ARM processor is a mobile processor for smartphones and tablets.

This table lists all currently known ARM processors. The table of ARM processors will be supplemented and upgraded as new models appear. This table uses a conditional system for evaluating CPU and GPU performance. The performance data for ARM processors was taken from a variety of sources, mainly based on the results of such tests as: Pass Mark, Antutu, GFXBench.

We do not claim absolute accuracy. Absolutely accurate ranking and evaluate the performance of ARM processors impossible, for the simple reason that each of them, in some ways, has advantages, and in some ways lags behind other ARM processors. The table of ARM processors allows you to see, evaluate and, most importantly, compare different SoCs (System-On-Chip) solutions. Using our table, you can compare mobile cpu and find out exactly how the ARM-heart of your future (or present) smartphone or tablet is positioned.

Here we have compared ARM processors. We looked and compared CPU and GPU performance in various SoCs (System-on-Chip). But the reader may have a few questions: Where are ARM processors used? What is an ARM processor? What is the difference between ARM architecture and x86 processors? Let's try to understand all this without going into too much detail.

First, let's define terminology. ARM is the name of the architecture and at the same time the name of the company that develops it. The abbreviation ARM stands for (Advanced RISC Machine or Acorn RISC Machine), which can be translated as: advanced RISC machine. ARM architecture combines a family of both 32 and 64-bit microprocessor cores developed and licensed by ARM Limited. I would like to note right away that ARM Limited is engaged in the development of cores and tools for them (debugging tools, compilers, etc.), but not in the production of the processors themselves. Company ARM Limited sells licenses for the production of ARM processors to third parties. Here is a partial list of companies licensed to manufacture ARM processors today: AMD, Atmel, Altera, Cirrus Logic, Intel, Marvell, NXP, Samsung, LG, MediaTek, Qualcomm, Sony Ericsson, Texas Instruments, nVidia, Freescale ... and many more.

Some companies licensed to release ARM processors create their own variants of cores based on the ARM architecture. Examples include: DEC StrongARM, Freescale i.MX, Intel XScale, NVIDIA Tegra, ST-Ericsson Nomadik, Qualcomm Snapdragon, Texas Instruments OMAP, Samsung Hummingbird, LG H13, Apple A4/A5/A6 and HiSilicon K3.

On the basis of ARM processors today work virtually any electronics: PDA, Cell phones and smartphones, digital players, portable game consoles, calculators, external hard drives and routers. All of them contain an ARM core, so we can say that ARM- mobile processors for smartphones and tablets.

ARM processor represents a SoC, or "system on a chip". SoC system, or "system on a chip", can contain in one chip, in addition to the CPU itself, and the rest of the full-fledged computer. This is a memory controller, and an I / O port controller, and a graphics core, and a geopositioning system (GPS). It can also contain a 3G module, as well as much more.

If we consider a separate family of ARM processors, say Cortex-A9 (or any other), it cannot be said that all processors of one family have the same performance or are all equipped with GPS module. All these parameters strongly depend on the chip manufacturer and what and how he decided to implement in his product.

What is the difference between ARM and X86 processors? By itself, RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) architecture implies a reduced set of instructions. Which accordingly leads to very moderate power consumption. Indeed, inside any ARM chip there are much fewer transistors than its counterpart from the x86 line. Do not forget that in the SoC system everything peripherals is located inside a single chip, which allows the ARM processor to be even more economical in terms of power consumption. The ARM architecture was originally designed to compute only integer operations, unlike x86, which can work with floating point or FPU calculations. It is impossible to unequivocally compare these two architectures. In some ways, the advantage will be for ARM. And somewhere and vice versa. If you try to answer the question in one sentence: what is the difference between ARM and X86 processors, then the answer will be this: the ARM processor does not know the number of commands that the x86 processor knows. And those that know, look much shorter. This has both pluses and minuses. Be that as it may, lately everything suggests that ARM processors are slowly but surely catching up, and in some ways even surpassing conventional x86 ones. Many openly declare that ARM processors will soon replace the x86 platform in the home PC segment. As we have already, in 2013, several world-famous companies have completely abandoned the further release of netbooks in favor of tablet PCs. Well, what will actually happen, time will tell.

We will track the processors already available on the ARM market.

62 processors and 80 different configurations

Another year has changed on the calendar, we have prepared new testing methods computer systems, which means that it's time to sum up the results of processor testing (which is a special case of system testing) in 2015. Last year's results were quite brief - they included the results of only 36 systems, differing only in processors and obtained exclusively using the built-in GPU. This approach, for obvious reasons, left behind a considerable number of platforms lacking integrated graphics, so we decided to modify it a bit, starting to use a discrete video card sometimes - at least where it is needed. However, the tests of 2015 became to some extent "training" - in 2016 we plan to further refine the approach to testing in order to further bring it closer to real life. But be that as it may, today we will present the results of 62 processors (more precisely, there are 61 different ones, but thanks to cTDP, one of them goes for two). And that's not all: 14 of them were tested with two "video cards" - an integrated GPU (each one is different) and a discrete Radeon R7 260X. We also tested four processors for the latest LGA1151 platform with two types of memory: DDR4-2133 and DDR3-1600. Thus, the total number of configurations was 80 - which is much less than 149 in the results before last, but for those we collected information for two and a half years, and the "lifetime" of the current test methodology was about eight months, i.e. almost three times less. In addition, the unification of tests for different systems allows you to compare the results with those obtained when testing laptops, all-in-ones and other complete systems.

