Confused: Is the AMD platform or the Intel platform better?

Of course, it's a good point for AMD to play games at the same level.,Powerful CPU Level 2 cache,**It's a lot cheaper.,But the AMD platform is a bit of a waste of electricity.,Hehe.。

345F So tell me which AMD dual-core can be compared with the E8400 What is the same performance

Correcting the second floor, with the same performance, the Intel platform is much more expensive than the AMD platform.

Agree on the 3rd, 4th, 5th floors. Summary: AMD is better value for money.

It seems that it is better to play the game with intel.

Support the third floor, but I think AMD is biased towards the game Intel biased more**.

1. Brand advantage.

The brand reputation accumulated over the years has made most of Intel's products, whether they are ordinary people or profiteers. After all, except for the original Athlon and Athlon 64 single and dual cores in the early years, and the recent Ryzen series, most of the time AMD's products are at an absolute disadvantage, and the brand influence is far inferior to that of competitors.

2. Game manufacturers have different degrees of optimization.

Intel has always had a lot of money to provide huge financial support to game developers, and fully optimized Intel's processors during game development, while AMD's processors were not optimized enough (and even had the possibility of negative optimization), resulting in Intel's processors consistently leading the game performance of their competitors. Of course, this is also related to its long-term leadership in single-core performance, after all, the single-core performance of the CPU is important for gaming.

3. The credit of profiteers.

When you go to the installation store, you can always hear "AMD's processor is too hot", "AMD's CPU compatibility is not good", "AMD's CPU is unstable and easy to blue screen of death", and ordinary people who don't know anything about hardware are naturally fooled into choosing to buy Intel products. Even people who have some knowledge of hardware will be persuaded to abandon the original intention of choosing AMD processors and buy Intel instead. The reason is simple, selling Intel's processors, the profit is higher, and the rebate is more.

Now, with the rise of Ryzen, Intel's processors have long been crushed in all directions, and they can only survive by reducing the number of cores and desperately increasing the frequency of single cores. If Intel's 10nm or even 7nm processes continue to be difficult to deliver, the situation is very unoptimistic.

I have been in contact with computers for more than 20 years, and I have used many generations of products from both sides, objectively speaking, there is no essential difference between compatibility and stability, as long as the motherboard, power supply quality is excellent, and the heat dissipation is good, it can run very stably. Although AMD's product performance has been at a disadvantage for a long time, it has never been completely thrown away. For example, I still have a six-core host in service at home, which can still run the 64-bit Win10 system and large software extremely smoothly, and the game performance is not too bad (of course, I don't play games much anymore), and the comprehensive performance is not inferior to the generation i5 host.

In the past, the CPU was Intel's monopoly, and the game software or system was adapted to Intel to do it, and the optimization and compatibility were better. With the rise of AMD in recent years, AMD's CPU optimization will get better and better.

Why is AMD so cost-effective, but everyone would rather choose Intel, what is the reason?

To put it simply: because there is no good thing because it is cheap. Although the inter is expensive, its performance is good. **The gap is big, and the performance is also poor.

1. Most people choose inter, and the market is dominated by inter, which leads to the high inter at most to sell a little less, and it is not a big deal to make a little less money. AMD, on the other hand, is not used at all, and if you don't get it right, you will lose money. You see that Apple is so expensive to buy, why does it still occupy 90% of the profits of the mobile phone market.

2. AMD's CPU technology and Inter's technology are not exactly the same. Therefore, there is no comparison between the calculation method of frequency and the number of cores. For example, the speed of a single core, the performance of Inter is obviously much better than the performance of AMD.

In order to compensate for the performance difference, AMD relies on increasing the number of cores to compensate.

3. Let's talk about the core AMD's dual cores are actually calculated with a floating point, which means that AMD's two cores are equal to what the inter core is doing. So Inter now has a 6-core CPU that's actually equivalent to what AMD 12-core CPUs are doing.

4. AMD's technology is relatively backward, which leads to the large calorific value of AMD, which also limits the application of AMD on many occasions. I don't plan to bake sweet potatoes, and no one wants to buy a hot CPU.

5. AMD's pig-like teammates. As we all know, AMD has an 8-core CPU, but the problem is that the software in our operating system rarely supports 8-core. In other words, such a good CPU can't play its full strength at all.

6. Inter's hyper-threading technology. This further widens the gap between AMDCPU and Inter. Originally, AMD was two cores doing one thing.

Now Inter can do two things with one core. Therefore, AMD has gone from more than 2 to 1, and has completely confirmed this ratio. Two AMD cores are actually equal to one core thing.

Finally, I would like to add: the market principle is that AMDCPU and Inter at the same price are actually about the same performance. Although the performance of Inter is better, don't forget that AMD is cheaper.

So for personal installations, AMD is also a good choice. Especially for gaming, AMD's performance is really good.

1. The quality of Intel is better than AMD, and the frequency is higher than AMD, because the materials used have good heat resistance, so even if the frequency is larger than AMD, the temperature is still lower than AMD, which ultimately leads to a relatively long CPU life of Intel.

2. AMD, power consumption, damage hardware, low frequency, completely belongs to the legendary copycat.

I'm a junior high school student. I feel that Intel's production technology and market share are slightly higher than AMD's. It's hard to say the advantages and disadvantages.,That scoring model.。。。

AMD is for the poor, you know.

x86 is for the old motherboard platform, for example, the 586 computer, that is, the motherboard of the computer is the intel 586 platform, and there are other platforms in front.

Intel and AMD are both CPU manufacturers, and the two are in competition, and the x86 platform is an early Intel.

Intel Corporation, the world's largest manufacturer of personal computer parts and CPUs, was founded in 1968 and has a 46-year history of product innovation and market leadership. In 1971, Intel introduced the world's first microprocessor. The computer and Internet revolution brought about by the microprocessor has changed the whole world.

It ranked 182nd in the Fortune 500 in 2015.

AMD designs and manufactures innovative microprocessors (CPUs, GPUs, APUs, motherboard chipsets, TV card chips, etc.), flash memory and low-power processor solutions for the computer, communications and consumer electronics industries, providing standards-based, customer-centric solutions for technology users—from enterprises and organizations to individual consumers.

x86 is for the old motherboard platform, for example, the very classic 586 computer at that time, that is, the motherboard of the computer is the intel 586 platform, and there are other platforms in front.

x86 refers to 32-bit systems, Lintel and AMD brands.

X86 is a generic name for a processor of Intel, which is the RISC of the CISC instruction set relative to the ARM RISC, we generally call it an X86 compatible machine, AMD also belongs to the CISC instruction, which is compatible with Intel (but may need to be patched on Windows), the general RISC instruction tablet cannot use the X86 processor, and the WIN8 (that is, Win8 ARM) of the RISC instruction set is not compatible with X86 software.

However, the two processors are compatible with each other on Windows devices with the CISC instruction set, and both VC++ and MS Visual Studio can run on both processors.