massive generational leap forward, forging a compelling blend of pricing and single- and multi-threaded performance all while delivering roughly the same gaming performance as the world’s fastest gaming chip, the Core i9-12900K, but for $180 less.

Combined with leading-edge connectivity options and improved power consumption and efficiency, the Core i7-12700K wins the faceoff with the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X in convincing fashion.

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
MORE: AMD vs Intel
MORE: All CPUs Content

Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 9 5950X Test System Configurations
Intel Socket 1700 DDR5 (Z690)	Core i9-12900K, Core i7-12700K, Core i5-12600K
	MSI Z690 Carbon WiFi
	2 x16GB G.Skill Ripjaws S5, DDR5-5200 @ DDR5-4400 36-36-36-72
Intel Socket 1700 DDR4 (Z690)	Core i9-12900K, Core i5-12600K
	MSI Z690A WiFi DDR4
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 — Stock: DDR4-3200 14-14-14-36
Intel Socket 1200 (Z590)	Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K, Core i5-10600K
	MSI Z590 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 — Stock DDR4-3200/2933 Gear 1
AMD Socket AM4 (X570)	AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, Ryzen 9 5900X, Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 5 5600X
	MSI MEG X570 Godlike
	2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 — Stock: DDR4-3200 14-14-14-36
All Systems	Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle — Gaming and ProViz applications
	Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE — Application tests
	2TB Intel DC4510 SSD
	Silverstone ST1100-TI
	Open Benchtable
	Windows 10 Pro version 2004 (build 19041. 450)
	Windows 11 Pro version
Cooling	Corsair h215i

Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom’s Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.

Topics

CPUs

Intel Core vs AMD Ryzen CPUs in 2022 (Benchmarks & Comparison)

With the launch of Ryzen 5000 CPUs (5950X, 5900X, 5800X, and 5600X), AMD surpassed even Intel’s most premium offerings in 2020. Intel soon responded with 11th Generation CPUs early this year, but not to much effect.

AMD’s CPUs seemed to flat out beat their direct competition in every workstation task imaginable, except viewport performance. But once again Intel claimed the lead in active workstation tasks and smoothness within a viewport with 11th Generation processors this year.

So, let’s look into what’s changed with Intel’s 12th Generation Alder Lake CPUs. Has Intel extended its lead? Is it worth an upgrade for either workstation or gaming use?

We’ll go over a few benchmarks, and then our thoughts on the hotly debated question –

Intel or AMD Ryzen Processors in Early 2022?

Intel vs.

Ryzen: Recommendations for 2022 (May 2022)

Although availability for GPUs continues to be a nightmare in late 2021, CPUs are mostly in stock in most regions now. That said, AMD still hasn’t launched any processor in the sub-$200 segment for well over a year now and Intel is the ONLY competitive option if you’re shopping at that price point.

For those who just want a quick recommendation, I got you. Here you go:

Please avoid paying too much over the MSRP for CPUs now. They should be available at or very close to MSRP at most retailers.

Note – Do check out detailed reviews of AMD’s Ryzen 5000 Series CPUs, and AMD’s Threadripper 3000 parts for more information about these CPUs.

With Intel’s launch of 12th Generation processors, it extends its performance lead over Ryzen and 11th Generation Intel CPUs. The margin is slim, but it’s there. That said, Alder Lake’s P-core and E-core architecture adds yet another factor to an already complex CPU-picking scenario.

But if you’re building a workstation that you’ll primarily use to do active viewport work, the Core i5 12600K from Intel’s Alder Lake lineup offers incredible value. It offers an excellent performance uplift compared to the Ryzen 5 5600x (which sits in the same price bracket). What’s more, now that the Intel platform also supports PCI-E 5.0, it’s better suited to handle upcoming GPUs (a boon for those who don’t upgrade CPUs very often).

A Quick History Recap: AMD vs. Intel

If you’re curious about how we came to these conclusions, head on to the next section! We’ll first talk about some Intel vs. AMD history.

AMD and Intel have been at loggerheads for nearly half a century now; the rivalry certainly isn’t new, and it isn’t going anywhere any time soon either.

While Intel maintained a tight grip on the CPU market for the past decade or so, AMD lagged behind it until the release of Ryzen in 2017.

The vast performance disparity and better efficiency of Intel processors over their AMD counterparts made them an obvious choice for any use case before Ryzen launched.

Whether you were building a gaming PC, workstation PC, or even an office PC, the best choice was undoubtedly Intel.

Intel IPC advantage and AMD Bulldozer

The performance disparity stemmed from the radically different architecture approaches that these companies adopted in CPUs released around 2010-2011.

Intel opted to focus on IPC improvements; AMD focused on parallelism. One approach equipped processors with fewer but extremely powerful cores, and the other equipped CPUs with more, albeit far weaker, cores.

What is IPC?

IPC (Instructions Per Cycle/Clock) is the number of instructions that a processor executes in a single clock cycle. What does this mean?

Well, here’s an easy way to understand this.

We’ve had processors touching 3 GHz for over a decade now. However, if we directly compare the performance difference between a modern processor at the same clock as an older processor, we find that the modern processor is much faster.

How? IPC.

In a single clock cycle, the newer processors can execute more instructions (more work) than the number of instructions executed by an older processor in that same single cycle.

Since it improves efficiency by a considerable margin, an IPC uplift is considered the best kind of improvement we can get when it comes to CPUs.

Bulldozer: Plagued by Low IPC

AMD’s Bulldozer CPU lineup (FX series) launched in 2011 and was a ground-up re-design. The problem? It was a fiasco.

The newly-launched products were, in some cases, even slower than the older AMD Phenom parts that they were set to replace!

Source: AnandTech Vishera Review

Although Bulldozer (FX 4000 series) launched a few months later, it just couldn’t compete with Intel’s amazing Sandy Bridge processors.

Intel seized this opportunity and captured the market.

The next few years saw a similar story unfold, with both companies continuing to make incremental improvements to their processors.

Source: AnandTech

The result – Intel was crowned king of both single-threaded as well as multi-threaded workloads.

Source: AnandTech

Intel’s lead was bound to come to an end sooner or later. The engineering brilliance it showcased in 2011 helped Intel maintain a substantial lead over AMD for close to a decade.

A remarkable feat.

1

^st Generation AMD Ryzen vs. 7^th Generation Intel

When AMD first announced Ryzen, people were skeptical. Even I was, to be completely honest.

After all, we’d been promised the moon by AMD before and got, well, Bulldozer instead – an 8-core dumpster fire that couldn’t go toe-to-toe with a 4-core CPU from Intel even in heavily multi-threaded workloads.

Throw in operating temperatures that spawned a whole generation of ‘heater’ memes, and well, you get the picture.

However, Ryzen’s release took even the most vocal AMD fans by surprise. It offered a whopping 52% improvement in IPC than the Bulldozer core – positioning it pretty dang close to the 7^th Generation Intel processors.

Of course, this uplift was more a testament to how far behind Bulldozer was more than anything else.

But still, AMD finally caught up.

Here’s a benchmark for Premiere Pro’s Warp Stabilize – a popular effect used to reduce shake/jitter in video footage.

Source: PugetSystems

The Zen microarchitecture used core complexes connected by the Infinity Fabric, making it easier and cheaper to offer more cores without increasing latency too much or giving up performance.

Hence, AMD’s 8-core, 16-thread offering was priced around the same as a 4-core, 8-thread part from Intel.

Unlike Bulldozer, Ryzen offered excellent clock speeds as well as stellar IPC. When this was combined with higher core counts, AMD Ryzen took the multi-threaded workload crown with ease.

AMD’s 8-core powerhouse was pitted against a 4-core offering from Intel because of AMD’s aggressive pricing. The results were hardly surprising at that point.

However, Intel had refined its architecture and clock speeds for years and still maintained a lead in both clock speed and IPC – ensuring that it remained the best choice for single-threaded workloads.

Moreover, being a market leader for close to a decade does come with certain advantages. Applications were optimized to run on Intel processors, and some benchmarks confirmed this disparity.

For Gaming and Viewport performance and even a few production workloads, Intel remained the better choice due to snappier single-core performance.

AMD Ryzen vs Intel in 2021

AMD’s effort to improve IPC finally allowed Ryzen processors to overtake Intel Core CPUs when it comes to snappiness within a viewport. In our review of Ryzen 5000 parts, we noticed a substantial improvement in fluidity – surpassing Intel easily. However, Intel swooped right back in and took back the crown with its 11th Generation CPUs in 2021. But it looks like they weren’t done. With the 12th Generation Alder Lake CPUs, Intel has widened that lead even more!

That said, when it comes to balancing core counts, single-core performance, and power draw, AMD does have the edge (when using stock; more details in the power consumption section below).

Benchmarks: Intel vs AMD Ryzen

We build PCs for a myriad of workstation and general productivity tasks. So, I’ve compiled a range of benchmarks that should help you make an informed choice.

I’ll cover video editing, media encoding, viewport performance, rendering, and much more in the charts below – followed by CPU recommendations for those tasks.

AMD Ryzen vs. Intel Core CPUs: Viewport Performance

Due to a lack of review samples, Intel didn’t send us an Alder Lake CPU to test out Viewport performance this time around. However, we posted a thread on /r/Intel to ask for help, and they came through!

Users tested with our Viewport benchmark using Intel’s Core i9 12900K and Core i7 12700K, getting scores that ranged from 1660 to 1720.

Please note that the score of 1660~ was on an Intel Core i9 12900K with MCE (Multi-core Enhancement) enabled. Since viewport tasks are generally very single-threaded, and enabling MCE sacrifices just a bit of single-core performance, it affects viewport performance. As a rough estimate (accounting for what users reported), the viewport score for Alder Lake Core i9 and Core i7 (without MCE, which is what we recommend for workstation use) should sit somewhere between 1690-1720.

Let’s see how these numbers compare to older Intel and AMD CPUs, shall we?

That’s a significant uptick. No doubt about it. Red’s falling way behind Intel in this particular workstation task. The best viewport score that AMD offers is just 1382 vs. Intel’s 1700~ in late 2021.

Please do keep in mind that this doesn’t suddenly make the 10th Generation Intel or Ryzen 5000/3000 parts terrible. There’s no reason to rush out and grab an upgrade right now if you don’t see any stutters in the scenes you usually work with. However, the better platform extensibility, PCIe 5.0 support, additional M.2 slots, and so on do make the 12th Generation Intel offerings a very compelling upgrade for anyone on 9th Gen Intel CPUs. For those on early Ryzen CPUs (1000/2000/3000) with a 400-series+ motherboard, a swap out upgrade to Ryzen 5000 is still the best value option to gain performance without investing too much.

That said, the lack of ANY budget Ryzen 5000 part is disappointing; there’s still no reasonable AMD offering for shoppers in the ~$250 price segment. The 11600K, and now 12600K both outperform the Ryzen 5 3600 by a significant margin while being priced only marginally (~$40) higher.

You can find the full list of Viewport benchmarks here.

AMD Ryzen vs. Intel Core: Cinebench R23

When it comes to multi-threaded performance, Intel couldn’t match the number of cores that AMD offered. As you’ll see, cores do matter for workloads that involve physics simulations and fluid dynamics.

If you don’t need access to HEDT features like quad-channel memory, more PCI-E lanes, and so on, I still recommend going after a Ryzen 9 5950X.

With the launch of its 12th Generation CPUs, Intel has managed to claw its way back into the leaderboards of multi-threaded workloads again. However, this comes at the cost of substantially-higher power draw (compared to Ryzen), which is the only reason why an Intel for multi-threaded work still isn’t our recommendation.

You can find the full table here.

AMD Ryzen vs. Intel for Video Editing and Encoding

Intel’s single and multi-thread gains do carry over to video editing in a big way. If you want the very best Adobe Premiere Pro workstation, bar none, you just have to include a Core i9 12900K along with DDR5 memory.

Source – Puget Systems

With the Ryzen 9 5950X now only managing to marginally outpace an Intel Core i5 12600K, the choice for even mid-range workstations remains Intel.

On DaVinci Resolve, Intel’s Core i9 12900K does win but the margin isn’t as drastic as it is on Premiere Pro. Since the choice of memory plays a significant role here, make sure you’re going with DDR5 when building an Intel system. If that’s a pricey proposition, I’d recommend an Intel Core i7 12700K with DDR4 memory as a nice higher-end workstation that doesn’t compromise on too much.

Source – Puget Systems

While AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors could easily destroy even the best from Intel’s 11th Generation lineup in video encoding, things have changed with Alder Lake. Here’s a video encoding benchmark (1080p30 h364 to 720p YT) from Anandtech that shows exactly how far Intel has stretched its lead with 12th Generation CPUs when paired with DDR5 memory.

Source – Anandtech

It’s hard to recommend AMD for workstation systems that want to handle video editing workloads because Intel counterparts (at lower price points) are just so much better. Yes, the Z690 platform is costlier, but I presume this will be easily fixed if/when the mainstream B660 platform releases sometime next year.

AMD Ryzen vs. Intel for Adobe Photoshop and After Effects

AMD’s lead in the Adobe suite is done after over a year of domination. The Ryzen 9 5950X is now only able to go up against an Intel Core i7 12700K, while a Core i9 12900K with DDR5 beats the Ryzen lineup convincingly.

It’s hard to recommend AMD for workstation systems that want to handle the Adobe suite because Intel counterparts (at lower price points) are just so much better. Take the Core i5 12600K, for example. It can edge out the pricier Ryzen 7 5800X quite convincingly.

Yes, the Z690 platform is costlier, but I presume this will easily be fixed if/when the mainstream B660 platform releases sometime next year.

AMD Ryzen vs. Intel for Microsoft Office (Excel and Word)

AMD’s lead in Microsoft Office tasks is no more with Intel’s 12th Generation CPUs. If you’re building a workstation that needs to handle relatively complex Office tasks in Word and Excel, you’d be better off with an ‘Alder Lake’ Inside™. Here, using the Core i9 12900K gave only a negligible boost to performance, so the best options would be an Intel Core i7 12700K / Core i5 12600K.

Image Source – TechPowerUp

Thanks to the fact that AMD has almost no competitive products in the sub-$200 price range in late 2021, the best value option is easily an Intel Core i5 11400F, while a Core i5 10100 at a mere $89 remains the best budget option.

AMD Ryzen vs Intel for CPU & GPU Rendering

For CPU-focused renders using V-Ray, AMD’s Threadripper 3000-series processors still do reign supreme. Intel’s 12th Generation Processors aren’t great options if you want to do core-heavy work like CPU rendering that leverages multiple cores effectively.

Although CPU-only rendering tests are meaningless for some render engines like Blender’s Cycles, which can render in GPU+CPU hybrid mode, you can still get a bit of an idea about what performance you can expect from your processor. It’s best to invest in at least a mid-range graphics card for the best experience.

Image Source – TechPowerUp

Although Intel’s architectural changes do help catch up with AMD on the core-heavy workloads, the power draw is just too high. On the flip side, the lack of any competitive budget Ryzen offering leaves the sub-$200 price segment wide open. The only choice here would be an Intel Core i5 11400F.

AMD offers the best when it comes to CPU rendering performance. I see absolutely no reason to go with any Intel offering for any kind of CPU render-focused workstation like a render node. It’s not just that AMD’s Ryzen 9 5950X is better than Intel’s best in performance, the power draw when using Intel 12th Gen for all-core workloads is pretty nasty.