But in this particular article, as mentioned above, we will limit ourselves to processors. More precisely, systems that differ mainly only in processors - it is clear that “testing processors” (especially for different platforms) has no other meaning for a long time, although for some this is still a revelation :)

Test stand configuration

Since there are many subjects, it is not possible to describe in detail their characteristics. After thinking a little, we decided to abandon the usual short table: anyway, it becomes too vast, and at the request of the workers, we still put some parameters directly on the diagrams. In particular, since some people ask to indicate right there the number of cores / modules and computational threads running simultaneously, as well as the ranges of operating clock frequencies - we tried to do just that. If readers like the result, we will save it for other tests next year. The format is simple: “cores/threads; minimum/maximum clock frequency of the cores in GHz".

Well, all other characteristics will have to be looked at in other places - the easiest way is from manufacturers, and prices - in stores. Moreover, for some devices, prices are still undetermined, since these processors themselves are not available in retail (all BGA models, for example). However, all this information is, of course, also in review articles devoted to these models, and today we are engaged in a slightly different task than actually studying processors: we collect all the data obtained together and look at the resulting patterns. Including, paying attention to the relative position of not processors, but of entire platforms that include them. Because of this, the grouping of data on the charts is by platform.

Therefore, it remains only to say a few words about the environment. As for memory, the fastest supported by the specification was almost always used. There are two exceptions: what we called "Intel LGA1151 (DDR3)" and Core i5-3427U. For the second, there were simply no suitable DDR3-1600 modules, so it had to be tested with DDR3-1333, and the first - processors under LGA1151, but paired with DDR3-1600, and not faster (and "main" according to specifications) DDR4-2133 . The amount of memory in most cases is the same - 8 GB, with the exception of two versions of LGA2011 - there were 16 GB DDR3 or DDR4, respectively, since the four-channel controller directly provokes the use of more RAM. System drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT 256 GB) - the same for all subjects. As for the video part, everything has already been said above: a discrete Radeon R7 260X and an integrated video core. The video core was always used when the processor had it (the exception is the Core i5-655K, since the first Intel version HD Graphics is no longer supported by modern operating systems), while a discrete video card was used where there is no integrated video. And in some cases - where there is an embedded video: to compare the results.

Test Methodology

To evaluate performance, we used our benchmarking methodology to measure performance. We normalized all test results relative to the results of the reference system, which last year was the same for laptops and for all other computers, in order to make it easier for readers to compare and choose.

Thus, these normalized results can be compared with those obtained in the same version of the benchmark for other systems (for example, we take and compare it with desktop platforms). For those who are interested in absolute results, we offer them as a file in Microsoft Excel format.

Video conversion and video processing

As we have noted more than once, in this group a discrete video card allows you to increase performance, but this effect is clearly visible only on older platforms (such as LGA1155), where the power of integrated GPUs was not high in itself. Actually, here is the answer - why did they increase it in new generations: but so that there would be no incentive to buy a video card too :)

Also, the dependence of performance on the number of threads of the executable code is clearly visible here. As a result, we come to a very wide range of results - they differ by more than an order of magnitude, since the junior two- and eight-core Core i7-5960X - all 577. But the main "crush" unfolds in the mass segment (up to $ 200): modern Core i5 allow you to increase performance (relative to the "floor level") five times, but further investments raise it only twice more. Actually, there is nothing surprising in this: the higher - the more expensive.

As for the comparison of platforms, then ... they can not be compared. Indeed, the desktop AMD FM2+ roughly corresponds only to Intel ultrabook processors, and formally the top-end AM3+ only corresponds to the long-outdated LGA1155. However, Intel's growth from generation to generation is small - even in such well-optimized tasks, we can only talk about 15-20% at each step. (However, this sometimes leads to qualitative changes - for example, the Core i7-6700K actually caught up with the once top six-core i7-4960X, despite a significantly lower price and a simpler device.) In general, it is clear that manufacturers are dealing with completely different issues. , and not at all attempts to greatly increase the performance of desktop systems.

Creation of video content

As we have already written more than once, in this group a decent pig was put on us by a multi-threaded test in Adobe after effects CC 2014.1.1. For his normal operation it is recommended to have at least 2 GB for each calculation thread - otherwise, the test may “fall out” into single-threaded mode and start working even slower than without using Multiprocessing technology (as Adobe calls it). In general, for full-fledged work in eight threads, it is desirable to have 16 GB random access memory, and an octa-core processor with HT will require a minimum of 32 GB of memory. We use 8 GB of memory on most systems, which is enough for “eight-streams” when using integrated video (if they have it: this is done for desktop Core i7, but FX-8000, for example, is worse), but not discrete. Another pebble in the garden of those who still believe in "testing processors" as something independent - apart from the platform and other environment: as you can see, sometimes attempts to make it equal lead to extremely interesting effects. A "pure" comparison is possible, perhaps, only within the framework of one platform, and even then not always: the amount of memory required by some programs may depend on, in fact, the processor and not only it. Which just hits the top models hard, because they need more, and "more" in this case means more expensive.

However, in any case, in this group of applications, “processor dependence” is less pronounced than in the previous one - there older Core i5 outperformed low-voltage surrogates five times, and here only a little more than four. In addition, a more powerful video card is able to increase the results noticeably weaker, although it should not be neglected (if possible) either.

