AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel Core i9-9900K: What is the difference?
61points
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
67points
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i9-9900K
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 3600 better than Intel Core i9-9900K?
- 534MHz higher ram speed?
3200MHzvs2666MHz - 7nm smaller semiconductor size?
7nmvs14nm - 1MB bigger L2 cache?
3MBvs2MB - 30W lower TDP?
65Wvs95W - 16MB bigger L3 cache?
32MBvs16MB - 1 newer version of PCI Express (PCIe)?
4vs3 - 0.25MB/core more L2 cache per core?
0.5MB/corevs0.25MB/core - 6.08GB/s more memory bandwidth?
47.68GB/svs41.6GB/s
Why is Intel Core i9-9900K better than AMD Ryzen 5 3600?
- 33.
33% faster CPU speed?
8 x 3.6GHzvs6 x 3.6GHz - 4 more CPU threads?
16vs12 - 5°C higher maximum operating temperature?
100°Cvs95°C - 5.81% higher PassMark result?
18898vs17860 - 0.8GHz higher turbo clock speed?
5GHzvs4.2GHz - 128KB bigger L1 cache?
512KBvs384KB - Has integrated graphics?
- 15.51% higher PassMark result (single)?
2986vs2585
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
Apple M1 Pro (10-core)
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
Intel Core i9-9900
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
Intel Core i5-10400
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
Intel Core i5-12600K
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
Intel Core i7-9700K
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4500
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4500U
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
Intel Core i7-10700K
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
Intel Core i5-9400F
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
Intel Core i3-12100
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4600G
Price comparison
Cheap alternatives
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
5 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
9.
0/10
5 User reviews
Intel Core i9-9900K
4 User reviews
Intel Core i9-9900K
8.8/10
4 User reviews
Features
Value for money
9.2/10
5 votes
8.5/10
4 votes
Gaming
8.8/10
4 votes
9.3/10
4 votes
Performance
9.0/10
5 votes
9.5/10
4 votes
Reliability
9.2/10
5 votes
9.0/10
4 votes
Energy efficiency
9.3/10
4 votes
8.8/10
4 votes
Performance
1.CPU speed
6 x 3.6GHz
8 x 3.6GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2.CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
4.2GHz
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.
L2 core
0.5MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
5.33MB/core
2MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
3200MHz
2666MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
47.68GB/s
41.6GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✖Intel Core i9-9900K
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.
Cinebench R20 (single) result
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
235seconds
164.2seconds
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.Blender (classroom) result
705.9seconds
544seconds
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✖Intel Core i9-9900K
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
Intel Core i9 9900K vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600: performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i9 9900K
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
We compared two desktop CPUs: the 3.6 GHz Intel Core i9 9900K with 8-cores against the 3.6 GHz AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with 6-cores. On this page, you’ll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information.
- Review
- Differences
- Performance
- Specs
- Comments (1)
Review
General overview and comparison of the processors
Single-Core Performance
Performance in single-threaded apps and benchmarks
Core i9 9900K
70
Ryzen 5 3600
65
Performance
Measure performance when all cores are involved
Core i9 9900K
55
Ryzen 5 3600
47
Power Efficiency
The efficiency score of electricity consumption
Core i9 9900K
45
Ryzen 5 3600
61
NanoReview Final Score
Generic CPU rating
Core i9 9900K
58
Ryzen 5 3600
58
Key Differences
What are the key differences between 3600 and 9900K
Advantages of Intel Core i9 9900K
- Has 2 more physical cores
- 19% higher Turbo Boost frequency (5 GHz vs 4.
2 GHz) - Includes an integrated GPU Intel UHD Graphics 630
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 3600
- More modern manufacturing process – 7 versus 14 nanometers
- Has 16 MB larger L3 cache size
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than the Core i9 9900K – 65 vs 95 Watt
- Newer — released 10-months later
- Newer PCI Express version – 4.0
- Around 6.08 GB/s (15%) higher theoretical memory bandwidth
Benchmarks
Comparing the performance of CPUs in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Core i9 9900K
+4%
1352
Ryzen 5 3600
1299
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Core i9 9900K
+30%
12479
Ryzen 5 3600
9574
Passmark CPU (Single-Core)
Core i9 9900K
+15%
2972
Ryzen 5 3600
2588
Passmark CPU (Multi-Core)
Core i9 9900K
+6%
18912
Ryzen 5 3600
17907
Geekbench 5 (Single-Core)
Core i9 9900K
+2%
1278
Ryzen 5 3600
1254
Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)
Core i9 9900K
+19%
8541
Ryzen 5 3600
7156
▶️ Submit your Cinebench R23 result
By purchasing through links on this site, we may receive a commission from Amazon.
This does not affect our assessment methodology.
Specifications
Full technical specification of Intel Core i9 9900K and AMD Ryzen 5 3600
General
| Vendor | Intel | AMD |
| Released | October 8, 2018 | July 7, 2019 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| instruction set | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | Matisse |
| Model number | i9-9900K | — |
| Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
| Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Performance
| Cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base Frequency | 3. 6 GHz |
3.6 GHz |
| Turbo Boost Frequency | 5 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Multiplier | 36x | 36x |
| Bus Bandwidth | 8 GT/s | — |
| L1 Cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 Cache | 16MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | Yes |
| Transistors | — | 3.8 billions |
| Fabrication process | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| TDP | 95 W | 65 W |
Max. temperature |
100°C | 95°C |
| Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| GPU Base Clock | 350 MHz | — |
| GPU Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | — |
| Shading Units | 192 | — |
| TMUs | 24 | — |
| ROPs | 3 | — |
| Execution Units | 24 | — |
| TGP | 15 W | — |
| Max. Resolution | 4096×2304 — 60 Hz | — |
iGPU FLOPS
Core i9 9900K
0.38 TFLOPS
Ryzen 5 3600
n/a
Memory support
| Memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 |
| Memory Size | 128 GB | 128 GB |
Max. Memory Channels |
2 | 2 |
| Max. Memory Bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 47.68 GB/s |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| Official site | Intel Core i9 9900K official page | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 official page |
| PCI Express Version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express Lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Cast your vote
Choose between two processors
Core i9 9900K
10 (29.4%)
Ryzen 5 3600
24 (70.6%)
Total votes: 34
ompetitors
1.
Ryzen 7 5800X or Core i9 9900K
2.
Apple M1 or Core i9 9900K
3.
Core i7 12700K or Core i9 9900K
4.
Ryzen 5 5600X or Ryzen 5 3600
5.
Ryzen 5 5600G or Ryzen 5 3600
6.
Core i5 12400 or Ryzen 5 3600
7.
Core i3 12100 or Ryzen 5 3600
8.
Ryzen 7 5700X or Ryzen 5 3600
Ryzen 5 3600 vs Core i9-9900K
Availability
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core, 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler
Buy on Amazon
$138.44
In Stock
Updated 107 minutes ago
Availability
Intel Core i9-9900K Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 5.0 GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W
Buy on Amazon
$550
In Stock
Updated 107 minutes ago
Key Differences
In short — Core i9-9900K outperforms the cheaper Ryzen 5 3600 on the selected game parameters.
However, the worse performing Ryzen 5 3600 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-9900K is 261 days older than the cheaper Ryzen 5 3600.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 3600
-
Up to 75% cheaper than Core i9-9900K — $138.44 vs $550.0
-
Up to 73% better value when playing Counter-Strike: Global Offensive than Core i9-9900K — $0.21 vs $0.79 per FPS
-
Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Core i9-9900K — 65 vs 95 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i9-9900K
-
Performs up to 5% better in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive than Ryzen 5 3600 — 693 vs 658 FPS
-
Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Ryzen 5 3600 — 16 vs 12 threads
-
Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 5 3600 doesn’t have integrated graphics
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Ryzen 5 3600
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
658
95%
Value, $/FPS
$0.
21/FPS
100%
Price, $
$138.44
100%
Value Winner
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core, 12-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor with Wraith Stealth Cooler
Buy for $138.44 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 107 minutes ago
Core i9-9900K
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
FPS
693
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.79/FPS
27%
Price, $
$550
25%
FPS Winner
Intel Core i9-9900K Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 5.0 GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W
Buy for $550 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 107 minutes ago
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Ryzen 5 3600
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Core i9-9900K
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
1072
FPS
1125
FPS
League of Legends
268
FPS
282
FPS
Grand Theft Auto V
468
FPS
492
FPS
VALORANT
289
FPS
305
FPS
Fortnite
294
FPS
310
FPS
Apex Legends
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Ryzen 5 3600
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Single-Core
1206
92%
Multi-Core
6669
78%
Core i9-9900K
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
Single-Core
1309
100%
Multi-Core
8544
100%
|
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 |
vs |
Intel Core i9-9900K |
|---|---|---|
|
Jul 7th, 2019 |
Release Date | Oct 19th, 2018 |
| Ryzen 5 | Collection | Core i9 |
| Matisse | Codename | Coffee Lake |
| AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
|
Desktop |
Segment |
Desktop |
| 6 | Cores |
8 |
| 12 | Threads |
16 |
3. 6 GHz |
Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
| 4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed |
5.0 GHz |
|
65 W |
TDP | 95 W |
|
7 nm |
Process Size | 14 nm |
| 36.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics |
UHD 630 |
| Yes | Overclockable | Yes |
Builds Using Ryzen 5 3600 or Core i9-9900K
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, 1080p, High
Gaming PC
335 FPS
$0.3/FPS
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$99.99
In Stock
Updated 65726 minutes ago
iBUYPOWER Gaming PC
288 FPS
$2.08/FPS
Radeon RX 5500 XT
Ryzen 5 3600
8 GB, 240 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$599.99
In Stock
Updated 100 minutes ago
Skytech Chronos Mini Gaming PC
354 FPS
$2.
54/FPS
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 500 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$899.99
In Stock
Updated 100 minutes ago
SkyTech Archangel 3.0 Gaming Computer PC
351 FPS
$2.56/FPS
GeForce RTX 2060
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$899.99
In Stock
Updated 99 minutes ago
Skytech Blaze 3.0 Black Gaming PC
424 FPS
$2.59/FPS
Radeon RX 6600 XT
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$1,099.99
In Stock
Updated 98 minutes ago
Skytech Azure Gaming PC
499 FPS
$2.61/FPS
GeForce RTX 3070
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, N/A Storage
Buy on Amazon
$1,299.99
In Stock
Updated 100 minutes ago
Centaurus Andromeda A8 Gaming Computer PC
400 FPS
$2.65/FPS
Radeon RX 6600
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$1,058
In Stock
Updated 97 minutes ago
SkyTech Shadow 3.
0 Gaming Computer PC
354 FPS
$2.82/FPS
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 1 TB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$999.99
In Stock
Updated 99 minutes ago
Skytech Archangel Gaming Computer PC
354 FPS
$2.82/FPS
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
Ryzen 5 3600
16 GB, 500 GB SSD
Buy on Amazon
$999.99
In Stock
Updated 100 minutes ago
SkyTech Archangel Gaming Computer PC
335 FPS
$2.84/FPS
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Ryzen 5 3600
8 GB, N/A Storage
Buy on Amazon
$949.99
In Stock
Updated 91 minutes ago
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
Core i9-12900K
$579.99
Core i9-9900K
Core i9-9900K
Core i9-9900
$715.51
Core i5-10400F
Ryzen 5 3600
$138.
44
Ryzen 5 3600
$138.44
Ryzen 7 5700G
$223.87
Ryzen 5 3600
$138.44
Ryzen 3 1300X
$157.96
Ryzen 5 3600
$138.44
Core i3-390M
N/A Stock
Core i9-9900K
Athlon II X2 240e
N/A Stock
Core i9-9900K
Core i3-5020U
N/A Stock
Core i9-9900K
A10-6800K
Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: GPU Scaling Benchmark
Having tested 3rd-gen Ryzen processors with the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti extensively, our idea behind this new feature is to add mainstream and budget GPUs to the mix in a benchmark run that reflects more settings and resolutions gamers will likely use when tuning their PCs for gaming. As such we picked the RTX 2070 Super, Radeon RX 5700 and the now sub-$200 Radeon RX 580, to make for a decent spread of GPUs which also are among our favorites in the Best Graphics Cards 2019.
Moreover, rather than simply testing the more theoretical 1080p resolution which helps avoiding bottlenecks in graphics tests, we have added 1440p results as well.
As for quality settings, we didn’t stick to the usual ultra-type settings, instead finding it convenient to cover ultra, high and medium type presets for the purpose of showing scaling results.
All up this leaves us with four GPUs to test at two resolutions with three quality presets. That means that for each CPU, every game tested will require 72 benchmark runs, reporting an average of three runs for each test. Our three CPUs of choice are two top contenders from Intel and AMD — the Core i9-9900K and Ryzen 9 3900X — and what we consider the best value CPU available, the $200 Ryzen 5 3600. With four games selected, that puts us near the 900 benchmark run mark, which took just over three 16 hour sessions of doing nothing but benchmarking to get this data — let’s share Steve’s pain for a second.
The games we chose for this test are Rainbow Six Siege, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Far Cry New Dawn and World War Z. Our test system used G.Skill’s FlareX DDR4-3200 CL14 memory with the Corsair h215i Pro installed.
Auto overclocking features such as MCE or PBO were disabled, so the results are out of the box performance for this hardware normalized by using some quality cooling. Let’s get into the results!
Benchmarks
First up we have the 1080p ultra quality World War Z results. With the RTX 2080 Ti we see the exact same 1% low performance than with the 9900K and 3900X which isn’t what you’d expect to see based on the results with the RTX 2070 Super and RX 5700 as the 9900K was 3-4% faster with these slower GPUs. The 9900K was also 4-5% faster when looking at the average frame rate with the 2080 Ti and 2070 Super and that margin is reduced to just 3% with the RX 5700.
Then as we drop down to the RX 580 which is still pushing well over 100 fps at 1080p, all three tested CPUs deliver basically the same performance. It’s interesting to note that the 3900X was 6% faster than the 3600 with the RX 5700 and that margin only grew to 8% with the RTX 2080 Ti as we weren’t far off being CPU bound even with the RX 5700 at 1080p.
Moving to 1440p sees the RTX 2080 Ti pull comfortably away from the RTX 2070 Super and RX 5700. We do see a few oddities though when comparing the RX 5700 and RTX 2070 Super data. If we look at the 2070 Super it seems like Intel is being favored here, as both the 3900X and 3600 are limited to around 170 fps. In contrast to this, the RX 5700 allows the 3900X to match the 9900K, while the 3600 drops off here.
With the RTX 2080 Ti we see that the 3600 finds its limits in regards to 1% low performance and interestingly the 3900X and 9900K are now more evenly matched than they were with the RTX 2070 Super. As expected though, given what we saw at 1080p, the RX 580 creates a strong GPU bottleneck that neutralizes any and all margins.
Lowering the quality preset to high sees very little change in performance to what was seen with ultra quality and the margins all remain much the same.
We see a mere 5-10 fps drop at 1440p from ultra to high and again this had no real impact on margins and we’re still seeing the same odd scaling between the RTX 2070 Super and RX 5700.
Even dropping down to medium graphics settings didn’t boost performance by much. We’re only seeing 10-20 fps gains over ultra. As for the margins, they’re all quite similar though with the extra headroom we are starting to see some change in performance with the RX 580, the 9900K was 5% faster than the 3600, for example.
World War Z at 1440p medium settings test shows similar scaling to the 1440p ultra results. The most interesting thing here is how much the R5 3600 drops away when using the RX 5700, something we don’t see with the RTX 2070 Super. This is again seen with the RTX 2080 Ti, but these results make a bit more sense as the faster GPU enables the faster CPUs to push higher frame rates.
Moving on to some Far Cry New Dawn testing and first up we have the 1080p ultra results. As you can see we’re very much CPU bound at 1080p, even with the RTX 2070 Super. The 1% low performance is similar with the RX 5700, but it doesn’t push averages quite as high.
Once we drop down to the RX 580 we’re almost entirely GPU bound and as a result all three CPUs delivered a similar result.
At 1440p the margins are similar with the RTX 2080 Ti, but they close up a little with the RTX 2070 Super. Also as expected very little difference between the two CPUs can be seen with the RX 5700 and again we find the exact same performance with the RX 580.
With the high quality preset we’re again heavily CPU bound with the RTX 2080 Ti and 2070 Super installed and it’s a similar situation with the RX 5700. This allowed the 9900K to provide 15% more performance, even with the 5700.
Moving to 1440p sees similar margins between the 3900X and 3600, so basically the same level of performance with all four GPUs. The 9900K is again 15% faster with the 2080 Ti and this time 13% faster with the 2070 Super while the margin is reduced to 9% with the RX 5700, and of course, the same performance is seen with the RX 580.
Finally with the normal quality preset enabled we see pretty much the same performance from the 3900X and 3600 at 1080p using the RX 5700, 2070 Super and 2080 Ti.
Meanwhile, the 9900K enables mild performance gains, seeing a 6% boost from the 5700 to the 2070 Super and then 4% from the 2070 Super to the 2080 Ti.
The 9900K was also up to 24% faster than the Ryzen processors at this low resolution using these mild quality settings, but again with an RX 580 there was virtually no margin to be seen.
Then at 1440p the 9900K was up to 18% faster with the 2080 Ti, 14% faster with the 2070 Super, 10% faster with the RX 5700 and no faster with the RX 580. Remember this is a worst case scenario for Ryzen which is one of the reasons we wanted to include this game as part of the test suite.
Moving in the opposite direction we have one of the best case scenarios for Ryzen in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. Here we see the 1% low performance of the Ryzen 5 3600 max out with the RX 5700, though we do see an increase in average frame rate as we step up the GPU power.
The 3900X manages to just beat the 9900K for 1% low and average frame rate performance using the RX 5700, 2070 Super and 2080 Ti.
Increasing the resolution to 1440p reduces the margins for the most part, though we do still see the 3900X punching ahead with the 2080 Ti for 1% low performance. This time we also see the R5 3600 dropping off a little with the RX 5700, something we didn’t see when using the RTX 2070 Super.
Reducing the quality level to the very high preset sees very even performance with the 2070 Super and RX 580. The RX 5700 seems to slightly favor the 9900K and we see a similar thing with the RTX 2080 Ti which is interesting.
Moving to 1440p sees margins remain roughly the same, again the 9900K enjoys a very small performance advantage with the RTX 2080 Ti and this isn’t seen with the 2070 Super or RX 5700.
We skipped the ‘high’ preset as performance was virtually identical to ‘very high’ and instead dropped down to the ‘medium’ preset. Here the R5 3600 falls off a little with the 2070 Super and RX 5700 at 1080p, which is odd as it didn’t struggle nearly as much with the RTX 2080 Ti.
We even see a very minor performance drop when using the RX 580, though we’re only talking a 4% decrease from the 3900X.
Things get a little crazy at 1440p. The R5 3600 drops off quite a bit when looking at 1% low performance while the 3900X charged ahead of the 9900K when using the RTX 2080 Ti. It’s very interesting to see the 9900K go from being 10 fps faster at 1080p to a few fps slower at 1440p and quite a bit down for the 1% low result. We have seen this from time to time in the past and it seems in these CPU demanding titles the added load of a higher resolution can favor CPUs with more resources. Overall though the 3900X and 9900K were evenly matched.
The last game tested is Rainbow Six Siege. First up we have the ultra quality results at 1080p where the 9900K enjoys a small 4-6% performance advantage when using the RTX 2080 Ti and 2070 Super. That margin eroded to nearly nothing with the RX 5700 and we’re still pushing over 150 fps on average. Then with the RX 580 there are no margins to speak of.
Jumping up to 1440p sees no difference in performance with both the RX 580 and RX 5700. Meanwhile the 9900K was just 5% faster using the 2070 Super and 4% faster with the 2080 Ti.
Dropping down from ultra to very high sees the same margins with the Radeon GPUs, while the 9900K enjoys a slight performance advantage with the 2070 Super and a reasonable performance advantage with the 2080 Ti.
The margins are much the same at 1440p between the ultra and very high presets. The Core i9 9900K shows a performance advantage when using the RTX 2070 Super or anything faster.
Lowering the quality preset to High extends Intel’s lead with the 2080 Ti at 1080p. Now it’s 10% faster than the 3900X for the average frame rate, pushing well over 200 fps. It was also 14% faster when looking at 1% low performance. For 144 Hz gamers even the 3600 was good for over 170 fps at all times when using a very fast GPU where is most of the load resides.
Margins with the 2070 Super were similar but once you hit a GPU limit the margins are neutralized with the RX 5700 and below.
The 1440p ultra and high results show much of the same. The margins with the 2070 Super and 2080 Ti are extended ever so slightly in Intel’s favor, but not exactly anything to write home about given we’re pushing over 130 fps at all times with the 2080 Ti regardless of the CPU used.
Putting It All Together
To wrap up the test we’ll quickly look at the average performance across this 4 game sample. Using the RX 580, the 9900K was 1% faster than the 3900X, so within the margin of error and needless to say they both delivered the same gaming experience with that particular GPU that is underpowered for the modern high-end CPUs. The 9900K offered a 3% performance boost with the RX 5700 which still shows a GPU limitation scenario.
With the RTX 2070 Super we start to see a larger gap. The 9900K was on average 6% faster though we’re not sure you’ll notice the jump from 144 fps to 153 fps. Then with the 2080 Ti the 9900K was 5% faster on average, this time jumping from 161 fps to 169 fps.
Needless to say, these two high powered CPUs are great for gaming (further reading: Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: 36 Game Benchmark)
For those playing at lower quality settings we saw the 9900K enjoy a 5% performance advantage with the RX 5700 using the medium quality settings. Then it was 7% faster on average with the 2070 Super and 11% faster on average with the 2080 Ti.