If you’re itching for a Threadripper build right now, you can choose to wait. The Threadripper 5000 parts are bound to be amazing (if/when they release). However, availability might still be an issue and you might be left waiting for months, so do keep that in mind.

We’ve also done some testing for X-particles to find the best CPU for that particular workload. You can go over the benchmarks here. Long story short, if your primary workload will deal with any kind of fluid simulation, close your eyes and get the highest core count possible, or basically, get an AMD Ryzen 5000 part.

Didn’t find a benchmark you need? Leave me a comment below, and I’ll see what I can do!

AMD Ryzen vs.

Intel: Price and Platforms

When building a workstation, it’s essential to factor in price, platform support, and upgradability.

Upgradability of Ryzen vs. Intel: Is Ryzen More ‘Future Proof’?

Late 2021 Update: The platform longevity factor no longer applies as AMD only promised AM4 support through 2020. They are now free to abandon the socket and go to a new platform for their next release.

On the other hand, Intel’s Z690 platform should support 12th Generation Intel processors. All indications are, Intel is pushing for an IPC uplift to take back the gaming crown while sacrificing 2 cores at the top end of their product stack.

Pricing on the Intel side is much higher, especially if you want to go for top-tier performance with DDR5 memory. Now that Intel unlocked memory overclocking on their B-series chipsets as well, the release of B660 should somewhat alleviate this pricing disparity. The Z690 motherboards launching this year and early next year come equipped with new-gen technologies and standards so if you’re looking for a ‘future-proof’ upgrade in late 2021 or early 2022, Intel’s a good choice.

That said, I’m a strong proponent of buying precisely what you need to use today. Not tomorrow. So, pick based on your preferences, features, and of course, looks.

AMD Ryzen vs. Intel: Addressing Power Consumption

If you take a look at power consumption numbers on popular websites and YT channels, you’ll probably see graphs that look somewhat like this one –

Image Source – TechPowerUp

Scary, right?

A Ryzen 9 5950X is consuming merely ~180W, while a stock 12900K wants 300W!?

Well, the problem is that we’re so used to assuming that a stock CPU is tuned well by the manufacturer that (understandably) almost no one bothered with any further investigation.

User Geldmann3 over on the 3DCenter Forum found something interesting.

Here’s a table that encapsulates a few interesting data points from there:

Power Limit (Core i9 12900K)	CPU-Z (Multi-threaded)	Performance Percentage	CPU Temperature (°C)
250W	11667. 6	100%	>100°C
225W	11576.1	99%	97°C
200W	11371.1	97%	88°C
175W	11058.5	95%	81°C
150W	10740.9	92%	74°C
100W	9482.3	81%	59°C
Ryzen 9 5950X @ ~200W	11856	~101%	— (Data not comparable)

If Intel had released the Core i9 12900K at, say, the 200W power levels, it would lose a mere 5% of multi-core performance while not affecting single-core performance at all. What’s more, the temps would only touch 88°C.

News flash – that’s still a great CPU when priced right, Intel!

However, in a strange attempt to reclaim the top spot from a Ryzen 9 5950X in benchmarks like Cinebench, they’ve managed to shift the narrative to: “Intel runs hot and loud!”

So, what does this mean for workstation users? Well, it’s complicated.

We generally recommend anything based on its stock, out-of-the-box performance. But Intel has released a product that’s compelling enough for a section of workstation users that we can’t just ignore it.

So, here’s our recommendation.

If you see the Core i9 12900K recommended in any of the workloads above, go for it. It’ll do well for you without guzzling a ton of power.
If you drive workloads where the Core i9 12900K is recommended, in addition to core-heavy tasks like CPU rendering, grab one only if you’re:
1. okay with the higher power draw that invariably accompanies a stock 12900K in those CPU rendering tasks or fluid simulation tasks
2. up for tinkering in the BIOS to set power limits at reasonable levels and tune your processor.

What Should You Buy in 2021? Intel or AMD Ryzen

“Unless you’re working with Adobe Premiere Pro, Ryzen is the clear winner for a workstation PC in 2019. Even with Adobe Premiere Pro, I expect Ryzen to close the gap with the Ryzen 9 3950X – due for release next month (September 2019). Of course, Intel might still be better for some niche use-cases.

Please do consult benchmark charts pertinent to your workloads before reaching a decision. AMD is in the lead for most workstation tasks and has caught up in areas where it was lagging earlier. What’s more, if you build a PC on the AM4 platform, you could upgrade to the 16-core Ryzen processor releasing soon and also, to the Zen 3 CPUs that’ll release sometime next year (2020), without changing your motherboard!”

– This is what I said around two years ago.

At the start of 2021, I went with –

“there are no ‘buts.’ AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors completely obliterate Intel offerings in the high-performance segment, making Intel very hard to recommend.

However, at the very lower end of the product stack and viewport performance, Intel is very competitive indeed. The Intel Core i5 11600K, Intel Core i5 10400F, and Intel Core i3 10100 are amazing options for those on a relatively tighter budget. Although the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 remains a good choice, it’s now priced much higher than before- making the cheaper Core i5 10400F look like a way better deal.”

In late 2021, things look a bit different with Intel’s 12th Gen lineup on shelves.

A stock Intel Core i9 12900K doesn’t deserve a second look if you’re building a workstation that’s going to handle core-heavy work like CPU rendering. It’s just not worth trying to manage that much heat and power draw.

However, as you’ve seen from the numbers above, even the Core i9 12900K is a compelling upgrade for quite a few workstation tasks, including video editing, motion graphics, and animation.

Over to you

So, what PC are you building? Leave a comment below if you need help with your build or get some help in our forum!

CGDirector is Reader-supported. When you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

AMD vs. Intel: which wins in 2022?

At the heart of your pursuit for a new or upgraded PC lies an important decision: Should you use an AMD or Intel CPU? Like MacOS versus Windows, the AMD versus Intel rivalry is one of the greatest debates for PC enthusiasts, and right now, we are in the middle of a neck-and-neck race that’s bound to get even more heated.

Contents

Desktop processors
Laptop processors
Which is best for you?

Now that AMD has launched its Ryzen 7000 CPUs, it’s time to revisit the dynamic between AMD and Intel in 2022. Both companies have new generations in the works, neither of which have hit store shelves yet, so there’s still a lot more to this story that will unfold through the end of the year.

Desktop processors

Jacob Roach / Digital Trends

In the past, AMD CPUs were the best option in only budget and entry-level portions of the market, but that around 2019. Now, Intel actually offers a slightly better value with cheaper prices on its 12th-gen Alder Lake CPUs overall. But that doesn’t mean Intel is losing to AMD. In fact, its Core i9-12900KS is generally regarded as the overall fastest CPU you can buy.

The most affordable AMD or Intel chips will cost between $40 and $60 for a couple of cores and energy-efficient clock speeds. The best midrange CPUs will set you back between $200 and $350, while a top gaming CPU is priced around $600. If you want to accelerate intensive tasks like video editing and transcoding, you can spend anywhere from $600 to almost $1000.

Jacob Roach / Digital Trends

Intel and AMD have excellent processors for gaming and productivity tasks like video editing and transcoding. Neither Intel nor AMD have a single CPU that is the best at both things, however. Intel’s Core i9-12900KS is great for productivity and gaming, beating the Ryzen 9 5950X in both categories, but AMD’s gaming-focused Ryzen 7 5800X3D is much faster in games.

You don’t need to buy the best to get a great CPU for gaming or work, though. At around the $250-300 mark, Intel’s Core i5-12600K is certainly the CPU to buy. It’s fast in games and productivity, even beating out AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X, which was our previous favorite for the midrange.

Intel has also been releasing many budget-level CPUs in the $100 to $200 range, such as the Core i5-12400 and Core i3-12100. It was actually quite easy for Intel to dominate this segment with its new 12th-generation CPUs because AMD had been seriously neglecting the budget segment. AMD finally updated its budget offerings in April with CPUs such as the Ryzen 5 4500 and Ryzen 5 5500, but these CPUs have not been received very favorably because of their price and use of older architectures.

If you’re planning on building a cheap system with no discrete graphics, Intel is practically your only option. AMD’s modern Ryzen 5000 APU lineup starts with the Ryzen 5 5600G, which is almost $200. While Intel’s integrated graphics are usually slower than AMD’s, the Core i3-12100 with integrated graphics is cheap, fast enough, and pairs well with a future midrange GPU.

Looking into the future, AMD confirmed its next-gen Ryzen 7000 CPUs will arrive on September 27. They bring features like DDR5, the new Zen 4 architecture, and a massive boost to clock speeds. AMD claims they’ll be the fastest CPUs on the market, but we need to wait for third-party reviews to see if that’s the case.

Meanwhile, Intel is preparing its 13th-gen CPUs based on Raptor Lake, which at the moment seem like more powerful versions of Alder Lake. Intel hasn’t talked much about architectural improvements, but it has said Raptor Lake won’t be on a new process, which means the new CPU probably won’t be quite as radical of an improvement as Ryzen 7000 could be.

High-end desktop

If you want to use your PC for heavy video editing at high resolutions, perform intensive video transcoding, or perform any other intensive task that can benefit from even more power than the best mainstream CPUs can offer, then high-end desktop, or HEDT CPUs, could be what you need. AMD and Intel have options in this space, with higher core and thread counts. AMD’s options remain the most capable and cost-effective, however.

Intel’s HEDT line reaches up to 18 cores and 36 threads with the 10980XE, but even if you can find it in stock, you’ll pay its suggested retail price of $980 despite it being nearly three years old. Although the 10980XE is several generations old now, it’s still a powerful CPU, but it’s hard to recommend when you consider AMD’s alternatives.

AMD’s 5950X mainstream CPU already offers credible competition for the 10980XE at under $800, so it offers far better value for money. But if you want extra performance, the sky’s the limit.

AMD’s third-gen Threadripper CPUs offer 24, 32, and even 64 cores with support for double that number of simultaneous threads, all while maintaining clock speeds around the 4GHz mark. If your software can make use of all those extra cores, AMD’s Threadripper CPUs offer unparalleled performance outside of obscenely expensive server CPUs, easily outstripping the Intel competition. They also support a greater number of PCIExpress lanes — 64 versus just 44 on the Intel alternatives — making them more suited to larger storage arrays.

Normally, you’d be able to buy the 3960X, 3970X, and 3990X for $1,400, $1,850, and $3,600, respectively. However, on retailers like Amazon and Newegg, they’re selling for hundreds or even thousands of dollars more than that.

What about Threadripper 5000? Well, those never launched as standalone CPUs. Rather, you can only find them in the Lenovo ThinkStation P620, and these are the Pro WX versions. Professional-grade hardware tends to cost quite a bit more than the consumer stuff. So, if you wanted to build your own HEDT, your options aren’t great: Affordable but ancient Intel CPUs on one hand, modern but insanely expensive AMD CPUs in prebuilts on the other.

Laptop processors

The laptop market is a different story. Most notebooks you’ll find are based on an Intel processor of various generations and integrated graphics. As a Dell representative once indicated, Intel’s portfolio is simply huge compared to AMD, and its current lineup of laptops and the CPUs inside them are better than ever.

Intel’s laptop CPUs, just like its desktop CPUs, are powered by Alder Lake, and you should be able to find laptops equipped with 12th Gen CPUs in pretty much every segment. Alder Lake comes in four flavors: the low power U models, the middle power P models, and the high power H and HX models. Generally speaking, the more power, the faster the CPU, but there are some H and HX CPUs with fewer cores than P CPUs, so performance will depend on more than just power.

Generally speaking, you’ll find U- and P-type CPUs in lighter, thinner laptops with a focus on good battery life, decent integrated graphics, and overall satisfactory performance. H and HX CPUs are primarily for gaming laptops and they’ll usually be paired with a powerful AMD or Nvidia GPU (and soon, Intel GPUs).

AMD has recently launched its Ryzen 6000 CPUs, and while they are good, they’re limited to competing in the low end and midrange. In its review of the Ryzen 6000 equipped Asus ROG Zephyrus G14, Techspot found that while Ryzen 6000 could certainly go head to head with lower power 12th-gen CPUs, it couldn’t keep up with more powerful CPUs like the Core i7-12700H. It’s even worse for AMD when you consider that the 12700H isn’t even Intel’s fastest mobile CPU. AMD’s biggest issue is that its fastest laptop CPUs only offer 8 cores, while Intel’s fastest has 16.

Ryzen mobile CPUs come in different flavors just like Intel’s:

C — Low power
U — Efficient performance
HS — Efficient high performance
H/HX — Highest performance

AMD uses basically the same naming scheme as Intel, allowing options in thin and light notebooks and high-end gaming laptops alike. The current generation is Ryzen 6000, but you may find Ryzen 5000 CPUs in laptops, too. They’re both based around the same architecture, so although Ryzen 6000 offers performance improvements, they aren’t massive.

Both AMD and Intel offer credible performance for work and play, and there are many more considerations to make when buying a laptop than the CPU, so looking at individual model reviews is a must. That’s especially important in 2022, as Intel tries to resecure its traditional position in the market against AMD, which is vying for more market share.

Which is best for you?

For everyday web browsing, watching Netflix, and answering emails, Intel and AMD CPUs will give you excellent performance right out of the box. There are certain tasks, though, where one company’s options perform better than the others.

If you’re looking to work with your processor performing intensive multithreaded tasks like video editing or transcoding, or heavy multitasking activities with tens of browser tabs open, Intel is the best option, especially for laptops. On the desktop, AMD isn’t far behind.

If you’re working and playing on a desktop, or even just gaming, both AMD and Intel will serve you well. At the high end, the Core i9-12900KS is the best CPU overall, but if you really want to game at more than 200 fps in every game, you’ll want the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

If you’re buying a laptop, both Intel and AMD are good options until you get to high-power and high-performance laptops. Intel has 16-core CPUs, and AMD can only muster 8-core CPUs, so it’s not that AMD is bad for the high-end, they just simply don’t exist there at the moment.

Right now is an interesting time for AMD and Intel, though. Intel has a slight performance lead, but with new generations from AMD and Intel coming within a few months, it’s probably best to wait on upgrading your PC until we have a clearer idea bout how the next generation will play out.

Editors’ Recommendations

What is Discord?
Best Microsoft Office deals for September 2022
How to watch Nvidia’s RTX 4090 launch at GTC 2022 (and what to expect)
Best Apple deals and sales for September 2022
The best 4K 120Hz gaming monitors for 2022

Amd Vs Intel Processors Comparison Chart

Outline

Intel Core

The Intel series of processors include the Core i3, i5, i7, and also the recently introduced i9. Usually, the power hierarchy is as follows, the i3 is the weakest of the bunch while the i5 and i7 are significantly stronger. The strongest of the bunch is the i9 series introduced in 2017. The i9 series has an incredible number of threads and cores.

The i9-7980X boasts 18 cores clocked at 2.6GHz with 32 threads. However, buying such an expensive processor for gaming alone does not make sense. For gaming, it is best to opt for an i5 or i7. Another thing to note is that the i7 does not come with 7 cores and likewise with the i5 and i3.

