The best processor for gaming Generations of Intel processors: description and characteristics of models

Almost every year, a new generation of Intel Xeon E5 CPUs enter the market. In each generation, the socket and technological process alternately change. There are more and more cores, and the heat dissipation is gradually decreasing. But a natural question arises: “What does the new architecture give to the end user?”

To do this, I decided to test the performance of similar processors of different generations. I decided to compare models of the mass segment: 8-core processors 2660, 2670, 2640V2, 2650V2, 2630V3 and 2620V4. Testing with such a generational spread is not entirely fair, because between V2 and V3 there is a different chipset, a new generation memory with a higher frequency, and most importantly - there are no direct peers in frequency among models of all 4 generations. But, in any case, this study will help to understand to what extent the performance of new processors has increased in real applications and synthetic tests.

The selected line of processors has many similar parameters: the same number of cores and threads, 20 MB SmartCache, 8 GT/s QPI (except 2640V2) and the number of PCI-E lanes is 40.

To assess the feasibility of testing all processors, I turned to the PassMark test results.

Below is a summary graph of the results:

Since the frequency is significantly different, it is not entirely correct to compare the results. But despite this, the conclusions immediately suggest themselves:

1. 2660 is equivalent in performance to 2620V4
2. 2670 outperforms 2620V4 (obviously due to frequency)
3. 2640V2 sags, and 2650V2 beats everyone (also due to frequency)

I divided the result by the frequency and got some performance value at 1 GHz:

Here the results are more interesting and visual:

1. 2660 and 2670 - an unexpected run for me within one generation, 2670 justifies only that its overall performance is very high
2. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - a very strange low result, which is worse than 2660
3. 2630V3 and 2620V4 - the only logical growth (apparently just due to the new architecture...)

After analyzing the result, I decided to weed out some of the uninteresting models that have no value for further testing:

1. 2640V2 and 2650V2 - an intermediate generation, and not very successful, in my opinion - I remove it from the candidates
2. 2630V3 is an excellent result, but it costs unreasonably more than 2620V4, given the similar performance and, moreover, this is already an outgoing generation of processors
3. 2620V4 - reasonable price (compared to 2630V3), high performance and, most importantly, this is the only model of the latest generation 8-core processor with Hyper-threading in our list, so we definitely leave it for further tests
4. 2660 and 2670 are excellent results compared to 2620V4. In my opinion, it is the comparison of the first and last (at the moment) generation in the Intel Xeon E5 line that is of particular interest. In addition, we still have sufficient stocks of first-generation processors in stock, so this comparison is very relevant for us.

The cost of servers based on 2660 and 2620V4 processors can differ by almost 2 times not in favor of the latter, therefore, by comparing their performance and choosing a server based on V1 processors, you can significantly reduce the budget for buying a new server. But I will talk about this proposal after the results of testing.

For testing, 3 stands were assembled:

1. 2 x Xeon E5-2660, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
2. 2 x Xeon E5-2670, 8 x 8Gb DDR3 ECC REG 1333, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb
3. 2 x Xeon E5-2620V4, 8 x 8Gb DDR4 ECC REG 2133, SSD Intel Enterprise 150Gb

PassMark PerformanceTest 9.0

When selecting processors for tests, I already used the results of synthetic tests, but now it is interesting to compare these models in more detail. The comparison was made in groups: the 1st generation against the 4th.

A more detailed test report allows us to draw some conclusions:

1. Mathematics, incl. and floating point, mainly depends on the frequency. The difference of 100 MHz allowed the 2660 to outperform the 2620V4 in computational operations, in encryption and compression (and this despite a significant difference in memory frequency)
2. Physics and calculations using extended instructions on the new architecture are performed better, despite the low frequency
3. And, of course, the test with the use of memory passed in favor of V4 processors, since in this case different generations of memory competed - DDR4 and DDR3.

It was synthetic. Let's see what specialized benchmarks and real applications will show.

7ZIP archiver

Here the results are in line with the previous test - a direct link to the processor frequency. At the same time, it doesn't matter that a slower memory is installed - V1 processors confidently take the lead in frequency.

CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH is a computer performance benchmark for MAXON Cinema 4D professional animation software.

Xeon E5-2670 pulled out in frequency and beat 2620V4. But the E5-2660, which has a less visible advantage in frequency, lost to the 4th generation processor. Hence the conclusion - this software uses useful additions of the new architecture (although perhaps it's all about memory ...), but not so much that it was a decisive factor.

3DS MAX + V-Ray

To evaluate the performance of processors when rendering in a real application, I took a bunch: 3ds Max 2016 + V-ray 3.4 + a real scene with several light sources, specular and transparent materials, and an environment map.

The results were similar to CINEBENCH: the Xeon E5-2670 had the lowest render time, while the 2660 couldn't beat the 2620V4.

1С: SQL/File

In conclusion of testing, I enclose the results of gilev tests for 1C.

When testing a database with file access, the E5-2620V4 processor confidently leads. The table shows the average values ​​of 20 runs of the same test. The difference between the results of each stand in the case of the file base was no more than 2%.

A single-threaded SQL database test showed some very strange results. The difference turned out to be negligible, given the different frequencies for 2660 and 2670, and the different frequencies for DDR3 and DDR4. There was an attempt to optimize the SQL settings, but the results turned out to be worse than it was, so I decided to test all the stands on the basic settings.

The results of the multi-threaded SQL test turned out to be even more strange and inconsistent. The maximum speed of 1 thread in MB/s was equivalent to the performance index in the previous single-threaded test.

The next parameter was the maximum speed (of all streams) - the result was almost identical for all stands. Since the results of different runs fluctuated greatly (+ -5%) - sometimes they were at different stands with a significant margin both in one direction and in the other. The same average multi-threaded SQL test results lead me to 3 thoughts:

1. This situation is caused by an unoptimized SQL configuration
2. SSD became the bottleneck of the system and did not allow processors to overclock
3. There is almost no difference between the frequency of memory and processors for these tasks (which is extremely unlikely)

Also, the result for the “Recommended number of users” parameter turned out to be inexplicable. The average result of the 2660 turned out to be the highest of all - and this is despite the low results of all tests.
I will also be glad to see your comments on this issue.

findings

The results of several comprehensive computational tests showed that the frequency of the processor in most cases turned out to be more important than the generation, architecture, and even memory frequency. Of course, there is modern software that uses all the improvements of the new architecture. For example, video transcoding is sometimes performed incl. using AVX2.0 instructions, but this is specialized software - and most server applications are still tied to the number and frequency of cores.

Of course, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no difference between processors, I just want to note that for certain applications there is no point in a "planned" transition to a new generation.

If you do not agree with me or you have suggestions for testing, the stands have not been dismantled yet, and I will be happy to test your tasks.

economic benefit

As I wrote at the beginning of the article, we offer a line of servers based on the first generation Xeon E5 processors, which are significantly more expensive than servers based on the E5-2620V4.
These are the same new servers (not to be confused with used ones) with a 3-year warranty.

Below is an approximate calculation.

This material will compare the processor products of two leading manufacturers of semiconductor chips: Intel vs AMD. Their current computing platforms will also be considered, their strengths and weaknesses will be indicated. Well, in addition to this, possible configurations of computers will be given.

The main current processor sockets x86

Today, each of the leading manufacturers of central processors has 2 actual processor sockets. Intel has:

socket LGA 2011-v3. This combo processor socket is oriented both to the assembly of high-performance personal computers for computer enthusiasts and servers. The key "chip" of this platform is the RAM controller, which can operate in 4-channel mode, and it is this important feature that provides processor products with unprecedented performance. It should also be noted that this platform does not use an integrated graphics subsystem. Only discrete graphics can unlock the potential of such high-performance chips, and it is precisely for the use of this class of computer components that the processor socket LGA 2011 - v3 is oriented.

socket LGA 1151. This computing platform allows you to organize both budget-level PCs and high-performance computing systems. In this case, the RAM controller can function as much as possible in 2-channel mode. Also, almost every central processor in the LGA 1151 is equipped with an integrated video card that will perfectly fit into an office or budget system unit. In terms of performance, this socket loses to the previously reviewed LGA 2011-v3, but outperforms any of AMD's solutions. Therefore, if we compare Intel i5 vs AMD FX-8XXX, then the advantage, both in performance and in energy efficiency, will be precisely with the products of the first company.