Digital photo processing

This group is interesting in that it is absolutely different from the previous ones - in particular, the degree of “multithreading utilization” is much lower here, which significantly reduces the range of results obtained, but here are the differences between the Core i5 (we will continue to stick to this family as top level mass segment - sales of systems based on more expensive processors are incomparably less) and entry-level devices exceed six times. What is it connected with? Firstly, the dependence of performance on the GPU is noticeable. First of all - integrated: discrete cannot be deployed at full strength due to the need for frequent data transfer. But just the power of integrated graphics in junior and senior processors differs significantly! And don't forget that there are still not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences between junior and senior processors - for example, in supported instruction sets. This hits both the junior Intel families (recall that Pentiums, for example, still do not support AVX) and outdated processors from both companies.

Vector graphics

But here is a good example of what modern software happens different. Even if we are talking about, to put it mildly, not the cheapest programs, and not "home use". In fact, as we have already noted more than once, any serious optimizations in Illustrator were last made about 10 years ago, so the program for fast work we need processors that are as close as possible to Core 2 Duo: a maximum of a couple of cores with maximum single-threaded performance and no support for new instruction sets. As a result, modern Pentiums look the most advantageous (taking into account the price), and higher-class processors can be faster than them only because of the higher clock frequency. Processors of other architectures get really bad in such conditions. Actually, even in the Intel line, such intensive methods of increasing performance, like adding a fourth-level cache, in this case only interfere, not help. However, in any case, trying to greatly speed up the work in this program (and similar ones) is not a very promising occupation: only a fourfold difference between the best Core i5 and surrogate platforms speaks for itself.

Audio processing

Here is an example of a situation where, it seems, the computing cores are not superfluous, and even the GPU matters, etc., but the difference between the Celeron N3150 (the slowest in this test) and the Core i7 for mass platforms is only about five times . Moreover, a large part of it can be attributed to the surrogacy of lower architectures - the already very old Celeron 1037U (albeit a very limited, but full-fledged Core) is almost one and a half times faster than the N3150, and the younger desktop Pentiums are three times faster. But further ... the more expensive, the less effective the size of the "surcharge for the processor." Even within the framework of one architecture, AMD's "construction equipment" with its "budget multithreading" in this case is able to compete only with the same Pentiums: six threads are faster than four from the same manufacturer, but they do not look convincing against the background of only two cores of a competing development.

Text recognising

Not at all like in the previous case - here the FX-8000 still easily overtakes any Core i5. Note that AMD positioned them this way at the time of release: between i5 and i7. Including the price. Which then, unfortunately, had to be radically reduced, since the number of such “convenient” tasks turned out to be not too large. However, if the user is interested in them, this makes it possible to save a lot. Given, of course, that this family has not been updated for more than three years (in a serious way, anyway), and Intel processors are slowly but growing.

And the problem of scalability is also clearly visible - no matter how good the additional cores and threads are, the more of them, the less effect the increase in the number gives. Actually, in the end, one should not be surprised that this process stopped long ago in mass processors - even more convincing arguments for multi-core are needed than can be found so far. Here are four modern cores - good. Four dual-threaded cores are even better. And then - everything.

Archiving and unarchiving data

If archiving involves all cores (and additional computational threads) of processors, then the reverse process is single-threaded. Given the fact that they have to be used more often, this could be considered a nuisance if the process itself were not significantly faster. Yes, in fact, packaging has become a fairly simple operation to pay close attention to when choosing a processor. In any case, this is true for mass desktop models - low-power specialized platforms can still "tinker" with such tasks for a long time.

The speed of installing and uninstalling applications

In principle, this problem was also introduced by us in test methodology mainly because of the need to test ready-made systems: and on the same processor in different environments, as we already know, performance can differ by one and a half to two times. But when the system uses a fast drive and enough memory, the processors themselves do not differ fundamentally from each other. However, surrogate platforms may well turn out to be exactly the same two or three times slower than “normal” desktop ones. But the latter already differ slightly from each other - be it Pentium or Core i7. In fact, all that may be needed from the processor is one computation thread with maximum performance. But if we discard mobile systems, this is almost always carried out to approximately the same extent.

File operations

And these are all the more "platform-accumulative" tests, rather than processor ones. As part of this line of tests, we use the same drive - with all the consequences. But the "platform" may matter - some surprise, for example, were the results of LGA1156: seems to be not the worst desktop solution, which until recently could even be considered fast (the LGA775 still found among users is even worse), but it turned out that it can only be compared with Bay Trail or Braswell under such loads. And even then - the comparison will not be in favor of the "old woman" who was once close to the top level. But modern budget systems already practically do not differ from non-budget ones - simply because the first ones are already enough for the performance to begin to be determined by other components of the system, without "resting" on the processor or even on the chipset.