After a shipload of testing, we haven’t learned anything particularly new but it does cover all angles of gaming performance, CPU, and GPU scaling on a single article.
For the most part you’re not going to see much difference between the 3900X and 9900K with an RX 5700 or RTX 2060, for example. There is some separation depending on the title with an RTX 2070 Super, but even so for titles such as Rainbow Six Siege where the 9900K was a good bit faster using mid-range quality settings at 1080p, that margin was heavily reduced at 1440p and with even the Ryzen 5 3600 allowing for averages well in excess of 144 fps, you have to wonder how much it really matters.
If you’re looking at spending less than $700 on a graphics card, buying a Core i9-9900K or Ryzen 9 3900X, purely for gaming isn’t a great investment, you’re far better off with something like the R5 3600. In fact, purely for gaming I wouldn’t recommend either the 9900K or 3900X unless you’re dumping $1,000 on an RTX 2080 Ti.
The Ryzen 5 3600 really is the go to processor right now. We’d even recommend skipping over the 3700X, purely for gaming, as high performance 8-core/16-thread processors won’t be fully leveraged in games any time soon and the $130 you save now, can go towards an upgrade when you actually need it, many years down the track.
Shopping Shortcuts:
- AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT on Amazon, Google Express
- AMD Radeon RX 5700 on Amazon, Google Express
- GeForce RTX 2080 Ti on Amazon, Google Express
- GeForce RTX 2070 Super on Amazon, Google Express
- GeForce RTX 2060 Super on Amazon, Google Express
- AMD Ryzen 9 3900X on Amazon, Google Express
- AMD Ryzen 5 3600 on Amazon, Google Express
- Intel Core i9-9900K on Amazon, Google Express
- Intel Core i5-9600K on Amazon, Google Express
- Intel Core i5-9400F on Amazon, Google Express
Masthead credit: 3d rendered CPU concept by Blue Andy
Ryzen 5 3600 vs Core i9-9900K Bottleneck: RTX 3060 Ti Analysis
Add One More CPU To this Comparison
Select a CPU.
.AMD A10 Micro-6700TAMD A10 Pro-7350BAMD A10-4600MAMD A10-4655MAMD A10-4657MAMD A10-5700AMD A10-5745MAMD A10-5750MAMD A10-5757MAMD A10-5800KAMD A10-6700AMD A10-6700TAMD A10-6790BAMD A10-6790KAMD A10-6800BAMD A10-6800KAMD A10-7300AMD A10-7350BAMD A10-7400PAMD A10-7700KAMD A10-7800AMD A10-7850KAMD A10-7860kAMD A10-7870KAMD A10-7890KAMD A10-8700PAMD A10-9600PAMD A10-9620PAMD A10-9700AMD A10-9700EAMD A12-9700PAMD A12-9720PAMD A12-9800AMD A12-9800EAMD A4 Micro-6400TAMD A4-1200AMD A4-1250AMD A4-1350AMD A4-3300AMD A4-3300MAMD A4-3305MAMD A4-3310MXAMD A4-3320MAMD A4-3330MXAMD A4-3400AMD A4-3420AMD A4-3450AMD A4-4000AMD A4-4020AMD A4-4300MAMD A4-4355MAMD A4-5000AMD A4-5050AMD A4-5100AMD A4-5145MAMD A4-5150MAMD A4-5300AMD A4-5300BAMD A4-6210AMD A4-6300AMD A4-6300BAMD A4-6320AMD A4-7210AMD A4-7300AMD A4-9120AMD A4-9120CAMD A6 Pro-7050BAMD A6-1450AMD A6-3400MAMD A6-3410MXAMD A6-3420MAMD A6-3430MXAMD A6-3500AMD A6-3600AMD A6-3620AMD A6-3650AMD A6-3670KAMD A6-4400MAMD A6-4455MAMD A6-5200AMD A6-5350MAMD A6-5357MAMD A6-5400BAMD A6-5400KAMD A6-6310AMD A6-6400KAMD A6-6420KAMD A6-7000AMD A6-7050BAMD A6-7310AMD A6-7400KAMD A6-7470KAMD A6-7480AMD A6-8500PAMD A6-9120AMD A6-9120CAMD A6-9210AMD A6-9220AMD A6-9220CAMD A6-9225AMD A6-9500AMD A6-9500EAMD A6-9550AMD A8-3500MAMD A8-3510MXAMD A8-3520MAMD A8-3530MXAMD A8-3550MXAMD A8-3800AMD A8-3820AMD A8-3850AMD A8-3870KAMD A8-4500MAMD A8-4555MAMD A8-5500AMD A8-5500BAMD A8-5545MAMD A8-5550MAMD A8-5557MAMD A8-5600KAMD A8-6410AMD A8-6500AMD A8-6500TAMD A8-6600KAMD A8-7100AMD A8-7150BAMD A8-7200PAMD A8-7410AMD A8-7600AMD A8-7650KAMD A8-7670KAMD A8-7680AMD A8-8600PAMD A8-9600AMD A9-9410AMD A9-9420AMD A9-9420eAMD A9-9425AMD Athlon 200GEAMD Athlon 220GEAMD Athlon 240GEAMD Athlon 3000GAMD Athlon 300UAMD Athlon 5150AMD Athlon 5350AMD Athlon 5370AMD Athlon 64 2000+AMD Athlon 64 2600+AMD Athlon 64 2800+AMD Athlon 64 3000+AMD Athlon 64 3200+AMD Athlon 64 3300+AMD Athlon 64 3400+AMD Athlon 64 3500+AMD Athlon 64 3600+AMD Athlon 64 3700+AMD Athlon 64 3800+AMD Athlon 64 4000+AMD Athlon 64 FX-51AMD Athlon 64 FX-53AMD Athlon 64 FX-55AMD Athlon 64 FX-57AMD Athlon 64 FX-60AMD Athlon 64 FX-62AMD Athlon 64 FX-72AMD Athlon 64 FX-74AMD Athlon 64 TF-20AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+AMD Athlon 64 X2 FX-60AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-42AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-53AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-55AMD Athlon 64 X2 TK-57AMD Athlon Gold 3150UAMD Athlon II 160uAMD Athlon II M300AMD Athlon II M320AMD Athlon II M340AMD Athlon II N330AMD Athlon II N350AMD Athlon II N370AMD Athlon II Neo K125AMD Athlon II Neo K145AMD Athlon II Neo K325AMD Athlon II Neo K345AMD Athlon II P320AMD Athlon II P340AMD Athlon II P360AMD Athlon II X2 210eAMD Athlon II X2 215AMD Athlon II X2 220AMD Athlon II X2 221AMD Athlon II X2 235eAMD Athlon II X2 240AMD Athlon II X2 240eAMD Athlon II X2 245AMD Athlon II X2 245eAMD Athlon II X2 250AMD Athlon II X2 250eAMD Athlon II X2 250uAMD Athlon II X2 255AMD Athlon II X2 260AMD Athlon II X2 260uAMD Athlon II X2 265AMD Athlon II X2 270AMD Athlon II X2 270uAMD Athlon II X2 280AMD Athlon II X2 340AMD Athlon II X2 370KAMD Athlon II X3 400eAMD Athlon II X3 405eAMD Athlon II X3 415eAMD Athlon II X3 420eAMD Athlon II X3 425AMD Athlon II X3 425eAMD Athlon II X3 435AMD Athlon II X3 440AMD Athlon II X3 445AMD Athlon II X3 450AMD Athlon II X3 455AMD Athlon II X3 460AMD Athlon II X4 600eAMD Athlon II X4 605eAMD Athlon II X4 610eAMD Athlon II X4 615eAMD Athlon II X4 620AMD Athlon II X4 620eAMD Athlon II X4 630AMD Athlon II X4 631AMD Athlon II X4 635AMD Athlon II X4 638AMD Athlon II X4 640AMD Athlon II X4 641AMD Athlon II X4 645AMD Athlon II X4 651AMD Athlon II X4 651KAMD Athlon II X4 740AMD Athlon II X4 750KAMD Athlon II X4 760KAMD Athlon II X4 860KAMD Athlon MP 2400+AMD Athlon MP 2800+AMD Athlon Neo MV-40AMD Athlon Neo X2 L325AMD Athlon Neo X2 L335AMD Athlon PRO 200GEAMD Athlon PRO 300GEAMD Athlon PRO 300UAMD Athlon Silver 3050UAMD Athlon X2 340AMD Athlon X2 350AMD Athlon X2 370KAMD Athlon X2 450AMD Athlon X2 BE-2300AMD Athlon X2 BE-2350AMD Athlon X2 BE-2400AMD Athlon X2 L310AMD Athlon X2 QL-60AMD Athlon X2 QL-64AMD Athlon X2 QL-65AMD Athlon X2 QL-66AMD Athlon X4 530AMD Athlon X4 550AMD Athlon X4 740AMD Athlon X4 750KAMD Athlon X4 760KAMD Athlon X4 835AMD Athlon X4 840AMD Athlon X4 845AMD Athlon X4 860KAMD Athlon X4 870KAMD Athlon X4 880KAMD Athlon X4 940AMD Athlon X4 950AMD Athlon X4 970AMD Athlon XP 1500+AMD Athlon XP 1600+AMD Athlon XP 1700+AMD Athlon XP 1800+AMD Athlon XP 1900+AMD Athlon XP 2000+AMD Athlon XP 2100+AMD Athlon XP 2200+AMD Athlon XP 2400+AMD Athlon XP 2500+AMD Athlon XP 2600+AMD Athlon XP 2700+AMD Athlon XP 2800+AMD Athlon XP 3000+AMD Athlon XP 3100+AMD Athlon XP 3200+AMD C-30AMD C-50AMD C-60AMD C-70AMD E-240AMD E-300AMD E-350AMD E-350DAMD E-450AMD E-Series E-450AMD E1-1200AMD E1-1500AMD E1-2100AMD E1-2200AMD E1-2500AMD E1-6010AMD E2-1800AMD E2-2000AMD E2-3000AMD E2-3000MAMD E2-3200AMD E2-3300MAMD E2-3800AMD E2-6110AMD E2-7110AMD E2-9000AMD E2-9010AMD EPYC 7371AMD Epyc 7232PAMD Epyc 7251AMD Epyc 7252AMD Epyc 7262AMD Epyc 7272AMD Epyc 7281AMD Epyc 7282AMD Epyc 7301AMD Epyc 7302AMD Epyc 7302PAMD Epyc 7351AMD Epyc 7351PAMD Epyc 7352AMD Epyc 7401AMD Epyc 7401PAMD Epyc 7402AMD Epyc 7402PAMD Epyc 7451AMD Epyc 7452AMD Epyc 7501AMD Epyc 7502AMD Epyc 7502PAMD Epyc 7532AMD Epyc 7542AMD Epyc 7551AMD Epyc 7551PAMD Epyc 7552AMD Epyc 7601AMD Epyc 7642AMD Epyc 7662AMD Epyc 7702AMD Epyc 7702PAMD Epyc 7742AMD FX-4100AMD FX-4130AMD FX-4150AMD FX-4170AMD FX-4200AMD FX-4300AMD FX-4320AMD FX-4350AMD FX-6100AMD FX-6120AMD FX-6130AMD FX-6200AMD FX-6300AMD FX-6330AMD FX-6350AMD FX-7500AMD FX-7600PAMD FX-8100AMD FX-8120AMD FX-8140AMD FX-8150AMD FX-8300AMD FX-8310AMD FX-8320AMD FX-8320EAMD FX-8350AMD FX-8370AMD FX-8370EAMD FX-8800PAMD FX-9370AMD FX-9590AMD FX-9800PAMD FX-9830PAMD G-T16RAMD G-T24LAMD G-T30LAMD G-T40EAMD G-T40NAMD G-T40RAMD G-T44RAMD G-T48EAMD G-T48LAMD G-T48NAMD G-T52RAMD G-T56EAMD G-T56NAMD Mobile Athlon 64 2700+AMD Mobile Athlon 64 2800+AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3000+AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3200+AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3700+AMD Mobile Athlon 64 4000+AMD Mobile Sempron 210UAMD Mobile Sempron 2600+AMD Mobile Sempron 2800+AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+AMD Mobile Sempron 3100+AMD Mobile Sempron 3200+AMD Mobile Sempron 3300+AMD Mobile Sempron 3400+AMD Mobile Sempron 3500+AMD Mobile Sempron 3600+AMD Mobile Sempron 3800+AMD Mobile Sempron M100AMD Mobile Sempron SI-40AMD Mobile Sempron SI-42AMD Opteron 140AMD Opteron 142AMD Opteron 144AMD Opteron 146AMD Opteron 148AMD Opteron 150AMD Opteron 152AMD Opteron 154AMD Opteron 246AMD Opteron 248AMD Opteron 250AMD Opteron 252AMD Opteron 254AMD Opteron 3280AMD Opteron 3320 EEAMD Opteron 3350 HEAMD Opteron 3380AMD Opteron 4332 HEAMD Opteron 4334AMD Opteron 4386AMD Opteron 6272AMD Opteron 6274AMD Opteron 6276AMD Opteron 6282 SEAMD Opteron 6320AMD Opteron 6328AMD Opteron 6344AMD Opteron 6366 HEAMD Opteron 6376AMD Opteron 6378AMD Opteron 6380AMD Opteron 6386 SEAMD PRO A12-9800BAMD PRO A8-9600BAMD Phenom II 42 TWKR Black EditionAMD Phenom II X2 511AMD Phenom II X2 521AMD Phenom II X2 545AMD Phenom II X2 550AMD Phenom II X2 550 BlackAMD Phenom II X2 555AMD Phenom II X2 555 BlackAMD Phenom II X2 560AMD Phenom II X2 560 BlackAMD Phenom II X2 565AMD Phenom II X2 565 BlackAMD Phenom II X2 B53AMD Phenom II X2 B55AMD Phenom II X2 B57AMD Phenom II X2 B59AMD Phenom II X2 N620AMD Phenom II X2 N640AMD Phenom II X2 X640 BEAMD Phenom II X3 700eAMD Phenom II X3 705eAMD Phenom II X3 710AMD Phenom II X3 715AMD Phenom II X3 715 BlackAMD Phenom II X3 720AMD Phenom II X3 720 BlackAMD Phenom II X3 740AMD Phenom II X3 740 BlackAMD Phenom II X3 B73AMD Phenom II X3 B75AMD Phenom II X3 B77AMD Phenom II X3 N830AMD Phenom II X3 N850AMD Phenom II X3 N870AMD Phenom II X3 P820AMD Phenom II X3 P840AMD Phenom II X4 805AMD Phenom II X4 810AMD Phenom II X4 820AMD Phenom II X4 830AMD Phenom II X4 840AMD Phenom II X4 840TAMD Phenom II X4 850AMD Phenom II X4 900eAMD Phenom II X4 905eAMD Phenom II X4 910AMD Phenom II X4 910eAMD Phenom II X4 920AMD Phenom II X4 925AMD Phenom II X4 940AMD Phenom II X4 940 BlackAMD Phenom II X4 945AMD Phenom II X4 955AMD Phenom II X4 955 BlackAMD Phenom II X4 960TAMD Phenom II X4 960T BlackAMD Phenom II X4 965AMD Phenom II X4 965 BlackAMD Phenom II X4 965 Black (140W)AMD Phenom II X4 970AMD Phenom II X4 970 BlackAMD Phenom II X4 975AMD Phenom II X4 980AMD Phenom II X4 980 BlackAMD Phenom II X4 B93AMD Phenom II X4 B95AMD Phenom II X4 B97AMD Phenom II X4 B99AMD Phenom II X4 N930AMD Phenom II X4 N950AMD Phenom II X4 N970AMD Phenom II X4 P920AMD Phenom II X4 P960AMD Phenom II X4 X920 BEAMD Phenom II X6 1035TAMD Phenom II X6 1045TAMD Phenom II X6 1055TAMD Phenom II X6 1055T (95W)AMD Phenom II X6 1065TAMD Phenom II X6 1075TAMD Phenom II X6 1090TAMD Phenom II X6 1090T BlackAMD Phenom II X6 1100TAMD Phenom II X6 1100T BEAMD Phenom II X6 1100T BlackAMD Phenom X3 8250eAMD Phenom X3 8400AMD Phenom X3 8450AMD Phenom X3 8450eAMD Phenom X3 8550AMD Phenom X3 8600AMD Phenom X3 8650AMD Phenom X3 8750AMD Phenom X3 8850AMD Phenom X4 9100eAMD Phenom X4 9150eAMD Phenom X4 9350eAMD Phenom X4 9450eAMD Phenom X4 9500AMD Phenom X4 9550AMD Phenom X4 9600AMD Phenom X4 9600BAMD Phenom X4 9650AMD Phenom X4 9750BAMD Phenom X4 9850BAMD Pro A10-7800BAMD Pro A10-7850BAMD Pro A10-8700BAMD Pro A12-8800BAMD Pro A4-7300BAMD Pro A6-7400BAMD Pro A6-8500BAMD Pro A8-7600BAMD Pro A8-8600BAMD Ryzen 3 1200AMD Ryzen 3 1300XAMD Ryzen 3 2200GAMD Ryzen 3 2200GEAMD Ryzen 3 2200UAMD Ryzen 3 2300UAMD Ryzen 3 2300XAMD Ryzen 3 3100AMD Ryzen 3 3200GAMD Ryzen 3 3200UAMD Ryzen 3 3250UAMD Ryzen 3 3300UAMD Ryzen 3 3300XAMD Ryzen 3 4300UAMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200GAMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200UAMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2300UAMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GAMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3300UAMD Ryzen 3 Pro 1200AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 1300AMD Ryzen 5 1400AMD Ryzen 5 1500XAMD Ryzen 5 1600AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AFAMD Ryzen 5 1600XAMD Ryzen 5 2400GAMD Ryzen 5 2400GEAMD Ryzen 5 2500UAMD Ryzen 5 2500XAMD Ryzen 5 2600AMD Ryzen 5 2600HAMD Ryzen 5 2600XAMD Ryzen 5 3400GAMD Ryzen 5 3500AMD Ryzen 5 3500UAMD Ryzen 5 3500XAMD Ryzen 5 3550HAMD Ryzen 5 3580UAMD Ryzen 5 3600XAMD Ryzen 5 3600XTAMD Ryzen 5 4500UAMD Ryzen 5 4600HAMD Ryzen 5 4600UAMD Ryzen 5 5500AMD Ryzen 5 5600XAMD Ryzen 5 7600XAMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GAMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500UAMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2600AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GAMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500UAMD Ryzen 5 Pro 1500AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 1600AMD Ryzen 7 1700AMD Ryzen 7 1700XAMD Ryzen 7 1800XAMD Ryzen 7 2700AMD Ryzen 7 2700EAMD Ryzen 7 2700UAMD Ryzen 7 2700XAMD Ryzen 7 2800HAMD Ryzen 7 3700UAMD Ryzen 7 3700XAMD Ryzen 7 3750HAMD Ryzen 7 3780UAMD Ryzen 7 3800XAMD Ryzen 7 3800XTAMD Ryzen 7 4700UAMD Ryzen 7 4800HAMD Ryzen 7 4800HSAMD Ryzen 7 4800UAMD Ryzen 7 5700XAMD Ryzen 7 5800XAMD Ryzen 7 5800X3DAMD Ryzen 7 7700XAMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700UAMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700XAMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700UAMD Ryzen 7 Pro 1700AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 1700XAMD Ryzen 9 3900AMD Ryzen 9 3900XAMD Ryzen 9 3900XTAMD Ryzen 9 3950XAMD Ryzen 9 4900HAMD Ryzen 9 4900HSAMD Ryzen 9 4900UAMD Ryzen 9 5900XAMD Ryzen 9 5950XAMD Ryzen 9 7900XAMD Ryzen 9 7950XAMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900AMD Ryzen PRO 7 4700UAMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WXAMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WXAMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970XAMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990XAMD Sempron 130AMD Sempron 140AMD Sempron 145AMD Sempron 150AMD Sempron 2200+AMD Sempron 2300+AMD Sempron 2400+AMD Sempron 2500+AMD Sempron 2600+AMD Sempron 2650AMD Sempron 2800+AMD Sempron 3000+AMD Sempron 3100+AMD Sempron 3200+AMD Sempron 3300+AMD Sempron 3400+AMD Sempron 3500+AMD Sempron 3600+AMD Sempron 3800+AMD Sempron 3850AMD Sempron LE-1100AMD Sempron LE-1150AMD Sempron LE-1200AMD Sempron LE-1250AMD Sempron LE-1300AMD Sempron X2 190AMD Sempron X2 198AMD Sempron X2 250AMD Turion 64 MK-36AMD Turion 64 MK-38AMD Turion 64 ML-28AMD Turion 64 ML-30AMD Turion 64 ML-34AMD Turion 64 ML-37AMD Turion 64 ML-40AMD Turion 64 ML-44AMD Turion 64 MT-28AMD Turion 64 MT-30AMD Turion 64 MT-32AMD Turion 64 MT-37AMD Turion 64 MT-40AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-50AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-52AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-58AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-64AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-66AMD Turion II M500AMD Turion II M520AMD Turion II N530AMD Turion II N550AMD Turion II Neo K625AMD Turion II Neo K685AMD Turion II P520AMD Turion II P540AMD Turion II P560AMD Turion II Ultra M600AMD Turion II Ultra M620AMD Turion II Ultra M660AMD Turion Neo X2 L625AMD Turion X2 RM-70AMD Turion X2 RM-72AMD Turion X2 RM-74AMD Turion X2 RM-75AMD Turion X2 RM-76AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-80AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-82AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-84AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85AMD Turion X2 Ultra ZM-86AMD V-Series V105AMD V-Series V120AMD V-Series V140AMD Z-01Intel Atom 230Intel Atom 330Intel Atom C2350Intel Atom C2530Intel Atom C2550Intel Atom C2730Intel Atom C2750Intel Atom C3538Intel Atom C3558Intel Atom C3858Intel Atom C3955Intel Atom C3958Intel Atom D2500Intel Atom D2550Intel Atom D2560Intel Atom D2700Intel Atom D410Intel Atom D425Intel Atom D510Intel Atom D525Intel Atom E3805Intel Atom E3815Intel Atom E3825Intel Atom E3826Intel Atom E3827Intel Atom E3845Intel Atom E660Intel Atom E680Intel Atom N2600Intel Atom N270Intel Atom N280Intel Atom N2800Intel Atom N435Intel Atom N450Intel Atom N455Intel Atom N470Intel Atom N475Intel Atom N550Intel Atom N570Intel Atom S1220Intel Atom S1240Intel Atom S1260Intel Atom Z2760Intel Atom Z3460Intel Atom Z3735DIntel Atom Z3735EIntel Atom Z3735FIntel Atom Z3735GIntel Atom Z3736FIntel Atom Z3736GIntel Atom Z3740Intel Atom Z3740DIntel Atom Z3745Intel Atom Z3745DIntel Atom Z3770Intel Atom Z3770DIntel Atom Z3775Intel Atom Z3775DIntel Atom Z3785Intel Atom Z3795Intel Atom Z510Intel Atom Z515Intel Atom Z520Intel Atom Z530Intel Atom Z540Intel Atom Z550Intel Atom Z670Intel Atom x5-E3930Intel Atom x5-E8000Intel Atom x5-Z8300Intel Atom x5-Z8330Intel Atom x5-Z8350Intel Atom x5-Z8500Intel Atom x5-Z8550Intel Atom x7-E3950Intel Atom x7-Z8700Intel Atom x7-Z8750Intel Celeron 1000MIntel Celeron 1005MIntel Celeron 1007UIntel Celeron 1017UIntel Celeron 1019YIntel Celeron 1020EIntel Celeron 1020MIntel Celeron 1037UIntel Celeron 1047UEIntel Celeron 2.