AMD Ryzen

The first generation of Ryzen processors were released in 2017 and they were enormously popular. There are three categories-Ryzen 3, 5 and 7. The 7 series had the most powerful cpus and the 3 series had entry level processors. In 2018, the next generation of Ryzen processors followed, and this time AMD introduced the Threadripper series that consisted of super powerful processors.

The Thread Ripper series had processors with 32 cores and 64 threads. It was AMD’s answer to the i9. The higher core count means that video rendering and editing would be better on the Ryzen processors. Recently, the Ryzen 9 series hit the market and the Ryzen 9 3590X has emerged as one of the best processors that money can buy.

Intel Core i3 (10th Gen) vs Ryzen 3

Desktop

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU Clock Speed	Power	L1 Cache	L2 Cache	L3 cache	Max Memory Support
Core i3 10100T	4/8	3.0Ghz	3.8Ghz	1.1Ghz	35W	6Mb Smart Cache			Up to 128Gb DDR4 2666
Core i3 10100	4/8	3.6Ghz	4. 3Ghz	1.1Ghz	65W	6Mb Smart Cache
Core i3 10300	4/8	3.7Ghz	4.4Ghz	1.15Ghz	35W	8Mb Smart Cache
Core i3 10300T	4/8	3.0Ghz	3.9Ghz	1.1Ghz	35W
Core i3 10320	4/8	3.8Ghz	4.6Ghz	1.15Ghz	65W
Ryzen 3 3100	4/8	3.6Ghz	3.9Ghz	N/A	65W	32kb + 32kb (x4)	512kb (x4)	16Mb	Up to 64Gb DDR4 3200
Ryzen 3 3300X	4/8	3.8Ghz	4.3Ghz	N/A	65W	32kb + 32kb (x4)	512kb (x4)	16Mb	Up to 64Gb DDR4 3200
Ryzen 3 3200G	4/4	3.6Ghz	4.0Ghz	1.25Ghz	65W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512 (x4)	4Mb	Up to 64GB DDR-2933
Ryzen 3 Pro 3200GE	4/4	3. 3Ghz	3.8Ghz	1.2Ghz	35W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512 (x4)	4Mb	Up to 64GB DDR-2933
Ryzen 3 Pro 3200G	4/4	3.3Ghz	3.8Ghz	1.2Ghz	35W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512 (x4)	4Mb	Up to 64GB DDR-2933

Mobile

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU Clock Speed	Power	L1 cache	L2 Cache	L3 Cache
Core i3 10110U	2/4	2.1Ghz	4.1Ghz	0.95Ghz	15W	4Mb Smart Cache
Ryzen 3 3300U	4/4	2.1Ghz	3. 5Ghz	1.2Ghz	15W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512KB (x4)	4Mb
Ryzen 3 Pro 3300U	4/4	2.1Ghz	3.5Ghz	1.2Ghz	15W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512KB (x4)	4Mb
Ryzen 3 3200U	2/4	2.3Ghz	3.2Ghz	1.2Ghz	12-25W	64kb + 32kb (x2)	512KB (x2)	4Mb
Ryzen 3 3250U	2/4	2.3Ghz	3.2Ghz	1.2Ghz	12-25W	64kb + 32kb (x2)	512KB (x2)	4Mb

Intel Core i5 (10th Gen) vs Ryzen 5

Desktop

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU clock Speed	Power	L1 Cache	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	Max Memory Support
Core i5 10600K	6/12	4. 1Ghz	4.8Ghz	1.2Ghz	125W	12MB Smart cache			Up to 128Gb DDR4 2666
Core i5 10600KF	6/12	4.1Ghz	4.8Ghz	N/A	125W
Core IS 10600	6/12	3.3Ghz	4.0Ghz	1.2Ghz	65W
Core IS 10500T	6/12	2.4Ghz	4.0Ghz	1.2Ghz	35W
Core i5 10500	6/12	3.1Ghz	4.5Ghz	1.15Ghz	65W
Core 15 10500T	6/12	2.3Ghz	3.8Ghz	1.15Ghz	35W
Core 15 10400	6/12	2.9GhZ	4.3Ghz	1.1GhZ	65W
Core i5 10400F	6/12	2.9Ghz	4.3Ghz	N/A	65W
Core i5 10400T	6/12	2. 0Ghz	3.6Ghz	1.1Ghz	35W
Ryzen 5 3500	6/6	3.6GhZ	4.1Ghz	N/A	65W	32kb + 32kb (x6)	512kb (x6)	16mb	Up to 126GB of DDR3200
Ryzen 5 3500X	6/6	3.6GhZ	4.1GhZ	N/A	65W			32mb
Ryzen 6 3600	6/12	3.6GhZ	4.2Ghz	N/A	65W			32mb
Ryzen 5 3600X	6/12	3.8GhZ	4.4Ghz	N/A	95W	32kb + 32kb (x6)	512kb (x6)	32mb
Ryzen 5 3400G	4/8	3.7Ghz	4.2Ghz	1.4Ghz	65W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512kb (x4)	4mb	Upto64Gb DDR4 2933

Mobile

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU Clock Speed	Power	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	L4 Cache
Core i5 10400H	4/8	2. 6Ghz	4.5Ghz	1.10Ghz	45W	8Mb Smart Cache
Core i5 10300H	4/8	2.5Ghz	4.4Ghz	1.05Ghz	45W	8Mb Smart Cache
Core 15 10310U	4/8	1.7Ghz	4.4Ghz	1.10Ghz	15W	6Mb Smart Cache
Core i5 10210U	4/8	1.6Ghz	4.2Ghz	1Ghz	15W	6Mb Smart Cache
Ryzen 5 3500U	418	2.1Ghz	3.7Ghz	1.2Ghz	15W	64kb + 32 (x4)	512kb (x4)	4Mb
Ryzen 5 3550H	4/8			1.2Ghz	35W
Ryzen 5 3850U	418			1.3Ghz	15W

Intel Core i7 (10th Gen) vs Ryzen 7

Desktop

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU Clock Speed	Power	L1 Cache	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	Max Memory Support
Core 17 10700K	8/16	3. 8Ghz	5GHz	1.2Ghz	125W	16Mb Shared Cache			Up to 128GB of 2-channel DDR4-2933
Core i7 10700		2.9Ghz	4.7Ghz		65W	16Mb Shared Cache
Core i7 10700T		2.0Ghz	4.4Ghz		35W	16Mb Shared Cache
Ryzen 7 3700X	8/16	3.6Ghz	4.4Ghz	N/A	65W	32kb + 32kb (x8)	512kb (X8)	32Mb	Up to 128 GB of DDR4-3200
Ryzen 7 3800X		3.9Ghz	4.5GHz	N/A	105W
Ryzen 7 3800XT		3.9Ghz	4.7Ghz	N/A	105W

Mobile

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU Clock Speed	Power	L1 Cache	L2 Cache	L3 Cache
Core i7 10875H	8/6	2. 3Ghz	5.1Ghz	1.15Ghz	45W	12Mb Smart Cache
Core i7 10850H	6/12	2.7Ghz	5.1Ghz			12Mb Smart Cache
Core i7 10750H		2.6GhZ	5.0GhZ			12Mb Smart Cache
Core i7 10810U	6/12	1.1Ghz	4.9Ghz		15W	12Mb Smart Cache
Corei7 10710U	6/12		4.7GhZ			12Mb Smart Cache
Corei7 10610U	4/8	1.8Ghz	4.9Ghz			8Mb Smart Cache
Corei7 10510U	4/8					8Mb Smart Cache
Ryzen 7 3700U	4/8	2. 3Ghz	4.0GhZ	1.4Ghz	15W	64kb + 32kb (x4)	512kb (x4)	4Mb
Ryzen 7 3650H					35W
Ryzen 7 3780U					15W

Intel Core i9 (10th Gen) vs Ryzen Threadripper

Desktop

CPU	Cores/ Threads	Clock Rate	Max Clock Rate	Max GPU Clock Speed	Power	L1 Cache	L2 Cache	L3 Cache	Max Memory Support
Core i9 10900K	10/20	3.7Ghz	4. 8Ghz	1.2GhZ	125W	20 Smart Cache			Up to 128GB of 2-channel DDR4-2933
Core i9 10910		3.6Ghz	4.7Ghz	1.2GhZ	125W	20 Smart Cache
Core i9 10900		2.8Ghz	4.5Ghz	1.2GhZ	65W	20 Smart Cache
Core i9 10900T		1.9Ghz	3.7Ghz	1.2GhZ	35W	20 Smart Cache
Core i9 10850K		3.6Ghz	4.7Ghz	1.2GhZ	125W	20 Smart Cache
Ryzen ThreadRipper Pro 3945WX	12/24	4Ghz	4.4Ghz	N/A	280W	32kb + 32kb (X12)	512kb (x12)	64Mb	Up to 1TBof DDR4-3200
Ryzen ThreadRipper Pro 3955WX	16/32	3. 9Ghz	4.4Ghz			32kb + 32kb (x16)	512kb (x16)	64Mb
Ryzen ThreadRipper Pro 3975WX	32/64	3.5Ghz	4.35GhZ			32kb + 32kb (x32)	512kb (X32)	128Mb
Ryzen ThreadRipper Pro 3995WX	64/128	2.7Ghz	4.3Ghz			32kb + 32kb (x64)	512kb (x64)	256Mb
Ryzen ThreadRipper 3960X	24/48	3.8Ghz	4.5Ghz			32kb + 32kb (x24)	512kb (x24)	128Mb
Ryzen ThreadRipper 3970X	32/64	3.7Ghz	4.5Ghz			32kb + 32kb (x32)	512kb (x32)	128Mb
Ryzen ThreadRipper 3990X	64/128	2.9Ghz	4.3Ghz			32kb + 32kb (x64)	512kb (X64)	256Mb

Comparing AMD and Intel

Specification Comparison

We have done a comparison between the i9-9900K and the Ryzen 3950X. The 3950X comes with 16 cores/32 Threads and is built for multi-tasking. It can also handle 4K gaming without any issues. It also has 64MB of cache and dual channel memory. It has a base-clock speed of 3.5 GHz and a boost speed of 4.7 GHz.

The i9-9900K has 8 cores and 16 Threads but offers better single-core performance. It has a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a boost speed of 5 GHz and consumes less power than the Ryzen one. Additionally, it also comes with integrated graphics as well.

Performance Comparison

Most of the intel processors come with integrated graphics, and as a result, you can even avoid buying a GPU. However, the performance level is very impressive. AMDs have less integrated CPU and GPU units. Regardless of whether you choose Intel or AMD, a good quality processor suitable for gaming and streaming will cost anywhere between 200 and 350 Dollars.

If you have a dedicated GPU, then the Intel processor will offer better performance over it’s AMD equivalent. This is due to the architecture of the CPU. The 9900K is arguably the strongest gaming CPU at the time of its release. The Ryzen 9 3590X can outperform all the i9 CPUs in multi-threaded applications and offers great gaming performance. If you are a hardcore gamer, go for the 9700K or 9900K. If you are interested in things other than gaming, opt for a high-end Ryzen processor.

Single-Threaded Performance Hierarchy

	Performance Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Clock Speed	TDP
Core i9-10980XE	100.0%	Cascade Lake-X	18/36	3.0 / 4.8 GHz	165W
Ryzen 9 3950X	97.5%	Zen 2	16/32	3.5 / 4.7 GHz	105W
Ryzen 9 3900X	97.3%	Zen 2	12/24	3.8 / 4.6 GHz	105W
Core i9-9900KS	96.4%	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	127W
Core i9-9900K	95. 8%	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	3.6 / 5.0 GHz	95W
Threadripper 3970X	95.7%	Zen 2	32/64	3.7 / 4.5 GHz	280W
Threadripper 3960X	95.6%	Zen 2	24/48	3.8 / 4.5 GHz	280W
Ryzen 7 3700X	94.7%	Zen 2	8/16	3.6 / 4.4 GHz	65W
Core i5-9600K	94.7%	Coffee Lake-R	6/6	3.7 / 4.6 GHz	95W
Core i7-9700K	93.6%	Coffee Lake-R	8/8	3.6 / 4.9 GHz	95W
Threadripper 3990X	93.3%	Zen 2	64/128	2.9 / 4.3 GHz	280W
Core i3-9350KF	93.2%	Coffee Lake	4/4	4.0/4.6 GHz	91W
Core i9-9980XE	92.7%	Skylake	18/36	4.4 / 4.5 GHz	165W
Xeon W-3175X	89. 4%	Skylake	28/56	3.1 / 4.3 GHz	225W
Core i3-9100	85.2%	Coffee Lake-R	4/4	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Core i5-9400 / -9400F	83.2%	Coffee Lake	6/6	2.9 / 4.1 GHz	65W
Ryzen 7 3800X	83.0%	Zen 2	8/16	3.9 / 4.5 GHz	105W
Ryzen 9 3900	80.2%	Zen 2	12/24	3.1 / 4.3 GHz	65W
Ryzen 5 3600X	78.7%	Zen 2	6/12	3.8 / 4.4 GHz	95W
Core i3-8350K	78.3%	Coffee Lake	4/4	4.0 / – GHz	91W
Threadripper 2950X	76.8%	Zen +	16/32	3.5 / 4.4 GHz	180W
Ryzen 5 3600	75.9%	Zen 2	6/12	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Threadripper 2990WX	73. 8%	Zen+	32/64	3.0 / 4.2 GHz	250W
Threadripper 2970WX	73.6%	Zen +	24/48	3.0 / 4.2 GHz	250W
Ryzen 5 3400G	71.7%	Zen +	4/8	3.7 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Ryzen 5 2400G	67.1%	Zen+	4/8	3.6 / 3.9 GHz	65W
Ryzen 3 3200G	66.4%	Zen +	4/4	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	65W
Ryzen 5 2600X	64.1%	Zen+	6/12	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	95W
Ryzen 5 1600X	59.4%	Zen	6/12	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	95W