Total

In principle, we made the main conclusions on processor families directly in the reviews, so they are not required in this article - this is primarily a generalization of all the information received earlier, nothing more. And generalizations, as we see, can sometimes be interesting. First, it's easy to see that the impact of discrete video cards on performance in mass-purpose programs can generally be considered absent. More precisely, in some applications it is, but being “smeared” over all tests, it quietly evaporates. In any case, this is true for more or less modern platforms - it's easy to see that the weak integrated graphics of the LGA1155 times, even in the overall standings, can reduce the results by five percent, which is already more or less noticeable, although not critical. The same should apply to old discrete video cards, which will also lose to slightly newer ones, but in this case the border between “good” and “bad” solutions is moved not by three, but by five or more years from the current moment. In a word, modern platforms are deprived of such problems. So for a qualitative comparison, it is not at all necessary to require the same video part, which means, if you need, for example, to compare a laptop with a desktop system, we find a suitable article about a laptop (not even about the same one - another one on a similar platform will do) and compare. The data storage system is even more important, so if there is no parity in the articles on it, you will have to limit yourself to the results of test groups that do not depend on the drive. As for the video... Let's repeat: among the mass applications, there are not so strongly tied to it, and the gaming application is a completely different story.

And now let's try (as usual) to look at the performance range that we managed to cover this year. The Celeron N3150 has the minimum result in the overall standings: 54.6 points. The maximum is for the Core i7-6700K: 258.4 points. "Professional" platforms like LGA2011/2011-3 failed to take the first place, although in terms of tests its "multi-core" representatives were confidently in the lead. The reasons for this have been voiced more than once: mass software manufacturers are mainly guided by the fleet of equipment available to users, and not at all by some “sparkling peaks”. There are (and always have been and always will be) such tasks for which computing resources are “always scarce”, and it is for them that top-end systems are required (sometimes going far beyond the scope of our testing), but the bulk of the tasks are easily solved on a mass computer. Often even outdated.

In this regard, it is interesting to compare the current "Itogi" not with the past, but with the one before last. Then the tests were done according to a completely different scheme - always using a powerful discrete video card. And there were more professional applications, so that the top six-core processors in the overall result still turned out to be faster than best solutions for mainstream platforms. However, at the same time, the Core i7-4770K scored 242 points - which is just comparable to the 258.4 of the Core i7-6700K (in terms of time-adjusted positioning, these processors are the same: one was the fastest solution for the mass LGA1150 of 2013, and the second - the same in 2016 for LGA1151). At the same time, both then and now, various Pentium / Core i3 / Core i5 were pushing in the range of 100-200 points - nothing has changed. Unless the scores have become different: it was said about the software above, but the standard has also changed. Previously, this was AMD Athlon II X4 620 (budget, but desktop and quad-core processor) with discrete graphics card based on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570. And now this (ultrabook) Intel Core i5-3317U without any discrete. It seems to be everything else. But in practice - the same thing: a budget desktop gives a hundred points, any investment in it can at best increase productivity (on average for task classes) by two and a half times, and a compact nettop on a surrogate platform will work two to three times slower. This state of affairs in the segment desktop computers has been established and preserved for a long time, which is well shown by our summary results. In general, when going to the store for a new computer, you do not need to read any articles - just analyze the amount of money in your wallet :)

When are tests needed? Basically - when the task arises to change the old computer to a new one. In particular, when at the same time it is planned to “move to another class”: by changing the desktop to a nettop or a laptop, for example. When purchasing a new solution of the same class, you don’t have to worry: the new Core i5, for example, will always be faster than the old one of the same class, so there is no great need for accurate estimates of “by how much”. But the fact that the performance of processors for various purposes is slowly but surely growing can lead to pleasant surprises- when, for example, it turns out that the old desktop can easily replace the ultrabook, and without any negative consequences. Well, as we see, this is quite possible, since everyone “grows”.

Holidays and vacations are in full swing, but the weather outside is not very good. What would you like to do? I propose to spend time with pleasure: to play in computer games. Your "old man" does not pull modern toys? Maybe, . But what?

Today's article is designed to help you decide on the choice of "pebble" for a gaming PC. The ranking of the best processors for mid-summer 2017 included models that showed the optimal balance in terms of performance and price. For your convenience, we have divided them into 3 groups: approximately $100, approximately $200 and approximately $300. So that no one feels left out, each group consists of a pair of processors - one Intel and one AMD.

About $100: Intel Core i3-7100 and AMD FX-8320

Intel Core i3-7100

The Intel Core i3-7100 desktop processor is the most balanced in terms of cost and performance in the $100-120 price segment. In combination with a top-end graphics card from 2016-2017 and motherboard based on the H270 or Z270 chipsets allows you to comfortably play the vast majority of modern games. Except, perhaps, the most demanding ones.

Yes, it has only 2 cores, but this shortcoming is compensated by a high clock frequency (3900 Mhz), support for DDR4-2400 memory and, to some extent, Hyper Threading technology, which allows the operating system to use each physical core as 2 logical ones. In addition, the "pebble" has a good integrated graphics with support for 4k resolution at 60 Hz. Due to it, you can do without a discrete graphics card, if for some reason you put off buying it.

Specifications

• Microarchitecture: Kaby Lake (7th generation).
• Number of cores: 2.
• Clock frequency: 3900 Mhz.
• Socket: LGA1151.
• Manufacturing process: 14 nm.
• Multiplier: 34, unlocked.
• L1 cache: 64 Kb (instructions + data).
• L2 cache: 512 Kb.
• L3 cache: 3072 Kb.
• Controller PCI Express: There is.
• Technologies: Hyper Threading (hyperthreading), EM64T (x64 support), Virtualization Technology (virtualization), Enhanced SpeedStep (energy saving), hardware encryption, XD Bit, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3, VT-x, MMX.
• Thermal power (TDP): 51 W.
• : 100°C

The most attractive qualities of the Core i3-7100: high performance, moderate price, integrated graphics and low TDP - to cool the processor even at maximum load, the included small cooler is enough.