10Intel Celeron 2.20Intel Celeron 2.30Intel Celeron 2.40Intel Celeron 2.60Intel Celeron 2.70Intel Celeron 2.80Intel Celeron 220Intel Celeron 2950MIntel Celeron 2955UIntel Celeron 2957UIntel Celeron 2961YIntel Celeron 2970MIntel Celeron 2980UIntel Celeron 2981UIntel Celeron 3205UIntel Celeron 3215UIntel Celeron 3755UIntel Celeron 3765UIntel Celeron 3855UIntel Celeron 3865UIntel Celeron 3955UIntel Celeron 3965UIntel Celeron 3965YIntel Celeron 420Intel Celeron 4205UIntel Celeron 430Intel Celeron 440Intel Celeron 450Intel Celeron 5205UIntel Celeron 807Intel Celeron 807UEIntel Celeron 827EIntel Celeron 847Intel Celeron 847EIntel Celeron 857Intel Celeron 867Intel Celeron 877Intel Celeron 887Intel Celeron B710Intel Celeron B720Intel Celeron B800Intel Celeron B810Intel Celeron B815Intel Celeron B820Intel Celeron B830Intel Celeron B840Intel Celeron D 352Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1400Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1500Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1700Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3300Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3500Intel Celeron E1200Intel Celeron E1400Intel Celeron E1500Intel Celeron E1600Intel Celeron E3200Intel Celeron E3300Intel Celeron E3400Intel Celeron E3500Intel Celeron G1101Intel Celeron G1610Intel Celeron G1610TIntel Celeron G1620Intel Celeron G1620TIntel Celeron G1630Intel Celeron G1820Intel Celeron G1820TIntel Celeron G1820TEIntel Celeron G1830Intel Celeron G1840Intel Celeron G1840TIntel Celeron G1850Intel Celeron G3900Intel Celeron G3900EIntel Celeron G3900TIntel Celeron G3900TEIntel Celeron G3920Intel Celeron G3930Intel Celeron G3930TIntel Celeron G3930TEIntel Celeron G3950Intel Celeron G440Intel Celeron G460Intel Celeron G465Intel Celeron G470Intel Celeron G4900Intel Celeron G4900TIntel Celeron G4920Intel Celeron G4930Intel Celeron G530Intel Celeron G530TIntel Celeron G540Intel Celeron G540TIntel Celeron G550Intel Celeron G550TIntel Celeron G555Intel Celeron J1750Intel Celeron J1800Intel Celeron J1850Intel Celeron J1900Intel Celeron J3060Intel Celeron J3160Intel Celeron J3355Intel Celeron J3455Intel Celeron J4005Intel Celeron J4025Intel Celeron J4105Intel Celeron J4125Intel Celeron M 340Intel Celeron M 353Intel Celeron M 360Intel Celeron M 370Intel Celeron M 380Intel Celeron M 390Intel Celeron M 410Intel Celeron M 420Intel Celeron M 430Intel Celeron M 440Intel Celeron M 450Intel Celeron M 520Intel Celeron M 530Intel Celeron M 540Intel Celeron M 550Intel Celeron M 560Intel Celeron M 575Intel Celeron M 585Intel Celeron M 723Intel Celeron M 743Intel Celeron M 900Intel Celeron M P4500Intel Celeron M P4600Intel Celeron M U3400Intel Celeron N2805Intel Celeron N2806Intel Celeron N2807Intel Celeron N2808Intel Celeron N2810Intel Celeron N2815Intel Celeron N2820Intel Celeron N2830Intel Celeron N2840Intel Celeron N2910Intel Celeron N2920Intel Celeron N2930Intel Celeron N2940Intel Celeron N3000Intel Celeron N3010Intel Celeron N3050Intel Celeron N3060Intel Celeron N3150Intel Celeron N3160Intel Celeron N3350Intel Celeron N3450Intel Celeron N4000Intel Celeron N4020Intel Celeron N4100Intel Celeron N4120Intel Celeron P4500Intel Celeron P4505Intel Celeron P4600Intel Celeron U3400Intel Celeron U3405Intel Celeron U3600Intel Core 2 Duo E4300Intel Core 2 Duo E4400Intel Core 2 Duo E4500Intel Core 2 Duo E4600Intel Core 2 Duo E4700Intel Core 2 Duo E6300Intel Core 2 Duo E6320Intel Core 2 Duo E6400Intel Core 2 Duo E6420Intel Core 2 Duo E6540Intel Core 2 Duo E6550Intel Core 2 Duo E6600Intel Core 2 Duo E6700Intel Core 2 Duo E6750Intel Core 2 Duo E6850Intel Core 2 Duo E7200Intel Core 2 Duo E7300Intel Core 2 Duo E7400Intel Core 2 Duo E7500Intel Core 2 Duo E7600Intel Core 2 Duo E8190Intel Core 2 Duo E8200Intel Core 2 Duo E8300Intel Core 2 Duo E8400Intel Core 2 Duo E8500Intel Core 2 Duo E8600Intel Core 2 Duo L7100Intel Core 2 Duo L7300Intel Core 2 Duo L7500Intel Core 2 Duo L7700Intel Core 2 Duo P7350Intel Core 2 Duo P7370Intel Core 2 Duo P7450Intel Core 2 Duo P7550Intel Core 2 Duo P7570Intel Core 2 Duo P8400Intel Core 2 Duo P8600Intel Core 2 Duo P8700Intel Core 2 Duo P8800Intel Core 2 Duo P9500Intel Core 2 Duo P9600Intel Core 2 Duo P9700Intel Core 2 Duo SL9400Intel Core 2 Duo SL9600Intel Core 2 Duo SP7500Intel Core 2 Duo SP9300Intel Core 2 Duo SP9400Intel Core 2 Duo SP9600Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300Intel Core 2 Duo SU9300Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400Intel Core 2 Duo T5200Intel Core 2 Duo T5250Intel Core 2 Duo T5270Intel Core 2 Duo T5300Intel Core 2 Duo T5450Intel Core 2 Duo T5470Intel Core 2 Duo T5500Intel Core 2 Duo T5550Intel Core 2 Duo T5600Intel Core 2 Duo T5670Intel Core 2 Duo T5750Intel Core 2 Duo T5800Intel Core 2 Duo T5850Intel Core 2 Duo T5870Intel Core 2 Duo T5900Intel Core 2 Duo T6400Intel Core 2 Duo T6500Intel Core 2 Duo T6570Intel Core 2 Duo T6600Intel Core 2 Duo T6670Intel Core 2 Duo T7100Intel Core 2 Duo T7200Intel Core 2 Duo T7250Intel Core 2 Duo T7300Intel Core 2 Duo T7400Intel Core 2 Duo T7500Intel Core 2 Duo T7600Intel Core 2 Duo T7700Intel Core 2 Duo T7800Intel Core 2 Duo T8100Intel Core 2 Duo T8300Intel Core 2 Duo T9300Intel Core 2 Duo T9400Intel Core 2 Duo T9500Intel Core 2 Duo T9550Intel Core 2 Duo T9600Intel Core 2 Duo T9800Intel Core 2 Duo T9900Intel Core 2 Duo U7500Intel Core 2 Duo U7600Intel Core 2 Duo U7700Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9300Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800Intel Core 2 Extreme X7800Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900Intel Core 2 Extreme X9000Intel Core 2 Extreme X9100Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W)Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200SIntel Core 2 Quad Q8300Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400SIntel Core 2 Quad Q9000Intel Core 2 Quad Q9100Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400SIntel Core 2 Quad Q9450Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505SIntel Core 2 Quad Q9550Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550SIntel Core 2 Quad Q9650Intel Core 2 Solo SU3300Intel Core 2 Solo SU3500Intel Core 2 Solo U2100Intel Core 2 Solo U2200Intel Core Duo L2300Intel Core Duo L2400Intel Core Duo L2500Intel Core Duo T2050Intel Core Duo T2250Intel Core Duo T2300Intel Core Duo T2350Intel Core Duo T2400Intel Core Duo T2450Intel Core Duo T2500Intel Core Duo T2600Intel Core Duo T2700Intel Core Duo U2400Intel Core Duo U2500Intel Core M-5Y10Intel Core M-5Y10aIntel Core M-5Y10cIntel Core M-5Y31Intel Core M-5Y51Intel Core M-5Y70Intel Core M-5Y71Intel Core Solo T1200Intel Core Solo T1300Intel Core Solo T1350Intel Core Solo T1400Intel Core Solo U1300Intel Core Solo U1400Intel Core Solo U1500Intel Core i3-1000G1Intel Core i3-1000G4Intel Core i3-1005G1Intel Core i3-10100Intel Core i3-10110UIntel Core i3-10110YIntel Core i3-10300Intel Core i3-10320Intel Core i3-11100Intel Core i3-11300Intel Core i3-11320Intel Core i3-12100Intel Core i3-12300Intel Core i3-2100Intel Core i3-2100TIntel Core i3-2102Intel Core i3-2105Intel Core i3-2120Intel Core i3-2120TIntel Core i3-2125Intel Core i3-2130Intel Core i3-2310EIntel Core i3-2310MIntel Core i3-2312MIntel Core i3-2328MIntel Core i3-2330EIntel Core i3-2330MIntel Core i3-2332MIntel Core i3-2340UEIntel Core i3-2348MIntel Core i3-2350MIntel Core i3-2357MIntel Core i3-2365MIntel Core i3-2367MIntel Core i3-2370MIntel Core i3-2375MIntel Core i3-2377MIntel Core i3-3110MIntel Core i3-3120MIntel Core i3-3130MIntel Core i3-3210Intel Core i3-3217UIntel Core i3-3217UEIntel Core i3-3220Intel Core i3-3220TIntel Core i3-3225Intel Core i3-3227UIntel Core i3-3229YIntel Core i3-3240Intel Core i3-3240TIntel Core i3-3245Intel Core i3-3250Intel Core i3-3250TIntel Core i3-330EIntel Core i3-330MIntel Core i3-330UMIntel Core i3-350MIntel Core i3-370MIntel Core i3-380MIntel Core i3-380UMIntel Core i3-390MIntel Core i3-4000MIntel Core i3-4005UIntel Core i3-4010UIntel Core i3-4010YIntel Core i3-4012YIntel Core i3-4020YIntel Core i3-4025UIntel Core i3-4030UIntel Core i3-4030YIntel Core i3-4100MIntel Core i3-4100UIntel Core i3-4110MIntel Core i3-4120UIntel Core i3-4130Intel Core i3-4130TIntel Core i3-4150Intel Core i3-4150TIntel Core i3-4158UIntel Core i3-4160Intel Core i3-4160TIntel Core i3-4170Intel Core i3-4330Intel Core i3-4330TIntel Core i3-4340Intel Core i3-4350Intel Core i3-4350TIntel Core i3-4360Intel Core i3-4360TIntel Core i3-4370Intel Core i3-5005UIntel Core i3-5010UIntel Core i3-5015UIntel Core i3-5020UIntel Core i3-5157UIntel Core i3-530Intel Core i3-540Intel Core i3-550Intel Core i3-560Intel Core i3-6006UIntel Core i3-6098PIntel Core i3-6100Intel Core i3-6100EIntel Core i3-6100HIntel Core i3-6100TIntel Core i3-6100TEIntel Core i3-6100UIntel Core i3-6102EIntel Core i3-6157UIntel Core i3-6167UIntel Core i3-6300Intel Core i3-6300TIntel Core i3-6320Intel Core i3-7020UIntel Core i3-7100Intel Core i3-7100EIntel Core i3-7100HIntel Core i3-7100TIntel Core i3-7100UIntel Core i3-7101EIntel Core i3-7101TEIntel Core i3-7102EIntel Core i3-7130UIntel Core i3-7167UIntel Core i3-7300Intel Core i3-7300TIntel Core i3-7320Intel Core i3-7350KIntel Core i3-8100Intel Core i3-8100BIntel Core i3-8100HIntel Core i3-8100TIntel Core i3-8109UIntel Core i3-8121UIntel Core i3-8130UIntel Core i3-8145UIntel Core i3-8300Intel Core i3-8300TIntel Core i3-8350KIntel Core i3-9100Intel Core i3-9100FIntel Core i3-9100TIntel Core i3-9300Intel Core i3-9300TIntel Core i3-9320Intel Core i3-9350KIntel Core i3-9350KFIntel Core i5-10210UIntel Core i5-10210YIntel Core i5-10300HIntel Core i5-1030G4Intel Core i5-1030G7Intel Core i5-10310YIntel Core i5-1035G1Intel Core i5-1035G4Intel Core i5-1035G7Intel Core i5-10400Intel Core i5-10400FIntel Core i5-10500Intel Core i5-10600Intel Core i5-10600KIntel Core i5-10600KFIntel Core i5-11400Intel Core i5-11500Intel Core i5-11600Intel Core i5-11600KIntel Core i5-12400Intel Core i5-12600KIntel Core i5-13600KIntel Core i5-2300Intel Core i5-2310Intel Core i5-2320Intel Core i5-2380PIntel Core i5-2390TIntel Core i5-2400Intel Core i5-2400SIntel Core i5-2405SIntel Core i5-2410MIntel Core i5-2415MIntel Core i5-2430MIntel Core i5-2435MIntel Core i5-2450MIntel Core i5-2450PIntel Core i5-2467MIntel Core i5-2500Intel Core i5-2500KIntel Core i5-2500SIntel Core i5-2500TIntel Core i5-2510EIntel Core i5-2515EIntel Core i5-2520MIntel Core i5-2537MIntel Core i5-2540MIntel Core i5-2550KIntel Core i5-2557MIntel Core i5-2560MIntel Core i5-3210MIntel Core i5-3230MIntel Core i5-3317UIntel Core i5-3320MIntel Core i5-3330Intel Core i5-3330SIntel Core i5-3335SIntel Core i5-3337UIntel Core i5-3339YIntel Core i5-3340Intel Core i5-3340MIntel Core i5-3340SIntel Core i5-3350PIntel Core i5-3360MIntel Core i5-3380MIntel Core i5-3427UIntel Core i5-3437UIntel Core i5-3439YIntel Core i5-3450Intel Core i5-3450SIntel Core i5-3470Intel Core i5-3470SIntel Core i5-3470TIntel Core i5-3475SIntel Core i5-3550Intel Core i5-3550SIntel Core i5-3570Intel Core i5-3570KIntel Core i5-3570SIntel Core i5-3570TIntel Core i5-3610MEIntel Core i5-4200HIntel Core i5-4200MIntel Core i5-4200UIntel Core i5-4200YIntel Core i5-4202YIntel Core i5-4210HIntel Core i5-4210MIntel Core i5-4210UIntel Core i5-4210YIntel Core i5-4220YIntel Core i5-4250UIntel Core i5-4258UIntel Core i5-4260UIntel Core i5-4278UIntel Core i5-4288UIntel Core i5-4300MIntel Core i5-4300UIntel Core i5-4300YIntel Core i5-4302YIntel Core i5-4308UIntel Core i5-430MIntel Core i5-430UMIntel Core i5-4310MIntel Core i5-4310UIntel Core i5-4330MIntel Core i5-4340MIntel Core i5-4350UIntel Core i5-4360UIntel Core i5-4400EIntel Core i5-4402EIntel Core i5-4430Intel Core i5-4430SIntel Core i5-4440Intel Core i5-4440SIntel Core i5-4460Intel Core i5-4460SIntel Core i5-4460TIntel Core i5-450MIntel Core i5-4570Intel Core i5-4570RIntel Core i5-4570SIntel Core i5-4570TIntel Core i5-4570TEIntel Core i5-4590Intel Core i5-4590SIntel Core i5-4590TIntel Core i5-460MIntel Core i5-4670Intel Core i5-4670KIntel Core i5-4670RIntel Core i5-4670SIntel Core i5-4670TIntel Core i5-4690Intel Core i5-4690KIntel Core i5-4690SIntel Core i5-4690TIntel Core i5-470UMIntel Core i5-480MIntel Core i5-5200UIntel Core i5-520MIntel Core i5-520UMIntel Core i5-5250UIntel Core i5-5257UIntel Core i5-5287UIntel Core i5-5300UIntel Core i5-5350HIntel Core i5-5350UIntel Core i5-540MIntel Core i5-540UMIntel Core i5-5575RIntel Core i5-560MIntel Core i5-560UMIntel Core i5-5675CIntel Core i5-5675RIntel Core i5-580MIntel Core i5-6198DUIntel Core i5-6200UIntel Core i5-6260UIntel Core i5-6267UIntel Core i5-6287UIntel Core i5-6300HQIntel Core i5-6300UIntel Core i5-6350HQIntel Core i5-6360UIntel Core i5-6400Intel Core i5-6400TIntel Core i5-6402PIntel Core i5-6440EQIntel Core i5-6440HQIntel Core i5-6442EQIntel Core i5-650Intel Core i5-6500Intel Core i5-6500TIntel Core i5-6500TEIntel Core i5-655KIntel Core i5-6585RIntel Core i5-660Intel Core i5-6600Intel Core i5-6600KIntel Core i5-6600TIntel Core i5-661Intel Core i5-6685RIntel Core i5-670Intel Core i5-680Intel Core i5-7200UIntel Core i5-7260UIntel Core i5-7267UIntel Core i5-7287UIntel Core i5-7300HQIntel Core i5-7300UIntel Core i5-7360UIntel Core i5-7400Intel Core i5-7400TIntel Core i5-7440HQIntel Core i5-7442EQIntel Core i5-750Intel Core i5-7500Intel Core i5-7500TIntel Core i5-750SIntel Core i5-760Intel Core i5-7600Intel Core i5-7600KIntel Core i5-7600TIntel Core i5-7640XIntel Core i5-7Y54Intel Core i5-7Y57Intel Core i5-8200YIntel Core i5-8210YIntel Core i5-8250UIntel Core i5-8257UIntel Core i5-8259UIntel Core i5-8265UIntel Core i5-8269UIntel Core i5-8279UIntel Core i5-8300HIntel Core i5-8305GIntel Core i5-8310YIntel Core i5-8350UIntel Core i5-8365UIntel Core i5-8365UEIntel Core i5-8400Intel Core i5-8400HIntel Core i5-8400TIntel Core i5-8500Intel Core i5-8500BIntel Core i5-8500TIntel Core i5-8600Intel Core i5-8600KIntel Core i5-8600TIntel Core i5-9300HIntel Core i5-9300HFIntel Core i5-9400Intel Core i5-9400FIntel Core i5-9400HIntel Core i5-9400TIntel Core i5-9500Intel Core i5-9500FIntel Core i5-9500TIntel Core i5-9600Intel Core i5-9600KIntel Core i5-9600KFIntel Core i5-9600TIntel Core i7-10510UIntel Core i7-10510YIntel Core i7-1060G7Intel Core i7-1065G7Intel Core i7-1068G7Intel Core i7-10700Intel Core i7-10700FIntel Core i7-10700KIntel Core i7-10700KFIntel Core i7-10710UIntel Core i7-10750HIntel Core i7-10850HIntel Core i7-11700Intel Core i7-11700KIntel Core i7-12700KIntel Core i7-13700KIntel Core i7-2600Intel Core i7-2600KIntel Core i7-2600SIntel Core i7-2610UEIntel Core i7-2617MIntel Core i7-2620MIntel Core i7-2630QMIntel Core i7-2635QMIntel Core i7-2637MIntel Core i7-2640MIntel Core i7-2655LEIntel Core i7-2657MIntel Core i7-2670QMIntel Core i7-2675QMIntel Core i7-2677MIntel Core i7-2700KIntel Core i7-2710QEIntel Core i7-2715QEIntel Core i7-2720QMIntel Core i7-2760QMIntel Core i7-2820QMIntel Core i7-2840QMIntel Core i7-2860QMIntel Core i7-2920XMIntel Core i7-2960XMIntel Core i7-3517UIntel Core i7-3517UEIntel Core i7-3520MIntel Core i7-3537UIntel Core i7-3540MIntel Core i7-3555LEIntel Core i7-3610QEIntel Core i7-3610QMIntel Core i7-3612QEIntel Core i7-3612QMIntel Core i7-3615QEIntel Core i7-3615QMIntel Core i7-3630QMIntel Core i7-3632QMIntel Core i7-3635QMIntel Core i7-3667UIntel Core i7-3687UIntel Core i7-3689YIntel Core i7-3720QMIntel Core i7-3740QMIntel Core i7-3770Intel Core i7-3770KIntel Core i7-3770SIntel Core i7-3770TIntel Core i7-3820Intel Core i7-3820QMIntel Core i7-3840QMIntel Core i7-3920XMIntel Core i7-3930KIntel Core i7-3940XMIntel Core i7-3960XIntel Core i7-3960X Extreme EditionIntel Core i7-3970XIntel Core i7-3970X Extreme EditionIntel Core i7-4500UIntel Core i7-4510UIntel Core i7-4550UIntel Core i7-4558UIntel Core i7-4578UIntel Core i7-4600MIntel Core i7-4600UIntel Core i7-4610MIntel Core i7-4610YIntel Core i7-4650UIntel Core i7-4700EQIntel Core i7-4700HQIntel Core i7-4700MQIntel Core i7-4702HQIntel Core i7-4702MQIntel Core i7-4710HQIntel Core i7-4710MQIntel Core i7-4712HQIntel Core i7-4712MQIntel Core i7-4720HQIntel Core i7-4722HQIntel Core i7-4750HQIntel Core i7-4760HQIntel Core i7-4765TIntel Core i7-4770Intel Core i7-4770HQIntel Core i7-4770KIntel Core i7-4770RIntel Core i7-4770SIntel Core i7-4770TIntel Core i7-4770TEIntel Core i7-4771Intel Core i7-4785TIntel Core i7-4790Intel Core i7-4790KIntel Core i7-4790SIntel Core i7-4790TIntel Core i7-4800MQIntel Core i7-4810MQIntel Core i7-4820KIntel Core i7-4850HQIntel Core i7-4860EQIntel Core i7-4860HQIntel Core i7-4870HQIntel Core i7-4900MQIntel Core i7-4910MQIntel Core i7-4930KIntel Core i7-4930MXIntel Core i7-4940MXIntel Core i7-4950HQIntel Core i7-4960HQIntel Core i7-4960XIntel Core i7-4960X Extreme EditionIntel Core