Multi-Threaded Performance Hierarchy

	Multi-Threaded App Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost	TDP
Threadripper 3990X	100. 0%	Zen 2	64/128	2.9 / 4.3 GHz	280W
Threadripper 3970X	94.7%	Zen 2	32/64	3.7 / 4.5 GHz	280W
Threadripper 3960X	86.8%	Zen 2	24/48	3.8 / 4.5 GHz	280W
Xeon W-3175X	82.6%	Skylake	28/56	3.1 / 4.3 GHz	225W
Core i9-10980XE	62.7%	Cascade Lake-X	18/36	3.0 / 4.8 GHz	165W
Core i9-9980XE	60.9%	Skylake	18/36	4.4 / 4.5 GHz	165W
Ryzen 9 3950X	61.1%	Zen 2	16/32	3.5 / 4.7 GHz	105W
Threadripper 2990WX	53.1%	Zen+	32/64	3.0 / 4.2 GHz	250W
Ryzen 9 3900X	54.6%	Zen 2	12/24	3.8 / 4.6 GHz	105W
Threadripper 2970WX	50. 9%	Zen +	24/48	3.0 / 4.2 GHz	250W
Threadripper 2950X	53.0%	Zen +	16/32	3.5 / 4.4 GHz	180W
Ryzen 9 3900	49.4%	Zen 2	12/24	3.1 / 4.3 GHz	65W
Ryzen 7 3700X	42.4%	Zen 2	8/16	3.6 / 4.4 GHz	65W
Ryzen 7 3800X	40.9%	Zen 2	8/16	3.9 / 4.5 GHz	105W
Core i9-9900KS	40.0%	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	127W
Core i9-9900K	39.4%	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	3.6 / 5.0 GHz	95W
Core i7-9700K	35.2%	Coffee Lake-R	8/8	3.6 / 4.9 GHz	95W
Ryzen 5 3600X	32.8%	Zen 2	6/12	3.8 / 4.4 GHz	95W
Ryzen 5 3600	32. 3%	Zen 2	6/12	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Core i5-9600K	28.8%	Coffee Lake-R	6/6	3.7 / 4.6 GHz	95W
Ryzen 5 2600X	26.6%	Zen+	6/12	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	95W
Core i5-9400 / -9400F	26.0%	Coffee Lake	6/6	2.9 / 4.1 GHz	65W
Ryzen 5 1600X	24.1%	Zen	6/12	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	95W
Core i3-9350KF	20.6%	Coffee Lake	4/4	4.0/4.6 GHz	91W
Ryzen 5 3400G	19.2%	Zen +	4/8	3.7 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Core i3-9100	19.2%	Coffee Lake-R	4/4	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Core i3-8350K	19.1%	Coffee Lake	4/4	4.0 / – GHz	91W
Ryzen 5 2400G	17. 9%	Zen+	4/8	3.6 / 3.9 GHz	65W
Ryzen 3 3200G	15.9%	Zen +	4/4	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	65W

Intel vs AMD Gaming Hierarchy

	Score	Architecture	Cores/Threads	Base/Boost	TDP
Intel Core i9-9900KS	100	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	127W
Intel Core i9-10980XE	99.2	Cascade Lake-X	18/36	3.0 / 4.8 GHz	165W
Intel Core i7-9700K	97.9	Coffee Lake-R	8/8	3.6 / 4.9 GHz	95W
Intel Core i9-9900K	97.1	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	3.6 / 5.0 GHz	95W
Intel Core i9-9900KF	97. 1	Coffee Lake-R	8/16	3.6 / 5.0 GHz	95W
Intel Xeon W-3175X	96.8	Skylake	28/56	3.1 / 4.3 GHz	225W
AMD Threadripper 3970X	96.5	Zen 2	32/64	3.7 / 4.5 GHz	280W
AMD Threadripper 3960X	96.5	Zen 2	24/48	3.8 / 4.5 GHz	280W
AMD Threadripper 3990X	96.1	Zen 2	64/128	2.9 / 4.3 GHz	280W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X	96	Zen 2	12/24	3.8 / 4.6 GHz	105W
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X	94.8	Zen 2	16/32	3.5 / 4.7 GHz	105W
Intel Core i9-9980XE	94.7	Skylake	18/36	4.4 / 4.5 GHz	165W
AMD Ryzen 9 3900	94.5	Zen 2	12/24	3. 1 / 4.3 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X	94.1	Zen 2	8/16	3.6 / 4.4 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X	92.2	Zen 2	8/16	3.9 / 4.5 GHz	105W
Intel Core i7-8700K	~	Coffee Lake	6/12	3.7 / 4.7 GHz	95W
Intel Core i7-8700	~	Coffee Lake	6/12	3.2 / 4.6 GHz	65W
Intel Core i9-7960X	~	Skylake	16 / 32	2.8 / 4.2 GHz	165W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X	90.5	Zen 2	6/12	3.8 / 4.4 GHz	95W
Intel Core i5-9600K	90.1	Coffee Lake-R	6/6	3.7 / 4.6 GHz	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 3600	88.4	Zen 2	6/12	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Intel Core i5-8600K	~	Coffee Lake	6/6	3. 6 / 4.3 GHz	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	~	Zen+	8/16	3.7 / 4.3 GHz	105W
Intel Core i9-7980XE	~	Skylake	18 / 36	2.6 / 4.2 GHz	165W
Intel Core i9-7900X	~	Skylake	10/20	3.3 / 4.3 GHz	140W
Intel Core i5-8600	~	Coffee Lake	6/6	3.1 / 4.3 GHz	65W
Intel Core i7-7700K	~	Kaby Lake	4/8	4.2 / 4.5 GHz	91W
Intel Core i5-8500	~	Coffee Lake	6/6	3.0 / 4.1 GHz	65W
Intel Core i5-9400 / i5-9400F	86.3	Coffee Lake	6/6	2.9 / 4.1 GHz	65W
Intel Core i5-8400	~	Coffee Lake	6/6	2.8 / 4.0 GHz	65W
AMD Threadripper 2990WX (GM)	81. 6	Zen+	32/64	3.0 / 4.2 GHz	250W
Intel Core i7-7820X	~	Skylake	8/16	3.6 / 4.3 GHz	140W
Intel Core i3-9350KF	80.9	Coffee Lake	4/4	4.0/4.6 GHz	91W
AMD Threadripper 2950X (GM)	79.3	Zen +	16/32	3.5 / 4.4 GHz	180W
AMD Threadripper 2970WX	79.1	Zen +	24/48	3.0 / 4.2 GHz	250W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	77.8	Zen+	6/12	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	95W
Intel Core i3-8350K	75.7	Coffee Lake	4/4	4.0 / – GHz	91W
AMD Ryzen 7 2700	~	Zen+	8/16	3.2 / 4.1 GHz	65W
AMD Threadripper 1900X (GM)	~	Zen	8/16	3.8 / 4. 0 GHz	180W
Intel Core i7-7700	~	Kaby Lake	4/8	3.6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 2600	~	Zen+	6/12	3.4 / 3.9 GHz	65W
Intel Core i7-7800X	~	Skylake	6/12	3.5 / 4.0 GHz	140W
Intel Core i5-7600K	~	Kaby Lake	4/4	3.8 / 4.2 GHz	91W
AMD Threadripper 1950X (GM)	~	Zen	16/32	3.4 / 4.0 GHz	180W
AMD Threadripper 1920X (GM)	~	Zen	12/24	3.5 / 4.0 GHz	180W
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	~	Zen	8/16	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	95W
Intel Core i5-7600	~	Kaby Lake	4/4	3.5 / 4.1 GHz	65W
Intel Core i3-9100	79.3	Coffee Lake-R	4/4	3. 6 / 4.2 GHz	65W
Intel Core i3-8300	~	Coffee Lake	4/4	3.7 / – GHz	62W
Intel Core i3-8100	~	Coffee Lake	4/4	3.6 / – GHz	65W
Intel Core i5-7500	~	Kaby Lake	4/4	3.4 / 3.8 GHz	65W
Intel Core i5-7400	~	Kaby Lake	4/4	3.0 / 3.5 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X	~	Zen	8/16	3.8 / 3.9 GHz	95W
AMD Ryzen 7 1700	~	Zen	8/16	3.0 / 3.8 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G	68.3	Zen +	4/8	3.7 / 4.2 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	66.7	Zen	6/12	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	95W
AMD Ryzen 5 1600	66.1	Zen	6/12	3. 2 / 3.6 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G	64.6	Zen +	4/4	3.6 / 4.0 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X	~	Zen	4/8	3.5 / 3.7 GHz	65W
Intel Core i3-7350K	~	Kaby Lake	2/4	4.2 / – GHz	60W
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G	63.6	Zen+	4/8	3.6 / 3.9 GHz	65W
Intel Core i3-7300	~	Kaby Lake	2/4	4.0 / – GHz	51W
Intel Core i3-7100	~	Kaby Lake	2/4	3.9 / – GHz	51W
AMD Ryzen 5 1400	~	Zen	4/8	3.2 / 3.4 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X	~	Zen	4/4	3.5 / 3.7 GHz	65W
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G	~	Zen+	4/4	3. 5 / 3.7 GHz	65W
AMD Athlon 240GE	~	Zen	2/4	3.5 / – GHz	35W
AMD Athlon 220GE	~	Zen	2/4	3.4 / – GHz	35W
AMD Athlon 200GE	~	Zen	2/4	3.2 / – GHz	35W
Intel Pentium G5600	~	Coffee Lake	2/4	3.9 / – GHz	54W
Intel Pentium G5400	~	Coffee Lake	2/4	3.7 / – GHz	54W
Intel Pentium G4620	~	Kaby Lake	2/4	3.7 / – GHz	54W
Intel Pentium G4560	~	Kaby Lake	2/4	3.5 / – GHz	54W
AMD Ryzen 3 1200	~	Zen	4/4	3.1 / 3.2 GHz	65W

Price Comparison

The cheapest chips from AMD and Intel cost around 40 to 50 Dollars. The Ryzen 3950X costs around 700 Dollars while the 9900K costs around 530 Dollars. If you are looking at value for money options, then the Ryzen 7 3700X is an incredible 8 core processor. If money is not a concern, then the 3960X and 3970X are brilliant options. They cost in excess of 1400 Dollars. The Thread Ripper 3990X with 64 cores has a price of $4000 but performance wise, it does not get better than this.

Laptop Processors Comparison

In the Desktop segment, AMD and Intel are pretty evenly matched and in some situations AMD even outperforms Intel. However, when it comes to Laptops, the story is different. Intel dominates the Laptop market for processors and has a better and wider portfolio. The Intel i7-9750H is a monster in terms of performance. For normal work, an i5 processor ought to do. Only for heavy computational loads do you require an i7 or i9.

Integrated Graphics

On paper, integrated graphics look like a great idea. However, it might not be able to handle the most demanding of games, and that too only on the lower settings. Intel has a lot of chips with integrated graphics however the AMD APUs are simply stronger. If you don’t have the money to buy a dedicated GPU, it is best to opt for an AMD APU like the Ryzen 3400G.

Overclocking

Overclocking used to be a difficult process but thanks to the new programs from AMD and Intel, it is quite easy to do. Not all the processors can be overclocked. Most of the chips from AMD support overclocking. It can be done through the Ryzen master. It can also be done through the BIOS, but we do not recommend that method to inexperienced users. Also, it is best to go for a water-cooling system if you intend to overclock.

Intel allows only processors with X or K labels to be overclocked. The Extreme Tuning Utility helps with the overclocking. All the Intel processors come with a stock cooler so it is a necessity to upgrade the cooler while overclocking.

A new generation Ryzen CPU will be compatible with an older Ryzen motherboard and vice versa. As a result, upgrading is quite easy. For intel, an 8th generation processor would not work with a 7th generation Motherboard. As a result, you have to upgrade both the CPU as well as the motherboard.

Availability

The Ryzen motherboards and coolers are much harder to get. Some of the standalone coolers require special AM4 brackets as well. On the other hand, are more common and compatibility is not a big problem.

Future

AMD has significantly increased their market share due to the enormous success of the Ryzen chips. The 3950X received Rave reviews and is an incredible processor. The future is definitely bright for AMD. Intel has also experienced success with the likes of i5-9400F being incredibly popular amongst customers. However, the increasing popularity of Ryzen means that it will have to think outside the hat in terms of innovations.

Acronyms related to CPU

Core/Thread

They are parts of a processor. More cores means better multitasking performance. Threads improve the computational speed and are a virtual component.

Clock Speed

It is measured in GHz and indicates the number of cycles that the processor runs. A bigger number means that it is faster.

Thermal Design Power is a measure of the amount of heat the component is expected to release. It is measured in Watts.

Socket

CPUs have a specific socket type and they can only be installed in motherboards that support the particular socket type.

Final Words:

Both Intel and AMD make some pretty great CPUs. If you are a dedicated gamer and are not interested in Video rendering and editing, we would recommend going for an Intel CPU. Else, AMD is the better option.

Which is better than Intel and AMD in 2021: processor comparison

Top

12/20/2021

Author: Dmitry Mukharev

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars

Which processor is better AMD or Intel?0003

We didn’t get involved in holivars and just sorted out the strongest and weakest sides of Intel and AMD processors. Make your choice wisely.

Whether you’re looking for a processor for a simple office PC, a gaming PC, or a powerful workstation, you have only two options — AMD or Intel. The confrontation between these giants gave rise to an almost religious worship of one of the camps and an irreconcilable war of fans and eternal disputes about which is better — AMD or Intel.

But this article is for those who do not consider themselves to be such fans, those who, when choosing a processor, are guided by common sense and the specific tasks facing it. After all, whatever you say, but each chipmaker has its own strengths and weaknesses. And today we will talk not so much about which of them is better, but about who is in the lead in certain use cases. In other words, we will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of Intel and AMD processors.

Gaming performance

Most independent benchmarks tend to favor the latter when comparing Intel and AMD processors. Intel actually leads in all significant price ranges. This fully applies to the latest Intel Alder Lake models, which confidently outperform the AMD Ryzen 5000 processors on the Zen 3 microarchitecture. Moreover, the Intel Core i9-12900K actually became the fastest gaming processor in the world, but its cost is so high that it is much more The Core i7-12700K is considered an attractive choice for the role of the best gaming processor — it is only slightly slower than the Core i9-12900K, but costs much less. Well, the Core i5-12600K offers the best price / performance ratio that is currently on the market. AMD Ryzen 5 or Intel Core i5 — in the current generations of processors of the two giants, the confrontation between these processors ends in favor of the latter.

But even here everything is not so simple. Firstly, if your system does not have a discrete graphics card, and its purchase is not yet expected, then you have a direct road to the AMD camp. The company’s processors use the best integrated graphics that have no analogues in the market.

Purchase

Do you need a discrete graphics card or is integrated graphics sufficient?

Secondly, you can unlock the full potential of top-end Intel processors only by using them in a company with equally powerful components, which means that the cost of such an assembly will be simply huge. For example, the same Intel Core i9-12900K can only fully express itself when paired with a fast monitor and when playing in Full HD resolution. If you prefer 2K or 4K gaming, then the bottleneck of the system will be the video card, which will have the lion’s share of the load.

The vast majority of gamers do not need such powerful processors, and the best choice for them will be the Core i5-12600K — just because of that excellent price-performance ratio. If you plan on using integrated graphics, then look towards the AMD Ryzen 7 5700G.

Workload performance

Until recently, AMD processors were the undisputed leaders in the AMD vs. Intel battle in workload use cases. But with the release of Intel Alder Lake, the blues managed to reverse the sad situation for the company, and the result of the Intel vs AMD confrontation in 2021 is completely different. The new Intel processors offer an excellent combination of price and features in a wide range of workloads. While AMD’s most powerful processors still lead the way in absolute performance in multi-threaded scenarios and content creation, these wins come at the expense of more cores and threads, larger caches and, as a result, a very high price.

In many ways, the success of Intel Alder Lake is due to the use of two types of cores in processors. Fast P-cores are indispensable when it comes to single-threaded workloads, while energy-efficient E-cores increase processor performance in multi-threaded operations and background work, which is especially effective for content creation.

If you need the most productive processor — choose AMD, if the best in terms of price and performance — Intel.

Power Efficiency and Thermal Dissipation

The power consumption of processors is highly dependent on the microarchitecture and process technology used in them, and thermal dissipation (TDP) is essentially determined by the power consumption of the processor. AMD’s 7nm Ryzen 5000s are the most power efficient desktop processors we’ve seen, leaving 11th Gen Intel Core models at bay. But independent tests have shown Intel’s huge success in this direction. The company has been able to keep the power consumption of the new processors to an acceptable level, and Alder Lake has noticeably better power efficiency compared to the Rocket Lake generation.