In turn, AMD is actively promoting the following processor sockets today:

The main computing platform for this developer of microprocessor devices is AM3 +. The most productive CPUs within its framework are FX chips, which can include from 4 to 8 computing modules. The RAM controller in AM3 +, like in LGA 1151, can function as much as possible in only in this case we are talking about supporting the outdated RAM standard - DDR3, but LGA 1151 boasts support for the latest and fastest DDR4. Therefore, if we compare the most recent Intel i5 vs AMD FX-9XXX, then even the flagship solutions of the latter will significantly lose in performance. Also within this platform there is support for an integrated graphics subsystem. But, unlike the sameLGA 1151,the integrated graphics core in this case is part of the motherboard, and is not integrated into the semiconductor chip of the CPU.

AMD's most recent processor socket isFM2+. Its main niche is inexpensive multimedia stations, office or ultra-budget computers. main featureFM2+ -this is a very productive integrated subsystem, which in terms of speed can compete on equal terms with discrete entry-level video cards and is significantly ahead of Intel's products of this class. But the limiting factor on the success of this socket is the weak processor part of this semiconductor solution. Therefore, the use of this connector in the context of even the entry-level is entirelyunjustifiably.

LGA 1151 Key Features

This computing platform currently occupies a dominant position in the market of stationary computers, and it provides a significant advantage in the comparison of Intel vs AMD on the side of the first. And both in quantitative terms and in qualitative terms. As noted earlier, it boasts the following advantages compared to direct competitors in the face of AM3 + and FM2 +: an integrated DDR4 RAM controller, a mandatory graphics subsystem and a cache memory that includes three levels without fail. The positioning of the chips within the LGA 1151, as well as their most important parameters, are shown in Table 1. If we make a direct comparison between Intel Core i5 vs AMD FX-9 XXX series, then in the vast majority of tasks the first solution will have an advantage. There is nothing special about this: the latest generation of Intel chips was introduced in the summer of 2015, and AMD in 2012. Therefore, it is quite difficult for the processor products of the latter to compete with the newer and more productive Intel products.

Chip positioning within LGA 1151. Their most important characteristics

Name of processors	In which PCs is it best to use such a chip?	Main settings
Celeron. CPU Models G3920, G3900, and G3900TE.	Office system blocks with integrated graphics.	Advanced 14nm process technology, excellent power efficiency, 3-level cache.
Pentium. Lineup Processors G44XX and G45XX.	Budget PCs capable of solving most of the most common tasks.	Compared to most affordable Celeron chips increased cache level 3 and clock speeds.
Core i3 models 61XX and 63XX.	Basic gaming PCs paired with powerful discrete graphics.	Support HT technology, which allows you to get at the level with ofta 4 software processing threads. Increased L3 cache and clock speeds.
Core i5 models 64XX, 65XX and 66XX.	An average gaming system or graphics station paired with a powerful graphics card.	Full 4 cores, dynamic CPU frequency throttling, even bigger cache.
Core i7 models 67XX.	The most productive gaming PCs, video processing and encoding stations, entry-level servers.	4 cores and 8 software processing threads. The maximum cache size. Processor frequency control.
	System blocks of computer enthusiasts.	The unlocked multiplier allows you to significantly increase the speed of the computing system.