i7-4980HQIntel Core i7-5500UIntel Core i7-5550UIntel Core i7-5557UIntel Core i7-5600UIntel Core i7-5650UIntel Core i7-5700HQIntel Core i7-5750HQIntel Core i7-5775CIntel Core i7-5775RIntel Core i7-5820KIntel Core i7-5850EQIntel Core i7-5850HQIntel Core i7-5930KIntel Core i7-5950HQIntel Core i7-5960XIntel Core i7-610EIntel Core i7-620LMIntel Core i7-620MIntel Core i7-620UMIntel Core i7-640LMIntel Core i7-640MIntel Core i7-640UMIntel Core i7-6498DUIntel Core i7-6500UIntel Core i7-6560UIntel Core i7-6567UIntel Core i7-6600UIntel Core i7-660UMIntel Core i7-6650UIntel Core i7-6700Intel Core i7-6700HQIntel Core i7-6700KIntel Core i7-6700TIntel Core i7-6700TEIntel Core i7-6770HQIntel Core i7-6785RIntel Core i7-6800KIntel Core i7-680UMIntel Core i7-6820EQIntel Core i7-6820HKIntel Core i7-6820HQIntel Core i7-6822EQIntel Core i7-6850KIntel Core i7-6870HQIntel Core i7-6900KIntel Core i7-6920HQIntel Core i7-6950XIntel Core i7-6970HQIntel Core i7-720QMIntel Core i7-740QMIntel Core i7-7500UIntel Core i7-7560UIntel Core i7-7567UIntel Core i7-7600UIntel Core i7-7660UIntel Core i7-7700Intel Core i7-7700HQIntel Core i7-7700KIntel Core i7-7700TIntel Core i7-7740XIntel Core i7-7800XIntel Core i7-7820EQIntel Core i7-7820HKIntel Core i7-7820HQIntel Core i7-7820XIntel Core i7-7920HQIntel Core i7-7Y75Intel Core i7-8086KIntel Core i7-820QMIntel Core i7-840QMIntel Core i7-8500YIntel Core i7-8550UIntel Core i7-8557UIntel Core i7-8559UIntel Core i7-8565UIntel Core i7-8569UIntel Core i7-860Intel Core i7-860SIntel Core i7-8650UIntel Core i7-8665UIntel Core i7-870Intel Core i7-8700Intel Core i7-8700BIntel Core i7-8700KIntel Core i7-8700TIntel Core i7-8705GIntel Core i7-8706GIntel Core i7-8709GIntel Core i7-870SIntel Core i7-8750HIntel Core i7-875KIntel Core i7-880Intel Core i7-8809GIntel Core i7-8850HIntel Core i7-920Intel Core i7-920XMIntel Core i7-930Intel Core i7-940Intel Core i7-940XMIntel Core i7-950Intel Core i7-960Intel Core i7-965Intel Core i7-965 Extreme EditionIntel Core i7-970Intel Core i7-9700Intel Core i7-9700FIntel Core i7-9700KIntel Core i7-9700KFIntel Core i7-9700TIntel Core i7-975Intel Core i7-975 Extreme EditionIntel Core i7-9750HIntel Core i7-9750HFIntel Core i7-980Intel Core i7-9800XIntel Core i7-980XIntel Core i7-980X EEIntel Core i7-980X Extreme EditionIntel Core i7-9850HIntel Core i7-990XIntel Core i7-990X EEIntel Core i7-990X Extreme EditionIntel Core i9-10875HIntel Core i9-10900Intel Core i9-10900FIntel Core i9-10900KIntel Core i9-10900KFIntel Core i9-10900XIntel Core i9-10920XIntel Core i9-10940XIntel Core i9-10980HKIntel Core i9-10980XEIntel Core i9-11900Intel Core i9-11900KIntel Core i9-12900KIntel Core i9-13900KIntel Core i9-7900XIntel Core i9-7920XIntel Core i9-7940XIntel Core i9-7960XIntel Core i9-7980XEIntel Core i9-8950HKIntel Core i9-9800XIntel Core i9-9820XIntel Core i9-9880HIntel Core i9-9900Intel Core i9-9900KFIntel Core i9-9900KSIntel Core i9-9900TIntel Core i9-9900XIntel Core i9-9920XIntel Core i9-9940XIntel Core i9-9960XIntel Core i9-9980HKIntel Core i9-9980XEIntel Core m3-6Y30Intel Core m3-7Y30Intel Core m3-7Y32Intel Core m3-8100YIntel Core m5-6Y54Intel Core m5-6Y57Intel Core m7-6Y75Intel Core2 Duo E6700Intel Mobile Pentium 4 2.
40Intel Mobile Pentium 4 2.66Intel Mobile Pentium 4 2.80Intel Mobile Pentium 4 3.06Intel Mobile Pentium 4 520Intel Mobile Pentium 4 532Intel Mobile Pentium 4 552Intel Pentium 2020MIntel Pentium 2030MIntel Pentium 2117UIntel Pentium 2127UIntel Pentium 2129YIntel Pentium 3550MIntel Pentium 3556UIntel Pentium 3558UIntel Pentium 3560MIntel Pentium 3560YIntel Pentium 3805UIntel Pentium 3825UIntel Pentium 4 1.80Intel Pentium 4 2.26Intel Pentium 4 2.4 GHzIntel Pentium 4 2.40Intel Pentium 4 2.53Intel Pentium 4 2.60Intel Pentium 4 2.66Intel Pentium 4 2.80Intel Pentium 4 560Intel Pentium 4 630Intel Pentium 4 660Intel Pentium 4 P4 3.0Intel Pentium 4-M P4-M 1,7Intel Pentium 4405UIntel Pentium 4405YIntel Pentium 4415UIntel Pentium 957Intel Pentium 967Intel Pentium 977Intel Pentium 987Intel Pentium 997Intel Pentium B940Intel Pentium B950Intel Pentium B960Intel Pentium B970Intel Pentium B980Intel Pentium D 820Intel Pentium D 830Intel Pentium D 915Intel Pentium D 940Intel Pentium D 950Intel Pentium D 960Intel Pentium Dual Core SU4100Intel Pentium Dual Core T2060Intel Pentium Dual Core T2080Intel Pentium Dual Core T2130Intel Pentium Dual Core T2310Intel Pentium Dual Core T2330Intel Pentium Dual Core T2370Intel Pentium Dual Core T2390Intel Pentium Dual Core T2410Intel Pentium Dual Core T3200Intel Pentium Dual Core T3400Intel Pentium Dual-Core T4200Intel Pentium Dual-Core T4300Intel Pentium Dual-Core T4400Intel Pentium Dual-Core T4500Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2210Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2220Intel Pentium E2140Intel Pentium E2160Intel Pentium E2180Intel Pentium E2200Intel Pentium E2220Intel Pentium E5200Intel Pentium E5300Intel Pentium E5400Intel Pentium E5500Intel Pentium E5700Intel Pentium E5800Intel Pentium E6300Intel Pentium E6500Intel Pentium E6600Intel Pentium E6700Intel Pentium E6800Intel Pentium G2010Intel Pentium G2020Intel Pentium G2020TIntel Pentium G2030Intel Pentium G2100TIntel Pentium G2120Intel Pentium G2130Intel Pentium G2140Intel Pentium G3220Intel Pentium G3220TIntel Pentium G3240Intel Pentium G3240TIntel Pentium G3250Intel Pentium G3250TIntel Pentium G3258Intel Pentium G3260Intel Pentium G3420Intel Pentium G3420TIntel Pentium G3430Intel Pentium G3440Intel Pentium G3440TIntel Pentium G3450Intel Pentium G3450TIntel Pentium G3460Intel Pentium G3470Intel Pentium G4400Intel Pentium G4400TIntel Pentium G4400TEIntel Pentium G4500Intel Pentium G4500TIntel Pentium G4520Intel Pentium G4560Intel Pentium G4560TIntel Pentium G4600Intel Pentium G4600TIntel Pentium G4620Intel Pentium G550Intel Pentium G620Intel Pentium G620TIntel Pentium G630Intel Pentium G630TIntel Pentium G640Intel Pentium G640TIntel Pentium G645Intel Pentium G645TIntel Pentium G6950Intel Pentium G6951Intel Pentium G6960Intel Pentium G840Intel Pentium G850Intel Pentium G860Intel Pentium G870Intel Pentium Gold 4410YIntel Pentium Gold 4415UIntel Pentium Gold 4415YIntel Pentium Gold 4417UIntel Pentium Gold 4425YIntel Pentium Gold 5405UIntel Pentium Gold 6405UIntel Pentium Gold G5400Intel Pentium Gold G5400TIntel Pentium Gold G5420Intel Pentium Gold G5420TIntel Pentium Gold G5500Intel Pentium Gold G5500TIntel Pentium Gold G5600Intel Pentium Gold G5620Intel Pentium III 1133Intel Pentium III 1200Intel Pentium III 1266SIntel Pentium III 1400Intel Pentium III 1400SIntel Pentium J2850Intel Pentium J2900Intel Pentium J3710Intel Pentium J4205Intel Pentium M 1.
30Intel Pentium M 1.40Intel Pentium M 1.50Intel Pentium M 1.60Intel Pentium M 1.70Intel Pentium M 1300Intel Pentium M 705Intel Pentium M 710Intel Pentium M 715Intel Pentium M 718Intel Pentium M 725Intel Pentium M 730Intel Pentium M 735Intel Pentium M 738Intel Pentium M 740Intel Pentium M 745Intel Pentium M 750Intel Pentium M 753Intel Pentium M 758Intel Pentium M 760Intel Pentium M 765Intel Pentium M 770Intel Pentium M 780Intel Pentium N3510Intel Pentium N3520Intel Pentium N3530Intel Pentium N3540Intel Pentium N3700Intel Pentium N3710Intel Pentium N4200Intel Pentium P6000Intel Pentium P6100Intel Pentium P6200Intel Pentium P6300Intel Pentium SU2700Intel Pentium SU4100Intel Pentium Silver J5005Intel Pentium Silver J5040Intel Pentium Silver N5000Intel Pentium Silver N5030Intel Pentium U5400Intel Pentium U5600Intel Xeon 2.66Intel Xeon 3.06Intel Xeon 3.20Intel Xeon 5110Intel Xeon 5120Intel Xeon 5130Intel Xeon 5140Intel Xeon 5148Intel Xeon 5150Intel Xeon 5160Intel Xeon Bronze 3104Intel Xeon Bronze 3106Intel Xeon D-1518Intel Xeon D-1520Intel Xeon D-1521Intel Xeon D-1528Intel Xeon D-1531Intel Xeon D-1537Intel Xeon D-1539Intel Xeon D-1540Intel Xeon D-1541Intel Xeon D-1548Intel Xeon D-1557Intel Xeon D-1559Intel Xeon D-1567Intel Xeon D-1587Intel Xeon D-2123ITIntel Xeon D-2141IIntel Xeon D-2143ITIntel Xeon D-2146NTIntel Xeon D-2183ITIntel Xeon E-2104GIntel Xeon E-2124Intel Xeon E-2124GIntel Xeon E-2126GIntel Xeon E-2134Intel Xeon E-2136Intel Xeon E-2144GIntel Xeon E-2146GIntel Xeon E-2174GIntel Xeon E-2176GIntel Xeon E-2176MIntel Xeon E-2186GIntel Xeon E-2186MIntel Xeon E-2224Intel Xeon E-2224GIntel Xeon E-2226GIntel Xeon E-2236Intel Xeon E-2244GIntel Xeon E-2246GIntel Xeon E-2274GIntel Xeon E-2276GIntel Xeon E-2276MIntel Xeon E-2276MEIntel Xeon E-2276MLIntel Xeon E-2278GIntel Xeon E-2286GIntel Xeon E-2286MIntel Xeon E-2288GIntel Xeon E3-1220Intel Xeon E3-1220 V2Intel Xeon E3-1220 V3Intel Xeon E3-1220 V5Intel Xeon E3-1220 V6Intel Xeon E3-1220LIntel Xeon E3-1220L v2Intel Xeon E3-1220L v3Intel Xeon E3-1225Intel Xeon E3-1225 V2Intel Xeon E3-1225 V3Intel Xeon E3-1225 V5Intel Xeon E3-1225 V6Intel Xeon E3-1226 V3Intel Xeon E3-1230Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3Intel Xeon E3-1230 V5Intel Xeon E3-1230 V6Intel Xeon E3-1230L v3Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3Intel Xeon E3-1235Intel Xeon E3-1235L V5Intel Xeon E3-1240Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2Intel Xeon E3-1240 V3Intel Xeon E3-1240 V5Intel Xeon E3-1240 V6Intel Xeon E3-1240L V5Intel Xeon E3-1241 V3Intel Xeon E3-1245Intel Xeon E3-1245 V2Intel Xeon E3-1245 V3Intel Xeon E3-1245 V5Intel Xeon E3-1245 V6Intel Xeon E3-1246 V3Intel Xeon E3-1260LIntel Xeon E3-1260L V5Intel Xeon E3-1265L V2Intel Xeon E3-1265L V3Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5Intel Xeon E3-1270Intel Xeon E3-1270 V2Intel Xeon E3-1270 V3Intel Xeon E3-1270 V5Intel Xeon E3-1270 V6Intel Xeon E3-1271 V3Intel Xeon E3-1275Intel Xeon E3-1275 V2Intel Xeon E3-1275 V3Intel Xeon E3-1275 V5Intel Xeon E3-1275 V6Intel Xeon E3-1276 V3Intel Xeon E3-1280Intel Xeon E3-1280 V5Intel Xeon E3-1280 V6Intel Xeon E3-1280 v2Intel Xeon E3-1280 v3Intel Xeon E3-1285 V6Intel Xeon E3-1285 v3Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4Intel Xeon E3-1285L v3Intel Xeon E3-1290Intel Xeon E3-1290 v2Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5Intel Xeon E3-1505L v6Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5Intel Xeon E3-1505M v6Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5Intel Xeon E3-1535M v6Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5Intel Xeon E3-1585L v5Intel Xeon E5-1410Intel Xeon E5-1603 v4Intel Xeon E5-1607 v4Intel Xeon E5-1620Intel Xeon E5-1620 V2Intel Xeon E5-1620 V3Intel Xeon E5-1620 V4Intel Xeon E5-1630 V3Intel Xeon E5-1630 V4Intel Xeon E5-1650Intel Xeon E5-1650 V2Intel Xeon E5-1650 V3Intel Xeon E5-1650 V4Intel Xeon E5-1660Intel Xeon E5-1660 V2Intel Xeon E5-1660 V3Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4Intel Xeon E5-1680 V3Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4Intel Xeon E5-2403Intel Xeon E5-2403 v2Intel Xeon E5-2407Intel Xeon E5-2407 v2Intel Xeon E5-2418LIntel Xeon E5-2420Intel Xeon E5-2420 v2Intel Xeon E5-2420V2Intel Xeon E5-2430Intel Xeon E5-2430 v2Intel Xeon E5-2430LIntel Xeon E5-2430V2Intel Xeon E5-2440Intel Xeon E5-2440 v2Intel Xeon E5-2440V2Intel Xeon E5-2450Intel Xeon E5-2450LIntel Xeon E5-2450V2Intel Xeon E5-2470Intel Xeon E5-2470 v2Intel Xeon E5-2470V2Intel Xeon E5-2603Intel Xeon E5-2603 V2Intel Xeon E5-2603 V3Intel Xeon E5-2603 V4Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3Intel Xeon E5-2609Intel Xeon E5-2609 V2Intel Xeon E5-2609 V3Intel Xeon E5-2609 V4Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3Intel Xeon E5-2618L v4Intel Xeon E5-2620Intel Xeon E5-2620 V2Intel Xeon E5-2620 V3Intel Xeon E5-2620 V4Intel Xeon E5-2622 V3Intel Xeon E5-2623 V3Intel Xeon E5-2623 v4Intel Xeon E5-2628L v3Intel Xeon E5-2628L v4Intel Xeon E5-2630Intel Xeon E5-2630 V2Intel Xeon E5-2630 V3Intel Xeon E5-2630 V4Intel Xeon E5-2630LIntel Xeon E5-2630L V2Intel Xeon E5-2630L V3Intel Xeon E5-2630L v4Intel Xeon E5-2637Intel Xeon E5-2637 V2Intel Xeon E5-2637 V3Intel Xeon E5-2637 v4Intel Xeon E5-2640Intel Xeon E5-2640 V2Intel Xeon E5-2640 V3Intel Xeon E5-2640 V4Intel Xeon E5-2643Intel Xeon E5-2643 V2Intel Xeon E5-2643 V3Intel Xeon E5-2643 V4Intel Xeon E5-2648LIntel Xeon E5-2648L v3Intel Xeon E5-2648L v4Intel Xeon E5-2650Intel Xeon E5-2650 V2Intel Xeon E5-2650 V3Intel Xeon E5-2650 V4Intel Xeon E5-2650LIntel Xeon E5-2650L V2Intel Xeon E5-2650L V3Intel Xeon E5-2650L V4Intel Xeon E5-2658Intel Xeon E5-2658 V3Intel Xeon E5-2658 v4Intel Xeon E5-2660Intel Xeon E5-2660 V2Intel Xeon E5-2660 V3Intel Xeon E5-2660 V4Intel Xeon E5-2665Intel Xeon E5-2667Intel Xeon E5-2667 V2Intel Xeon E5-2667 V3Intel Xeon E5-2667 v4Intel Xeon E5-2670Intel Xeon E5-2670 V2Intel Xeon E5-2670 V3Intel Xeon E5-2673 v4Intel Xeon E5-2679 v4Intel Xeon E5-2680Intel Xeon E5-2680 V2Intel Xeon E5-2680 V3Intel Xeon E5-2680 V4Intel Xeon E5-2682 v4Intel Xeon E5-2683 V3Intel Xeon E5-2683 V4Intel Xeon E5-2685 V3Intel Xeon E5-2686 v4Intel Xeon E5-2687WIntel Xeon E5-2687W V2Intel Xeon E5-2687W V3Intel Xeon E5-2687W V4Intel Xeon E5-2689 v4Intel Xeon E5-2690Intel Xeon E5-2690 V2Intel Xeon E5-2690 V3Intel Xeon E5-2690 V4Intel Xeon E5-2692 v2Intel Xeon E5-2695 V2Intel Xeon E5-2695 V3Intel Xeon E5-2695 V4Intel Xeon E5-2696 v4Intel Xeon E5-2697 V2Intel Xeon E5-2697 V3Intel Xeon E5-2697 V4Intel Xeon E5-2697A v4Intel Xeon E5-2698 V3Intel Xeon E5-2698 V4Intel Xeon E5-2699 V3Intel Xeon E5-2699 V4Intel Xeon E5-4603Intel Xeon E5-4610Intel Xeon E5-4617Intel Xeon E5-4620Intel Xeon E5-4627 v4Intel Xeon E5-4640Intel Xeon E5-4650Intel Xeon E5-4650LIntel Xeon E5-4669 v4Intel Xeon E5502Intel Xeon E5503Intel Xeon E5504Intel Xeon E5506Intel Xeon E5507Intel Xeon E5520Intel Xeon E5530Intel Xeon E5540Intel Xeon E5603Intel Xeon E5606Intel Xeon E5607Intel Xeon E5620Intel Xeon E5630Intel Xeon E5640Intel Xeon E5645Intel Xeon E5649Intel Xeon E7-2850 v2Intel Xeon E7-2870 v2Intel Xeon E7-2880 v2Intel Xeon E7-2890 v2Intel Xeon E7-4809 v2Intel Xeon E7-4820 v2Intel Xeon E7-4830 v2Intel Xeon E7-4850 v2Intel Xeon E7-4860 v2Intel Xeon E7-4870 v2Intel Xeon E7-4880 v2Intel Xeon E7-4890 v2Intel Xeon E7-8850 v2Intel Xeon E7-8857 v2Intel Xeon E7-8870 v2Intel Xeon E7-8880 v2Intel Xeon E7-8880L v2Intel Xeon E7-8890 v2Intel Xeon E7-8891 v2Intel Xeon E7-8893 v2Intel Xeon Gold 5115Intel Xeon Gold 5117Intel Xeon Gold 5117FIntel Xeon Gold 5118Intel Xeon Gold 5119TIntel Xeon Gold 5120Intel Xeon Gold 5120TIntel Xeon Gold 5122Intel Xeon Gold 5215Intel Xeon Gold 5215LIntel Xeon Gold 5215MIntel Xeon Gold 5217Intel Xeon Gold 5218Intel Xeon Gold 5218BIntel Xeon Gold 5218NIntel Xeon Gold 5218RIntel Xeon Gold 5218TIntel Xeon Gold 5219YIntel Xeon Gold 5220Intel Xeon Gold 5220RIntel Xeon Gold 5220SIntel Xeon Gold 5220TIntel Xeon Gold 5222Intel Xeon Gold 6126Intel Xeon Gold 6126FIntel Xeon Gold 6126TIntel Xeon Gold 6128Intel Xeon Gold 6130Intel Xeon Gold 6130FIntel Xeon Gold 6130TIntel Xeon Gold 6132Intel Xeon Gold 6134Intel Xeon Gold 6134MIntel Xeon Gold 6136Intel Xeon Gold 6138Intel Xeon Gold 6138FIntel Xeon Gold 6138TIntel Xeon Gold 6140Intel Xeon Gold 6140MIntel Xeon Gold 6142Intel Xeon Gold 6142FIntel Xeon Gold 6142MIntel Xeon Gold 6144Intel Xeon Gold 6146Intel Xeon Gold 6148Intel Xeon Gold 6148FIntel Xeon Gold 6150Intel Xeon Gold 6152Intel Xeon Gold 6154Intel Xeon Gold 6208UIntel Xeon Gold 6209UIntel Xeon Gold 6210UIntel Xeon Gold 6212UIntel Xeon Gold 6222Intel Xeon Gold 6222VIntel Xeon Gold 6226Intel Xeon Gold 6226RIntel Xeon Gold 6230Intel Xeon Gold 6230NIntel Xeon Gold 6230RIntel Xeon Gold 6230TIntel Xeon Gold 6234Intel Xeon Gold 6238Intel Xeon Gold 6238LIntel Xeon Gold 6238MIntel Xeon Gold 6238RIntel Xeon Gold 6238TIntel Xeon Gold 6240Intel Xeon Gold 6240LIntel Xeon Gold 6240MIntel Xeon Gold 6240RIntel Xeon Gold 6240YIntel Xeon Gold 6242Intel Xeon Gold 6242RIntel Xeon Gold 6244Intel Xeon Gold 6246Intel Xeon Gold 6246RIntel Xeon Gold 6248Intel Xeon Gold 6250Intel Xeon Gold 6250LIntel Xeon Gold 6252Intel Xeon Gold 6252NIntel Xeon Gold 6254Intel Xeon Gold 6256Intel Xeon Gold 6258RIntel Xeon Gold 6262Intel Xeon Gold 6262VIntel Xeon Gold 6269YIntel Xeon L5506Intel Xeon L5520Intel Xeon L5530Intel Xeon L5630Intel Xeon L5638Intel Xeon L5640Intel Xeon Platinum 8124MIntel Xeon Platinum 8153Intel Xeon Platinum 8156Intel Xeon Platinum 8158Intel Xeon Platinum 8160Intel Xeon Platinum 8160FIntel Xeon Platinum 8160MIntel Xeon Platinum 8160TIntel Xeon Platinum 8164Intel Xeon Platinum 8168Intel Xeon Platinum 8170Intel Xeon Platinum 8173MIntel Xeon Platinum 8175MIntel Xeon Platinum 8176Intel Xeon Platinum 8268Intel Xeon Silver 4108Intel Xeon Silver 4109TIntel Xeon Silver 4110Intel Xeon Silver 4112Intel Xeon Silver 4114Intel Xeon Silver 4116Intel Xeon Silver 4208Intel Xeon Silver 4210Intel Xeon Silver 4214Intel Xeon Silver 4215Intel Xeon Silver 4216Intel Xeon W-2102Intel Xeon W-2104Intel Xeon W-2123Intel Xeon W-2125Intel Xeon W-2133Intel Xeon W-2135Intel Xeon W-2140BIntel Xeon W-2145Intel Xeon W-2150BIntel Xeon W-2155Intel Xeon W-2170BIntel Xeon W-2175Intel Xeon W-2191BIntel Xeon W-2195Intel Xeon W-2223Intel Xeon W-2225Intel Xeon W-2235Intel Xeon W-2245Intel Xeon W-2255Intel Xeon W-2265Intel Xeon W-2275Intel Xeon W-2295Intel Xeon W-3175XIntel Xeon W-3235Intel Xeon W-3265Intel Xeon W3503Intel Xeon W3505Intel Xeon W3520Intel Xeon W3530Intel Xeon W3540Intel Xeon W3550Intel Xeon W3565Intel Xeon W3570Intel Xeon W3580Intel Xeon W3670Intel Xeon W3680Intel Xeon W3690Intel Xeon W5580Intel Xeon W5590Intel Xeon X5550Intel Xeon X5560Intel Xeon X5570Intel Xeon X5647Intel Xeon X5650Intel Xeon X5660Intel Xeon X5667Intel Xeon X5670Intel Xeon X5672Intel Xeon X5675Intel Xeon X5677Intel Xeon X5680Intel Xeon X5687Intel Xeon X5690Intel Xeon X5698