If you want the most energy efficient processors, choose AMD.

Overclocking

When it comes to overclocking, the undisputed leader is Intel, whose processors offer the best overclocking potential. In other words, Intel processors allow you to get more performance during overclocking compared to their speed at stock frequencies.

Another issue is that the company’s policy remains very strict. For maximum efficiency, you will have to spend money on expensive unlocked K-series processors, buy a very expensive Z-based motherboard and a powerful cooling system.

Components

Understanding processor designations: what they can tell about the characteristics of

AMD’s approach in this regard looks as liberal as possible. The company’s processors have a much lower overclocking potential, but they do not impose such stringent requirements on hardware. There is no need to buy any special, more expensive series of processors. Moreover, the proprietary Precision Boost Overdrive feature allows you to overclock your AMD processor in one click, making life as easy as possible for overclockers.

If you want a processor with the best overclocking potential, buy Intel, but be prepared to pay a lot of money for this privilege. For the simplest and easiest overclocking for the wallet, take AMD, but don’t expect any miracles.

Technologies

AMD was once the first to offer PCIe 4.0 support in its processors, which became especially important in light of the appearance of the first high-speed SSDs with this interface. The fact that even 10th generation Intel Core processors could not work with PCIe 4.0 SSDs largely limited their owners’ access to modern technologies.

But now the situation has changed exactly the opposite. It was Intel processors that were the first to receive support for PCIe 5.0 and the latest DDR5 RAM. And against this background, AMD already looks outdated with its PCIe 4.0 and DDR4. Of course, DDR5 greatly increases the cost of motherboards, and the advantages of this RAM are not yet so obvious, but in addition to DDR5, Alder Lake also supports DDR4, which is familiar to many.

At the same time, AMD still has a modern 7nm process technology, but Intel has been able to do a lot in this direction, and its latest 12th generation Core processors are far ahead of their predecessors in most parameters. First of all, due to the use of the updated architecture, which we talked about a little higher.

It’s not easy to choose a winner in this category. On the one hand, a more modern technical process still gives AMD some advantage over Intel, but it is not so great. On the other hand, PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 make Intel processors more attractive, but the price of this progress still bites a lot.

Price

Pricing is always the cornerstone when choosing a processor. And in recent years, we have become accustomed to the fact that it is simply impossible to oppose AMD here. The company’s processors were distinguished by an affordable price tag, almost all of them were overclockable and were offered with good coolers complete with free software and the Precision Boost Overdrive function.

Actually, all this remained unchanged. But Alder Lake-S has reduced AMD’s advantage to nothing, and now, in order to maintain its position, the company will have to reduce the cost of Ryzen 5000-series processors.

No company has a decisive advantage. The fragile parity in this area will continue, at least until the advent of a new generation of AMD processors.

Conclusions

AMD processors can still be the best choice in some use cases. They are great if you need a low power, low cost motherboard, or don’t want to spend money on a dedicated graphics card. But Intel processors far outperform similar AMD developments in gaming performance, have noticeably higher overclocking potential and offer a number of new technologies that are still not in AMD’s assortment.

Which processor is better — AMD or Intel? It all depends on your budget, the characteristics of your system and your goals. Well, we tried to make your choice easier by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of Intel and AMD processors.

Read also

How to choose a processor for a gaming computer: 5 optimal CPU
Understanding the designations of processors: what they can tell about the characteristics of

Tags

processors

Author

Dmitry Mukharev

Was the article interesting?

Share link

By clicking on the «Subscribe» button,
you consent to the processing of personal data

Recommended

Advertising on CHIP
Contacts

who will win in 2022?

Whether you’re looking to buy a new PC or upgrade an old one, the first big decision is your choice of processor. So, AMD or Intel?

The rivalry between AMD and Intel is as strong as the eternal rivalry between MacOS and Windows.

The choice between AMD and Intel is one of the greatest discussions among PC users. Right now we are in the midst of their race for the lead, which promises to be even hotter soon.

CONTENT

— Desktop Processors

— Laptop processors

— Which processor is right for you?

In 2020-2021, Intel experienced a downturn (as did AMD in the 2010s) as AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors were very popular and great for gaming and general computing tasks. However, at the end of 2021, Intel released 12th generation processors based on Alder Lake and surprisingly evened the score. Perhaps never before has the race for dominance in the CPU industry been so intense.

Now that 2022 has arrived, we’ll take a look at how AMD and Intel are doing.

Desktop Processors

In the past, AMD processors were the best option only for the budget segments of the market, but that has changed with the introduction of AMD Ryzen 3000 and AMD Ryzen 5000. AMD has traditionally been the best budget option with good specs, but this time everything has changed, and Intel can also offer excellent value. prices and quality. This does not mean that Intel is losing to AMD. In fact, its Core i9-12900KS is said to be the fastest processor you can buy.

The most affordable power-efficient processors from AMD or Intel will cost between $40 and $60 for a pair of cores. The best mid-range processors will cost you $200-$350, while the top gaming processor will run you around $500. If you want to speed up tasks like video editing and transcoding, you can spend anywhere from $600 to almost $1,000.

Both Intel and AMD have great processors for gaming and high-end tasks like video editing and transcoding. However, neither Intel nor AMD has a single processor that can do both very well.

Intel’s Core i9-12900KS is great for productivity and gaming, beating the Ryzen 9 5950X in both categories, but AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X3D (focused on gaming) is much faster in gaming.

However, you don’t have to buy the very best to get a great processor for gaming or work. At around $250-$300, the Intel Core i5-12600K processor is definitely worth buying. It handles games well and is suitable for demanding tasks, even surpassing the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X processor, which was our previous favorite in the mid-range.

Intel also releases many low end processors in the $100-$200 range such as the Core i5-12400 and Core i3-12100. In fact, it was pretty easy for Intel to dominate this segment with their new 12th generation processors because AMD was seriously neglecting the budget segment. In April, AMD finally updated its budget offerings with processors such as the Ryzen 5 4500 and Ryzen 5 5500, but these processors were not well received due to their price and also because the 4500 is based on the much older Zen 2 architecture.

If you’re planning on building a cheap system without discrete graphics, Intel is pretty much your only option. AMD’s current line of Ryzen 5000 APUs starts with the Ryzen 5 5600G, which costs nearly $200. While Intel integrated graphics are typically slower than AMD’s, the Core i3-12100 with integrated graphics is inexpensive, fast enough, and pairs well with an upcoming mid-range GPU.

In terms of future releases, AMD plans to launch the Ryzen 7000 later this year, which will include the new Zen 4 architecture and TSMC’s 5nm process. AMD doesn’t release details on the Ryzen 7000, but we can imagine improvements in every processor core, better power efficiency, possibly higher clock speeds, and possibly more cores. Since the Ryzen 7000 will have both a new architecture and a new process, we can expect the same improvements as the Ryzen 3000 in 2019year. However, it is still too early to talk about this.

Meanwhile, Intel is preparing 13th-gen Raptor Lake-based processors that look like more powerful versions of Alder Lake for now.

Intel does not talk about architectural improvements, but the developers have stated that Raptor Lake will not work on the new process technology.

Thus, it is possible that the new processor from Intel will not have the radical improvements that Ryzen 7000 can have.

Processors for high performance PCs

If you want to use your computer to transcode or edit high resolution videos or do any other demanding tasks, you need a processor with more power than the popular models. In this case, you’d be better off opting for the HEDT (High-End Desktop) platform. AMD and Intel have options in this area, with higher core and thread counts. However, the AMD variants remain the most productive and cost effective.

The Intel HEDT line goes up to 18 cores and 36 threads in the 10980XE model, but even if you find it in stock, you’ll pay the $980 suggested retail price for it despite being almost three years old. Although the 10980XE is several generations old, it’s still a powerful processor, but it’s hard to recommend when you consider AMD’s alternatives.

The popular AMD 5950X processor is already a worthy competitor for the sub-$800 10980XE, offering much better value for money. If you’re looking for extra performance, this is a great opportunity.

3rd generation AMD Threadripper processors offer 24, 32 and even 64 cores with support for twice as many simultaneous threads, while maintaining clock speeds at 4GHz. If your software can take advantage of all those extra cores, then AMD’s Threadripper processors deliver unparalleled performance beyond obscenely expensive server processors, easily outperforming the competition from Intel. They also support more PCIExpress lanes — 64 versus just 44 for Intel alternatives — making them more suitable for large storage arrays.

Typically the 3960X, 3970X and 3990X can be purchased for $1400, $1850 and $3600 respectively. However, on marketplaces like Amazon and Newegg, they sell for hundreds or even thousands of dollars more.

What about the Threadripper 5000, you ask? Let’s say that these processors were never released separately. Rather, they can only be found in the Lenovo ThinkStation P620 and these are the Pro WX versions. Professional-grade equipment tends to cost a bit more than mass-market products. If you want to build your own HEDT, you have only two options: inexpensive but ancient Intel processors on the one hand, and modern but insanely expensive AMD processors in off-the-shelf PC models on the other.

Notebook processors

The laptop market is a completely different story. Most of the laptops you will find are based on various generations of Intel processors and integrated graphics. As a Dell spokesperson once said, Intel’s portfolio is huge compared to AMD, and the current line of laptops and processors in them are better than ever.

Intel laptop processors are powered by Alder Lake, just like desktop processors, and you can find laptops equipped with 12th generation processors in almost every price segment. Alder Lake comes in four varieties: low power U models, medium power P models, and high power H and HX models. More power means faster processors, but some H and HX processors have fewer cores than P processors, so performance isn’t just about power.

In general, U and P type processors can be found in light and thin laptops with a focus on good battery life, decent integrated graphics, and generally satisfactory performance. The H and HX processors are designed primarily for gaming laptops and are usually paired with a powerful AMD or Nvidia GPU (and soon an Intel GPU).

AMD recently released the Ryzen 6000 processors, and while they are good, their capabilities are limited by competition in the lower and mid-price segment. In their review of the Ryzen 6000-equipped Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 processor, Techspot found that while the Ryzen 6000 can certainly match less powerful 12th gen processors, it can’t keep up with more powerful processors like the Core i7- 12700H. It’s even worse for AMD when you consider that the 12700H isn’t even Intel’s fastest mobile processor. AMD’s biggest problem is that its fastest laptop processors only have 8 cores, while Intel’s fastest processors have 16 cores.

Ryzen mobile processors come in different flavors, just like Intel processors:

— C — low power consumption

— U — effective performance

— HS — efficient high performance

— H/HX — highest performance

AMD uses almost the same symbols (letters) in the names as Intel, which allows you to use this classification when assembling thin and light laptops, as well as high-end gaming laptops.

The current generation of processors from AMD is Ryzen 6000, but you can also find Ryzen 5000 processors in laptops.

The Ryzen 6000 provides slightly better performance, but this is a minor difference since both processors are based on the same architecture.

Both AMD and Intel offer decent performance for work and play. When buying a laptop, you need to consider not only the processor, but also many other factors, so be sure to study the reviews of individual models. This is especially important in 2022, when Intel is trying to reclaim its normally market-leading position while AMD is reclaiming more market share.

Which processor is right for you?

For everyday web browsing, Netflix, and answering emails, both Intel and AMD processors are great. However, there are certain tasks that processors from one company do better than processors from another.

If you want your processor to handle intensive and complex tasks like editing or transcoding videos, or doing a lot of work with dozens of browser tabs open at the same time, Intel is the best option, especially for laptops. On desktops, AMD isn’t far behind.

If you work and play (or just play) on a desktop, both AMD and Intel will do the job. Overall, the Core i9-12900KS is the best processor for gaming, but if you really want to game at over 200fps, you need the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

If you’re buying a laptop, both Intel and AMD are good options until you move on to laptops with high power and performance. Intel has 16-core processors, while AMD only boasts 8-core processors. So it’s not that AMD processors are bad for high performance computers, it’s just that there aren’t any at the moment.

The good news is that there are some really good choices in the processor market. AMD and Intel are working at full capacity, so their comparison and confrontation will not stop anytime soon. Your best bet is a processor that is cheaper, affordable, and works with the components you already have.

Intel or AMD what’s the difference?

Contents

Which processor should I buy from Intel or AMD?
Processor Buying Guide
- How to read the processor model name correctly
- Which processor is better? AMD Ryzen or Intel Core
- Core i3 vs. Core i5 vs. Core i7 vs. Core i9
- 9th gen Intel processors
- 10th gen Intel processors
Processor specifications: terms
- Intel Xeon processor: high performance
- Intel H-series processors: great performance
- Intel G-series processors: for better graphics
- Intel U-series processors: Best for home use
- Intel Y-series / Core m processors: fanless designs
- Intel Celeron / Pentium processors: for budget models

Which processor to buy Intel or AMD?

The Central Processing Unit (CPU) is the place from which the operation of the entire system is formed. A faster processor lets you easily create Excel spreadsheets, play games, surf the web, and edit videos and photos faster. At the same time, the faster the processor, the less battery life it can provide for a laptop. In this article, we will dwell on each type of processors AMD or Intel , let’s compare all the advantages and disadvantages of each processor. And we will choose the best processor based on your tasks.

Processor Buying Guide

Let’s now understand the processor and its operation. When you go shopping for a laptop or computer, the first thing you ask is which processor does this model have?.

But can the name help you decide which processor is better? A large number of models can be confusing. The choice of processor will depend on your usage. What speed do you need? Is the Core i7-7Y75 processor better than the Core i5-8250U? You may have many questions

The processor model name won’t help you if you don’t know the basics. More than two dozen models are represented in the latest line of Intel. Speaking of Intel, it must be said that most laptops run on Intel processors.

Some laptops still use AMD processors. We will cover them later in this guide. In the meantime, let’s try to decipher the names of the processors and understand what these processors are best suited for.

Before diving into the intricate details of the different types of processors, we have compiled a table to help you decide which processor to choose.

Tasks	Recommended processor	Marking	Battery life (approx.)
Games and professional work	Intel Core i5 or i7 H Series	Core i9-8950HK Core i5-8300H	3 to 8 hours depending on your usage
Everyday use with advanced tasks	Intel Core i7 U series Intel Core i5 or i7 G series AMD Ryzen Mobile 5	Core i7-7500U Core i7-8550U Core i7-8705G	Battery life should normally be between 5 and 17 hours.
Everyday use without tough working conditions	Intel Core i5 U series AMD Ryzen Mobile 5	Core i5-7200U Core i5-8250U	About 5 am to 5 pm
Thin laptops — poor performance	Intel Core m / Core i5 / i7 Y series	Core m3, Core i5-7Y54	5 to 9 hours
Budget Notebooks — Low Performance	Intel Celeron, Pentium	Celeron N3050 Pentium N4200	About 4 to 6 hours
Cheap laptops — worst performance	Intel Atom Series	Atom Z3735F Atom x3, Atom x5	Battery life 7 to 12 hours

How to read the

processor model name correctly

Intel Core i7-8705G

Intel Core brand name
i7 — Brand modifier
8 — Generation indicator
705 — Numeric SKUs
G — Production line suffix

Intel Core i5-7Y54

Intel Core — Trademark
i5 — Brand Modifier
7 — Generation indicator
Y — Production line suffix
54 — SKU numeric digits

We have seen two simple examples. Let us now discuss briefly what each of these terms mean.