Processor socket LGA 2011-v3. Technical specifications

Within this platform, it is impossible to compare Intel vs AMD for the reason that this socket is currently out of competition in terms of speed.LGA 2011-v3originally developed as a server socket, but then the range of chipsxeon was added core i7,aimed at the consumer PC segment with unprecedented high performance.As noted earlier, integrated graphics within such systems cannot be expected, and the RAM controller has 4 channels at once. Also, the indisputable advantages of this socket include the ability to install a CPU with 6 or even 12 cores, which also haveunlockedfactor. As a result, the performance margin of such computing systems allows their owners do not have to think about the requirements for hardware for the next 3-4 years, for sure. Intel vs AMD processors in context LGA 2011-v3comparison is unacceptable. There is simply an abyss between them both in speed and in price. The latter for such PCs starts from several thousand dollars. But this is nothing special: such a PC is purchased for several years in advance and has excessive performance.

Main parameters and features

It is not entirely correct to compare Intel Core vs AMD processor solutions fx.If the first ones are constantly updated and improved, then the second ones were released back in 2012 and since then there have been no changes within the AM3 + platform. As a result, the performance difference is huge.between these two platforms. The flagship of AMD today can compete on equal terms only with the chips of the model rangecore i3.All processors within AM3+ have an unlocked multiplier, and as a result, they can and should be overclocked. Under the most favorable set of circumstances, with such CPUs, you can conquer the bar at 5 GHz. Also, without fail, this semiconductor crystal includes a 3-level cache. The RAM controller in this case is 2-channel, but, unlikeLGA 1151,can't work with memoryDDR4, but only with DDR3.When compared with each other“ Kor ” the last generation, then the superiority of the latter in terms of performance will be very large.Approximate positioning of AM3+ chips on niches is shown in the table below.

Positioning of AM3+ chips

Processor family name	Number of cores and modules	Purpose
FX-43XX	4/2	Budget and office PCs. Entry-level gaming systems.
FX-63XX	6/3	Mid-range gaming computers
FX-83XX	8/4	Graphics and workstations. entry level servers. The most productive gaming PCs within this platform.
FX-9XXX	8/4	Computers for enthusiasts.

Processor socket FM2+. Main platform for AMD hybrid chips

It is impossible to compare processor parts vs AMD A-series with each other. These processors are aimed at solving completely different tasks. The first of them allow you to create high-performance PCs, and the second - multimedia stations. But the situation changes dramatically when comparing graphics subsystems. The Core i5, alas, cannot boast of a powerful integrated graphics subsystem, but the AMD hybrid chip is equipped by default with a video card that even surpasses even entry-level discrete accelerators in its capabilities. An important feature of this family of chips is that they are equipped with only two-level cache memory.

multimedia stations

Of course, within the framework of the niche of multimedia stations, one can compare such central processors as Intel Core i5 vs AMD A10-ХХХХ, but this approach is not economically justified. Such computers put forward increased demands on the graphics subsystem, and are not so demanding on the processor part of the PC. It is this combination of characteristics that the previously mentioned series of hybrid chips from AMD can boast of. Another important feature is their very low cost, which corresponds to 2-core CPU models from Intel. As a result, this highly specialized niche is dominated by AMD. Approximate configuration of such a PC is shown in the table below. The parameters of this computer will be quite enough to play videos, listen to music, work in office applications, and even some toys on it will go to the minimum settings.

Approximate complete set of multimedia station

№ p/n	Name of components	Model	Cost, rubles
	CPU	A8-7850 3.6/3.9 GHz, 4 cores, 4 MB L2 cache.	5000 rubles
	Motherboard	MSI A78M-E35	3000 rubles
	RAM	TEAM 8GB DDR3 1600MHz	2000 rubles
	Power Supply	GameMax GM-500B	1200 rubles
	Frame	I-BOX FORCE 1807	900 rubles
	HDD	HDD 1TB 7200	2500 rubles
Total:			14600 rubles

office computers

In this comparison between AMD FX vs Intel will be on the side of the latter. It has a very productive entry-level CPU with a very democratic cost. The Celeron chip will look most optimal within such a computing system. Approximate configuration of such a computer is shown in the following table.