Change GPU
AMD Radeon HD 6850AMD Radeon HD 6870AMD Radeon HD 6950AMD Radeon HD 6970AMD Radeon HD 6990AMD Radeon HD 7750AMD Radeon HD 7790AMD Radeon HD 7850AMD Radeon HD 7950AMD Radeon HD 7970AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz EditionAMD Radeon HD 7990AMD Radeon R7 250AMD Radeon R7 265AMD Radeon R7 370AMD Radeon R9 270AMD Radeon R9 280AMD Radeon R9 280XAMD Radeon R9 285AMD Radeon R9 290AMD Radeon R9 290XAMD Radeon R9 295X2AMD Radeon R9 380AMD Radeon R9 380XAMD Radeon R9 390AMD Radeon R9 390XAMD Radeon R9 FURYAMD Radeon R9 FURY XAMD Radeon R9 NanoAMD Radeon RX 460AMD Radeon RX 470AMD Radeon RX 480AMD Radeon RX 550AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GBAMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GBAMD Radeon RX 560AMD Radeon RX 5600 XTAMD Radeon RX 570AMD Radeon RX 5700AMD Radeon RX 5700 XTAMD Radeon RX 580AMD Radeon RX 590AMD Radeon RX 6600 XTAMD Radeon RX 6700 XTAMD Radeon RX 6800AMD Radeon RX 6800 XTAMD Radeon RX 6900 XTAMD Radeon RX Vega 56AMD Radeon RX Vega 64AMD Radeon VIIATI Radeon HD 4870NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030NVIDIA GeForce GT 640NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GBNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GBNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPERNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPERNVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 260NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 560NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 570NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti BoostNVIDIA GeForce GTX 660NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 670NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 760NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX 950NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 TiNVIDIA GeForce GTX TITANNVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACKNVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN XNVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPERNVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPERNVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPERNVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 TiNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 TiNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 TiNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 TiNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 TiNVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090NVIDIA TITAN RTXNVIDIA TITAN VNVIDIA TITAN Xp
Change Resolution
1080p1440p4KUltrawide 1440p
Change Settings
Ultra SettingsHigh SettingsMedium SettingsLow Settings
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K — Apex Legends with GTX 1060 6GB Benchmarks 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K Comparison
GTX 1060 6GB with
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
Apex Legends
GTX 1060 6GB with
Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.
60GHz
Ryzen 5 3600X
i9-9900K
Multi-Thread Performance
21536 Pts
20500 Pts
Single-Thread Performance
2910 Pts
2908 Pts
Apex Legends
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K in Apex Legends using GTX 1060 6GB — CPU Performance comparison at Ultra, High, Medium, and Low Quality Settings with 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K resolutions
Ryzen 5 3600X
i9-9900K
Ultra Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
69.0 FPS |
| 1080p |
71.0 FPS |
| 1440p |
48.7 FPS |
| 1440p |
49.3 FPS |
| 2160p |
29.1 FPS |
| 2160p |
29.4 FPS |
| w1440p |
41.6 FPS |
| w1440p |
42.1 FPS |
High Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
115. |
| 1080p |
118.0 FPS |
| 1440p |
85.5 FPS |
| 1440p |
86.4 FPS |
| 2160p |
54.8 FPS |
| 2160p |
55.3 FPS |
| w1440p |
74.7 FPS |
| w1440p |
75.4 FPS |
1 FPSMedium Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
161.2 FPS |
| 1080p |
164.9 FPS |
| 1440p |
122.3 FPS |
| 1440p |
123.5 FPS |
| 2160p |
80.6 FPS |
| 2160p |
81.2 FPS |
| w1440p |
107.7 FPS |
| w1440p |
108.8 FPS |
Low Quality
| Resolution | Frames Per Second |
|---|---|
| 1080p |
253. |
| 1080p |
258.8 FPS |
| 1440p |
195.9 FPS |
| 1440p |
197.7 FPS |
| 2160p |
132.0 FPS |
| 2160p |
133.1 FPS |
| w1440p |
173.9 FPS |
| w1440p |
175.5 FPS |
5 FPSRyzen 5 3600X
- The Ryzen 5 3600X has higher Level 2 Cache. Data/instructions which have to be processed can be loaded from the fast L2 and the CPU does not have to wait for the very slow DDR RAM
- The Ryzen 5 3600X has higher Level 3 Cache. This is useful when you have substantial multiprocessing workloads, many computationally intense simultaneous processes. More likely on a server, less on a personally used computer for interactive desktop workloads.
- For some games, a cpu with a higher clock speed, or in a technical name IPC (Instructions per clock), has better results than other CPU’s with higher core count and lower core speed.
- The Ryzen 5 3600X has a smaller process size. The faster a transistor can toggle on and off, the faster it can do work. And transistors that turn on and off with less energy are more efficient, reducing the operating power, or “dynamic power consumption,” required by a processor.
i9-9900K
- The i9-9900K has more cores. The benefit of having more cores is that the system can handle more threads. Each core can handle a separate stream of data. This architecture greatly increases the performance of a system that is running concurrent applications.
- The i9-9900K has more threads. Larger programs are divided into threads (small sections) so that the processor can execute them simultaneously to get faster execution.
- The i9-9900K has a higher turbo clock boost. Turbo Boost is a CPU feature that will run CPU clock speed faster than its base clock, if certain conditions are present. It will enable older software that runs on fewer cores, to perform better on newer hardware.
Since games are software too, it is also applicable to them.
Compare Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K specifications
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K Architecture
| Ryzen 5 3600X | i9-9900K | |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Zen 2 | Coffee Lake |
| Generation | Ryzen 5 (Zen 2) |
Core i7 (Coffee Lake Refresh) |
| Market | Desktop | Desktop |
| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4 |
| Part# | unknown | unknown |
| Production Status | Active | Active |
| Released | Jul 2019 | Oct 2018 |
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K Cache
| Ryzen 5 3600X | i9-9900K | |
|---|---|---|
| Cache L1 | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| Cache L2 | 512K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| Cache L3 | 32MB (shared) | 16MB (shared) |
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K Cores
| Ryzen 5 3600X | i9-9900K | |
|---|---|---|
| # of Cores | 6 | 8 |
| # of Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Integrated Graphics | N/A | N/A |
| SMP # CPUs | 1 | 1 |
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K Performance
| Ryzen 5 3600X | i9-9900K | |
|---|---|---|
| Base Clock | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Frequency | 3. 8 GHz |
3.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | 38.0x | 36.0x |
| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | Yes |
| TDP | 95 W | 95 W |
| Turbo Clock | up to 4.4 GHz | up to 5 GHz |
| Voltage | variable | variable |
Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K Physical
| Ryzen 5 3600X | i9-9900K | |
|---|---|---|
| Die Size | unknown | unknown |
| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |
| Package | FC-LGA14C | |
| Process Size | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1151 |
| Transistors | 4,800 million | unknown |
| tCaseMax | unknown | 72°C |
Share Your Comments 0
Compare Ryzen 5 3600X vs i9-9900K in more games
Elden Ring
2022
God of War
2022
Overwatch 2
2022
Forza Horizon 5
2021
Halo Infinite
2021
Battlefield 2042
2021
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
2020
Microsoft Flight Simulator
2020
Valorant
2020
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
2020
Death Stranding
2020
Marvel’s Avengers
2020
Godfall
2020
Cyberpunk 2077
2020
Apex Legends
2019
Anthem
2019
Far Cry New Dawn
2019
Resident Evil 2
2019
Metro Exodus
2019
World War Z
2019
Gears of War 5
2019
F1 2019
2019
GreedFall
2019
Borderlands 3
2019
Call of Duty Modern Warfare
2019
Red Dead Redemption 2
2019
Need For Speed: Heat
2019
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
2018
Battlefield V
2018
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
2018
Final Fantasy XV
2018
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
2018
Forza Horizon 4
2018
Fallout 76
2018
Hitman 2
2018
Just Cause 4
2018
Monster Hunter: World
2018
Strange Brigade
2018
Assassin’s Creed Origins
2017
Dawn of War III
2017
Ghost Recon Wildlands
2017
Destiny 2
2017
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds
2017
Fortnite Battle Royale
2017
Need For Speed: Payback
2017
For Honor
2017
Project CARS 2
2017
Forza Motorsport 7
2017
Ashes of the Singularity
2016
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation
2016
Battlefield 1
2016
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
2016
Doom
2016
F1 2016
2016
Hitman
2016
Rise of the Tomb Raider
2016
The Division
2016
Total War: Warhammer
2016
Overwatch
2016
Dishonored 2
2016
DiRT Rally
2015
Grand Theft Auto V
2015
The Witcher 3
2015
Total War: Attila
2015
Rocket League
2015
Need For Speed
2015
Project CARS
2015
Rainbow Six Siege
2015
Civilization: Beyond Earth
2014
Dragon Age: Inquisition
2014
Far Cry 4
2014
GRID Autosport
2014
Shadow of Mordor
2014
The Talos Principle
2014
Thief
2014
Battlefield 4
2013
Bioshock Infinite
2013
Company of Heroes 2
2013
Crysis 3
2013
GRID 2
2013
Metro: Last Light
2013
Total War: Rome 2
2013
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
2012
League of Legends
2009
Minecraft
2009
Crysis: Warhead
2008
Intel Core i9 9900K vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600:
performance comparison
VS
Intel Core i9 9900K
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Which is better: 8-core Intel Core i9 9900K at 3.
6 GHz or AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with 6 cores at 3.6 GHz? To find out, read our comparative testing of these desktop processors in popular benchmarks, games and heavy applications.
- Overview
- Differences
- Performance
- Features
- Comments
Overview
Overview and comparison of the main metrics from NanoReview
Single -flow performance
Rating in tests using one core
Core I9 9900K
70
Ryzen 5 3600
65
Multi -flow performance
Tests in benchmarks where all nucleus
9 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Core i9 9900k
55
Ryzen 5 3600
47
Energy Equality
Energy Effects Chip
Core I9 9900k
45
Ryzen 5 3600
Renting Nanoreview
Core i9 9900K
58
Ryzen 5 3600
58
Key differences
What are the main differences between 3600 and 9900K
Reasons to choose Intel Core i9 9900K
- Has 2 more physical cores
- 19% higher Turbo Boost frequency (5 GHz vs 4.
2 GHz) - Integrated graphics accelerator Intel UHD Graphics 630
Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 5 3600
- More modern process technology — 7 vs. 14 nanometers
- Has 16 MB more L3 cache
- 32% lower than the Core i9 9900K peak power consumption — 65 vs 95 Watts
- 10 months later than rival
- New standard PCI Express — 4.0
- 6.08 GB/s (15%) higher maximum memory bandwidth
Benchmark tests
Compare the results of processor tests in benchmarks
Cinebench R23 (single core)
Core i9 9900K
+4%
1352
Ryzen 5 3600
1299
Cinebench R23 (multi-core)
Core i9 9900K
+30%
12479
Ryzen 5 3600
9574
Passmark CPU (single core)
Core i9 9900K
+15%
2972
Ryzen 5 3600
2588
Passmark CPU (multi-core)
Core i9 9900K
+6%
18912
Ryzen 5 3600
17907
Geekbench 5 (single core)
Core i9 9900K
+2%
1278
Ryzen 5 3600
1254
Geekbench 5 (multi-core)
Core i9 9900K
+19%
8541
Ryzen 5 3600
7156
▶️ Add your score to Cinebench R23
Specifications
List of full technical specifications for Intel Core i9 9900K and AMD Ryzen 5 3600
General information
| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |
| Release date | October 8, 2018 | July 7, 2019 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Instruction set architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | Matisse |
| Model number | i9-9900K | — |
| Socket | LGA-1151 | AM4 |
| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | No |
Performance
| Cores | 8 | 6 |
| Number of threads | 16 | 12 |
| Frequency | 3. 6 GHz |
3.6 GHz |
| Max. frequency in Turbo Boost | 5 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus frequency | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Multiplier | 36x | 36x |
| Tire speed | 8 GT/s | — |
| Level 1 cache | 64KB (per core) | 64KB (per core) |
| Level 2 cache | 256KB (per core) | 512KB (per core) |
| Level 3 cache | 16MB (shared) | 32MB (shared) |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | Yes |
Power consumption
| Number of transistors | — | 3.8 billion |
| Process | 14 nanometers | 7 nanometers |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 W | 65 W |
| Critical temperature | 100°C | 95°C |
| Integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | — |
| GPU frequency | 350 MHz | — |
| Boost GPU frequency | 1200 MHz | — |
| Shader blocks | 192 | — |
| TMUs | 24 | — |
| ROPs | 3 | — |
| Computer units | 24 | — |
| TGP | 15W | — |
Max. resolution |
4096×2304 — 60Hz | — |
Igpu Flops
Core i9 9900k
0.38 Teraflops
Ryzen 5 3600
N/D
Memory Support
| Memory type | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-3200 |
| Max. size | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| Number of channels | 2 | 2 |
| Max. bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 47.68 GB/s |
| ECC support | No | Yes |
Other
| Official site | Site Intel Core i9 9900K | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 9 website0190 |
| PCI Express version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| Max. PCI Express lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Extended instructions | SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX-2 | — |
Poll
What processor do you think is the best?
Core i9 9900K
10 (29.
4%)
Ryzen 5 3600
24 (70.6%)
Total votes: 34
Competitors
1.
Ryzen 7 5800X and Core i9 9900K
2.
Apple M1 and Core i9 9900K
3.
Core i7 12700K and Core i9 9900K
4.
Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 5 3600
5.
Ryzen 5 5600G and Ryzen 5 3600
6.
Core i5 12400 and Ryzen 5 3600
7.
Core i3 12100 and Ryzen 5 3600
8.
Ryzen 7 5700X and Ryzen 5 3600
What will you choose: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 or Intel Core i9 9900K?
Name
Message
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs Intel Core i9-9900K: What is the difference?
61pts
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
67pts
Intel Core i9-9900K
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i9-9900K
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 3600 better than Intel Core i9-9900K?
- 534MHz higher RAM speed?
3200MHz vs 2666MHz - Is 7nm semiconductor smaller?
7nm vs 14nm - 1MB more L2 cache?
3MB vs 2MB - 30W below TDP?
65W vs 95W - 16MB more L3 cache?
32MB vs 16MB - 1 newer PCI Express (PCIe) version?
4 vs 3 - 0.
25MB/core more L2 cache per core? more memory bandwidth?
47.68GB/s vs 41.6GB/s
- 33.33% higher CPU speed?
8 x 3.6GHz vs 6 x 3.6GHz - 4 more CPU threads?
16 vs 12 - 5°C higher than maximum operating temperature?
100°C vs 95°C - 5.81% higher PassMark score?
18898 vs 17860 - 0.8GHz higher turbo clock speed?
5GHz vs 4.2GHz - 128KB more L1 cache?
512KB vs 384KB - Does it have integrated graphics?
- 15.51% higher PassMark score (single)?
2986 vs 2585
Which comparisons are the most popular?
