Let s ask the CPU experts to compare the CPU evaluation index and performance index of Inter and AMD

Of course, AMD is the best value for money

If you want to show off, go for inter.

There is no technology gap between the two.

The pursuit of performance is definitely the Core 2, and the Core 2 architecture has strong power consumption and performance. The price-performance ratio is naturally AMD!

Performance? Of course it's inter good

AMD has the advantage of being cheap so it offers a good value for money

1 All Intel is basically an all-round advantage in terms of performance.

Take a look at the ** of the two products, you basically know,1500More than the high-end market AMD has no products,And Intel's i7 series is very firmly in control of this high-end market,Although the shipments in this **range are not large,Although the profit of each CPU is very high, the overall profit is certainly not high,But more or less it is also the company's "face" problem explained。

The emergence of multi-core and multi-threading is actually mainly due to the fact that the frequency and efficiency of a single core have reached a bottleneck, and in order to continue to develop, we can only take the road of multi-core.

But the use of more threads is not just a matter of two CPUs, the operating system and the actual application software need to be supported, which is an inevitable trend, but at present, the overall situation is not optimistic.

Therefore, in the current situation, the single-core efficiency of the CPU is still very important. Therefore, despite the large number of cores, AMD still can't beat Intel's products at all.

Take the FX8150 and i5 2500K as an example, the two are at the same level, and it can be considered that the comprehensive performance of the two is about the same. In practical applications, when running a program alone, FX8150 basically can't do 2500, because the single-core efficiency of 2500 is much higher than it, and most programs can't even use the 4 cores of 2500, let alone 8150 has 8 cores.

Of course, in a multi-task parallel environment, the more cores the better, but don't worry, open a bunch of programs, multi-core still has advantages.

AMD's single-core performance is much, much worse than Intel's. The fastest AMDCPU right now is basically the level of the previous generation of Intel. Most software is very sensitive to single-core performance, for example, when modeling with a 4-core AMD x641 and 3DMax, the performance is far less than the previous generation of the 09 E6300

AMD's only role is to score high on reviews.

Demystifying the PR value of AMD processors Everyone knows that AMD processors now refer to the CPU with the PR value. So it was thought that a higher frequency P4 processor should bring better performance. Plus Intel's promotional advantage.

Now that civilian CPUs are generally in surplus, and goods are worth every penny, you can see that the inter regardless of the process architecture is undoubtedly a big cut ahead of AMD, and the practical application of the AMD32nm series is not so bad, and now is the era when software can't keep up with hardware.

In layman's terms, Inter is relatively stable, while AMD has good performance and is much stronger than I in terms of overclocking

For general games, I choose AMD and other I

Intel - good, AMD - next best, that's all, same price

That's a very broad question, isn't it? I can only say my own opinion, personally I think Intel's CPU will be more dominant. Because in terms of CPU stability, AMD can't compare with Intel whether it's Sempron, Athlon, or Phenol.

However, AMD's CPUs obviously want to get rid of Intel in terms of computing speed in recent models, so they still have certain advantages.