Office computer 2016

№p/n	PC component	Model	Estimated price, rubles
	CPU	Celeron G3900	2100 rubles
	Motherboard	ASUS H110M-R/C/SI	2400 rubles
	RAM	Silicon Power 4 GB DDR4 2133 MHz	1200 rubles
	Power Supply	Delux 400W FAN 120mm	700 rubles
	Frame	Frime 165B	900 rubles
	HDD	WD WD1600AVVS, 160 GB	2200 rubles
Total:			9500 rubles

Entry level gaming PCs

Theoretically, within the framework of an entry-level gaming PC, one can still compare, for example, AMD FX - 6300 vs Intel "Cor AI 3". But the difference in performance in this case will be simply fantastic. Moreover, the second CPU will win, which has only 2 real modules for performing calculations instead of the one that has 6 paired blocks.

Therefore, in any case, the gaming system should be based on chips from Intel. They are more expensive, but their performance is much better. Well, for gaming systems, the number of displayed images per second comes first, and here the difference between AMD FX vs Intel i3 will be simply stunning. The approximate configuration of such a computer is shown in the table below.

Complete set of the basic game system

№ p/n	PC component	Model	Price, rubles
	CPU	i3-6100	6500 rubles
	Motherboard	ASUS H110M	2400 rubles
	RAM	2x 4 GB DDR4 2133 MHz	2400 rubles
	Power Supply	GameMax GM-500B	1200 rubles
	Frame	I-BOX FORCE 1805	900 rubles
	HDD	1TB 7200	2 7 00 rubles
	solid state drive	128 GB SATA 3	2500 rubles
	video card	Radeon RX460	7000 rubles
Total:			25 600 rubles

Average gaming systems

Comparing AMD FX-8350 vs Intel "Core Eye 5" within even a mid-range gaming PC in terms of the number of displayed frames per second, we get a significant difference. In some cases, the difference will be 20-30 frames per second. In dynamic games, this is unacceptable. Therefore, it is most correct to assemble a mid-level gaming system only on a full-fledged 4-core CPU from Intel. And it is best to look towards the i5-6600 chip. It is in combination with the GeForce 1060 that it will allow you to get excellent "Gameplay". It should be noted that the video card must be equipped with 6GB of RAM. Also, installing processors with an unlocked multiplier in such a system is not entirely justified. They are aimed at the premium segment and work in tandem with a more expensive and powerful graphics card. The rest of the approximate equipment is shown in the table below.

Mid-Range Gaming System

Component	Parameters, model	Price, rubles
CPU	i5-6600	15 000 rubles
Motherboard	ASUS In 150-M	6000 rubles
RAM	DDR4 3200MHz 16Gb	12000 rubles
Power Supply	1000W	7000 rubles
Frame	midi-tower	2000 rubles
HDD	2GB, 7200	6000 rubles
SSD - drive	256GB	5500 rubles
graphics accelerator	GeForce 1060, 6 GB	20 000 rubles
Total:		73 500 rubles

Uncompromising Gaming PCs

If already when comparing Intel Core i5 vs AMD, the undeniable advantage is already on the side of the first company, then in this case, in essence, the second company has no analogues. For the last 5 years, the premium CPU segment has been confidently occupied by products of only one company - Intel, and even a comparison of AMD FX-9590 vs Intel LGA 2011-v3 does not give any chance to products from the first company. This niche, as noted earlier, is targeted by Core i7 processors for the LGA2011-v3 socket. They can include up to 10 computing units, have an increased amount of cache memory and an unlocked multiplier.

But the key difference in this case is the RAM controller, which can operate in 4-channel mode. As a result, the RAM subsystem in this case is faster, and there is no worthy competition for such computers yet.

PC for the computer enthusiast

Component	Characteristics	Price, rubles
CPU	Core i7-6950 X	100 000 rubles
video card	8 GB	50 000 rubles
RAM	32 GB DDR4	25 000 rubles
Motherboard	X99	45 000 rubles
Power Supply	1000 W	16 000 rubles
Frame	ATX	2000 rubles
HDD	2Gb, 7200	8 000 rubles
SSD - drive	512 GB	10 000 rubles
Total:		256,000 rubles

Graphic stations

Within even this specialized niche, the comparison between AMD FX vs Intel Core i5 indicates that the products of the first company are outdated and lose in all respects. The base chip for such a PC is the i5-6400.

