Dva najvea, istovremeno i jedina proizvoaa x86 mikroprocesora, koji se ugrauju raunare koje svi koristimo, jesu Intel i AMD

Dva najvea, istovremeno i jedina proizvoaa x86 mikroprocesora, koji se ugrauju raunare koje svi koristimo, jesu Intel i AMD. Filozofije koje slede ove dve kompanije se umnogome razlikuju. Stoga nije od zgoreg znati kakvi su koncepti kojima se Intel i AMD vode, kako biste pravilnije mogli da procenite "kome se carstvu prikloniti"...Intel i AMD svetovi

Intel i AMD su dva najvea, a zapravo i jedina proizvoaa x86 mikroprocesora, odnosno ipova koje konvencionalno nazivamo procesorima u naim PC raunarima. Iako u poslednje vreme sve vie ureaja, naroito mobilnih, unosi raznolikost kroz korienje procesora koji ne spadaju u x86 arhitekturu, i dalje su x86 procesori najbitniji inilac iskustva koje poistoveujemo sa raunarima.

Nemaju obe kompanije isti pristup tritu procesora. Naprotiv, njihove filozofije su poprilino razliite. Intel i AMD su potpuno odvojeni svetovi, sa drugaijim kategorizacijama, ciljevima, cenovnim grupama, i uopte filozofijom, koja se reflektuje i na PC raunare koji su bazirani na njihovom hardveru. Ovde emo se ukratko osvrnuti ba na te najbitnije razlike u filozofiji, bez detaljisanja, testiranja ili eksplicitnih dokazivanja.

Bez elje da duimo, izneemo odreene tvrdnje za koje vas molimo da ih prihvatite kao aksiome. Danas su procesori odreeni brojnim parametrima, meu kojima se radni takt i dalje uvaava kao najbitniji, ali tu su jo i broj jezgara, FPU/ALU jedinice, ke memorija, memorijski i ostali kontroleri integrisani u procesore, integrisana grafika i tako dalje. Posebno se jednaina promenila sa implementacijom integrisanih grafikih jezgara, to je trci na polju procesora donelo posebnu meru.

ta su najvanije stavke? Ukoliko su vam bitne performanse procesorskih jezgara, Intel je bolji izbor. Ukoliko traite odnos cene i performansi, AMD je bolji izbor, a isto vai i za situaciju u kojoj su vam bitne performanse integrisane grafike. Grafike integrisane u AMD procesorima u principu rade bolje nego one integrisane u Intel procesorima. Najzad, AMD generalno bolje stoji kada su cene u pitanju, ali mu je najvii prag relativno nizak to znai da se AMD praktino i ne takmii u gornjem segmentu. Ukoliko vas svojim performansama ne zadovoljavaju procesori cene ispod 200-ak evra, vi se verovatno neete dvoumiti, obzirom da AMD jednostavno ne nudi skuplji procesor, i da je to trite kojim Intel potpuno suvereno vlada.

Postoji jo nekoliko aspekata o kojima treba voditi rauna. Softver je u poslednje vreme uglavnom kaskao za hardverom, to u praksi znai da za obinog kupca sve manje postaje bitno kojim se procesorom raspolae. ak je u industriji jasno uoljiv trend nuenja kupcima to jeftinije platforme, prevashodno za neku posebnu namenu, ije su performanse na nivou hardvera od pre nekoliko godina, ali u nekoj novoj, obino manjoj i visokointegrisanoj formi.

Slino se moe rei i za igre, mada ne sasvim. Iako dosta zavisi od anra do anra, od igre do igre, od razvojnog tima do razvojnog tima i od optimizacije, moe se rei da je i tu prisutan trend sve manje zavisnosti od centralnog procesora. Izuzmemo li igre gde je potrebno da AI kontrolie ogroman broj jedinica na ekranu (obino neka strategija u realnom vremenu), performanse u igrama mnogo vie zavise od grafike i koliine RAM memorije nego od procesora. Proitajte obavezno i na kratak lanak o APU-ima (ili detaljne testove APU maina), kako biste dobili informaciju o tome kako se pristupano igrati.