AMD RYZEN 5 3600
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5500
Intel Core i9-9900k
VS
Apple M1 Pro (10-Core)
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 9000)
Intel Core i9-9900K
VS
AMD RYZEN 9 3900X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Intel Core i9-9900k
VS
Intel Core I9-9900
AMD Ryzen 5000 AMD Ryzen 5000 AMD Ryzen 5
Intel Core i5-10400
Intel Core i9-9900k
VS
Intel Core i5-12600k
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
VS
AMD
23
Intel Core i
Intel Core i
Intel Core i
Intel Core I9-0002 Intel Core I9-0002 Intel Core I9-0002 Intel Core I9-0002 Intel Core I
Intel Core i7-9700k
AMD RYZEN 5 3600
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 4500
Intel Core i9-9900k
VS
AMD Ryzen 7 5800x
AMD RYZEN 5 3600
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS 9000 VS
VS 9000 VS
VS 9000 VS
VS 9000 VS
VS 9000 VS 9000 VS
VS Core i9-9900K
VS
Intel Core i7-10700k
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
VS
Intel Core i5-9400f
Intel Core i9-9900k
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5600x AMD Ryzen 5 5600x
AMD RyZen 5 3600
VS
Intel Core i3-12100
Intel Core i9-9900k
VS
AMD Ryzen 9 5900x
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 4600g
Consistency
User Reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
5 User Reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
9.
0 /10
Core i902 5 User Reviews 9002 5 User Reviews-9900k
4 Reviews of users
Intel Core i9-9900k
8.8 /10
4 Reviews of users
Price and quality ratio
9.2 /10
9000 5000 Votes 9000 /10
4 Votes
Games
8.8 /10
4 Votes
/10
4 Votes
performance
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 /10
5 Votes
9.5 /10
4 Votes
Reliability
/10
5 Votes
/10
9000
Energy /10
4 Votes
8.8 /10
4 Votes
performance
1. Squamice of the central processor
6 x 3.6GHZ
8 x 3.6Ghz
The speed of the central processor shows how many processing cycles in the processing in processing in second can be performed by the processor, given all its cores (processors).
It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.
2nd processor thread
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
3.speed turbo clock
4.2GHz
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
4. Has unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.
5.L2 Cache
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
6.L3 cache
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
7.L1 cache
More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
8.core L2
0.5MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
9.core L3
5.33MB/core
2MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
Memory
1.RAM speed
3200MHz
2666MHz
Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.
2.max memory bandwidth
47.68GB/s
41.6GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3.DDR version
DDR (Dynamic Random Access Memory, Double Data Rate) is the most common type of RAM.
New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.
4 memory channels
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
5.Maximum memory
Maximum memory (RAM).
6.bus baud rate
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device.
7.Supports memory troubleshooting code
✖AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✖Intel Core i9-9900K
Memory error recovery code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown.
Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
The newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.
9.bus frequency
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device
Geotagging
1. PassMark result
This test measures processor performance using multi-threading.
2. PassMark result (single)
This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor.
(Source: Primate Labs,2022)
4.Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)
Cinebench R20 is a test that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)
Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the single core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender test result (bmw27)
235seconds
164.2seconds
The Blender test (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
8.Blender result (classroom)
705.9seconds
544seconds
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene.
More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
9.performance per watt
This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multi-threading
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides better performance by dividing each physical processor core into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.
2.Has AES
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3. Has AVX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.
4.Version SSE
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5. Has F16C
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.
6 bits transmitted at the same time
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.
7. Has MMX
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✔Intel Core i9-9900K
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD Ryzen 5 3600
✖Intel Core i9-9900K
Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and video streaming through Digital Rights Management (DRM) ).
9.interface width
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i9-9900K)
The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means the processor performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which CPUs are better?
Processor wars. The history of the blue hare and the red tortoise / Sudo Null IT News0’s. The era of grandiose transformations and entry into the mainstream, when the Intel Pentium was positioned as a universal solution, and Intel Inside became almost the most recognizable slogan in the world, was marked by bright pages in the history of not only blue, but also red — starting from the K6 generation, AMD competed relentlessly with Intel in many market segments. However, it was the events of a slightly later stage — the first half of the 2000s — that played the most important role in the emergence of the legendary Core architecture, which still underlies the Intel processor line.
A bit of history, origins and revolution
The beginning of the 2000s is largely associated with several stages in the development of processors — this is the race for the coveted frequency of 1 GHz, and the appearance of the first dual-core processor, and the fierce struggle for supremacy in the mass desktop segment. After the hopelessly obsolete Pentium, and the introduction of the Athlon 64 X2, Intel introduced the Core generation processors, which eventually became a turning point in the development of the industry.
The first Core 2 Duo processors were announced at the end of July 2006, more than a year after the release of the Athlon 64 X2. In its work on the new generation, Intel was guided primarily by architectural optimization issues, having achieved the highest energy efficiency indicators already in the first generations of models based on the Core architecture, codenamed Conroe — they outperformed the Pentium 4 by one and a half times, and with a declared thermal package of 65 W, steel, perhaps , the most energy efficient processors on the market at the time.
Acting as a catch-up (which happened infrequently), Intel implemented in the new generation support for 64-bit operations with the EM64T architecture, a new set of SSSE3 instructions, as well as an extensive package of x86-based virtualization technologies.
Core 2 Duo microprocessor chip
In addition, one of the key features of Conroe processors was a large L2 cache, the impact of which on the overall performance of processors was very noticeable even then. Deciding to separate the processor segments, Intel disabled half of the 4 MB L2 cache for the younger representatives of the line (E6300 and E6400), thus marking the initial segment. Nevertheless, the technological features of the Core (low heat dissipation and high energy efficiency associated with the use of lead solder) allowed advanced users to achieve incredibly high frequencies on advanced system logic solutions — high-quality motherboards allowed overclocking the FSB bus, increasing the frequency of the junior processor up to 3 GHz and more (providing a 60% increase in total), thanks to which successful E6400 specimens could compete with their older brothers E6600 and E6700, albeit at the cost of significant temperature risks.
However, even modest overclocking made it possible to achieve serious results — in benchmarks, older processors easily pressed the advanced Athlon 64 X2, marking the position of new leaders and people’s favorites.
In addition, Intel launched a real revolution — quad-core processors of the Kentsfield family with the Q prefix, built on the same 65 nanometers, but using a structure of two Core 2 Duo chips on one substrate. Having achieved the highest possible energy efficiency (the platform consumed as much as two dies used separately), Intel showed for the first time how powerful a system with four threads can be — in multimedia applications, archiving and heavy games that actively use multi-threaded load parallelization (in In 2007, such were the sensational Crysis and the no less iconic Gears of War) the performance difference with a single-processor configuration could be up to 100%, which was an incredible advantage for any buyer of a Core 2 Quad-based system.
Bonding two C2Ds on one substrate — Core 2 Quad
As in the case of the Pentium line, the fastest processors received the Extreme prefix with the QX prefix, and were available to enthusiasts and OEM system builders at a significantly higher price .
The crowning achievement of the 65nm generation is the QX6850 at 3GHz with a fast FSB running at 1333MHz. This processor went on sale for $999.
Of course, such a resounding success could not but meet competition from AMD, but at that time the red giant had not yet switched to the production of quad-core processors, so an experimental Quad FX platform, developed in collaboration with NVidia, was introduced to counter the new products from Intel, and received only one serial model of the ASUS L1N64 motherboard, designed for the use of two Athlon FX X2 and Opteron processors.
ASUS L1N64
The platform turned out to be an interesting technical innovation in the mainstream, but a lot of technical conventions, huge power consumption and mediocre performance (compared to the QX6700 model) did not allow the platform to successfully compete for the upper market segment — Intel won, and processors Phenom FX, which has four cores, appeared at the Reds only in November 2007, when the competitor was already ready to take the next step.
The Penryn line, which was essentially the so-called die-shrink (decrease in die size) of 65nm chips from 2007, debuted on the market as early as January 20, 2008 with Wolfdale processors — just 2 months after the release of AMD’s Phenom FX . The transition to 45nm process technology using the latest dielectrics and manufacturing materials has expanded the horizons of the Core architecture even further. The processors received support for SSE4.1, support for new power-saving features (like Deep Power Down, which almost nullifies power consumption in the hibernation state on mobile versions of processors), and also became much cooler — in some tests the difference could reach 10 degrees compared to the previous series conroe. By boosting clock speed and performance, as well as getting an additional L2 cache (up to 6 MB for the Core 2 Duo), the new Core processors consolidated their leading positions in benchmarks and paved the way for a further round of fierce competition, and the beginning of a new era.
Epochs of unprecedented success, epochs of stagnation and calm. Epochs of Core i processors.
Step forward and zero back. First Generation Core i7
Already in November 2008, Intel introduced the new Nehalem architecture, which marked the release of the first processors from the Core i series, which is well known to every user today. Unlike the well-known Core 2 Duo, the Nehalem architecture initially provided for four physical cores on a single chip, as well as a number of architectural features known to us from technical innovations from AMD — an integrated memory controller, a shared third-level cache, and QPI- interface that replaces HyperTransport.
Intel Core i7-970 microprocessor die
With the memory controller moved under the processor cover, Intel was forced to rebuild the entire cache structure, reducing the L2 cache size in favor of the combined L3, 8 MB in size. However, this step made it possible to significantly reduce the number of requests, and reducing the L2 cache to 256 KB per core turned out to be an effective solution in terms of speed with multi-threaded calculations, where the main part of the load was addressed to the shared L3 cache.
In addition to cache restructuring, Intel took a step forward in Nehalem, providing processors with support for DDR3 at 800 and 1066 MHz (however, the first standards were far from limiting for these processors), and getting rid of DDR2 support, unlike AMD, which used the principle of backward compatibility in Phenom II processors available on both AM2+ and new AM3 sockets. The memory controller itself in Nehalem could work in one of three modes with the expectation of one, two or three memory channels for 64, 128 or 192-bit bus, respectively, due to which motherboard manufacturers placed up to 6 DIMM DDR3 memory slots on the PCB. As for the QPI interface, it replaced the already outdated FSB bus, at least doubling the platform’s bandwidth, which was a particularly good decision in terms of increasing memory frequency requirements.
The almost forgotten Hyper-Threading returned to Nehalem, endowing four powerful physical cores with eight virtual threads, and giving rise to «the same SMT».
In fact, HT was implemented in the Pentium, but since then Intel has not remembered it until now.
Hyper-Threading Technology
Another technical feature of the first generation Core i was the native frequency of the cache and memory controllers, the setting of which included changing the necessary parameters in the BIOS — Intel recommended doubling the memory frequency for optimal performance, but even this a trifle could become a problem for some users, especially when overclocking the QPI bus (aka the BCLK bus), because only the unthinkably expensive flagship of the i7-9 line received an unlocked multiplier65 with an Extreme Edition, and 940 and 920 had a fixed frequency with a multiplier of 22 and 20, respectively.
Nehalem has become bigger both physically (the size of the processor compared to the Core 2 Duo has slightly increased due to the transfer of the memory controller under the cover) and virtually.
Comparison of processor sizes passport values of 130 watts.
True, in many cases this limit could be slightly pushed back by changing the BIOS settings, getting an additional 100-200 MHz.
In summary, the Nehalem architecture had a lot to offer — a significant power boost over Core 2 Duo, multi-threaded performance, powerful cores, and support for the latest standards.
One misunderstanding is connected with the first generation i7, namely, the presence of two sockets LGA1366 and LGA1156 with the same (at first glance) Core i7. However, the two chipsets were driven not by the whim of a greedy corporation, but by the move to the Lynnfield architecture, the next step in the development of the Core i processor line.
As for the competition from AMD, the red giant was in no hurry to switch to a new revolutionary architecture, in a hurry to keep up with the pace of Intel. Using the good old K10, the company released Phenom II, which was a transition to the 45nm process of the first generation Phenom without any significant architectural changes.
Due to the reduction in die area, AMD was able to use the extra space to accommodate an impressive L3 cache, which in its structure (as well as the overall layout of the elements on the chip) roughly corresponds to Intel’s developments with Nehalem, but has a number of disadvantages due to the desire for economy and backward compatible with the rapidly aging AM2 platform.
After fixing the bugs in Cool’n’Quiet, which was practically non-functional in the first generation of Phenom, AMD released two revisions of Phenom II, the first of which was addressed to users on older chipsets from the AM2 generation, and the second to the updated AM3 platform with memory support DDR3. It was the desire to keep support for new processors on old motherboards that played a cruel joke with AMD (which, however, will be repeated in the future) — due to the platform features in the form of a slow northbridge, the new Phenom II X4 could not work at the expected uncore bus frequency (memory controller and L3 cache), losing some more performance in the first revision.
However, the Phenom II is affordable and powerful enough to match Intel’s previous generation, namely the Core 2 Quad. Of course, this only meant that AMD was not ready to compete with Nehalem. At all.
And then came Westmere…
Westmere. Cheaper than AMD, faster than Nehalem
The advantages of the Phenom II, presented by the red giant as a budget alternative to the Q9400, lay in two things. The first is the obvious compatibility with the AM2 platform, which was acquired by many fans of low-cost computers during the release of the first generation Phenom. The second is a delicious price that no expensive i7 9 could argue with.xx, nor the more affordable (but already unprofitable) processors of the Core 2 Quad series. AMD was betting on accessibility for the widest range of users, inexperienced gamers and budget-conscious professionals, but Intel already had a plan for how to beat all the cards of the red chipmaker with one hand.
It was based on Westmere, the next architectural step in the development of Nehalem (Bloomfield core), which has proven itself among enthusiasts and those who prefer to take the best. This time, Intel abandoned expensive integrated solutions — a new logic set based on the LGA1156 socket lost its QPI controller, received an architecturally simplified DMI, acquired a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller, and also once again redirected part of the functions under the processor cover — this time it became PCI controller.
Although visually the new Core i7-8xx and Core i5-750 are identical in size to the Core 2 Quad, the move to 32nm makes the die even larger than Nehalem’s — sacrificing extra QPI outputs and combining the block standard I / O ports, Intel engineers integrated a PCI controller that occupies 25% of the chip area and was designed to minimize delays in working with the GPU, because an additional 16 PCI lanes were never superfluous.
Westmere also improved the Turbo mode, built on the principle of «more cores — less frequency» used by Intel until now.
According to the logic of engineers, the limit is 95 W (namely, this is how much the updated flagship was supposed to consume) was not always achieved in the past due to the emphasis on overclocking all cores in any situation. The updated mode allowed the use of «smart» overclocking, dosing frequencies in such a way that when using one core, the rest were turned off, freeing up additional power to overclock the involved core. In such a simple way, it turned out that when overclocking one core, the user reached the maximum clock frequency, when overclocking two — already less, and when overclocking all four — negligible. In this way, Intel ensured maximum performance in most games and applications using one or two threads, while maintaining energy efficiency that AMD could only dream of then.
The Power Control Unit, which is responsible for distributing power between cores and other modules on a chip, has also been significantly improved. Through process improvements and material engineering, Intel was able to create a near-perfect system in which the processor, being in an idle state, is able to consume almost no power AT ALL.
It is noteworthy that the achievement of such a result is not associated with architectural changes — the PSU controller unit migrated under the Westmere cover without any changes, and only the increased requirements for materials and overall quality made it possible to reduce leakage currents from disabled cores to zero (or almost to zero). processor and related modules in the idle state.
By exchanging a three-channel memory controller for a dual-channel one, Westmere could lose some performance, but thanks to the increased memory frequency (1066 for the mainstream Nehalem, and 1333 for the hero of this part of the article), the new i7 not only did not lose performance, but in some moments turned out to be faster Nehalem processors. Even in applications that don’t use all four cores, the i7 870 is nearly identical to its big brother thanks to the DDR3 clock advantage.
The gaming performance of the updated i7 was almost identical to the best solution of the previous generation — i7 975, which cost twice as much.
At the same time, the younger solution was balancing on the verge of Phenom II X4 965 BE, sometimes confidently outperforming it, and sometimes only slightly.
But the price was exactly the issue that confused all Intel fans — and the solution in the form of an incredible $ 199 for the Core i5 750 suited everyone perfectly. Yes, there was no SMT mode here, but powerful cores and excellent performance made it possible not only to bypass the flagship AMD processor, but also to do it much cheaper.
Dark times have come for the reds, but they had an ace up their sleeve — the next generation AMD FX processor was preparing for release. True, and Intel did not come unarmed.
The birth of a legend and a great battle. Sandy Bridge vs AMD FX
Looking back at the history of the relationship between the two giants, it becomes obvious that the period of 2010-2011 was associated with the most incredible expectations for AMD, and unexpectedly successful solutions for Intel.
Although both companies took risks by presenting completely new architectures, for the Reds, the announcement of the next generation could be fatal, while Intel, in general, had no doubts.
If Lynnfield was a massive bug fix, Sandy Bridge has taken the engineers back to the drawing board. The transition to 32 nm marked the creation of a monolithic basis, no longer similar to the split layout used in Nehalem, where two blocks of two cores divided the crystal into two parts, and the secondary modules were located on the sides. In the case of Sandy Bridge, Intel created a monolithic layout where the cores were located in a single block using a common L3 cache. The execution pipeline that forms the task pipeline was completely redesigned, and the high-speed ring bus ensured minimal delays when working with memory and, consequently, the highest performance in any tasks.
Intel Core i7-2600k microprocessor chip
Integrated graphics appeared under the cover, which occupies the same 20% of the chip in area — for the first time in many years, Intel decided to seriously deal with the integrated GPU.
And although by the standards of serious discrete cards, such a bonus is not something significant, the most modest Sandy Bridge graphics cards could well turn out to be unnecessary. But despite the 112 million transistors allocated for the graphics chip, in Sandy Bridge, Intel engineers relied on increasing core performance without increasing the die area, which at first glance is not an easy task — the third-generation crystal is only 2 mm2 larger than the Q9 once had000. Did Intel engineers manage to do the unbelievable? Now the answer seems obvious, but let’s keep the intrigue. We will return to this soon.
In addition to a completely new architecture, Sandy Bridge is also the largest line of processors in the history of Intel. If at the time of Lynnfield blue presented 18 models (11 for mobile PCs and 7 for desktops), now their range has increased to 29 (!) SKUs of all possible profiles. Desktop PCs received 8 of them at the release — from i3-2100 to i7-2600k. In other words, all market segments were covered.
The most affordable i3 was offered for $117, and the flagship cost $317, which was incredibly cheap by the standards of previous generations.
In marketing presentations, Intel called Sandy Bridge the «second generation of Core processors», although technically there were three such generations before it. The blues explained their logic by numbering the processors, in which the number after the designation i * was equated with the generation — this is the reason why many still believe that Nehalem was the only architecture of the first generation i7.
The first in the history of Intel Sandy Bridge received the naming of unlocked processors — the letter K in the model name, meaning a free multiplier (as AMD liked to do first in Black Edition processors, and then completely everywhere). But, as with the SMT, this luxury was only available at an additional cost and exclusively on a few models.
In addition to the classic line, Sandy Bridge also had processors with T and S subscripts, aimed at computer assemblers and portable systems.
Previously, Intel did not seriously consider this segment.
With changes to the multiplier and BCLK bus, Intel blocked the overclocking of Sandy Bridge models without the K index, thus covering up a loophole that worked perfectly in Nehalem. A separate difficulty for users was the “limited overclocking” system, which allowed setting the Turbo frequency value for a processor devoid of the charms of an unlocked model. The principle of overclocking out of the box has remained unchanged with Lynnfield — when using one core, the system gives out the maximum available (including cooling) frequency, and if the processor is fully loaded, then overclocking will be significantly lower, but for all cores.
Manual overclocking of unlocked models, on the contrary, went down in history thanks to the numbers that Sandy Bridge allowed to achieve even when paired with the simplest bundled cooler. 4.5 GHz without spending on cooling? No one has jumped so high before. Not to mention that even 5GHz was already achievable in terms of overclocking with adequate cooling.
Along with architectural innovations, Sandy Bridge was accompanied by technical innovations — a new LGA1155 platform equipped with SATA 6 Gb / s support, the appearance of a UEFI interface for BIOS, and other pleasant little things. The updated platform received native support for HDMI 1.4a, Blu-Ray 3D and DTS HD-MA, thanks to which, unlike desktop solutions based on Westmere (Clarkdale core), Sandy Bridge did not experience unpleasant difficulties when outputting video to modern TVs and playing movies at a frequency of 24 frames, which undoubtedly pleased fans of home theaters.
However, things were even better from a software point of view, because it was with the release of Sandy Bridge that Intel introduced their well-known video decoding technology with CPU resources — Quick Sync, which proved to be the best solution when working with video. The gaming performance of Intel HD Graphics, of course, did not allow us to say that the need for video cards is now in the past, however, Intel itself rightly noted that for a GPU costing $ 50 or less, their graphics chip could become a serious competitor, which was not far true — at the time of release, Intel was demonstrating the performance of the 2500k graphics core on par with the HD5450, the most affordable AMD Radeon graphics card.
Intel Core i5 2500k is perhaps the most popular processor. This is not surprising, because thanks to the unlocked multiplier, solder under the cover and a small amount of heat, it has become a real legend among overclockers.
Sandy Bridge’s gaming performance re-emphasized the trend set by Intel in the previous generation to offer the user performance on par with the best $999 Nehalem solutions. And the blue giant succeeded — for a modest amount of just over $ 300, the user received performance comparable to the i7 980X, which six months ago seemed unthinkable. Yes, the third (or second?) generation of Core processors did not conquer the new horizons of performance, as was the case with Nehalem, but a significant reduction in the cost of the cherished top solutions made it possible to become a truly «popular» choice.
Intel Core i5-2500k
It seems that the time has come for AMD to debut with their new architecture, but it took a little longer to wait for the real competitor to appear — with the triumphant release of Sandy Bridge, only a slightly expanded Phenom II line was present in the arsenal of the red giant , supplemented by solutions based on Thuban cores — the notorious six-core processors X6 1055 and 1090T.