An approximate configuration of such a system is shown in the following table.

Graphic station package

№ p/n	Component	Model	Cost in rubles
	CPU	i5-6400	11 000 rubles
	Motherboard	ASUS Z-170DE	5400 rubles
	RAM	DDR4 16Gb	10 000 rubles
	Power Supply	Aerocool VX-800	5400 rubles
	Frame	Frime 165B	2000 rubles
	HDD	1Tb SATA 3, 7200, 64 Mb cache	40 00 rubles
	solid state drive	256 GB SATA 3	50 00 rubles
	video card	Radeon Pro2DUO	120 000 rubles
Total:			162 800 rubles

And what's next?

The next few months will be very busy in the processor market. First, in January, Intel will update the lineup of its chips and introduce the 7th generation of its architecture, codenamed Core. No major changes are expected in this case. Bug fixes will be done, performance will be slightly improved and some new technologies will be added. Then, closer to the end of the first quarter, AMD will finally release its new socket, which will be called AM4. In this case, the changes will already be revolutionary. The chips will be produced according to a new process technology, have an improved architecture and receive new technologies. It is these "Zen" processors that should, in theory, restore parity in the CPU market. Only then will it be advisable to revise the previously given computer configurations.

Results

Let's sum up the comparison of Intel vs AMD processor products carried out within the framework of this article. The only niche where the position of the second company is still strong is multimedia systems and PCs for budget and office purposes. Moreover, in the second case, Intel products look even more preferable. Another plus that AMD can boast of is the lower cost of its products. But is it worth saving the same $ 100 and getting an outdated system at the same time?even by today's standards. This is already obvious: a PC is bought for 3-5 years, so in all other cases, when buying a new computing system, it is more correct to navigate when comparingspecifically for the products of the second company.

This article will compare laptop processors from two leading semiconductor manufacturers - Intel and AMD. The products of the first of them are equipped with an improved processor part and have a higher level of performance in this regard. In turn, AMD solutions boast a more productive graphics subsystem.

Division into niches

Comparison and Intel for laptops will be most optimally performed in three niches:

• Budget-class processors (they are also the most affordable).
• Mid-range CPUs that combine both a high level of performance and acceptable energy efficiency.
• Chips with the highest level of performance. In this case, speed, autonomy and energy efficiency fade into the background.

If in the first two cases AMD can provide a worthy alternative to Intel, then the premium segment has been dominated by the latter company for quite a long time. The only hope in this regard is new processor solutions based on the Zen architecture, which AMD should introduce next year.

Entry level Intel products

Until recently, this niche from Intel was occupied by products of the Atom line. But now the situation has changed and entry-level laptops are now based on processors. The most modest products of this class include only 2 cores, and the most advanced ones - 4. The following models are relevant for the 3rd quarter of 2016, which are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Current CPU models from Intel for entry-level mobile PCs.

	Model name	Number of cores, pcs	Process technology, nm	Level 3 cache, Mb	Frequencies, GHz	Thermal package, W	CPU cost, $	Video card model HD Graphics

There are essentially no cardinal differences between these CPU models. They are aimed at solving the most simple tasks and have a minimum level of performance. Also, this manufacturer of semiconductor solutions has a strong point in the processor part, but the integrated graphics subsystem is very weak. Another strength of these products is the high degree of energy efficiency and thus improved autonomy.

Mid-range solutions from Intel

"Kor i3" and "Kor i5" are mid-range Intel processors for laptops. Comparison of their characteristics indicates that the first family is closer to entry-level solutions, and the second - under certain circumstances, can compete with the most productive chips from this company. Detailed specifications of the specified family of products are given in Table 2.

Table 2 - Intel processor parameters for mid-range laptops.

