Which is better AMD 860k or i7 4800MQ? Overheating or insufficient power supply are not considered

The latter is much stronger, but the problem is that it is easy to overheat and reduce the frequency, and it may need to be cleaned frequently, so I generally recommend i3 for notebooks because i5 is just multiple turbo frequencies.

So,Don't consider heating,I also recommend i7 for notebooks,It's much stronger than i5,The i7 version is a few hundred more expensive than the i5 version,But because the notebook graphics card is relatively weak,Even i5 will not become a graphics card bottleneck,So there are a lot of i5 enough for the party。

AMD is cost-effective, and the i7 4800MQ performance is not bad. Choose according to your budget.

4800MQ is basically at the level of i7 4770, you know, the standard voltage of the notebook processor i7 is much stronger than the standard voltage i5, the notebook i7 and the desktop i7 are a level, and the notebook i5 is not as good as the desktop i3.

The gap between desktop i5 and i7 is not so big, after all, hyper-threading is not as important as the number of cores, and the gap between dual-core four-thread and quad-core four-thread is much larger than the performance gap between quad-core four-thread and quad-core eight-thread.

If you only have 400 860k on hand, it's definitely good if you have 4000 ......

4800mq, with the performance of E3-1230V2 - The daughter saw the father of ** Shi Chang, and the mother of the anal son was stunned.

4800mq is a street of AMD FX6200 seconds, and 860K seconds are naturally not a problem.

It's not a grade, is there a comparison?

Heck, the X4 860K is actually the A10-7850K with the core graphics shielded, so the CPU performance of the shrunken version of the A8-7650K is definitely not as good as the A10-7850K or X4 860K.

The X4 860K works with the R7 260X without any problems, but you can consider a better GTX750Ti graphics card,** which is about the same, but a little more powerful.

860k, of course.

The silent frequency of 860k is yes.

The 860K is better, the 860K uses the third-generation bulldozer architecture, which not only reduces power consumption and heat, but also improves floating-point performance, strengthens core efficiency, and plays games more smoothly.

The 760K is an early second-generation pile driver architecture, although it has lower power consumption than the first-generation bulldozer, but it does not solve the problem of weak floating point performance, and some application speed is not very fast.

Both of these are the Athlon series from the core of the APU shielded graphics card, and the 860K is equivalent to the highest-end A10 7850K shielded graphics card, and the performance will be better than the 760K. But the two are basically in the same grade.

Of course, 860k is good, and it seems to have a performance improvement of more than 10%.

Both product types are different, 860K is a simple CPU, 7650K is an APU with an integrated graphics card, **the difference is nearly 40%, such a big **gap plus completely different types of products, there is no point in comparison.

If you're going to buy a discrete graphics card, buy 860k, and if you're not going to buy a discrete graphics card, buy 7650k.

Conventionally, CPU+ independent display, ratio, APU, and high cost are high, and those who raise the bar can ignore the phrase i. If you are on a tight budget, it is recommended to consider a pure APU platform.

The default frequency is 860k and 7650k.

860k is faster.

It's good to play 2D online game i3, and it's good to play 3D online game amd860k.

AMD860K is the most cost-effective,**400 yuan,You can also match an entry-level discrete graphics card,It's equal to i3,Of course3D online game i3 is very difficult。

i3 and i5 are really good, there are also core graphics, and the core graphics performance is not bad, if you want to use AMD860K with more than 500 graphics cards, it is better to buy i5 directly with a nuclear graphics card.

The comparability of these two is not strong,After all, it's a core display and one doesn't,If you don't talk about performance, it's definitely 860kStronger,If you're an office home machine, it's with i3It's OK,If it's a low-end game audio and video platform in the group, then use it860K with a separate display。

Compared with i5, E3+B85, Z97+ high display is cost-effective! It can basically meet the needs of daily and game enthusiasts. Have a question:

Why is there a bottleneck? Do you have to burn money for six-core, eight-core, three-slow and more expensive i5, i7, e3, e5? It's so divine to use a computer.

Use the i3 3220 and use the i3 4150! AMD's stove is a stove, which consumes electricity and has a high temperature.

Playing games, or i3 is better.

Office 860k is good, after all, there are many cores.

The i3 3220 is certainly good! Processing power.