These processors, despite minor architectural changes, could only boast of the return of Turbo Core technology, in which the principle of overclocking the cores again returned to the individual tuning of each of them, as it was in the original Phenom. Thanks to this flexibility, both the most economical mode of operation (with a drop in the core frequency in idle mode to 800 MHz) and an aggressive performance profile (overclocking the cores by 500 MHz above the factory frequency) became possible. Otherwise, Thuban was no different from the younger brothers in the series, and its two additional cores served more as an AMD marketing chip, offering more cores for less money.
Alas, more cores did not mean better performance — in gaming tests, the X6 1090T aspired to the level of the younger Clarkdale, only in some cases challenging the performance of the i5 750. Low performance per core, 125 watts of power consumption and other classic shortcomings of the Phenom II architecture , still at 45 nm, did not allow the reds to impose stiff competition on the first generation Core and its updated brothers.
And with the release of Sandy Bridge, the relevance of the X6 has actually faded away, remaining interesting only for a narrow circle of professional fan users.
AMD’s loud response to new products from Intel followed only in 2011, when a new line of AMD FX processors based on the Bulldozer architecture was introduced. Remembering the most successful series of its processors, AMD did not become modest, and once again emphasized the incredible ambitions and plans for the future — the new generation promised, as before, more cores for the desktop market, innovative architecture, and, of course, incredible performance in price-to-performance categories.
From an architectural point of view, Bulldozer looked bold — the modular layout of the cores in four blocks on a shared L3 cache in ideal conditions was designed to provide optimal performance in multi-threaded tasks and applications, however, due to the desire to maintain compatibility with AMD’s rapidly aging AM2 platform decided to keep the northbridge controller under the processor cover, creating for themselves one of the most important problems for the coming years.
Crystal Bulldozer
Despite 4 physical cores, Bulldozer processors were offered to users as eight-core — this was due to the presence of two logical cores in each computing unit. Each of them boasted its own massive 2 MB L2 cache, decoder, 256 KB instruction buffer and floating point unit. Such a division of functional parts made it possible to provide data processing in eight threads, emphasizing the emphasis of the new architecture on the foreseeable future. Bulldozer received support for SSE4.2 and AESNI, and one FPU unit per physical core became capable of executing 256-bit AVX instructions.
Unfortunately for AMD, Intel has already introduced Sandy Bridge, so the requirements for the processor part have seriously increased. At a price well below the X6 1090T, the average user could purchase the brilliant i5 2500k for performance on par with the best of the previous generation, and the Reds needed to do the same. Alas, the realities of the times of the release had their own opinion on this matter.
Already 6 cores of the older Phenom II were half free in most cases, let alone eight AMD FX threads — due to the specifics of the vast majority of games and applications that use 1-2 threads, sometimes up to 4 threads, the novelty of the red camp turned out to be only slightly faster than the previous Phenom II, losing hopelessly 2500k. Despite some advantage in professional tasks (for example, data archiving), the flagship FX-8150 turned out to be of no interest to the consumer, already blinded by the power of the i5 2500k. There was no revolution, and history did not repeat itself. It is worth mentioning the built-in synthetic WinRAR test, which was multi-threaded, while in real work the archiver fully used only two threads.
Another bridge. Ivy Bridge or while waiting
AMD’s example was indicative in many ways, but first of all, it emphasized the need to create some kind of basis on which to build a successful (in all respects) processor architecture.
This is how AMD became the best of the best in the K7/K8 era, and it is thanks to the same postulates that Intel took their place with the release of Sandy Bridge.
Architectural refinements turned out to be useless when blue had a win-win combination — powerful cores, moderate TDP and a well-established platform format on a ring bus, incredibly fast and efficient for any task. Now all that remained was to build on the success by using everything that was before — and that was the success of the transitional Ivy Bridge, the third (according to Intel) generation of Core processors.
Perhaps the most significant change in terms of architecture was Intel’s move to 22nm — not a leap, but a sure step towards a smaller die size, which again turned out to be smaller than its predecessor. By the way, the die size of the AMD FX-8150 processor with the old 32 nm process technology was 315 mm2, while the size of the Intel Core i5-3570 processor was more than twice as small: 133 mm2.
This time, Intel has once again bet on on-board graphics, and allotted more space for it on the chip — though only a little more. The rest of the crystal topology has not changed — all the same four blocks of cores with a common L3 cache block, a memory controller and a system I / O controller. It can be said that the scheme looks frighteningly identical, but this was the essence of the Ivy Bridge platform — to keep the best of Sandy, while adding pluses to the common piggy bank.
Ivy Bridge die
By switching to a thinner process technology, Intel was able to reduce the overall power consumption of the processors to 77 watts, from 95 in the previous generation. Nevertheless, hopes for even more outstanding results in overclocking did not come true — due to the capricious nature of Ivy Bridge, reaching high frequencies required more voltages than in the case of Sandy, so there was no particular hurry to set records on this family of processors.
Also, not the best role for overclocking was played by the replacement of the thermal interface between the thermal distribution cover of the processor and its crystal from solder to thermal paste.
Fortunately for the owners of the previous generation of Core, the socket has not changed, and the new processor could be easily installed in the old motherboard. However, the new chipsets offered such frills as USB 3.0 support, so users who follow technological innovations must have rushed to purchase a new board based on the Z-chipset.
The overall performance of Ivy Bridge hasn’t grown so much to call it another revolution, but rather consistently. In professional tasks, the 3770k showed results comparable to professional X-series processors, and in games it outperformed the former favorites 2600k and 2700k by about 10%. Some will consider this insufficient for an upgrade, but Sandy Bridge is considered one of the longest-running processor families in history for a reason.
Finally, even the most economical PC gaming users could feel at the forefront — Intel HD Graphics 4000 was significantly faster than the previous generation, showing an average increase of 30-40%, and also received support for DirectX 11. Now you can play popular games on medium-low settings, getting good performance.
Summing up, Ivy Bridge was a nice addition to the Intel family, avoiding all sorts of risks from architectural excesses, and following the tick-tock principle that the blues did not deviate from at all. The Reds, on the other hand, made an attempt to carry out large-scale work on the errors in the form of Piledriver — a new generation in the old guise.
The outdated 32nm didn’t allow AMD to make another revolution, so Piledriver was called upon to correct the shortcomings of Bulldozer by paying attention to the weakest sides of the AMD FX architecture. The Zambezi cores replaced Vishera, which included some improvements from solutions based on Triniti, the mobile processors of the red giant, but the TDP remained unchanged — 125 W for the flagship model with the 8350 index.
Structurally, it was identical to its older brother, however, architectural improvements and an increase in frequency by 400 MHz allowed to catch up.
AMD promotional slides on the eve of the release of Bulldozer promised fans of the brand 10-15% performance increase from generation to generation, but the release of Sandy Bridge and a huge leap forward did not allow us to call these promises too ambitious — now Ivy Bridge was already on the shelves, pushing the upper limit of the performance threshold even further. In order not to make a mistake again, AMD introduced Vishera as an alternative to the budget part of the Ivy Bridge line — 8350 was opposed to the i5-3570K, which was due not only to the caution of the reds, but also to the company’s pricing policy. The flagship Piledriver became available to the public for 19$ 9, which made it cheaper than a potential competitor — however, it was definitely impossible to say the same about performance.
Professional tasks became the most striking place for the FX-8350 to reveal its potential — the cores worked as fast as possible, and in some cases the new product from AMD was even ahead of the 3770k, but where most users were looking (gaming performance), the processor showed results similar to i7 -920 and not too far behind 2500k at best.
However, this state of affairs did not surprise anyone — the 8350 was 20% more productive than the 8150 in the same tasks, while the TDP remained unchanged. Work on the bugs was a success — albeit not as brightly as many would like.
The AMD FX 8370 overclocking world record was achieved by Finnish overclocker The Stilt in August 2014. He managed to overclock the crystal to 8722.78 MHz.
Haswell: Too good to be true again
The architectural path of Intel, as you can already see, has found its golden mean — to adhere to the proven scheme in building a successful architecture, doing improvements in relation to all aspects. Sandy Bridge pioneered an efficient architecture based on a ring bus and a combined block of cores, Ivy Bridge refined it in terms of stuffing and power, and Haswell became a kind of continuation of its predecessor, promising new standards of quality and performance.
Intel’s architectural presentation slides gently hinted that the architecture would remain unchanged.
Improvements touched only on some details in the optimization format — new ports were added for the task manager, the L1 and L2 cache was optimized, as well as the TLB buffer in the latter. It is impossible not to note the refinement of the PCB controller, which is responsible for the operation of the process in various modes and associated power costs. Simply put, at rest, Haswell has become much more economical than Ivy Bridge, but there was no talk of a general reduction in TDP.
Advanced motherboards with support for high-speed DDR3 modules provided enthusiasts with some joy, but from the point of view of overclocking, everything turned out to be sad — Haswell’s results were even worse than the previous generation, and this was largely due to the transition to other thermal interfaces, which are not mentioned now Only lazy people joke. Integrated graphics also received performance gains (due to the increasing emphasis on the world of portable laptops), but against the background of the lack of visible growth in IPC, Haswell was dubbed «Hasfail» for a measly 5-10% performance increase compared to the previous generation.
This, coupled with production problems, has led to the fact that Broadwell — the next generation of Intel — has become a practically non-existent myth, because its release on mobile platforms and a pause for a whole year negatively affected the overall perception of users. In order to at least somehow correct the situation, Intel released Haswell Refresh, also known as Devil Canyon — however, its whole essence was to increase the base frequencies of Haswell processors (4770k and 4670k), so we will not devote a separate section to it.
Broadwell-H: Even more economical, even faster
A long pause in the release of Broadwell-H was due to the difficulties associated with the transition to a new process technology, however, if you delve into the architectural analysis, it becomes clear that the performance of Intel processors has reached a level unattainable by competitors from AMD. But that doesn’t mean the Reds were wasting their time — thanks to their investment in APUs, Kaveri-based solutions were in high demand, and the older models of the A8 series could easily outperform any integrated graphics from the Blues.
Apparently, this state of affairs did not suit Intel at all — and therefore the Iris Pro graphics core occupied a special place in the Broadwell-H architecture.
Coupled with the move to 14nm, the Broadwell-H die size is effectively the same — but the more compact package allows for even more focus on increasing graphics power. In the end, it was on laptops and multimedia centers that Broadwell found its first home, so innovations such as support for HEVC (H.265) and VP9 hardware decoding look more than reasonable.
Chip of Intel Core i7-5775C microprocessor
The eDRAM chip deserves special mention. The performance of which made it possible to count on a serious step forward in professional tasks that are especially sensitive to the speed of processing cached data. The eDRAM controller has taken its place on the main processor chip — engineers have replaced the space that has become free after the transition to a new process technology.
eDRAM has also been integrated to speed up the onboard graphics, acting as a fast frame cache — with a capacity of 128 MB, its capabilities can greatly simplify the work of the onboard GPU.
In fact, it was in honor of the eDRAM-crystal that the letter C joined the name of the processor — Intel called the technology for high-speed data caching on a chip Crystal Wall.
The frequency characteristics of the novelty, oddly enough, have become much more modest than Haswell — the older 5775 had a base frequency of 3.3 GHz, but at the same time it could boast of an unlocked multiplier. With a decrease in frequencies, the TDP also decreased — now it was only 65 W, which is perhaps the best achievement for a processor of this level, because the performance remained unchanged.
Despite the modest (by Sandy Bridge standards) overclocking potential, Broadwell-H surprised with its energy efficiency, being the most economical and coolest among competitors, and the on-board graphics outperformed even solutions from the AMD A10 family, showing that the bet on the graphics core under the cover was justified .
It is important to remember that Broadwell-H turned out to be so intermediate that six months later, processors based on the Skylake architecture were introduced, which became the sixth generation in the Core family.
Skylake — The time for revolutions is long past
Oddly enough, many generations have passed since Sandy Bridge, but none of them could shock the public with something incredible and innovative, with the possible exception of Broadwell-H — but there it was more about an unprecedented leap in the graphic part and its performance (compared to AMD’s APUs) rather than huge performance breakthroughs. The days of Nehalem are certainly gone and will never return, but Intel continued to move forward in small steps.
Architecturally, Skylake was re-arranged, and the horizontal arrangement of computing units was replaced by the classic square layout, in which the cores are separated by a shared-LLC cache, and a productive graphics core is located on the left.
Intel Core i7-6700k chip
Due to technical issues, the eDRAM controller is now located in the I/O control unit area as an addition to the image output control module in order to ensure the best image transmission quality from the integrated graphics kernels.
The built-in voltage regulator used in Haswell disappeared from under the cover, the DMI bus was updated, and thanks to the principle of backward compatibility, Skylake processors supported both DDR4 and DDR3 memory — a new SO-DIMM DDR3L standard was developed for them, operating at low voltages .
At the same time, one cannot help but notice how much attention Intel pays to advertising the next generation of on-board graphics — in the case of Skylake, it was already the sixth in the blue line. Intel is especially proud of the performance boost, which was especially indicative in the case of Broadwell, but this time it promises especially economical gamers the highest level of performance and support for all modern APIs, including DirectX 12. The graphics subsystem is part of the so-called System on Chip (SOC ), which Intel also actively promoted as an example of a successful architectural solution. But if you remember that the integrated voltage controller has disappeared, and the power subsystem relies entirely on the motherboard’s VRM, of course, Skylake has not yet reached a full-fledged SOC.
There is no question of integrating the south bridge chip under the cover at all.
However, the SOC plays the role of an intermediary here, a kind of «bridge» between the Gen9 graphics chip, processor cores and the system I / O controller, which is responsible for the interaction of components with the processor and data processing. At the same time, Intel put a significant emphasis on energy efficiency and a lot of measures taken by Intel in the fight to consume fewer watts — Skylake provides various «power gates» (let’s call them power states) for each section of the SOC, including a high-speed ring bus, graphics subsystem and media controller. The former P-state based processor phase power control system has evolved into Speed Shift technology, which provides both dynamic switching between different phases (for example, when waking up from sleep mode during active work or starting a heavy game after light surfing) and power cost balancing between active CPUs to achieve the highest efficiency within TDP.
Due to a redesign related to the disappearance of the power controller, Intel was forced to port Skylake to the new LGA1151 socket, for which motherboards based on the Z170 chipset were released at the release, which received support for 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, one USB 3.1 Type A port , more USB 3.0 ports, support for eSATA and M2 drives. Support for DDR4 modules with a frequency of up to 3400 MHz was announced as memory.
As for the performance, the release of Skylake did not mark any shocks. The expected performance gain of five percent over Devil Canyon left many fans baffled, but it was also clear from Intel’s presentation slides that the main focus was on energy efficiency and flexibility of the new platform, which can be suitable for both economical micro-ITX systems and and for advanced gaming platforms. Users who were expecting a jump ahead of the Sandy Bridge Skylake level were disappointed, the situation was reminiscent of the release of Haswell, and the release of a new socket was additionally upset.
Now it’s time to hope for Kaby Lake, because someone, and he was supposed to be the one …
Kaby Lake. Fresh lake and unexpected redness
Despite the initial logic of the tick-tock strategy, Intel, realizing the absence of any competition from AMD, decided to expand each cycle to three stages, in which, after the introduction of the new architecture, the existing solution under a new name is being finalized for the next two years. Broadwell became a 14 nm step, followed by Skylake, and Kaby Lake, respectively, was designed to show the most advanced technological level in comparison with the previous Nebesnozersky.
The main difference between Kaby Lake and Skylake was the increase in frequencies by 200-300 MHz — both in terms of base frequency and boost. Architecturally, the new generation did not receive any changes — even the integrated graphics, despite the labeling update, remained the same, but Intel released a logic set based on the new Z270, in which 4 PCI-E 3.
0 lanes were added to the functionality of the previous Sunrise Point, as well as support for Intel technology Optane Memory for the giant’s advanced devices. Independent multipliers for board components and other features of the previous platform have been preserved, and multimedia applications have received the AVX Offset function, which allows you to reduce processor frequencies when processing AVX instructions to increase stability at high frequencies.
Intel Core i7-7700k microprocessor chip
In terms of performance, the new seventh-generation Core new products for the first time turned out to be almost identical to their predecessors — once again paying attention to power consumption optimization, Intel completely forgot about innovations in terms of IPC. However, unlike Skylake, the new product solved the problem of extreme heating during serious overclocking stages, and also made it feel almost like in the days of Sandy Bridge, overclocking the processor to 4.
8-4.9GHz at moderate power consumption and relatively low temperatures. In other words, overclocking has become easier, and the processor is 10-15 degrees cooler, which can be called the result of the very optimization, its final cycle.
No one could have guessed that AMD is already preparing a real answer to the long-term development of Intel. Its name is AMD Ryzen.
AMD Ryzen — When everyone laughed and no one believed
After the updated Bulldozer, Piledriver architecture was introduced in 2012, AMD completely moved into other areas of the processor market, releasing several successful APU lines, as well as other cost-effective and portable solutions. However, the company never forgot about the resumption of the struggle for a place under the sun on desktop computers, feigning infirmity, but at the same time working on the Zen architecture, a real new solution designed to revive the once-lost competitive spirit in the CPU market.
To develop the novelty, AMD resorted to the help of Jim Keller, the very “father of two cores”, whose work experience led the red giant to fame and recognition in the early 2000s. It was he, together with other engineers, who developed a new architecture designed to be fast, powerful and innovative. Unfortunately, everyone remembered that the Bulldozer was based on the same principles — a different approach was needed.
Jim Keller
And AMD took advantage of the marketing by announcing a 52% increase in IPC compared to the Excavator generation — the most recent cores all grown from the same Bulldozer. This meant that compared to the 8150, the Zen processors promised to be more than 60% faster, and this intrigued everyone. At first, AMD’s presentations focused only on professional tasks, comparing their new processor with 5930K, and later — with 6800K, but over time, the game side of the problem was also discussed — the most acute in terms of sales.
But even here AMD was ready to fight.
The Zen architecture is based on a new 14 nm process technology, and the architectural innovations are nothing like the modular architecture from 2011. Now there are two large functional blocks on the chip, called CCX (Core Complex), each of which can have up to four active nuclei. As in the case of Skylake, various system controllers are located on the crystal substrate, including 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, support for up to 4 USB 3.1 Type A ports, and a dual-channel DDR4 memory controller. Especially worth noting is the volume of the L3 cache — in flagship solutions, its volume reaches 16 MB. Each of the cores received its own floating point unit (FPU), which solved one of the main problems of the previous architecture. The consumption of processors has also radically decreased — for the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X it was designated at level 95W compared to 220W for the hottest (in every sense) AMD FX models.
AMD Ryzen 1800X microprocessor crystal
programs), Pure Power (essentially an analogue of the «intelligent» power management of the processor and its segments, implemented in Skylake), Neural Net Prediction (an algorithm that works on the principles of a self-learning neural network), as well as Extended Frequency Range (or XFR), designed to provide the user with advanced cooling systems an additional 100 MHz frequency.
For the first time since the Piledriver, it was not Turbo Core that was responsible for overclocking, but Precision Boost, an updated technology for increasing the frequency depending on the load on the cores. We have seen similar technology from Intel since the days of Sandy Bridge.
At the heart of the new Ryzen architecture is the Infinity Fabric bus, which is designed to interconnect both individual cores and two CCX units on a chip substrate. The high-speed interface was designed to provide the fastest possible interaction between cores and blocks, as well as be able to be implemented on other platforms — for example, on economical APUs and even on AMD VEGA graphics cards, where the bus paired with HBM2 memory should operate with a bandwidth of at least 512 Gb/s
Infinity Fabric
All this is due to the ambitious plans to expand the Zen line to high-performance platforms, servers and APUs — the unification of the production process, as always, leads to cheaper production, and low tempting prices have always been the prerogative of AMD.
At first, AMD introduced only Ryzen 7 — the older models of the line, aimed at the most picky users and media makers, and a few months later they were followed by Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3. It was Ryzen 5 that turned out to be the most attractive solutions in terms of both price and gaming performance, for which Intel, to put it bluntly, was not at all ready. And if at the first stage it seemed that Ryzen was destined to repeat the fate of Bulldozer (albeit with a lesser degree of drama), then over time it became clear that AMD managed to impose competition again.
The main problems with Ryzen were the technical nuances that accompanied the owners of early revisions during the first few months — due to problems with memory, Ryzen was in no hurry to recommend for purchase, and the dependence of processors on the frequency of RAM directly hinted at the need for additional expenses. However, timing-savvy users found that with high-speed memory modules set to the lowest timings, Ryzen was able to push even the 7700k, which caused quite a stir in the AMD fan camp.
But even without such frills, the processors of the Ryzen 5 family turned out to be so successful that the wave of their sales forced Intel to carry out an urgent revolution in its architecture. The response to AMD’s coup was the release of the latest (at the time of writing) Coffee Lake architecture, which received 6 cores instead of four.
Coffee Lake. The ice has broken
While the 7700k has long held the title of best gaming processor, AMD has been able to achieve incredible success in the mid-range of the line by implementing the age-old principle of “more cores, but cheaper”. The Ryzen 1600 had 6 cores and a whopping 12 threads, and the 7600k was still tied to 4 cores, giving AMD a simple marketing win, especially with the support of numerous reviewers and bloggers. Then Intel shifted the release schedule, and introduced Coffee Lake to the market — not just another couple of percent and a couple of watts, but a real step forward.
True, and here it was made with a reservation.
Six long-awaited cores, not without the joys of SMT, actually appeared on the basis of the same Skylake, built on 14 nm. In Kaby Lake, its base was tweaked, solving problems with overclocking and temperature, and in Coffee Lake it was finalized in the direction of increasing the number of core blocks by 2, and optimizing for colder and more stable operation. If we evaluate the architecture in terms of innovations, then no innovations (apart from an increase in the number of cores) appeared in Coffee Lake.
