AMD or Intel which is better 45 nanometers . AMD 3 core 710 . It s pretty much the same as Intel s

If you buy a 710, it is recommended that you build a 3A platform, (A core + AU + A card), which has good stability.

X3 710 720 and E8200 8400 a notch.

There is no instability, and based on the CPU under the x86 architecture, MMX and SSE series instruction sets are basically compatible.

Is the 710 not cost-effective? That's what a cost-effective one. It can't be the E6300!

It's ridiculous! The performance is similar to that of the E8400! **Lower than the E7400!

It's not cost-effective, huh? The uncle upstairs doesn't look at what the Q series 4 core is**! You can really speak!

Intel doesn't have a triple-core CPU, and the performance of the mid-to-high-end Core dual-core should be about the same.

Personally, I still like Intel, after all, the Wintel alliance has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people

In fact, these two companies are the world's top companies, both are good, but AMD is used more in desktop or in low-end books, in fact, they are not bad, believe in your own choice.

None of the good If you are lucky, the 710 can open 4 cores, then you will earn If the LZRP is good, the 710 can not only open 4 cores, but also have a good physique and can overclock, it is cooler than buying an Intel Q series 4 cores.

This is called cost-effective, low-end buy AMD, high-end buy Intel Q series 4 cores are more than 1000 points, and it's not i7

If you use it at home, it will be inter stable.

For gaming, it's just AMD, but it consumes a lot of power and generates an amazing amount of heat.

Don't use 710, it's hard to open the core now. The power is also high, and the cost performance is not high.

AMD's is phenom *4 955 too. At the same time, because the HT bus has a higher frequency and main frequency, the performance will be stronger than that of the Phenom *4 955.

As for Intel, the comparability is not strong, but it can kill the Core 2 Quad Q9450 in seconds, which is slightly worse than the Core 2 Quad Q9550.

Note: Because quad-core is only comparable to quad-core processors. It's going to be a lot higher, but you're in luck.

710 successful core opening + is equivalent to the default amdx4 955 level. It's not good to compare with Intel's CPU.

It's equivalent to the Phenom II X4 955, slightly inferior to the i5 750 and Q9400, but the gaming performance should be similar to the i5 750, because the Phenom II X4 965 is slightly better than the i5 750.

Equivalent to AMD Phenom II 4

945 bar. Intel's CPU is probably Q9550

Intel doesn't have 3 cores, so it can't be compared, and the number of cores is different, so it definitely can't be compared.

But in the case of the same number of cores, Intel is good.

So AMD can only fight the ** war.

Let's take a look first**,AMD's triple-core,It can only be compared with Intel's dual-core,**It's about the same!

For example, the 5 and 6 series, it is definitely not comparable, AMD has an absolute advantage, whether it is the main frequency, or multi-line work, absolutely no problem.

However,If compared with i3, it's a little worse.,After all, i3 is also a relatively new product.,And it's a dual-core four-thread,Can simulate multi-line tasks,Although this aspect can't be compared with the native 4-core,But if compared with the three-core, there must be a fight。。。

However, on the other hand, AMD triple-core, if you buy it well, you can also open a 4-core L3,。。 Haha, that's really earned...

Not much to say, summary!

Triple core, just like the previous one said, is not very easy to compare with Intel's products! Stronger than dual-core, better than quad-core!

However, with a little more money, it's better to buy a 4-core one, hehe!

In fact, AMD has better support for games, and Intel is better at file processing.

I feel that AMD's triple-core games are about the same as Intel's 6 series U, or not much different from i3, and the main i3 doesn't see how good it is.

AMD power consumption is 65W E3400 is also 65W, I think A is better. Let's choose a in the case of a game.

Why bother choosing such an old u. So many new u you don't want it? Not much worse.

My AMD Athlon 245 is 65W. Then 2G1333 RAM 3W MSI785GM-P45 motherboard 25W, graphics card 55W plus monitor 25W HDD 6W for a total of 204W.

Low-end U like ours then integrates the graphics card. How much appetite do you think you can eat?

Use the Athlon 255. The price of this good point is not much different.

The 5000+ after opening the quad-core is indeed an electric tiger. What is a funding problem? That's not a problem. Even if you buy 240, it is better than buying the previous generation.

The i3 is better than the Athlon's 4-core, the i3 has a high frequency, the single-core performance is much stronger, and there are three slows, and the Phenol four-core is better than the i3.

Of course, the i3 Athlon-4 has a lot of heat.

AMD quad-core products are rarely better than i3 Specifically, depending on the model, although AMD has 4 cores, the speed is not much faster than Intel's dual-core.

Intel's design was developed by Intel itself, mainly using strain silicon, Hige-K

AMD is jointly developed by IBM and AMD, mainly using strain silicon, SOI

In fact, it's almost a low-priced CPU, and I personally recommend AMD.

As a unit of length is the same, but Intel's other modules are different from AMD's design, so there are these differences, and if you play games, AMD is recommended.

Must i5,AMD's technology is too old,Plus false standards and other problems,In terms of performance, it is still appropriate to choose i5。 AMD's advantages are low power consumption, power saving, and low heat generation. So using the i5 is a good choice.

It depends on your total budget, the Intel platform is relatively high, and the AMD platform is more cost-effective. But personally, I think Intel's is more stable......Everyone's opinion is different, so it's up to you to grasp it.

AMD's current processor is significantly worse than Intel's, and the desktop version of the 3rd generation i5 quad-core has higher performance than AMD's strongest FX 8350, which shows that the gap between AMD quad-core and i5 quad-core is too big. Notebook processor AMD is also showing fatigue, A8 quad-core performance, single-core performance is only at the level of the second-generation i3, A10 4600M quad-core is completely unable to compete with the third-generation i5 3210M

Now AMD has changed the R&D object,CPU part can't be spelled,Spell display core,APU's integrated display performance is very good,Throw Intel's HD4000 more streets,HD7660D performance surpasses GT630 independent display,It can also crossfire with AMD independent display。

Therefore, if ThinkPad does not provide A10 chip and HD7670M independent display configuration, it is decisive i5 third generation, otherwise, it depends on whether you want CPU high point or GPU high point requirements to choose. cpu this i5; GPU is A10

Let's talk about the difference first,AMD quad-core is quad-core,i5The third generation is dual-core quad-thread,Actually, it's dual-core,Can hyper-thread,That is, fake quad-core,In other words, I personally won't choose i5,The reason is very simple,Because the stability of the actual hyper-thread is worse than the real quad-core,And in terms of performance,Hyper-threading does not mean higher performance than a real core,This means,Fake is fake,No matter how similar it is, it's not real,How can virtual cores and physical cores do the same? Obviously it's impossible, so you ask which one is better, of course it's good that the physical core is 4. As for the virtual two, let it do what it should do.

The notebook still needs IU, ......I would say that the six-core bulldozer is not as good as the i5 third generation, is it ......

AMD's highest-end games don't have an i3 powerhouse.

Hello, Intel's 45nm processor was released in 2007 and AMD's was released in 2009. At 65nm, Intel was in '05 and AMD was in 2006. Hope to adopt.

Intel's first 45nm processor was released in January 2008. 65nm was released in the 22nd week of 2006.

AMD's first 45nm CPU was released in January 2009. 65nm was in the eighth week of 2007.

PS: I'm talking about the earliest release of desktop CPUs.