The downside is that it only works on Windows 10 (as well as Linux and Mac OS). Those who cannot part with the "seven" and "eight" will have to choose - either the system or the new processor. By the way, this drawback applies not only to the Intel Core i3-7100, but to the entire Kaby Lake and AMD Ryzen line.

AMD FX-8320

A MD FX-8320, though old, but extremely successful model of the game "stone". In mid-2017, the balance of its performance and price reached optimal levels, which gave us a reason to include it in today's rating and put it on the same level with the Intel Core i3-7100.

8 cores, 4000 Mhz frequencies with the possibility of increasing to 4600 Mhz and more due to overclocking by the multiplier (here, unlike the Intel competitor, it is free), as well as support for DDR3-1866 memory, they are excellent in multi-threaded games like Battlefield.

Specifications

• Microarchitecture: Vishera.
• Number of cores: 8.
• Clock frequency: 3500-4000
• Socket: AM3+.
• Manufacturing process: 32 nm.
• Multiplier: 17.5, free.
• Integrated Graphics: No.
• L1 cache: 96 Kb.
• L2 cache: 2048 Kb.
• L3 cache: 8192 Kb.
• PCI Express Controller: No.
• The maximum supported memory size: 128 Gb.
• Supported memory standards: DDR3-800/1066/1333/1600/1866. There is support for ECC.
• Technologies: AMD64 (x64 support), Virtualization Technology, AMD PowerNow (noise reduction), Turbo Core 3.0 (Peak Boost), NX Bit, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE1, SSE4.2, SSSE3, MMX, VT, XOP, TBM.
• Thermal power (TDP): 125 W.

Advantages of AMD FX-8320: high performance, nice price ($115-120), multiplier makes it possible to collect an inexpensive gaming computer which will remain relevant for the next 3-4 years.

Disadvantages: very hot - requires a powerful cooling system, consumes a lot of energy, does not have a graphics core.

About $200: Intel Core i5-7500 and AMD Ryzen 5 1600

Intel Core i5-7500

Intel Core i5-7500 is sold in retail stores for $200-210, that is, about a hundred more than i3-7100. However, for this money you will get 4 full-fledged physical cores, which is much more preferable in gaming systems than virtual ones, as well as as much as 6 Mb of L3 cache.

The clock frequency of this processor reaches 3800 Mhz (or a little more) with dynamic overclocking, there is an integrated video - the same as that of the i3-7100, and support for DDR4-2400 memory.

Specifications

• Microarchitecture: Kaby Lake.
• Number of cores: 4.
• Clock frequency: 3400-3800
• Socket: LGA1151.
• Manufacturing process: 14 nm.
• Multiplier: 39, unlocked.
• Integrated Graphics: HD Graphics 630.
• Graphics core frequency: 1100 Mhz.
• L2 cache: 1024 Kb.
• L3 cache: 6144 Kb.
• PCI Express controller: yes.
• Number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 16.
• The maximum supported memory size: 64 Gb.
• Supported memory standards: DDR3L-1333/1600, DDR4-2133/2400.
• Technologies: turbo boost 0 (overclocking at peak loads), EM64T, Virtualization Technology, Enhanced SpeedStep, Intel vPro ( remote control non-OS computer), hardware encryption, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, SSSE3, MMX, TBT 2.0, VT-x , XD Bit.
• Maximum temperature: 80°C

Advantages of the Intel Core i5-7500: fast, cool (TDP 65 W), supports dynamic overclocking (Turbo Boost 2.0), has integrated graphics, the Intel vPro function is implemented. The latter allows you to remotely edit the BIOS and run diagnostic tests outside operating system by connecting to a computer over a network.

Disadvantages - no support for the popularly beloved Windows 7, no hyper-threading, a locked multiplier (for this price, as many people think, they could implement Hyper Threading and make multiplication free).

AMD Ryzen 5 1600

R yzen 5 1600 is another representative of AMD, this time modern and also very successful. On board are 6 physical and 12 virtual cores(supports multithreading), free multiplier and 16 Mb L3 cache. A bonus is support for DDR4-2666 memory (the Intel competitor has a maximum DDR4 frequency of 2400 MHz). The standard clock cycles of the cores are 3200 MHz, with dynamic overclocking - 3600 MHz, after overclocking by the multiplier - up to 4200 MHz.

Processors based on the Zen microarchitecture, one of which is the Ryzen 5 1600, are characterized by low power consumption and TDP (which is unusual for the bulk of AMD products). In addition, a compact, efficient and quiet cooler is included in the boxed package of the model, the power of which is sufficient even with some overclocking.

Specifications

• Number of cores: 6.
• Clock frequency: 3200-3600 Mhz.
• Socket: AM4.
• Manufacturing process: 14 nm.
• Multiplier: 32, free.
• Integrated Graphics: No.
• L1 cache: 96 Kb.
• L2 cache: 3072 Kb.
• L3 cache: 16384 Kb.
• PCI Express controller: yes.
• Number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 16.
• The maximum supported memory size: 64 Gb.
• Supported memory standards: DDR4-1866/2666.
• Technology Support: Multithreading, AMD64, Virtualization, Hardware Encryption, Precision Boost (increased clock cycles at peak loads), Pure Power (power saving), SSE instructions, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, SSSE3, MMX .
• Thermal power (TDP): 65 W.

Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 1600: excellent performance at a moderate price ($200-210), low heat, low power consumption, multiplier overclocking, the ability to unleash the potential of any modern graphics card.

Cons: no integrated graphics, no Windows support 7.

About $300: Intel Core i7-7700K and AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Intel Core i7-7700K

The Intel Core i7-7700K is the best price/performance among top processors today. Here's what it has: 4 physical and 8 virtual cores, a free multiplier, 8 Mb L3, the frequency of each core is 4500 MHz in Turbo Boost mode and 5000 MHz in overclocking. In my opinion, excellent opportunities for the most resource-intensive toys. There is also another gentleman's set - DDR4-2400 support and an integrated HD Graphics 630 graphics core with higher clock rates than the younger brothers of the Kaby Lake family.

Specifications

• Microarchitecture: Kaby Lake.
• Number of cores: 4.
• Clock frequency: 4200-4500
• Socket: LGA1151.
• Manufacturing process: 14 nm.
• Multiplier: 42, free.
• Integrated Graphics: HD Graphics 630.
• Graphics core frequency: 1150 Mhz.
• L1 cache: 128 Kb (instructions + data).
• L2 cache: 1024 Kb.
• L3 cache: 8192 Kb.
• PCI Express controller: yes.
• Number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 16.
• The maximum supported memory size: 64 Gb.
• Supported memory standards: DDR3L-1333-1600, DDR4-2133-2400.
• Technology Support: Hyper-Threading,Turbo Boost0, EM64T, Virtualization Technology, Enhanced SpeedStep, Hardware Encryption, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3, MMX, XD Bit.
• Thermal power (TDP): 91 W.
• Maximum temperature: 100°C

Strengths of the Intel Core i7-7700K: best ratio performance in games and purchase costs ($300-315), unlocked multiplier, powerful video core. In short, a good start for the future.

Weaknesses: in case of overclocking, it requires a powerful and expensive cooling system, does not support Windows 7.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

A MD Ryzen 7 1700 is the best of the best for multi-threaded gaming and a wide variety of demanding non-gaming tasks such as 3D graphics rendering, video editing, etc. A great investment for the future.

"Under the hood" of this processor: 8 physical and 16 virtual cores, free multiplier, 16 Mb L3, DDR4-2933 support, 24 PCI Express lines (competitors have 16), the frequency of each core in dynamic overclocking is 3700 MHz, in multiplier overclocking – up to approximately 4100 MHz. There is no integrated graphics card, but the systems for which the Ryzen 7 1700 is designed do not need it. Besides, it's cold. Even under intense load (by the way, it is extremely difficult to load it at 100%), it does not heat up above 50 ° C.

The cost of the model is comparable to the Core i7-7700K.

Specifications

• Microarchitecture: Summit Ridge (Zen).
• Number of cores: 8.
• Clock frequency: 3000-3700 MHz.
• Socket: AM4.
• Manufacturing process: 14 nm.
• Multiplier: 30, free.
• Integrated Graphics: No.
• L1 cache: 256 Kb (instructions + data).
• L2 cache: 4096 Kb.
• L3 cache: 16384 Kb.
• PCI Express controller: yes.
• Number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes: 24.
• The maximum supported memory size: 64 Gb.
• Supported memory standards: DDR4-1866/2933.
• Technology Support: Multithreading, AMD64, Virtualization, Hardware Encryption, Precision Boost, Pure Power, SSE instructions, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, SSSE3, MMX.
• Thermal power (TDP): 65 W.
• Maximum temperature: 90 °C

Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 1700: amazing power, multitasking, versatility, energy efficiency. The disadvantage is that there is no support for older versions of Windows.

According to many owners and experts, the Ryzen 7 1700 is a huge leap forward for AMD. The release of this processor showed that the "reds" are far from being as hopelessly behind as they are thought to be, and are still able to set the heat on the "blues". As they say, they harness for a long time, but they go fast.

3 Great processor for gaming 4 Best price 5

Computers have entered our lives so tightly that we already consider them something elementary. But their structure is by no means simple. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drives: all these are integral parts of a computer. It is impossible to throw out this or that detail, because they are all important. But the most important role is played by the processor. They don't call it "central" for nothing.

The role of the CPU is simply huge. He is responsible for all calculations, which means that it depends on him how quickly you will complete your tasks. It can be web surfing, drafting a document in text editor, photo editing, file transfer and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main load falls on the shoulders of the graphics accelerator, CPU plays a huge role, and with an incorrectly selected “stone”, the performance of even the most powerful video card will not be revealed to its fullest.

On this moment There are only two major processor manufacturers in the consumer market: AMD and Intel. It is about them that we will talk in the traditional rating.

The best inexpensive processors: budget up to 5000 rubles.