Nemaju obe kompanije isti pristup tritu procesora. Naprotiv, njihove filozofije su poprilino razliiteStoga, da sumiramo. U najniim kategorijama, gde je cena apsolutno najbitniji faktor, AMD nudi veoma dobre ponude, naroito sa svojom APU platformom. Ukoliko su vam bitne performanse integrisane grafike, AMD zaista nudi dosta u tom domenu, premda treba rei da i svi Intel procesori dolaze sa integrisanim grafikama. Kako cena raste, i prelazi se u niu srednju klasu, Intel Core procesori postepeno preuzimaju primat zahvaljujui performansama svojih jezgara iako i dalje AMD reenja i ovde nude dosta za uloeni novac ali sve manje kako cena raste. Najzad, kada odete u domen visoke klase, konkurencije i nema, obzirom da najskuplji AMD procesori idu tik iznad 200-ak evra, tako da u ovoj kategoriji Intel ostaje kao jedini izbor.

,

, CPU- 1, , 2.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 .

AMD Athlon X2 6400+ .

( ), . [1] CPU , , , .[2] ( CMP), .

. (Dual-core) (. AMD Phenom II X2, Intel Core Duo), quad-core (. AMD Phenom II X4, Intel- quad-core , i5 i7 Intel Core), 6- core (. AMD Phenom II X6, Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 980X), 8-core (. Intel Xeon E7-2820, AMD FX-8350), 10-core (. Intel Xeon E7-2850), 12-core . . . , , . , , - crossbar. , . - , ,VLIW, , SIMD .

, ,, , (DSP) .

. , ; Amdahl- . , , , . , , .[1] .

[] 1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 7 8[]

1single-core

2dual-core

3tri-coretriple-core

4quad-core

5penta-core

6hexa-core

7hepta-core

8octa-core,octo-core

9nona-core

10deca-core

11hendeca-core

12dodeca-core

13trideca-core

14tetradeca-core

15pentadeca-core

16hexadeca-core

17heptadeca-core

18octadeca-core

19enneadeca-core

20icosa-core

(CPU), (DSP) -- (SoC). ; , - . CPU , .

, multi-CPU ( ).

many-core massively multi-core ( ).[2] FPGA. "semiconductor intellectual property core" ( ) CPU .

[] , , . . CPU . instruction-level parallelism (ILP) ( ) pipeline , --. (TLP), CPU . ( ) TLP .

[] . , , IC. , , , , CISC . 20. , 1980. 2000- .

, . CPU , CPU . Intel 48 ; 86 .[3]Intel Linux .[4] [] (SMP) , .

:

.

, . :

# ; . . .

#ILP wall; - .

#power wall; . . wer wall , ILP wall.

, IntelandAMD , . , . .

[] CPU . snoop (: snooping) . , , . , .

, , (PCB) SMP . , , . , , L2 (front side bus - FSB). , CPU . , .

. . , . . .[5][] () . , . : Valve Corporation's Source engine ,,[6]

HYPERLINK "http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr/%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%98%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%80" \l "cite_note-7" [7] Crytek CryEngine 2 , Crysis. Emergent Game Technologies' Gamebryo engine Floodgate ,[8] . ,Apple Inc.'sOS X, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, iOS iOS 4, Grand Central Dispatch.

. Intel , , . , , , . , . . , - 30% 70% ; , 90%; , Amdahl- .[9] , 100%- .

[][] -, -, -, -, . , , -- , , . -- - (. ).

[] . (), , .

CPU Rick Merritt, EE Times 2008,[10] :

Chuck Moore [...] , .

[...] Atsushi Hasegawa, Renesas, . .

[...] Anant Agarwal, Tilera, . .

[] , GUI (. ). , . -- (thread-safety). , , . . , . , .

, , . , .

datapath , datapath . MPUs [11] - -.

. Cilk Plus, OpenMP, OpenHMPP, FastFlow, Skandium, MPI Erlang . Intel C++ TBB. Codeplay Sieve System, Cray's Chapel, Sun's Fortress IBM's X10.

. . CFortran, C#. Intel- MKL AMD's ACML . , . , ( / ). . .[12] . :

. , .

, , . . . .