	Model name	Number of Cores/ logical flows, pcs	Production technology, nm	Level 3 cache, Mb	Frequencies, GHz	Power, W	Video card HD Graphics

The characteristics of the CPU of this class are almost identical. The key difference is the improved energy saving of the 7U54. As a result, autonomy in this case will also be better. Otherwise, there are no significant differences between these processors. The price of all chips of this family is the same - $281.

Premium laptop processors from Intel

For latest generation laptops, indicates that the highest performing solutions are i7 family CPUs. Moreover, in architectural terms, they practically do not differ from middle-class products. Even the models of video cards in this case are the same. But a higher level of performance compared to mid-range processors is provided by higher clock speeds and an increased size of volatile memory of the 3rd level. The main parameters of the chips of this family are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 - Main characteristics of i7 family CPUs.

The difference between the two products is that the latter has improved energy efficiency, but the performance will eventually be lower.

AMD entry-level mobile processors

For laptops of the two leading manufacturers of this product, it indicates that Intel, as noted earlier, has a better processor part, and AMD has an integrated graphics subsystem. If an improved video system is a priority in a new laptop, then it is better to pay attention to laptops from a second manufacturer. Specific chip models technical specifications are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - The latest AMD processors for entry-level laptops.

	Model name	Frequency range, GHz	Level 2 cache, Mb	Thermal package, W	Number of cores, pcs	Integrated graphics

For the most part, these chips have almost identical technical parameters. The key difference here is only in the frequency range and the model of the integrated built-in accelerator. It is based on these parameters that you need to make a choice. If you need maximum autonomy, then choose products with lower performance. If autonomy comes to the fore, then you will have to sacrifice dynamism for this.

AMD chips for organizing mid-range laptops

FX-9XXXP and A1X-9XXXP are for laptops. A comparison of their characteristics with entry-level products indicates that they already have 4 computing units versus 2 that are available in entry-level products. Also in this case, it can compete with entry-level discrete accelerators. But the weak processor part is the factor today, which significantly reduces the performance of laptops based on these chips. Therefore, you can look in their direction only when, at the minimum cost of a mobile computer, you need the fastest graphics subsystem. The main specifications of this CPU family are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 - CPU settings from AMD for mid-range laptops.

	CPU marking	Clock frequencies, GHz	graphics accelerator	Thermal package, W

It is most difficult to compare laptop processors in the entry-level segment. On the one hand, Intel solutions in this case have a lower cost and an improved processor part. In turn, AMD offers mobile PCs with an improved graphics subsystem. It is based on the last parameter that it is recommended to buy when choosing an entry-level laptop Pavilion 15-AW006UR from HP. Other things being equal, with competing solutions, the video card in this case will have a certain performance margin, and the processor does not lose much to the CPU from Intel. As a mid-level mobile PC, it is recommended to choose the Aspire E5 - 774 - 50SY from Acer. It has an i5 - 7200U chip installed, which is only slightly inferior to the flagship products. Yes, and other technical specifications are at an acceptable level, as for a middle-class laptop. Comparison of laptop processors in the niche of the highest performance solutions indicated that it is best to purchase mobile computers based on 7th generation i7 chips. The most affordable, but at the same time very equipped version of the laptop, is the IdeaPad 510-15 IKB from Lenovo. It is he who is recommended to buy when choosing the most productive mobile PC. At the same time, the price is quite democratic for such a class of devices, and the equipment is excellent.

Results

Comparison of processors for laptops of the two leading chip manufacturers today clearly and clearly indicates that the leading positions in most cases are occupied by products from Intel. AMD, in turn, is significantly behind its direct competitor. The only market segment where parity is still maintained is entry-level mobile products, where AMD has a worthy alternative. In all other cases, it would be more correct to purchase laptops based on the CPU from Intel. The current situation can be drastically changed by the release of processors based on the Zen architecture in 2017. But whether AMD can do it, time will tell. Now, in the niche of mid-range and premium mobile PCs, it is most correct to rely on solutions from Intel. Although they are somewhat overpriced, the level of performance more than compensates for this shortcoming.