4 Intel Celeron G3900 Skylake

The most affordable Intel processor
Country: USA
Average price: 4 381 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5

The rating is opened by an extremely weak processor of the Celeron line. The G3900 model has two cores of the previous generation - Skylake, which, coupled with a frequency of 2.8 GHz, gives the lowest performance result. In synthetic tests, the processor shows a result about half that of the Core i3. But the price here is quite budgetary - 4-4.5 thousand rubles. This means that this processor is perfect for assembling, for example, a simple office computer or multimedia system for the living room. In general, this model cannot be called bad. Still, the 14 nm process technology provides good power efficiency, and the HD Graphics 510 graphics core is suitable for casual games.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in the class
• Great for office PC or HTPC

Flaws:

• Does not support Hyper-Threading Technology

3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo

Best price
A country:
Average price: 3 070 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5

The processors of the Athlon line belong to the budget class, which is clearly seen in the price of the bronze medalist. But for over three thousand rubles you will get a very interesting stone. There are 4 cores (2 logical cores for each physical core) made according to the 28 nm process technology. Thanks to this, power consumption is low, and heat dissipation is quite low for AMD - only 65 watts. True, this is not particularly rejoicing because of the locked multiplier - it will not work to overclock the processor. Also, the disadvantages include the lack of a built-in graphics core, which means that when assembling an office PC or a multimedia system, you will have to separately purchase a video card.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in the class
• Great performance for the price

Flaws:

• Lack of integrated graphics core
• Not unlocked multiplier

2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera

The only 6-core processor in the class
A country: USA (Made in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 4 160 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

AMD's FX-6300 is the only processor in the category with six cores. Unfortunately, one cannot hope for high power in the budget class - the model is based on the 2012 Vishera core. In normal mode, the cores run at 3.5 GHz, but like many AMD CPUs, it overclocks perfectly. Yes, performance, judging by user reviews, is enough even for games, but there are still enough minuses.

One of the main ones is high power consumption. Due to the use of an inexpensive 32 nm process technology, AMD gets very hot and consumes a lot of electricity. Also note the lack of support for modern DDR4 RAM. Because of this, the processor can be advised not to build a new PC, but to upgrade an old one without replacing the motherboard and other components.

Advantages:

• 6 cores. Great for doing multiple simple tasks at the same time.
• Good overclocking potential
• Low cost

Flaws:

• Poor energy efficiency
• Legacy platform

At the moment, there are only two players in the processor market - Intel and AMD. It's just that the choice doesn't get any easier. To make it easier for you to decide whether to buy a CPU from one manufacturer or another, we have listed some of the main pros and cons of these companies' products for you.

Company	pros	Minuses
	Programs and games are better optimized for Intel Lower power consumption Performance tends to be slightly better More high frequencies cache	Effectively work with no more than no more than two resource-intensive tasks Higher cost When changing the line of processors, the socket also changes, which means that the upgrade is more complicated
	Below cost Better price-performance ratio Work better with 3-4 resource-intensive tasks (better multitasking) Most processors overclock well	Higher power consumption and temperatures (not exactly true for the latest Ryzen processors) Worse program optimization

1 Intel Pentium G4600 Kaby Lake

Best Performance
Country: USA
Average price: 7 450 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

We can recommend the good old Pentium for purchase in this category. This processor, like the previous participants, is made according to the 14 nm process technology, socket LGA1151. Refers to one of the latest generations - Kaby Lake. Of course, there are only 2 cores. They operate at a frequency of 3.6 GHz, which causes the gap from the Core i3 by about 18-20%. But this is not much, because the difference in price is twofold! In addition to the frequency of the cores, the relatively low power is due to the small amount of L3 cache - 3071 KB.

In addition to the excellent price-performance ratio, the advantages of this CPU include the presence of an integrated graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630, which is more than enough for comfortable use of a PC without a discrete graphics card.

Advantages:

• Great price for this performance
• Generation Kaby Lake
• Good integrated graphics

The best mid-range processors: budget up to 20,000 rubles.

5 Intel Core i3-7320 Kaby Lake

The most affordable processor with integrated graphics
Country: USA
Average price: 12 340 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

Let's open the rating with the most affordable processor of the i-core line. The model is extremely difficult to call excellent in terms of price / quality ratio, because the cheaper ryzen 3 even shows slightly better results in synthetic tests. Nevertheless, the model that opens the TOP-5 can be safely chosen not only for an office system, but also for a gaming computer.

There are only two physical cores, but these are modern 14 nm chips of one of the latest generations - Kaby lake. Frequency - 4100 MHz. This is a very shameful indicator. In addition, there is the possibility of overclocking. Given the excellent energy efficiency and low heat dissipation - even with the bundled cooler, the idle temperature stays at 35-40 degrees, under load up to 70 degrees - you can painlessly increase the frequencies. Unlike competitors from AMD, Core i3 has an integrated graphics core, which allows it to be used in an office system without a discrete graphics card. But keep in mind that officially it only works on Windows 10.

Advantages:

• Integrated graphics core
• Overclocking capability
• Low temperatures

Flaws:

• Weak performance for the price

4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge

Best price
A country: USA (Made in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 6 917 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Ryzen 3 is AMD's low-cost new line of processors, designed to once again impose a fight on Intel. And the 1200 does a great job. For 7 thousand rubles, the buyer receives a 4-core processor. The factory frequencies are low - only 3.1 GHz (3.4 GHz in enhanced performance mode), but the multiplier is unlocked, which means that enthusiasts can easily make the "stone" a little faster.

The transition to new chips not only improved performance, but also reduced power consumption, and also allowed temperatures to be reduced to acceptable values. Due to the lack of a built-in graphics chip we can only recommend this processor for budget gaming builds. The performance is only slightly better than the previous entrant.