The first word is brand name . In this case, it was the Intel Core. There are other brands such as AMD Ryzen, Celeron, Pentium, AMD FX, Xeon and Atom.

Following the brand name is the model name. Usually you will find: i3, i5, i7 or i9etc. Sometimes you can also find the model name such as m5, x5, E or N.

On Intel computers, the first number after the brand indicator indicates the generation model. The latest generation is the 9th. However, not all laptops have been updated to this platform. Hence, you will find the number 7 as the most affordable model on the market.

The model indicator is followed by product line suffix and SKU digit . This information is important because it indicates the power of the processor.

You will not receive this information for AMD processors. But you should know that Ryzen 5 competes with Core i5 U Series, while Ryzen 7 is equivalent to Intel Core i7 U Series.

Which processor is better than ? AMD Ryzen or Intel Core

Until recently, AMD processors were associated with low-performance computers and laptops. you can find some budget laptops with AMD processors.

However, the company introduced its new line of Ryzen processors in the second half of 2017.

Ryzen 5 is comparable to Core i5. Tests Show That HP Envy X360 With Ryzen 5 Performs Better Than Core I5-8250U Processor.

Core i3 vs. Core i5 vs. Core i7 vs. Core i9

As explained earlier, i3, i5, i7, and i9 are processor model names. Intel allocates these numbers based on processor speed.

The i3 is the slowest, while the i7 and i9 are the fastest. For normal performance and home use, the i5 is ideal at this point in time. However, if you are a heavy computer worker or an avid gamer, you should opt for i7 or i9 processors. .

Read: Comparing Intel i5 processors of different generations: Which one is better to choose?

The

Core i3 is the entry-level base processor. Many refer to it as the Good Chip . This processor is well suited for everyday tasks. You will see it in budget laptops.

The

Core i3 is available in dual core and quad core options. The latest Core i3-8130U chips found in the latest models such as the Acer Aspire E15 and Lenovo IdeaPad 330 come with Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost to maximize performance.

In the second half of 2017, Intel released the 8th generation core « Kaby Lake Refresh «. These processors provide better performance than the 7th generation « Kaby Lake » processors found in most modern laptops.

The 8th generation core also moves the most common U-series processor line from dual-core to quad-core.

The most significant advantage of the 8th generation chips is that they are 50-92% faster than its predecessors, especially in multi-threaded tasks. Therefore, the Core i7-8550U is faster than the Core i7-7500U processor.

In the case of single-threaded tasks, 8th generation Core chips are 10-11% faster than 7th generation chips.

Initially, only laptops with 8th generation Intel Core i5 and Core i7 U processors were released. Subsequently, Intel released « Kaby Lake G processors» with processors AMD Vega Graphics and their first laptops with Coffee Lake-H series processors, which can be upgraded to Core i9.

Low power Y-series processors are only available with 7th generation chips.

Intel 9- and 10- generations

Currently, there are Intel 10- generation processors on the market. However, these processors are currently only available for laptops.

To date, no desktop computer is equipped with the Intel 10- generation processor. Yes, you have chips 9- ^and generations available on these devices.

Let’s now understand the capabilities of the 9-^th and 10-^th generation processors before comparing them.

Read: How to choose a good laptop and which one to buy? Buying guide

9th generation Intel processors

Intel named the 9th-^th generation processors «Coffee Lake Refresh», indicating that this is a direct refresh of the Coffee Lake models found in processors 8-^thth generation.

Since this is an updated model, there are minor improvements in these processors:

Better thermal interface, especially on older models
Support for up to eight cores
Compatible with USB 3.1 Gen 2 with transfer rates up to 10Gbps
Wi-Fi with CNVi for better internet connection

Despite these improvements, the generation 9-^{hardware is essentially Skylake 6-9 microarchitecture0539th} generation, built on the 14nm process variant of Intel.

High performance processors benefit from additional frequency with more cores.

Celeron processors — two cores without hyperthreading
Pentium Gold — two cores with hyperthreading
Core i3 — four cores without hyperthreading
Core i5 — six cores without hyperthreading
Core i7 — eight cores without hyperthreading
Core i9 — eight cores with hyperthreading

Intel released 34 processors in the following series:

Pentium Gold and Celeron — 8

processors

Intel Core i3 Processors — 7
Intel Core i5 — 10

processors

Intel Core i7 — 5 processors
Intel Core i9 — 4 processors

9th-^th generation processors are shipped with the following suffixes.

K = Processor overclocking capability (increase processor clock speed)
KF = Ability to overclock the processor without integrated graphics
No suffix — standard processor with integrated graphics, TDP 54-65W
F = Processor without integrated graphics, discrete graphics card required
T = low power, 35W TDP

Celeron, Pentium Gold and Core i3 processors are equipped with DDR4-2400 RAM, while Core i5, i7 and i9 processors support up to DDR-2666 RAM.

Processors 9- ^th generation

9-^th gen Intel Core desktop processors give you more performance and more flexibility for everything you do.

Supports Intel Core i3 to i9, Pentium Gold and Celeron
Provides support for Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 with Core i3
New Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX 200 (Gig+) — Fastest Desktop Wi-Fi Connection
Supports Intel Optane Memory and Intel Optane SSD
Support up to 128DDR4 RAM

Compared to a 5-year-old PC, 9th generation desktop processors have the following features.

47% more FPS (frames per second) — for gaming activities
2 times faster — for photo editing
Wi-Fi 38% faster for web performance
53% faster for multitasking

9th gen processors and notebooks — 45 W, H series

In addition to 34 processors in the desktop category, Intel introduced six 45W processors for gaming notebooks.

These devices are compatible with 15.6-inch and 17.3-inch monitors as well as discrete graphics card, which can provide amazing gaming performance.

The 9th generation 45W H-series processors are distributed as follows.

Core i5 processors (9300H and 9400H) — 4C / 8T with 8MB L3 cache
Core i7 processors (9750H and 9850H) — 6C / 12T with 12MB L3 cache
Core i9 processors (9880H and 9980HK) — 8C / 16T with 16MB L3 cache

Core i9 processors also support Intel Thermal Velocity Boost for +100 MHz Turbo . And all these processors support DDR4-2666 RAM.

High class i9 processor suitable for new games. These laptops feature Musclebook, a new name for similar DTR devices.

These processors support Intel Thermal Velocity Boost Technology, which provides an additional 100 MHz. Hence, these chips are great for gaming.

Read: How does wireless charging work?

The world’s best gaming laptops now come with the following features.

9th Gen ^{High Performance Intel Core Processor} (new addition)
Mobile Intel Core i9 processor with 8C/16T up to 5GHz
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX200 (Gig+) — New Feature and First in Notebooks (Increased Speed)
Intel Optane Memory h20 with SSD (new feature)
Intel High Performance SSD 660p (new feature)
Intel Rapid Storage Technology 17.x
Support up to 128GB DDR4 RAM
Intel dynamic tuning for maximum processor performance (improved feature)
Intel Thermal Velocity Boost, which increases the frequency depending on the temperature
Thunderbolt 3 to connect one

cable

These notebooks are optimized for the latest discrete graphics performance.

Thus, we see that the 9th-^th generation processors are great for gamers and people who use a computer to edit photos and video files in high resolutions. The features available on these processors make them very efficient compared to previous generations.

Read: Intel Core i3 vs i5 processors: Compare and choose the best

10th Gen Intel

The 10-^th generation processors are already on the market. To date, such processors are available only on laptops. It will be some time before desktops get them.

One of the highlights of the 10-^{th generation} processors is the transition from 14nm lithography to 10nm lithography (Lithography is a semiconductor technology used to make a processor. It is indicated in nanometer (nm). The smaller the number, the more compact and your processor is more energy efficient). Thus, we get thinner laptops that can provide quality all-round performance. Here are some of the great features of processors 10-^thth generation.

Intel released 11 processors in the U and Y series of Core i3, i5 and i7.
The 10- generation Intel Core i3, i5, i7 and i9 chips available today are better than the previous generation chips.
These chips are equipped with Intel Iris Plus graphics for excellent gaming performance. While the 10-^th gen processors are not gaming laptops like the 9- gen processors, they are quite good.
10th Gen processors provide good battery life optimized for long work sessions.
These processors provide the latest wireless and wired standards for incredibly fast connections.
The 10th-^{th Gen} Intel Core processors have built-in intelligent performance features built for the AI software of the future.
Processors 10-9The 0539 and generations are great for tasks like auto masking photos and quickly applying video filters.
Notebooks based on the 10-^{th generation Intel Core ^{processors have best-in-class Wi-Fi 6 (Gig+) connectivity. These routers provide ultra-fast browsing, streaming, gaming, and productivity even with multiple connected devices.}}
Thunderbolt 3, the fastest USB-C to date, allows you to connect multiple peripherals, displays, docking stations with a single cable at blazing speed.

The 10th-^{th generation} processors are available in the U and Y series. These processors have the following features.

U-series and Y-series processors

Integrated display port 1.4b
Built-in USB Type C — connects up to three ports
PCIe 3.0
Integrated Wi-Fi 6 (Gig+)
Intel Optane Memory
LPDDR4x 3733DDR4-3200
USB 3 (two ports, one 10Gb/s and one 5Gb/s)
SATA 3.0 drive
Intel LAN PHY
HD Audio port
SMBus, SPI and eSPI

10- generation processors are the most advanced processors available today. The high-quality graphics available on these processors are good enough to deliver breathtaking gaming performance.

Read: How to choose a good laptop and which one to buy? Buying guide

Although they cannot compete with high performance gaming laptops 9- ^th generation, these laptops are capable of delivering excellent gaming performance.

Processor Specifications: Terms

Individual processor models will contain different specifications. Let’s take a look at them and break down the terms.

Processor cores

A core is a processor within a processor. So if one core is doing a discrete task, the other might be doing something else. Almost all laptops have at least two cores.

Hyperthreading

This is a process in which the processor divides each physical core into virtual cores, also known as threads. Dual-core Intel processors use hyper-threading to provide four threads. Quad-core processors provide eight threads.

Clock frequency

The clock speed is the number of cycles per second that the CPU can execute. The unit of measurement is GHz. The higher the number, the better. However, this is not the only factor that determines the speed of the processor.

Turbo boost

The Turbo Boost function temporarily increases the clock frequency from the base frequency to a higher frequency to complete the task quickly. Core i3 models do not have this feature, while most Core i5 and Core i7 models do.

Cache

Sometimes you need to use information frequently to perform repetitive tasks. Cache is a small amount of RAM directly on the processor chip. Most processors have 1 to 4 MB of cache.

Thermal design power (TDP)

TDP is the number of watts the processor uses. Better performance will require higher usage. However, this may result in higher power consumption and higher temperatures.

VPRO

Consumer systems do not have this built-in remote management feature. Enterprise IT departments need this feature on their business laptops.

Generation

Intel releases a new generation of processors every 12-18 months. The new generation is faster and more efficient than the previous ones. However, they do not transfer the processor line to the new generation at the same time. Let’s take a look at some of the Intel platforms released earlier.

5th generation — Broadwell — released in 2014
6th generation — Skylake — 2015
7th generation — Kaby Lake — 2016
8th Generation — Kaby Lake Refresh, Kaby Lake G and Coffee Lake — 2017 and 2018

Processor line

It’s always better to get a Core i5 processor instead of a Core i3. However, you must also know all the features of the processor or product line.

Choosing the right processor line is more important

The Intel

has four main processor models, each with its own set of specific Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 features. Each of these models has its own TDP values from 4.5W to 45W.

Intel Xeon E processor: high performance

The Intel Xeon Processor E3 is capable of faster computing. You can also use this processor to develop 3D animations and run complex simulations.

It is therefore excellent for engineers and medical researchers. Xeon E3 processors feature 45W TDP, Hyper-Threading, Turbo Boost, and four physical cores. These are the most advanced features.

So don’t expect low prices and excellent battery performance. All Xeon E3 processors have built-in vPro management technology.

Benefits

Excellent for professional animation, medical research and engineering

Drawbacks

Very heavy
High cost
Short battery life

General processors — Xeon E-2186M, Xeon E-2176M, Xeon E3-1535M v6 and Xeon E3-1505M v6

Intel H-series processors: great performance

H series processors are best for gamers and power users. Typically you have two to four cores on Intel processors. However, the H-series has four to six cores.

You get the hyperthreading options available on Core i7 devices, meaning you can get up to twelve parallel threads. The H-series processors have a TDP of 45W. and you shouldn’t expect long battery life. Second, because these processors generate a lot of heat, you won’t find them on thin laptops.

H-series processors are available in three variants: H, HQ, and HK . H and HQ are stock processors, while HK is a processor that has been unlocked for overclocking. This makes these processors excellent for gaming.

Processors — Core i9-8950HK, Core i7-8850H, Core i5-8300H

Benefits

Great for gamers, creative professionals and power users

Disadvantages

Non portable
High cost
Short battery life

Intel G-Series processors: for better graphics

G-series processors are good for low-end gaming and photo editing.

Usually you can see that AMD processors have low and mediocre specs. That said, AMD’s latest Radeon RX Vega graphics card is up against Intel’s Kaby Lake G Series. These processors are available in Core i5 and Core i7 variants.

Compared to H-series processors, G-series processors have a TDP of 65W. Therefore, you cannot expect continuous performance.

Processors — Core i7-8705G, Core i7-8305G

Benefits

Best for photo editing
Suitable for «light» games
Good performance

Drawbacks

Cannot be used for powerful games
Short battery life

Intel U Series: Best for home use

The

U-series processors are the best when it comes to everyday processors. They have a reputation for being reliable and durable. The speeds are almost ideal for normal web users. Business users will also enjoy using U-series notebooks.

8th Generation Processors « Kaby Lake Refresh » doubling the number of cores from two to four. However, there are still many laptops that have not been updated to the 8th generation.

The advantage of U-series processors is that they have a TDP of 15W. Therefore, you can count on good battery life. However, these processors need active cooling in the form of a fan. The energy-saving screen and long battery life (10 to 20 hours) make these processors the best for everyday use.

Read: Lenovo laptop: How to choose and which one to buy?

Processors — Core i7-8650U, Core i5-8269U, Core i3-7100U

Benefits

Good battery life
High performance and content consumption

Drawbacks

Not intended for heavy gaming and professional animation

Intel 9 processors0120 Y / Core m series: fanless designs

Y-series has a very low TDP of 4. 5W. Consequently, manufacturers can fit them into ultra-slim laptops without fans. However, these processors do not have a good reputation for performance.

Most of these laptops have low capacity batteries or high performance screens. Therefore, these laptops have shorter battery life than U-series processors.

Processors — Core i7-7Y75, Core i5-7Y54, Core m5-6Y57, Core m3-6Y30

Benefits

Portable

Fanless Chassis

Drawbacks

Battery life

Average performance

Intel Celeron / Pentium processors: for budget models
Celeron or Pentium processors are ideal for those on a budget. They are suitable for people who use computers and laptops from time to time. Celeron processors are ubiquitous in Chromebooks because the Google-based OS doesn’t require a lot of power.