Intel Core i7-8700k microprocessor die
But there were technical limitations associated with the need for new motherboards based on the Z370. These restrictions are associated with the growth of power requirements, because the addition of six cores and the redesign of the system, taking into account the growth of the gluttony of the crystal, required raising the bar for the minimum supply voltage. As we remember from the history of Broadwell, Intel has been striving for the opposite in recent years — to reduce stress on all fronts, but now this strategy has come to a standstill.
Technically, the LGA1151 remained the same, however, due to the risks of damaging the VRM controller, Intel limited the compatibility of the processor with previous motherboards, thus protecting itself from possible scandals (as was the case with the RX480 and burned out PCI-E slots from AMD). The updated Z370 also did not support the previous DDR3L memory, but no one, in general, expected such compatibility.
Intel themselves were preparing an updated version of the platform with support for USB 3.1 of the second generation, SDXC memory cards and an integrated Wi-Fi 802.11 controller, so the release rush with the Z370 turned out to be one of those incidents that allowed us to draw conclusions about the appearance of the platform. However, there were plenty of surprises in Coffee Lake — and a special part of them was focused on overclocking.
Intel paid a lot of attention to it, emphasizing the work done on optimizing the overclocking process — for example, in Coffee Lake it became possible to configure several presets for stepwise overclocking for different core loading conditions, the ability to dynamically change memory timings without leaving the operating system, support for any , even the most impossible DDR4 multipliers (support for frequencies up to 8400 MHz is declared), as well as an enhanced power supply system designed for maximum loads.
Nevertheless, in fact, overclocking 8700k was far from the most incredible — due to the impracticality of the thermal interface used, without delidding, the processor was often limited to 4.7-4.8 GHz, reaching extreme temperatures, but with a change in interface it could show new records in the style of 5.2 or even 5.3 GHz. However, the vast majority of users were not interested in this, so the overclocking potential of the six-core Coffee Lake can be called restrained. Yes, yes, Sandy has not been forgotten yet.
The gaming performance of Coffee Lake did not show any special miracles — despite the appearance of two physical cores and four threads, the 8700k at the time of release had only about the same 5-10% performance step over the previous flagship. Yes, Ryzen could not compete with him in the gaming niche, but in terms of architectural improvements, it turns out that Coffee Lake is just another protracted «current», but not a «tick» like Sandy Bridge was in 2011.
Fortunately for AMD fans, after the release of Ryzen, the company announced long-term plans for socket AM4 and the development of the Zen architecture until 2020 — and after Coffee Lake returned attention to the Intel mid-segment, it’s time for Ryzen 2 — after all , and AMD must have its own «current».
The brutal truth
We wouldn’t see Intel as it is today if it didn’t use unfair competition to promote its products. For example, in May 2009, the company was fined a hefty $1.5 billion by the European Commission for bribing a PC maker and a trading firm for choosing Intel processors. Intel management then said that neither users who could buy computers at a lower price nor justice would benefit from the decision to file a lawsuit.
Intel also has an older and more effective method of competition. By including the CPUID instruction for the first time, starting with the i486 processors, by creating and distributing its own free compiler, Intel ensured success for many years to come. Such a compiler generates optimal code for Intel processors and mediocre code for all other processors. Thus, even a technically powerful processor from competitors «passed» through non-optimal program branching. This reduced the overall performance in the application and did not allow showing an approximately equal level of performance with an Intel processor of similar characteristics.
Under such conditions, VIA could not stand the competition, sharply reducing the sale of processors. Its energy-efficient Nano processor gave way to the then-new Intel Atom processor. Everything would be fine if one technically literate researcher Agner Fog failed to change the CPUID on the Nano processor. As expected, productivity increased and exceeded that of the competitor. But the news did not produce the effect of an information bomb.
The competition with AMD (the world’s second largest manufacturer of x86 / x64 microprocessors) also did not go smoothly for the latter; in 2008, due to financial problems, AMD had to part with its own manufacturer of semiconductor integrated circuits, GlobalFoundries. AMD, in the fight against Intel, bet on multi-core, offering affordable processors with multiple cores, at a time when Intel in this category of products could respond with processors with fewer cores, but with Hyper-Threading technology.
For many years, Intel has been gaining market share in mobile and desktop processors, driving out a competitor.
The server market of processors is already almost completely captured. And only recently the situation began to change. The release of AMD Ryzen processors forced Intel to change its main tactics of slightly increasing the operating frequencies of processors. Although the test packages helped Intel not to worry once again. So, for example, in SYSMark synthetic tests, the difference between the sixth and seventh generations of Core i7 desktop processors was disproportionate to the increase in frequency with identical core characteristics.
But now Intel has also begun to increase the number of cores for desktop processors, and also partially rebranded existing processor models. This is a good step towards its consumers becoming technically literate.
2019 — Blue Point of No Return or Chiplet Revolution
Following the release of two highly successful generations of Ryzen processors, AMD was ready to take an unprecedented step forward not only in terms of performance, but also in the latest manufacturing technologies — the transition to a 7nm process that provides a 25% increase in performance while maintaining the same thermal package, coupled with many architectural developments and optimizations made it possible to bring the AM4 platform to a new level, providing all owners of previous «folk» bundles with a painless upgrade with a preliminary BIOS update.
And the psychologically important mark of 4 GHz, which in many ways was a stumbling block on the way to fierce competition with Intel, worried enthusiasts in a different way — from the first rumors, many rightly noted that the frequency increase in the Ryzen 3000 family would hardly be more than 20 %, but no one could forbid dreaming about 5 GHz, which Intel flaunted. Fueled by interest and numerous «leaks», as well as full lines of processors and incredible details, many of which turned out to be quite far from the truth. But in fairness, it is worth noting that some leaks were quite consistent with the results seen — of course, with some reservations.
Technically, the architecture of Zen 2 has received a number of radical differences from its predecessor, which underlies the first two generations of Ryzen. The key difference was the layout of the processor, now consisting of three separate dies, two of which contain blocks of cores, and the third, more impressive in size, includes a block of controllers and communication channels (I / O).
Despite all the many advantages of the energy-efficient and advanced 7nm process, AMD could not help but face noticeably increasing production costs, because the 7nm process had not yet been tested and brought to ideal ratios of defective chips to clean ones. However, there was another reason — the general unification of production, allowing you to combine different production lines into one, and select crystals for both affordable Ryzen 5 and incredible EPYC. This cost-effective solution allowed AMD to keep its prices at the same level, and please fans with the release of Ryzen 3000.
Structural layout of chipsets
The division of the processor chip into three small segments made it possible to significantly advance in solving the most important tasks facing AMD engineers — reducing Infinity Fabric delays, delays in accessing the cache and data exchange from different CCX units. Now the cache size has at least doubled (32 MB L3 for 3600 versus 16 MB for last year’s 2600), the mechanisms for working with it have been optimized, and the Infinity Fabric frequency has its own FCLK multiplier, which allows using RAM up to 3733 MHz with an optimal result.
(delays in this case did not exceed 65-70 nanoseconds). However, Ryzen 3000 is still sensitive to memory timings, and expensive low-latency sticks can give owners of new gems up to 30% or more performance gains — especially in certain scenarios and games.
The thermal package of the processors remained the same, but the frequencies increased as expected — from 4.2 in the 3600 boost to 4.7 in the 3950X. After entering the market, many users faced the problem of «malaise», when the processor did not show the frequencies declared by the manufacturer even under ideal conditions — the «red» had to implement a special BIOS revision (1.0.0.3ABBA), in which the problem was successfully fixed, and a month ago global 1.0.0.4 was released, containing more than one and a half hundred fixes and optimizations — for some users, after the update, the processor frequency increased up to 75 MHz, and the standard voltages decreased significantly. However, this did not affect the overclocking potential in any way — the Ryzen 3000, like its predecessors, works great out of the box, and is not able to offer overclocking potential beyond symbolic increases — this makes it boring for enthusiasts, but it pleases those who don’t for which gingerbread does not want to touch the settings in the BIOS.
Zen 2 received a significant increase in performance per core (up to 15% in various applications), allowed AMD to seriously increase capacity in all market segments, and for the first time in decades turn the tide in its favor. What made this possible? Let’s take a closer look.
Ryzen 3 — Tech Fantasy
Many who followed the leaks regarding the Zen 2 generation were especially interested in the new Ryzen 3. The affordable processors were promised 6 cores, powerful integrated graphics and a ridiculous price. Unfortunately, the expected successors to Ryzen 3, which AMD equipped the lower segment of its platform in 2017, never saw the light of day. Instead, the Reds continued to use the Ryzen 3 brand as a low-end brand that included two cost-effective and simple APU format solutions — a slightly overclocked (compared to its predecessor) 3200G with integrated Vega 8 graphics that can handle base system loads. and games at 720p resolution, as well as its older brother 3400G, which received a faster video core with Vega 11 graphics, as well as active SMT + frequency growth on all fronts.
Such a solution could already be enough for simple games in 1080p, but these entry-level solutions are mentioned here not for this reason, but because of the discrepancy with the leaks that prophesied Ryzen 3 not only 6 cores, but also maintaining a ridiculous price (around $120-150 ). However, one should not forget about the real status of APUs — they still use Zen + cores, and in fact they are representatives of the 3000 series only formally.
However, if we talk about the value of the new generation as a whole, here AMD made sure to secure the undisputed leader status in many segments — it was especially successful in the category of mid-range processors.
Ryzen 5 3600 — People’s Hero without reservation
One of the key features of the Zen 2 processor architecture was the transition from a classic single-chip layout to the creation of a “modular” design — AMD has implemented its own patent for “chips”, small chips with processor cores interconnected by an Infinity Fabric bus.
Thus, the «red» not only entered the market with a new batch of innovations, but also did serious work on one of the most acute problems of previous generations — high latencies both when working with memory and when exchanging data between cores from different CCX blocks.
And this introduction was by no means just like that — Ryzen 3600, the undisputed king of the mid-range segment, achieved an unconditional victory thanks to the innovations implemented by AMD in the new generation. A significant increase in performance per core and the ability to work with memory faster than 3200 MHz (which for the most part were the effective ceiling of the previous generation) made it possible to easily take and raise the bar to unprecedented heights, targeting not only the fastest i5-9600K, but also on the flagship i7-9700.
Against the background of its predecessor in the face of the Ryzen 2600, the newcomer acquired not only a lot of improvements in the field of architecture, but also a less ardent disposition (the 3600 heats up objectively less, because of which AMD was even able to save on the cooler by removing the copper core), a cool head and the ability not to be ashamed of shortcomings.
Why? It’s simple — the 3600 does not have them, although this seems absurd. Judge for yourself — the peak frequency has increased by 200 MHz, the passport 65 W has ceased to be conditional, and 6 cores have equaled (or even surpassed!) The current Intel cores in Coffee Lake. And all this was served to the fans for the classic $19.9, flavored with backwards compatibility sauce for most AM4 motherboards. The Ryzen 3600 was destined for success — and worldwide sales have shown this clearly for the third month in a row. In some regions that have been loyal to Intel since ancient times, the situation on the market changed overnight, and European countries (and even Russia!) brought a new national sales hero to the pinnacle of success. In the vastness of our homeland, the processor occupied 10% of the market of all CPU sales in the country, ahead of the i7-9700K and i9-9900K combined. And if it seems to someone that it’s all about a tasty price, then everything is not so simple: Ryzen 2600, for comparison, in the same period after entering the market took no more than 3%.
The secret of success was different — AMD beat Intel in the most crowded segment of the processor market, and declared this openly at the presentation during the debut of processors at CES2019. A delicious price, wide compatibility and a cooler in the kit only consolidated the already indisputable leadership.
So why was the older brother, 3600X, needed? Similar in all characteristics, this processor was faster by another 200 MHz (and had a boost frequency of 4.4 GHz), and allowed to get a truly symbolic advantage over the younger processor, which did not look quite convincing against the background of a significantly increased price ($229). Nevertheless, the older model still had some advantages — this was the absence of the need to turn the sliders in the BIOS in pursuit of frequencies above the base ones, and Precision Boost 2.0, which can dynamically overclock the processor in stressful situations, and a heavier cooler (Wraith Spire instead of Wraith Stealth). If all this sounds like a tempting proposition to you, the 3600X is a great gem in AMD’s new lineup.
If overpaying is not your option, and the performance difference of 2-3% does not look significant, feel free to choose 3600 — you will not regret it.
Ryzen 7 3700X — Old New Flagship
AMD prepared a replacement for the former leader without much pathos — everyone understood that against the background of current competitors, the 2700X looked rather poor, and a big step forward (as in the case of the 3600) was obvious and expected. Without changing the alignment of forces in terms of cores and threads, the «reds» introduced a pair of processors to the market, devoid of any special differences, but significantly different in price.
3700X was introduced as a direct replacement for the former flagship — for a suggested price of 329AMD introduced a full-fledged competitor for the i7-9700K, emphasizing each of its advantages, such as more advanced technology solutions and the presence of multi-threading, which Intel decided to leave only to its «royal» processors of the highest category.
At the same time, AMD introduced the 3800X, which, in fact, was only a slightly faster version (by 300 MHz in the base and 100 in the boost) version, and was unable to differ in any way from its younger relative. However, for people who still feel horror about the word «overclocking manually» this option looks pretty good, but for such little things you have to pay a lot — as much as $ 70 on top.
Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X — Power Show
However, the most important (and frankly, necessary!) Indicator of the success of Zen 2 was the older solutions from the Ryzen 9 family — the 12-core 3900X and the 16-core champion in the face of 3950X. These processors, stepping into the territory of HEDT solutions with one foot, remain true to the logic of the AM4 platform, having a huge reserve of resources that can surprise even fans of last year’s Threadripper.
3900X, of course, was intended primarily to complement the Ryzen 3000 line against the current gaming legend — 9900K, and in this regard, the processor turned out to be incredibly good.
With a boost of 4.5 GHz per core and 4.3 across all available, the 3900X has taken a significant step towards the long-awaited parity with Intel in gaming performance, and at the same time, terrifying power in any other task — rendering, computing, working with archives, etc. 24 threads allowed the 3900X to catch up with the younger Threadripper in pure performance, and at the same time not suffer from an acute shortage of power per core (as was the case with the 2700X) or a flaw in several core operating modes (and the notorious Game Mode, which disabled half the cores in AMD HEDT processors). ). AMD played without compromise, and while the crown of the fastest gaming processor still remains in the hands of Intel (which recently introduced 9900KS, released as a controversial limited edition processor for collectors), the Reds were able to present the most versatile high end stone on the market today. But not the most powerful — and all thanks to the 3950X.
3950X became a field for experiments for AMD — combining the resource capacities of HEDT and the title of «the world’s first 16-core gaming processor» can be called a pure adventure, but in fact the «reds» were almost not cunning.
The highest boost frequency in the form of 4.7 GHz (when loaded on 1 core), the ability to run all 16 cores at 4.4 GHz without exotic cooling, as well as selected higher-class chiplets that make the new monster even more economical than its 12-core counterpart due to for lowering operating voltages. True, the choice of cooling this time remains on the conscience of the buyer — AMD did not sell the processor with a cooler, limiting itself to only recommending the purchase of a 240 or 360 mm CBO.
In many cases, the 3950X delivers gaming performance on par with a 12-core solution, which is great enough considering the sad story of how Threadripper behaved. However, in games where the use of threads is significantly reduced (for example, in GTA V), the flagship is not pleasing to the eye — but this is more of an exception to the rule.
The new 16-core processor shows itself in a completely different way in professional tasks — no wonder many leaks said that AMD had shifted its focus in the consumer segment so much that the new 39The 50X feels confident even on expensive analogs like the i9-9960X, showing a huge increase in performance in Blender, POV Mark, Premiere and other resource-intensive applications.
The day before, Threadripper already promised a grand show of computing power, but even the 3950X showed that the consumer segment can be completely different — and even semi-professional. Recalling the achievements of the 16-core flagship of the AM4 platform, one cannot help but recall how Intel responded to attacks on HEDT.
Intel 10xxxX — Compromise on compromise
Even in anticipation of the release of the new generation of Threadripper, conflicting data appeared here and there about the upcoming HEDT line from Intel. In many ways, the confusion was related to the names of new products — after the release of rather controversial, but still fresh mobile processors of the Ice Lake line on a 10 nm process technology, many enthusiasts considered that Intel decided to promote products on the coveted 10 nm in small steps, occupying not the most numerous niches. From the point of view of the laptop market, the release of Ice Lake did not cause any special shocks — the blue giant has long controlled the mobile device market, and AMD has not yet been able to compete with the giant OEM machine and fat contracts of companies that have been closely cooperating with Intel since the early 2000s.
However, in the case of the high-performance systems segment, everything turned out quite differently.
We all know about the i9-99xxX line — after two generations of Threadripper, AMD has already boldly declared itself as a contender in the HEDT-systems market, but the market superiority of the blue ones remained unshakable. Unfortunately for Intel, the red ones did not stop at their past achievements — and already after the debut of Zen 2, it became clear that soon high-performance systems from AMD would greatly raise the performance bar, to which Intel was powerless to respond, because the blue giant has fundamentally new solutions it was not trite.
First of all, Intel had to take an unprecedented step — to reduce prices by 2 times, which has never happened before in the long years of rivalry with AMD. Now the flagship i9-10980XE with 18 cores on board cost only $979 instead of $1999 for its predecessor, and other solutions have lost comparable prices. However, many already knew what to expect from the two releases, and who would come out the winner, so Intel went to extreme measures, lifting the embargo on publishing reviews of new products 6 hours before the scheduled date.
And the reviews began to appear. Even the largest channels and resources were deeply disappointed with the new line — despite the radical change in pricing policy, the new 109xx line turned out to be a simple «work on the bugs» on the previous generation — the frequencies have changed slightly, additional PCI-E lines have appeared, and the heat pack has excellent overclocking potential did not leave even hardcore fans with large CBOs a chance — at the peak, the 10980X could consume over 500 W, showing off not only excellent performance in benchmarks, but also clearly demonstrating that there is simply nothing to squeeze more out of great-grandfather’s 14 nm.
The fact that the processors were compatible with the current HEDT platform of the previous generation did not save Intel either — the younger models of the new line lost out to the 3950X with a devastating score, leaving many Intel fans in bewilderment. But the worst was yet to come.
Threadripper 3000 — 3960X, 3970X.
Monsters of the world of computing.
Despite initial skepticism about the relatively small number of cores (24 and 32 cores did not make such a splash as doubling the cores in previous Threadripper once did), it was clear that AMD was not going to bring solutions to the market «for show» — a huge increase in performance for through numerous Zen 2 optimizations and a radical improvement in Infinity Fabric, it promised performance never before seen on a semi-professional platform — and it was not about 10-20%, but about something truly monstrous. And when the embargo was lifted, everyone saw that the huge prices for the new Threadripper were not taken out of thin air, and not from AMD’s desire to rip off fans.
In terms of economy, the Threadripper 3000 is a wallet apocalypse. Expensive processors migrated to a completely new, more technologically advanced and complex TRx40 platform, providing up to 88 PCI-e 4.0 lanes, and thus supporting complex RAID arrays from the latest SSDs or a bunch of professional video cards.
A quad-channel memory controller and an incredibly powerful power subsystem are designed not only for current models, but also for the future flagship of the line — 64-core 3990X, which promises to be released after the New Year.
But if the cost may seem like a big problem, but in terms of performance, AMD did not leave a stone unturned from Intel’s new products — in a number of applications, the presented Threadripper was twice as fast as the flagship 10980XE, and the average performance increase was about 70%. And this despite the fact that the appetites of the 3960X and 3970X are much more moderate — both processors consume no more than the passport 280 W, and with a maximum overclock of 4.3 GHz for all cores, they remain 20% more economical than the red-hot nightmare from Intel.
Thus, for the first time in history, AMD has managed to offer the market an uncompromising premium product that provides not only a huge increase in performance, but also does not have any significant drawbacks — except for the price, but, as they say, you have to pay extra for the best.
And Intel, absurd as it may seem, has turned into an economical alternative, which, however, does not look so confident against the background of the $750 3950X on a much more affordable platform.
Athlon 3000G — Save a penny
AMD hasn’t forgotten about the budget segment of low-power processors with formal graphics on board — the new (but also old) Athlon 3000G is in a hurry to help those who look at the Pentium G5400 with great contempt. 2 cores and 4 threads, 3.5 GHz base frequency and the familiar Vega 3 video core (twisted by 100 MHz) with a TDP of 35 W — and all this for a ridiculous $49. The «Reds» paid special attention to the possibility of overclocking the processor, providing at least 30% more performance at a frequency of 3.9GHz At the same time, you won’t have to spend money on an expensive cooler in a budget assembly — the 3000G comes with excellent cooling, designed for 65 W of heat — this is enough even for extreme overclocking.
At the presentations, AMD compared Athlon 3000G with Intel’s current competitor — Pentium G5400, which turned out to be much more expensive (recommended price — $73), is sold without a cooler, and is seriously inferior in performance to the new product. It’s also funny that the 3000G is not built on the Zen 2 architecture — it is based on the good old Zen + at 12 nm, which allows us to call the new product a light refresh of last year’s Athlon 2 GE.
Results of the «red» revolution
The release of Zen 2 had a tremendous impact on the processor market — perhaps such a radical change has never been in the modern history of the CPU. We can remember the victorious pace of AMD 64 FX, we can mention the triumph of Athlon in the middle of the last decade, but we are not able to draw an analogy from the past «red» giant, where everything changed so rapidly, and the successes were simply amazing. In just 2 years, AMD has managed to introduce incredibly powerful server solutions EPYC, received many lucrative contracts from global IT companies, returned to the game in the consumer segment of gaming processors with Ryzen, and even forced Intel out of the HEDT market with the help of the incomparable Threadripper.