Advantages:

• Unlocked multiplier

Flaws:

• No built-in graphics chip

3 Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake

Great processor for gaming
Country: USA
Average price: 19 084 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Let's start with the fact that the i5-7600K is by no means an outsider. Yes, in terms of performance, it is somewhat worse than the mastodons that you will see below, but for most gamers it will be more than enough. The processor has four Kaby Lake cores running at 3.8 GHz (in reality up to 4.0 GHz with TurboBoost). There is also a built-in graphics core - HD Graphics 630, which means that even demanding games can be played at the minimum wage. With a normal video card (for example, GTX 1060), the processor reveals itself completely. In most games at FullHD resolution (most gamers have such monitors) and high graphics settings, the frame rate rarely drops below 60 fps. Is there anything else needed?

Advantages:

• Best price
• Enough power for most gamers
• Excellent graphics core

2 AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Summit Ridge

Best price/performance ratio
A country: USA (Made in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 11 970 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8

The second line of the TOP-5 mid-range processors is occupied by one of the best processors in terms of price / performance ratio. With an average cost of only 12,000 rubles, in synthetic tests, Ryzen 5 is able to compete with the well-known Intel Core i7-7700K on default settings(In PassMark 12270 and 12050 points respectively). Such power is due to the presence of six Summit Ridge physical cores, made according to the 12 nm process technology. The clock frequency is not a record - 3.6 GHz. The possibility of overclocking is present, but in the reviews, users claim that at frequencies above 4.0-4.1 GHz, the processor behaves unstable and gets very hot. At factory settings, in idle time, temperatures are kept at 42-46 degrees, in games 53-57 when using a standard cooler.

Also, high performance is due to large cache volumes of all levels. The CPU supports the modern DDR4-2667 standard, which allows you to create based on this processor great computers for playing at medium-high settings in FullHD.

Advantages:

• Excellent price/performance ratio
• Little heated

Flaws:

• Low overclocking potential

1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge

The most powerful processor in the class
A country: USA (Manufactured in Malaysia, China, China)
Average price: 17 100 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8

As expected, the processor from the top Ryzen 7 line has the best performance in the class. Again, one cannot help but recall the cost - for 17 thousand rubles we get power at the level of the top Core i7 of previous years. The processor includes eight cores divided into two clusters. With a stock clock speed of just 3.0GHz, the Ryzen 7 is guaranteed to top out at 3.7GHz, and with a bit of luck, up to 4.1GHz.

Like the previous representatives of the line, the leader is made according to the 12 nm process technology, which makes it possible to save energy. The situation with heat dissipation is good - in stress tests, temperatures are kept at 70-75 degrees.

Advantages:

• High performance
• Overclocking available
• Fresh platform to be supported for at least 4 years

The best top processors

3 Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake

The most popular top processor
Average price: 29 060 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

More recently, the i7-7700K was the top processor in Intel's lineup. But technology is developing extremely quickly, and in 2018 it is difficult to recommend this particular chip for purchase. According to synthetic tests, the model clearly lags behind its competitors - in PassMark, the CPU scores only 12,000 points, which is comparable to modern mid-range processors. But these figures are achieved at standard settings, when 4 physical cores operate at a frequency of 4.2 GHz, and after all, the CPU can be easily overclocked to even higher frequencies, thereby increasing performance.

Yes, the bronze medalist lags behind competitors, but costs at least half as much, and given the popularity, it is quite possible to find a good second-hand processor. Also, the high prevalence and long-standing presence on the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with socket LGA1151. In general, we have an excellent base for a powerful gaming system at a relatively low cost.

Advantages:

• Good price for this class
• High performance
• Great overclocking possibilities
• High popularity

Flaws:

• Not really relevant in 2018

2 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake

The most powerful processor in the Intel line
Country: USA
Average price: 77 370 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Until recently, Intel's top line was the Core i7 series. But modern realities require more and more power. If you have few familiar solutions, pay attention to the Core i9-7900X. The processor is already at the standard clock frequency is able to enter the TOP-10 most powerful CPU. For example, in PassMark, the model scores almost 22 thousand points - this is twice as much as that of the bronze medalist in the rating. At the same time, in the reviews, users talk about trouble-free overclocking to 4.2-4.5 GHz with high-quality air cooling. Temperatures do not exceed 70 degrees under load.

Such high performance is due to the use of 10 cores made according to the 14 nm process technology. The model supports all the necessary modern standards and commands, which allows it to be used for any task.

Advantages:

• Top performance
• Excellent overclocking potential
• Acceptable temperatures

Flaws:

• Very high cost
• No solder under the lid.

1 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

The leader of the rating is insane in everything - starting at a price of 65 thousand rubles, ending with incredible performance. In terms of power in synthetic tests, the model is slightly ahead of the previous participant. The internal arrangement is significantly different. Threadripper uses 16 (!) cores. The clock speed is comparable to the Core i9 - 3400 MHz - but the overclocking capabilities are more modest. Stable "stone" works at a frequency of 3.9 GHz, with an increase in rates, the necessary stability is lost.

Such a large number of cores performs well in all tasks. But using a monster for games is not entirely reasonable - not all projects can reveal its potential. AMD is useful for professional video editors, 3D designers and more. - in professional software, the addition of cores gives a significant increase in rendering speed.

Advantages:

• Relatively low price tag
• high power
• Excellent performance in professional programs