Celeron processors have TDPs ranging from 4W to 15W. Higher TDP models perform better than low TDP models. They display the average battery life. Hence, these laptops are the least expensive of all.

Pentium processors are comparatively faster as they have a TDP in the 6 to 15W range. Some Celerons and Pentiums are dual-core and some are quad-core.

Processors — Pentium N3700, Celeron N3060

Benefits

Good for web surfing

Inexpensive

Drawbacks

Low output

Not effective for video editing

Not suitable for games

Atom processors: poor performance

You can still find Atom processors in cheap laptops like Lenovo Miix 320. People usually buy these Atom processor laptops as educational tools for kids and non-essential laptops.

It must be said that Atom based computers are good for web browsing and watching videos. You won’t find Atom-made Intel processors at this time. However, these processors are the cheapest of all.

Processors — Atom x7-Z8750, Atom x5-Z8500, Atom Z3735G

Benefits

Saves money

Lightweight

Long battery life

Defects

Serious performance problems

Top Intel processors turned out to be slower than AMD chips

Technology

13 July 2021 17:14 13 July 2021 17:14

|

Share

Intel desktop processors, according to the results of testing in the Master Lu benchmark, turned out to be less productive in comparison with AMD products. The lag in the results is significant, but Intel bounced back in testing chips for laptops, taking first place in it.

AMD took the lead in

AMD processors took the lead in performance, overtaking Intel chips in the Master Lu benchmark. The authors of the test published a detailed comparison of modern CPU models from both companies, according to which AMD products take the first four places in the ranking.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X with 64 cores was the absolute leader with over 1.718 million points. In second place is the 32-core Ryzen Threadripper 3970X with 1.271 million points. AMD’s Threadripper line is designed for use in workstations and high-performance home computers.

In the top 10, Intel processors managed to hold the fifth, seventh, ninth and tenth places. On the fifth line is the Intel Core i9-10980XE with a score of about 916 thousand points. This is a 14nm chip suitable for extreme overclocking, released in the fourth quarter of 2019 and having 18 processing cores in its arsenal.

AMD processors have made a giant leap in their development

Ahead of the Core i9-10980XE were the 16-core Ryzen 9 5950X with a score of about 1. 053 million points. It is followed by the 24-core Threadripper 3960X with 1.017 million points.

A total of 30 desktop processors participated in the rating. Intel, having lost the first four places to AMD, decided to take the number — its processors are 19 here against 11 from AMD. Another thing is that more than a third of Intel Core were at the very end of the list — they occupy the last eight lines in it.

It should also be noted that the first 30 most productive Intel and AMD processors belong to only seven lines. These are Ryzen 3000 and 5000, Threadripper 2000 and 3000, as well as the seventh, tenth and eleventh generation Core.

Intel is also a winner

The authors of the Master Lu benchmark compiled a similar rating for mobile processors intended for installation in laptops. Here Intel managed to break out into the lead thanks to its Core i7-11800H with 667 thousand points.

In the top 5, this is the only Intel chip, while in the top 10 there are only four. In the overall standings, no one has an advantage — 15 processors from each opposing side. Intel again has three generations of chips here (ninth, tenth and eleventh), while AMD is represented by two lines — Ryzen 4000 and 5000.

Although Intel took first place, it does not dominate the top 10

In terms of the number of points earned, the leading Core i7-11800H is significantly ahead of the chasing Ryzen 9 5900HX. He scored almost 584.7 thousand points. The gap between other representatives of the top 5 is not so strong: 561.7 thousand points for Ryzen 9 5900HS (third place), 551.6 thousand for Ryzen 7 5800H (fourth place) and 532.5 thousand for Ryzen 7 5800HS (closes top five).

Market shares not equal

According to the developers of Master Lu, AMD has been able to achieve such a high performance due to its accelerated development over the past few years. This was enough to make its processors more productive than many of Intel’s competitors, but this has not yet affected sales.

In terms of the number of processors sold for PCs, Intel is the undisputed leader

The authors of the synthetic test compared the shares of both companies in the PC processor market, and recognized Intel as the absolute leader. Despite all the efforts, AMD still cannot overcome the bar of 30%.

Ekaterina Stolbova, Skolkovo Foundation: The grant will cover up to 80% of companies’ expenses for implementing IT solutions

IT industry support

Starting from Q2 2020, AMD’s best quarter was Q3 2020, when it held 25.34% of the market. In the next quarter, it fell 21.88%, but then began to rise. According to the results of the II quarter of 2021, it amounted to 25.21% against 74.79% from Intel.

AMD Gradually Increases Pressure on Competitor

The Statista portal provides slightly different statistics. According to him, since the second quarter of 2018, AMD’s share in the PC processor segment has been steadily growing. If at that time it was 20.7%, then in the first quarter of 2021 it increased to 39.4%. The share of Intel for the same period of time decreased from 79.1% to 60.6%.

Intel is preparing for revenge

The failure of Intel and the gradual loss of AMD may be indirectly related to the former CEO of the company by Robert Swan (Robert Swan). He took over at Intel in February 2019 and retired as CEO in February 2021.

Over these two years, Intel has taken a number of steps that do not help strengthen its position. In particular, it missed a major customer in Apple, which abandoned its processors in June 2020.

A new stage in the endless battle between Intel and AMD is just around the corner

The same Robert Swan in October 2020 declared the importance of the 14-nanometer process technology for Intel. He claimed that it was this topology that brings Intel the most money, and 10 nm, which she mastered in August 2019still requires large financial investments. At the same time, AMD processors have been produced according to 7-nm standards at the TSMC factory for more than two years.

How Tinkoff holds meetings and trains 20,000 employees every month

Import substitution VKS

In February 2021, Intel was headed by a veteran — Patrick Gelsinger , who has worked in it for more than 30 years. He immediately began to revive the company and in March 2021 announced a strategy for its development for several years to come. It includes at least the construction of new modern factories and partnerships with other chip manufacturers, including the aforementioned TSMC.

Gelsinger also began to bring back the staff of Intel professionals with many years of experience in it. From January to June 2021, inclusive, he cited Glenn Hilton (Glenn Hinton, 34 years of experience at Intel) and Sunil Shenoi’s (worked at Intel 33 years). In July 2021, Gelsinger lured Shlomit Weiss (Shlomit Weiss), with the direct participation of which the development of the Sandy Bridge series chips was carried out. She worked at Intel for 28 years.

Free Photoshop: the best photo editing software online

Elyas Kasmi

Which processor is better to choose: Intel or AMD?

This article addresses the never ending debate between AMD and Intel desktop processors (we don’t cover laptops or server chips) depending on what you plan to do with your PC. Integral factors such as price, performance, driver support, power consumption and security give us a clear picture of the state of competition in the market. We will also discuss lithographs and architecture that affect the moving curve. Overall, there is a clear winner, but which processor model you should buy mostly depends on what features, price, and performance are important to you.

You can see how all processors stack up in a single hierarchy of CPU benchmarks, but things have certainly changed since the launch of AMD Ryzen 5000. ordinary PC users and avid gamers. Suffice it to say that the Ryzen 5000 series are the highest performing chips on the market and outperform Intel in every important metric, including gaming, application performance, power consumption, and thermal performance.

However, this may change soon. Intel unveiled its Rocket Lake processors at CES 2021, claiming they will reclaim the gaming performance crown. The release of new processors is scheduled for March 30, and this is just around the corner. Intel touts a 19% improvement in IPC Rocket Lake and high clock speeds reaching up to 5.3GHz. Later this year, Intel will also introduce its Alder Lake chips to the market, which will completely redefine x86 desktop processors with a new hybrid architecture.

AMD or Intel. Processor price and cost

Pricing is the most important factor for almost everyone, and AMD tends to be hard to beat in the price segment, although we certainly can’t say the same for XT series processors. The company’s Ryzen 5000 series processors mean a $50 price hike, but faster chips get higher price tags. The company offers many benefits, such as the ability to fully overclock most models, not to mention free software that includes the innovative Precision Boost Overdrive feature.

You also benefit from broad motherboard compatibility with an AM4 CPU socket that supports both forward and backward compatibility ensuring you not only get the most out of your CPU time and money spent on your motherboard (there are caveats with the 5000 series ). AMD also allows you to overclock all motherboards except A-Series motherboards. Current AMD processors tend to offer more cores or threads and faster PCIe 4.0 connectivity at every price point, which we’ll cover below.
Modern AMD processors tend to offer more cores or threads and a faster PCIe 4.0 connection at every price point, which we’ll cover below.

The advent of Intel’s Comet Lake-S models has led the company to add more cores, threads, and features to its core lineup, but without raising prices generation after generation. This equates to a significant price cut per core and per thread, but AMD has slashed prices in response to keep Intel on its toes. As such, AMD still maintains a cost-per-thread advantage across many price ranges and tends to offer better performance in several types of workloads (which we’ll cover below).

Intel includes coolers bundled with its Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) without overclocking (you have to pay more for overclocking), but they are unreliable and «good enough» at best. Intel has increased the amount of coolers bundled for several Comet Lake-S models, but the aesthetic and small thermal improvements aren’t enough to match AMD’s competent coolers that ship with the Ryzen 3000 series, and they’re not available on all models.

Intel not only charges extra for their overclockable K-Series chips, but you also have to pay your hard-earned money for a Z-Series motherboard with CPU overclocking, so
as Intel did not add overclocking capability on B- or H-series motherboards. Intel also has a long history of fast socket swapping, which means the chances of installing a new chip on an existing motherboard or porting an old processor to a new board aren’t as high. Plan for limited forward and backward compatibility on the Intel side. You’ll also miss out on PCIe 4.0 connectivity — Intel is still bogged down in the PCIe 3.0 bus, delivering half the data transfer rate of AMD’s PCIe 4.0 connection.

At the same time, AMD offers maximum functionality for the money spent on its product. As with any product, you can expect to pay extra for top performance, especially with the Ryzen 9 5950X. The AMD Ryzen 5000 series is also the end of the proven socket AM4 line, so don’t expect these chips to run on future AMD platforms.

New AMD Ryzen 5000 processors also ship without coolers for Ryzen 9 familiesand 7, but AMD says the increased performance makes up for the lack of coolers and the higher price. Our numerous tests confirm this claim — the Ryzen 5000 chips still offer an attractive combination of price and performance.

As a result, we will give an honorable victory to processors from AMD. When you compare Intel and AMD processors, Team Red has a compelling history of value across the breadth of their product stack, especially when you consider performance per dollar. However, if you’re looking for integrated graphics paired with a processor with more than four cores, Intel is currently your only choice for retail chips, though AMD has its eight-core Renoir chips now shipping to OEMs and system integrators for preliminary preparation. Not that we recommend integrated graphics for most users, especially if you’re into gaming.

AMD or Intel. Gaming Performance

In the battle between AMD and Intel processors, AMD holds the lead in price ranges, especially in the mid-to-high end of its stack, but our tests show that Intel’s gaming performance is also keeping up with its competitor. Below are a number of gaming performance benchmarks for existing chips in various price ranges.

Prior to AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors, Intel was delivering peak gaming performance with its most expensive Core i9 desktop processor-10900K and the Core i5-10600K kept up. Naturally, the Core i7-10700K sits in between the two and offers the lion’s share of the performance of the 10900K, but at a much lower price and lower power consumption. You can see how these chips stack into our CPU test hierarchy, but keep in mind that these chips still lag behind the powerful AMD Ryzen 5000 chips.

rulers, at least for the vast majority of enthusiasts. You’ll be hard-pressed to notice small differences in gaming performance at the top of the AMD and Intel stacks, but things get trickier in the mid-range. Going back to our previous category, pricing is the best measure and AMD is making key wins in the midrange segment where most of us shop, but the Intel Core i5-10600K is a compelling leader in its price range at around $260. If you get in the $300 range, the Ryzen 5 5600X is the undisputed champion in mainstream gaming.

When it comes to integrated graphics performance, AMD is second to none. The company’s current-generation Picasso APUs offer the best performance available with integrated graphics, and the Renoir series builds on this advantage. However, Renoir chips are currently only available in off-the-shelf systems from OEMs and system integrators. That didn’t stop us from getting our hands on the chip, and you can see the impressive performance in our Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G review. Intel has its Rocket Lake chips with the powerful new Xe graphics engine coming in early 2021, which could help level the playing field for embedded GPUs.

Again, AMD processors win, but keep in mind that AMD gets the advantage based on tests strictly for the maximum possible performance. If you’re a gaming fan who appreciates every last frame you can squeeze out, especially if you’re into overclocking, AMD is your answer. This cutting-edge performance will also pay off if you plan to upgrade your GPU anytime soon.

As you can see, AMD is often the best mid-range option. However, unless you’re running a fancy rig with the fastest GPUs paired with low-res, high-refresh monitors, you won’t miss the subtle gaming performance deltas that AMD processors will have. At this point, an AMD or Intel chip will provide a more than acceptable level of gaming performance. However, it’s always good to have a little extra gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades, and AMD’s Zen 3 chips hold the lead here, at least for now.

AMD or Intel. Content Creation Performance

In the battle for non-gaming performance between AMD and Intel processors, the picture is much clearer. AMD chips are the clear winner in terms of top performance in multi-threaded productivity and content creation applications, and Ryzen 5000 processors extend that lead. AMD’s copious use of cores, threads, and cache on its processors also means big wins in the performance category per dollar.

Intel’s troubles with moving to denser technology nodes left it behind in the race for core numbers, and AMD now has offerings for both HEDT (High End Desktop) and regular desktops that Intel simply can’t match. Please note: AMD is offering a 16-core Ryzen 9 5950X for the mainstream desktop, which offers many more cores and threads than the most powerful Intel Core i9-10900K. Meanwhile, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X has an insane 64 cores and 128 threads for HEDT. This is 3.5 times more cores than the Intel Halo HEDT models.

AMD chips offer much better performance on both regular desktop PCs and HEDT platforms, so they are also more expensive than the corresponding Intel flagships. However, you don’t need to spend big money to see the benefits of AMD chips.

The Ryzen 5000 series also took the undisputed lead in single-threaded performance in all of our tests. This is incredibly impressive and means better performance in all workloads, especially everyday applications that depend on fast processor response.

As a result, AMD is the winner. For professionals looking for performance in content creation and productivity applications, the victory between AMD vs. Intel processors is a rather one-sided affair. AMD’s lack of integrated graphics on 8-core and later processors (for now) means you’ll have to stick with Intel if you want to build a rig without dedicated graphics. However, most professionals will need a separate graphics card anyway.

AMD or Intel. Specifications and Features of the

AMD offers the Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, Ryzen 9, and Threadripper families, while Intel divides its offerings into the Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9, and Cascade Lake-X families. To compare Intel and AMD processors based on specs and features, we could chart the entire product stack, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll focus on the best chips in their respective families. Keep in mind that both companies have value options at every level, but we can get a general idea of the current competitive landscape with these (relatively) short lists. We use both supplier recommended prices and street prices to give you an idea of the current state of the market.

High-End Desktops (HEDT) is the land of creative professionals with fire-breathing multi-core monsters for just about every need. Intel has long been the undisputed leader in this segment, however the first generation AMD Threadripper line has broken the blue team status quo 128 threads in its flagship Threadripper 3990X, and the 32- and 24-core Threadripper 3970X and 3960X outshine the vast majority of Intel chips. The
Intel divides its high-end product line into two classes: the Xeon W-3175X and W-3265. These aren’t exactly enthusiast systems, though; think of them as more for the professional workstation market.

