In general, CPUs are divided into Intel and AMD, but there are those types in Intel, and AMD is divi

Intel has the Core series, which is divided into the old Core 2 and the new Core I series and the newer Core I series, the low-end Pentium series and the lowest-end Celeron series.

AMD common ones include the high-end Phenolon, the mainstream Athlon, and the low-end Sparkle.

There are also NV and Qualcomm CPUs, but due to different architectures, they can't run on those platforms.

Inter has Pentium, Core, and the old ones, as well as Celeron and AMD, and has Flash, Pterodactyl, and Athlon.

It is divided into 72 lines and 168 lines.

Intel's CPU from the earliest is Socket 4-7 and then Super7 is the upgrade board of Socket, during this time AMD's CPU is compatible with Intel's CPU.

After Super7, Intel used the patented Socket 370 interface, that is, when Seyan was on the market, AMD was thrown on the old interface of Super 7.

Later, AMD came out of Slot A's old Athlon-type cassettes, officially parted lanes with Intel, used different CPU interfaces, and later switched to socket A's pin type.

In addition, in the era of socket 370, there is also a slot 1 interface, 370 is a pin interface, and slot1 is a card interface, because it is inconvenient to use, poor contact and occupies too much space, it has not been developed in the future, and slot2 is only used in the special field.

Slot1 can be used with 370 CPU with riser cards.

Then there's socket 423 478 775 in the P4 era

There is also a dedicated 603 604

AMD has evolved from Socketa or Socket 462 to Socket 754 939

Why do some AMD look so high-end (high frequency, multi-core, large cache) and at the same time so popular?

Answer: Because it really just "looks" beautiful, the architecture is poor, the single-core performance is poor, and the final performance can only rely on heaps and multi-cores, and the final performance is not just a few cores and how much cache they have, so the four-core AMD can only be sold at the price of a dual-core Intel.

Why does Intel achieve high performance with only 2 3GHz and dual cores compared to the sky-high price of products (such as Core i5, i7)?

A: Because since Intel released the Core 2 in 2006, Intel has been leading in terms of CPU microarchitecture, and the lead is obvious. To put it simply: the architecture directly determines the core performance, and the importance of these two is higher than the frequency and number of cores.

Intel basically maintains dual cores when it is updated, and the main frequency is basically on the order of 2 3GHz, but why can it continue to improve performance significantly?

Will AMD's 4-core CPU be blown up by Intel's dual-core CPU because of its low technical content?

Answer: In fact, since the release of Intel i7, the CPU progress of each generation of Intel is not large, and the improvement in CPU performance is between 10% and 15%, and the more obvious progress is in the integrated display performance and power consumption.

As for whether AMD's quad-core will be completely blown up by Intel's dual-core, this depends on the specific application. Take the X4 750K and G2120 at a similar price, if it is a running score and the running score software is well optimized for the quad-core, then G2120 will not take any advantage. If you are playing a game like Interstellar 2 that requires high CPU single-core performance and only supports dual cores, then G2120 is definitely a complete X4 750K, and in this kind of application, i3 can basically get rid of AMD's full range of U in seconds, which shows how important architecture and single-core performance are.

I have always believed that the higher the CPU frequency and core, the better, but are other factors (such as transistor technology and architecture) also important factors in CPU performance?

A: You're reversing the order. The architecture is the most critical factor, and it is the decisive factor that determines the performance of the CPU. On top of that, the more transistors the better, the higher the clock speed, and the more cores the better (note here the level of software support and optimization for multi-cores).

You are wrong, when the core architecture of the processor is the same, the number of cores and the clock speed are the key factors that determine the performance.

If the core architecture is different, you can't directly use the number of cores and the main frequency to compare the performance, at this time, you must compare it by running the software or the running program, and generally compare multiple programs and software to get the approximate results.

Although AMD's main frequency is high and the number of cores is large, the core architecture of AMD processors is indeed not as well designed as Intel, and the single-core performance efficiency is not as high as Intel, so it is not so high.

AMD is a popular product, there is no high-end, at most it is only in the middle and high-end, but AMD pulls the processor down, and the cost performance is the route it has always adhered to, so we can buy a good processor, otherwise Intel will always set the processor ** outrageously high.

There is a certain reason for Intel's high pricing, first of all, Intel processors have high energy efficiency and high single-core performance, because of the advanced architecture, so that its processors can get good performance at low power consumption, and high-end products are not comparable to AMD, but the pricing is generally higher.

AMD has done a good job on the APU, especially in the A10 series, the integrated HD7650D display core performance is close to the 500 yuan level of independent graphics cards, and the processor performance is also not bad, and it has a good performance in the mid-range market, especially in some office computers, which are favored by many users.

AMD CPUs are cost-effective, have high power consumption, and are suitable for rendering;

Intel CPUs are less cost-effective and consume less, making them suitable for gaming.

In terms of CPU, the difference between the two brands is not big, and AMD's CPU 7 years ago was super cost-effective. Now there is no advantage in terms of cost performance compared with Intel.

Now Intel is far ahead of AMD, and AMD can only stock in the low-end market.

Two manufacturers only.

If you play games, it's better to use AMD.

Work with Intel's.

Intel's expensive.

AMD is cheap.

In general, AMD is cost-effective.

But Intel's is relatively stable.

Durable anti-shell (also means durable, Northeast dialect).

AMD's CPU has low power consumption, low heat generation, strong game performance, and is more suitable for gamers, while Intel's CPU has a high frequency and high heat generation, but due to the long assembly line, once an error occurs when executing the program, the processing time will be relatively long. To put it bluntly, Intel's CPU is fast, but it's stupid, and it's always detours, and AMD's CPU is slow, but it's smarter, and it's basically straight.

Intel compatibility is higher and more stable; AMD overclocking is very good, which is incomparable to Intel, and AMD does not have to worry about software support, it will not cause some software to be unsupported.

What are the differences between AMD and Intel's CPUs, and how to choose?

Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Normally, Intel's compatibility is better, because Intel's CPU and motherboard chips are its own, and there is no need for other companies to produce a large number of chipsets, and its own things are of course the most compatible. AMD is different, although it has now acquired ATI, it still needs someone else's chipset to support what it has at hand.

Compatibility is also good, and with the improvement of the process, the problem of compatibility may become a thing of the past in the future.

630 is about the same, but 630 is about 1200, and 3200+ is only a little more than 600.

Third, the budget of the whole machine. Intel is higher than AMD, the whole machine here mainly refers to the CPU and motherboard, AMD's CPU is cheap, and the corresponding motherboard is not expensive. The reason is that AMD's CPU has an integrated memory controller, and correspondingly, the part of the motherboard chipset that controls the memory can be reduced, thereby reducing the cost of the motherboard chipset while reducing memory latency, so it is much cheaper.

Fourth, in terms of actual performance, Intel's multi-** performance is better, and AMD's game performance is recognized by the world.

It is often said in the market.

Drawing office int

Gaming entertainment with AMD

This illustrates one.

INT has great advantages in office drawing.

AMD has advantages in games.

There is also a basic difference with **.

AMD's CPU

out at the same time. General AMD

Cheaper amd

The motherboard is also cheaper.

Cost-effective.

Different companies, different technologies, different interfaces. There is no big difference in performance between the same grade.

AMD highlights high frequencies.

Intel highlights large caches.