AMD 638 CPU Clock Speed: Number of cores: Quad cores Socket type: Socket FM1

AMD 860K CPU series: Athlon X4, CPU frequency: , Max turbo frequency: 4GHz, socket type: socket FM2+, L2 cache: 4MB, number of cores: quad cores.

Comparison of parameters AMD860K's data obviously crushes AMD 638, AMD860's maximum turbo frequency is up to 4G, running programs and games are smoother, and 860K can be overclocked, and the performance can be further improved It is recommended to choose AMD 860K

Motherboards are not the same.

638 is an FM1 needle.

The 860K is an FM2 pin.

The 680 is not as good as the 860k, but the power consumption is 65w

It should be AMD Phenom, 9650. Of course, the AMD 860K performs better. AMD 9650, main frequency, 65nm manufacturing process.

AMD 860K, main frequency, 28nm production process, L2 cache 4M. In terms of production process and performance, it is 860k leading.

AMD 760K and AMD 860K parameters are compared to determine the performance of a CPU, mainly depending on the CPU architecture, main frequency and cache, etc., the following are the specific parameters of the two CPUs.

Through the above comparison of AMD 860K and 760K processor parameters, it can be seen that the two still use the same roller architecture, among which the new AMD 860K processor mainly reduces power consumption, and uses a new CPU socket, while its main frequency and cache have been reduced.

The previous-generation AMD 760K quad-core processor still maintains the main frequency and cache advantages, while the CPU socket interface is old and the power consumption is high.

Overall, although the new generation of AMD 860K processors has been reduced in terms of main frequency and L2 cache, but in view of the better optimization of the performance of the new generation of CPUs, the actual performance, AMD 860K and AMD 760K performance is not much different, but the new CPU has an updated CPU socket interface, and the power consumption is lower, as long as the price difference between the two is not large, the new generation of AMD 860K processor is undoubtedly more recommended.

Don't think about it, direct x4 860k! The gap is not small!

X4 860k x4 760k can consider the test results of 7850k 6800k, and it is generally believed that there is a gap of about 15% !! Value back face value!

Go to Zhongguancun to see the relevant evaluations, and the explanation is very comprehensive. Personally, I don't feel much different.

Is there a comparison between a 400 CPU and a 1300 CPU?

The money to buy an i5 can buy three 860k, but the single performance of three 860k and a few streets off the i5-4590, of course, there is no such situation.

The money is several times worse, there is nothing to compare, and the performance gap is also very large, 860K is a pseudo-quad-core, and the high frequency is also virtual, and it can't catch up with the smoke 4590, so let's kill the i3 4150 first.

First of all, let's talk about what you buy hardware for, whether it is appropriate to use it or to brag about B, if you use it to brag about B, you can throw money away, which is more expensive to buy. Each platform has its own characteristics,860K's launch was not originally intended to hit anyone,Just to give the FM2 2+ platform a more reasonable price CPU product,So you need to ask this,Because of the current situation,For online games,CPU performance is almost excessive,If you ask for a reasonable use,**Suitable,Enough,AMD's solution is definitely suitable for you,You have some hardware knowledge in this process,You can be a little super,You will find the real charm of the AMD platform。 And you ask just a black or just to blow it with people, I advise you to buy expensive, don't ask why the performance is different, the architecture is different, but the actual use of your platform is reasonable, AMD's performance is also very strong.

CPU performance is determined by architecture, frequency, number of cores, number of threads, and you ignore the decisive factor - processor architecture (core codename).

At present, Intel's CPU on the PC platform has completely exploded AMD in terms of architecture execution efficiency, and AMD can only rely on the number of heap cores and heap frequency to remedy its own inefficient architecture.

AMD's overall process is backward, and its CPU has been synonymous with high frequency and low energy since the AM3+ era.

The eight-core FX8350, the main frequency, even if it is exceeded, is still killed by a default frequency of i7 4790.

Even the Octa-core Bulldozer FX8100 can't even knock down the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T before it.

CPU performance cannot be seen purely from the number of cores, main frequency, etc.

AMD's current 'modular' processor, where the two cores share a module, is a bit of an advantage in floating-point arithmetic, and the rest of the projects are really hehe. 860K, don't look at his main frequency, but even its own FM1 architecture, 3 years ago's product AMD Athlon651K is slightly inferior.

The 400 and 1400 pieces are better than the brain.