Intel’s HEDT line really starts with the 18-core Cascade Lake-X Core i9-10980XE, which is installed on existing LGA2066 motherboards. The chip is powerful given its price point, but Threadripper’s 3.5x core count advantage is unbeatable, which is why Intel basically gave way to the top of the HEDT stack to AMD. It’s with AMD Threadripper processors that you get more cores, cache, and faster connectivity. PCIe 4.0, but they are priced higher to match such powerful processors.

AMD’s high-performance vs. Intel processor battles the AMD Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 families against Intel’s Core i9 and Core i7 product lines. Again, AMD holds the absolute lead with the 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X, which sets a high standard for mainstream desktops in terms of both core count and performance — and price, not including the cooler. The 5950X is hard to find in stock, but the Ryzen 9 3950X is just as impressive in many ways. Although it is not as responsive in single-threaded work or games as 5950X, it’s still a good fit for most users.

Intel’s 10-core, 20-thread Core i9-10900K pales in comparison, but judging by the prices, it actually competes with the Ryzen 9 5900X (or AMD Ryzen 9 3900X). Here we see that AMD has both the core count and price per core advantage at this price point, which it complements with more cache, PCIe 4.0, and faster base memory support. It also holds the undisputed lead in all performance metrics. 10900K really offers impressive gaming performance and high performance when running light threads. However, if you need an Intel chip, we recommend the Intel Core i9-10850K instead of the 10900K. This is because the two chips are almost identical in terms of performance, but the 10850K is significantly cheaper. This also applies to overclocking. The Intel Core i9-10850K offers nearly the same overclocking capability as the 10900K in our tests, making it exceptionally valuable for tuners.

A similar story is happening in the apparently more mainstream Ryzen 7 and Core i7 markets. To be honest, these are chips that most gamers should buy. Here, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X (and Ryzen 7 3700X) matches the Intel Core i7-10700K thread by thread, but the Ryzen 7 5800X outperforms the Core i7-10700K in our tests.

You will notice the AMD XT-refresh, 3900XT and 3800XT chips listed here. Unless you have a particular need for workstation-class workloads that don’t hit the full cores, it’s best to stick with AMD’s standard X-series models.0003

AMD or Intel. Overclocking

Processor Talking about the difference between Intel and AMD processors, there is no doubt that Intel offers the most overclocking features, which means you can get more performance over base speed with Intel chips than with AMD Ryzen processors. However, the AMD Ryzen 5000 series has largely lost this advantage — they are often faster at stock settings than Intel chips after overclocking.

As mentioned, you’ll have to pay more for Intel K-Series chips and buy an expensive Z-Series motherboard, not to mention splurge on a capable cooler (preferably liquid) to bring out the best of «overclocking» prowess Intel. However, once you have the parts you need, Intel chips are relatively easy to max out, often topping out at over 5GHz on all cores with 10th Gen Comet Lake processors.

AMD doesn’t have much room for manual tuning. In fact, the maximum achievable overclock for all cores is often several hundred MHz below the chip’s maximum single-core overclock. This means that overclocking the entire core can actually result in performance loss in applications with a small number of threads, albeit to a minor extent.

Part of this discrepancy stems from a tactic AMD has been bundling its chips together to allow some cores to overclock much higher than others. In tandem with AMD Precision Boost and an innovative thread targeting technique that ties lightly threaded workloads to the fastest cores, AMD immediately delivers near-overclocked performance. This results in less headroom for overclocking.

However, AMD offers its Precision Boost Overdrive, a one-click automatic overclocking feature that squeezes some extra performance out of your chip depending on its capabilities, motherboard power subsystem, and your CPU cooling. AMD’s approach delivers the best possible performance in component selection and is generally problem-free. Either way, you still won’t hit the high frequencies you’ll see with Intel processors (5.0GHz is still unheard of for an AMD chip without liquid nitrogen cooling), but you’ll get a free performance boost.

AMD has also greatly improved its memory overclocking capabilities with the launch of the Ryzen 5000 series. This allows AMD memory to run at higher clock speeds than before while maintaining low latency attributes that enhance gaming performance. Despite the large number of worthy AMD features, Intel still wins. Because when it comes to overclocking AMD and Intel processors, the blue team has a lot more options and much higher achievable frequencies. Just be prepared to pay for the privilege. AMD’s approach is friendlier to entry-level users, rewarding them with hassle-free overclocking based on their system’s capabilities, but you won’t get as much performance. Also, you should be aware that Intel’s overclocking prowess can be an empty win — at stock settings, as AMD Ryzen 5000 processors are often faster than Intel chips even after aggressive overclocking.

AMD or Intel. CPU power consumption and temperature

When comparing the power and heat of AMD and Intel processors, the first generation 7nm process makes a huge difference. Power consumption is a by-product of design choices such as lithography and architecture, which we will discuss below. However, higher power draw often correlates with more heat dissipation, so you’ll need more powerful coolers to offset the heat dissipation of greedier chips.

In its five years on the market, Intel has improved its 14nm process technology to improve its power-to-performance ratio by more than 70%, but it’s no coincidence that Intel’s latest chips are known for high power consumption and high temperatures. This is because Intel had to increase the power set with each generation of chips in order to deliver higher performance as it reflects on the resurgent AMD. This leads to problems with some stock coolers and also requires a reliable power supply to the motherboard.

In contrast, AMD, whose processors have the advantage of TSMC’s 7nm node, which is more efficient than Intel’s 14nm node. AMD does lose some of that advantage in its Ryzen 3000 and 5000 series processors due to the large central 14nm I/O die that is included in the box. However, collectively, AMD’s 7nm chips either consume less power or deliver a much better power-to-performance ratio.

The result is more work per watt, which is a win-win, and AMD’s cooling requirements are not as high.
In fact, the Ryzen 5000 series chips are the most energy efficient desktop chips we’ve ever tested, and the Ryzen 5 5600X offers the best efficiency.

Winner: AMD. When judging AMD and Intel CPU performance per watt, the importance of having the densest technology node combined with an efficient microarchitecture cannot be overstated, and 7nm TSMC and AMD Zen 2 are a winning combination. The latest Ryzen processors consume less power based on performance and power, which in turn means less heat. This reduces the cooling requirements.

AMD or Intel. Drivers and Software

Comparing CPU software support between AMD and Intel, Intel has a stronger reputation. Lately, AMD has been facing issues with CPU chipset drivers and graphics drivers, a natural by-product of its limited resources compared to its much larger competitors. Intel hasn’t been immune to driver bugs either, but its reputation for being a stable system has helped it take the top spot in the processor market, especially among OEMs.

In terms of existing products, Intel’s graphics drivers have gotten a lot better lately as the company ramps up its dedicated Xe graphics cards to market. Day-zero gaming drivers have become the norm for a chipmaker that, thanks to the integrated graphics on its chips, is the world’s largest graphics vendor, with an install base of over a billion screens.

AMD still has a lot of work in this area. The company has had several issues with BIOS driver releases that have failed to reveal the full performance of its chips, although AMD has largely resolved these issues after a long series of updates. As a side effect of AMD being a lesser contender.

Winner: Intel wins AMD’s battle against drivers and software. Over the past year, Intel has addressed problems with slow driver updates for its integrated graphics, and the company has an army of software developers to help ensure its products are supported relatively timely with the latest software.

AMD or Intel. Architecture
When comparing AMD and Intel processors, we must consider performance impact, scalability and performance per dollar, interconnects, and microarchitecture.

AMD Infinity Fabric allows the company to combine multiple dies into one cohesive processor. Think of it as many puzzle pieces coming together to form one big picture. This approach allows the company to use many small dies instead of one large one, and this method improves yield and reduces costs. It also provides a level of scalability that Intel may not be able to match with its new network cells inside its HEDT chips, and it certainly outpaces Intel’s aging ring bus in its desktop processors.

AMD first combined this advantage with its Zen microarchitecture, designed from the ground up for scalability, resulting in an explosive 52% increase in throughput over previous generation AMD Bulldozer chips. The Zen 2 microarchitecture is another 15% IPC improvement. Combined with the 7nm process, AMD pushed another (up to) 31% in performance per core (combination of frequency and IPC). Zen 3 delivers another 19% IPC jump, making AMD the biggest step forward since Bulldozer.

In terms of per-core performance, the transition to the Zen 2 architecture has brought AMD processors close to parity with the best Intel processors. This is largely due to the fact that Intel sticks to the 14nm process technology and its architectures are designed specifically for the nodes on which they are built. This means that promising new Intel microarchitectures can only run on smaller processes, such as 10nm, leaving the company unprepared for the long-term challenges of manufacturing 10nm products.

Intel plans to fix this in the future with cross-node microarchitectures. Until then, the company has stuck to the same Skylake microarchitecture, with the most significant changes being silicon hardware patches for a host of security vulnerabilities, as well as adding more cores.

Meanwhile, AMD continues to move forward. The advanced and powerful AMD Zen 3 microarchitecture allows the company to outshine Intel’s performance in single-threaded workloads and games for the first time since the Athlon 64. Zen 3 was truly a game changer for AMD. Meanwhile, Intel remains on the same node and microarchitecture that debuted six years ago, which is an eternity in the dog years of modern processors.

Winner: AMD. Judging by the architecture of AMD and Intel processors, it is clear that one brand is moving faster. Intel has been using their Skylake microarchitecture since 2015 and it shows. AMD, through rapid progress, has become a leader in many of the most important aspects of chip design, while Intel continues to build on the microarchitecture of six years ago

Which processor is better: AMD or Intel

AMD with its Zen-based processors has exceeded our expectations in both in relation to both the mainstream desktop market and the HEDT market, overtaking Intel as it remains bogged down in 14nm and Skylake architectures. Over the past few years, AMD processors have moved from cost-effective and power-hungry solutions to cutting-edge designs that provide more cores, greater performance, and lower power requirements.

Intel fought back by slowly adding features and cores to its product stack, but this resulted in negative side effects such as increased power consumption and heat dissipation. They only serve to highlight the company’s design and manufacturing problems.

The market is slowly changing as Intel cuts prices on its mainstream lineup.
However, Intel still hasn’t relaxed its draconian segmentation policy, which limits features like overclocking to expensive chips and motherboards. Intel’s tactic of squeezing every penny out of every feature has allowed AMD to offer more compelling benefits to the entire desktop processor market.

Aside from the oversight in the Ryzen XT series pricing department, AMD has the highest performance in line with its value story and delivers a consistent price/performance ratio. AMD also holds the lead in performance per core, which also gives it a leading position in the gaming market, and this advantage is now extending to the lower parts of its product stack.

This is a startling twist of fate for a company that just three years ago was on the brink of bankruptcy. AMD still has more work to do as it expands its OEM partner ecosystem and works with the community to expand software optimizations for its chips. However, given the excellent combination of price, performance and value, AMD is already in a good position. Now all it has to do is secure additional manufacturing capacity – product shortages have crippled the company since the pandemic, making new Ryzen 5000-series processors nearly impossible to find at a reasonable price.

Intel still dominates the countless customers that don’t use discrete GPUs, especially in the OEM market, so it has time to try and reclaim the crown. Comet Lake processors have helped cut Intel’s defenses in the critical mid-range, but as we’ve seen, AMD isn’t sitting still. The Ryzen 5000 has completely changed the paradigm, giving AMD leading performance across all important metrics, including gaming and single-threaded work, keeping Intel waiting for their Rocket Lake processors to arrive in the first quarter of 2020.

AMD is winning the processor war right now, but an Intel processor might be a better choice depending on your needs. If you want the best overclocking or software support, or if you want performance without buying a discrete GPU, then Intel is the obvious choice. consider processors from AMD.

Comparison of Intel and AMD processors: who is better in 2018 — 2019

For several decades now, disputes about which manufacturer’s processors are better have not ceased. Now the comparison of Intel and AMD processors is meaningless, since these companies cannot compete with the Russian MCST :). Elbrus is so good that it simply does not reach ordinary buyers, almost instantly bought up by organizations. Ordinary users have to be content with Intel and AMD processors based on the “outdated” X86 architecture. Of course, they cannot stand comparison with the MCST, but there is essentially nothing more to choose from. Because of this, it does not hurt to understand, which is better — AMD or Intel , comparing them with each other.

Which is better for gaming: Intel or AMD?

Gaming performance has become the main criterion for choosing a processor for ordinary users. Many generally assemble a computer only for games. In principle, we have more people who love to play than people who love to work! =)))

The performance of any more or less modern 8-thread (not cores, but threads!) processor is enough even for AAA projects. However, models with less thread should not be discounted — in many cases they do a great job with games. Sometimes this requires you to “overclock” the processor. If performance in games is limited by the capabilities of the video card (in the vast majority of cases), the requirements for the processor are even less. The main thing is that he does not give friezes and stutters in games.

And yet, which company’s processors perform better in games? It is very difficult to answer this question unequivocally; ideally, one should always consider and compare specific models. In short, AMD’s lower and mid-range processors are better than those from Intel. In addition, AMD processors in general are much better in terms of price / performance ratio. Intel is the undisputed leader in the highest price segment of desktop processors. The older processors of this company have the highest absolute performance in games.

It’s worth noting that gaming performance is not an indicator of overall processor performance. So AMD Ryzen shows rather modest results in games, significantly lagging behind Intel. In rendering and some other tasks, AMD is better than Intel (if we consider processors that are equal in cost).

Intel or AMD: which processor to choose for a laptop For them, the performance of the central processor and its energy efficiency are very important.

In terms of energy efficiency, today’s AMD processors lead the notebook market. Already, Ryzen has a smaller die size than Intel processors. In 2019, AMD chips will begin to be produced according to the 7nm standard. This will further reduce their size, and thus increase energy efficiency. Well, Intel can not master the 10-nm process technology.

AMD-based laptops are also better in terms of price / performance. The graphics built into its mobile processors are vastly superior to those from Intel. This provides a noticeable advantage, most pronounced in low-end laptops that do not have discrete graphics.

Mobile Intel processors boast the highest absolute performance. The graphics processor built into them is rather weak compared to AMD. However, in the case of discrete graphics, this becomes unimportant.

Intel and AMD in 2019: clash of the titans

After the release of its latest generation of processors based on the Zen architecture by AMD in 2017, a new round of confrontation between “red” and “blue” began. AMD Ryzen turned out to be such a successful product that Intel had to urgently increase the number of cores. The performance increase in the 8th generation of Intel processors reached 50%, while the previous 5 years the “blue” giant offered an average of + 5% in each new generation.

The increase in cores in the 8th generation of Intel seemed a little. In the second half of 2018, it released the 9th generation of its desktop processors, the flagship of which has 8 physical cores and 16 threads. It was a response to Ryzen 2 and possibly next year’s Ryzen 3.

Intel is using the marketing successfully. So the company gave birth to a new line of processors, the Core i9. Also, Intel at the presentation of its server processors emphasized that AMD Epyc did not have hardware support for AVX-512. By the way, there are literally a few applications that support these instructions.

The confrontation between these titans affects all segments of the processor market.