Intel s CPU of the same level as AMD

E5200 vs AMD Athlon7750 The 7750 performs a little worse, but it is also cheaper than the E5200.

E7400 vs AMD Yilong 9550 In the dual-core, AMD has no product that can compete with the Core 2 dual-core, so from the **point of view**7400**, it is higher than the AMD triple-core 8750, and slightly lower than the AMD quad-core 9550According to the long-term development, the three-core and four-core are more advantageous.

The E8400 vs AMD Yilong 920 ** is a bit more expensive than the E84, but it's the latest quad-core after all.

Friends downstairs, I said the same level is the same level, so that the landlord has a more accurate choice. If you follow what you say, the Core i7 has no rival at all.

Let's put it this way, the CPU of the same level, the current performance of AMD is one notch lower than Intel. And only with a CPU of the same price, the two are comparable.

The person upstairs said that the E8400 and the Yilong 920 are not the same grade at all, the Yilong 920 is a grade of CPU with the i7, but there is a huge difference, and the performance is also very different.

I even want to know yes!! It seems that it is still better than Intel, if you want to buy AMD, you should buy one with higher performance than Intel in all aspects, such as the main frequency, front-end bus, and L2 cache.

Which is better, AMD vs Intel's CPU processor? When users are planning to build a computer, they often start to be more tangled with AMD processors and more.

Which is the best Intel processor? Generally me.

i3 is dual-core, AMD is quad-core, you also say the main frequency, playing games must be AMD 4 core good.

But it came to i5 again, i5 4 core is Rui dedicated frequency technology, which can be understood as automatic overclocking (look at CPU performance can not be judged directly by looking at the main frequency, there are other things in the manufacturing process) Game performance is definitely i5 greater than AMD4 core, but AMD 4 core ** is relatively low, and core i5 ** is high, and the required motherboard ** is also high.

Unless you're a game enthusiast or a local tyrant, don't think about i7 as a high-end thing, a CPU is almost 2000 oceans, not counting the motherboard, you have to get a better independent display when playing games, how much does it cost to add up to the whole console.

If you're playing games, I strongly encourage you to add some money to the i5, and if you have used AMD 4 cores to play games, you may regret that you didn't buy the i5 for Mao.

People will say that Intel is chosen for more ** offices, and AMD is chosen for games.

But personally, I think Intel's application is better, and the value retention is better than AMD.

Intel and AMD

For these two, the Intel CPU runs relatively stably and generates less heat.

AMD is mainly cost-effective.

The corn system is relatively easy to use and very smooth.

You must know that AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon64 X2 5000+ barely beats the low-end E6320 6420 in the Intel Core 2, while the high-end E6700 Q6600 (4-core) is beyond AMD's reach. Edition, but AMD has the advantage of it, depending on what kind of money you want to buy, the advanced CPU is recommended for the Intel Core series, and the low-end AMD Athlon64 X2 4800+ is good Affordable.

This is a very comprehensive question, so I'll copy it and try to talk about it. 1.In terms of performance, compared with AMD, AMD's performance is higher than that of AMD; 2.

In terms of power consumption, it is said that AMD's is greater than Intel's; 3.In terms of cost performance, AMD is better than Intel; 4.In terms of value preservation, Intel is better than AMD; 5.

The development of fashion trends is that the public accepts Intel more than AMD, and Intel's advertising is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people; 6.The hardware products produced by other manufacturers are compatible with Intel more than AMD (mainly motherboards, graphics card and other built-in hardware of machines) and have a greater heat dissipation than IntelOther enthusiasts are also invited to add to the supplement.

Intel or AMD?Which one is great?

There is a separate display on the E3 AMD power consumption is large Overclocking brew coffee Now in the au impotence most of the IU is absolutely on the IU i3 battle A8 i5 seconds the whole family i7 is blasted into slag IU quality***.

Comprehensive intel is good, depending on what you do, mainly play games on the intel quad-core, mainly open more and play games choose amd six-core or more, after all, cheap!

Low-end APU, AMD strong.

Low-end CPUs, AMD is cost-effective.

Low-end CPUs: AMD is cost-effective.

Mid-range CPU: i3 silent seconds.

Mid-to-high-end CPU: i5 seconds for the whole family, AMD octa-core stand aside.

High-end CPU: i7 is unbeatable.

If it is a low** segment, it is better to use AMD with a core graphics card without a graphics card.

If you don't use a nuclear display, it's good to buy intel.

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.