, . . , , , , , . / .

, . .

, , . .

[], - . CPU CPU, .

Microsoft .[13]Oracle AMD X2 Intel dual-core CPU , . IBM HP - . - , CPU- - .

[][] Adapteva Epiphany, 4096

Aeroflex Gaisler LEON3, SPARC

Ageia PhysX,

Ambric Am2045, 336- Massively Parallel Processor Array (MPPA)

AMD A-Series, , , Accelerated Processor Units (APU).

Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX Athlon 64 X2 ,

Athlon II, -, -, .

FX-Series, quad-, hex-, 8-

Opteron, -, -, -, 8-, 12-, 16- / .

Phenom, -, -, .

Phenom II, -, -, -, .

Sempron X2,

Turion 64 X2,

Radeon FireStream GPU/GPGPU (10 , 16 5-

Analog Devices Blackfin BF561,

ARMMPCore ARM11 MPCore and ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore ,

ASOCS ModemX, 128 ,

Azul Systems

Vega 1, a 24- , 2005.

Vega 2, a 48- , 2006.

Vega 3, a 54- , 2008.

Broadcom SiByte SB1250, SB1255 and SB1455.

ClearSpeed

CSX700, 192- , 2008 (32/64-bit ; ALU)

Cradle Technologies CT3400 CT3600, DSPs.

Cavium Networks Octeon, a 16- MIPSMPU.

Freescale Semiconductor QorIQ , 8 , Power Architecture MPU.

Hewlett-PackardPA-8800 PA-8900, PA-RISC .

IBM POWER4, - , 2001.

POWER5, , 2004.

POWER6, , 2007.

POWER7, 4,6,8- , 2010.

PowerPC 970MP, , Apple Power Mac G5.

Xenon, , SMT-capable,PowerPC MicrosoftXbox 360 .

Kalray

MPPA-256, 256- , 2012 (256 usable VLIW cores, Network-on-Chip (NoC), 32/64-bit IEEE 754 compliant FPU)

Sony/IBM/Toshiba's Cell , PowerPC SPUs (Synergystic Processing Unit) Sony PlayStation 3 Infineon Danube, , MIPS-based, home gateway processor.

Intel Atom, netbook .

CeleronDual-Core, /

Core Duo, .

Core 2 Duo, .

Core 2 Quad, 2 .

Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and Octa Core , Core 2 Duo the Core 2 Quad.

Itanium 2, .

Pentium D, 2

Pentium Extreme Edition, 2 .

Pentium Dual-Core, .

Teraflops Research Chip (Polaris), a 3.16 GHz, 80- , 2011.[14] Xeon -, -, -, -, 10- .

IntellaSys

SEAforth 40C18, a 40- [15] SEAforth24, a 24- Charles H. Moore

NetLogic Microsystems

XLP, a 32-, -MIPS64

XLR, an - , -MIPS64

XLS, an - , - MIPS64

Nvidia GeForce 9 GPU (8 , 16 )

GeForce 200 GPU (10 , 24 )

Tesla GPGPU (10 , 24 )

Parallax Propeller P8X32, .

picoChip PC200 series 200300 DSP & wireless

Plurality HAL series 16-256 , L1 , .

Rapport Kilocore KC256, a 257- PowerPC 256 8-bit " .

SiCortex "SiCortex node" MIPS64 .

Sun Microsystems MAJC 5200, two-core VLIW processor

UltraSPARC IV and UltraSPARC IV+, .

UltraSPARC T1, , 32- .

UltraSPARC T2, , 64--

UltraSPARC T3, , 128- - .

SPARC T4, , 64- -

SPARC T5, , 128- -

Texas Instruments TMS320C80 MVP,

TMS320TMS320C66, 2,4,8 dsp.

Tilera

TILE64, a 64- 32-bit

TILE-Gx, a 100- 64-bit

hese are interesting times for CPU makers. Gone are the days where a few hours laptop battery life was considered efficient and where the only computers people had in their homes were noisy, hot desktops. Now, the pre-builtdesktop PCis all but a dead man walking: in 2013 the market collapsed with desktop sales falling 9.8 percent globally. In emerging markets the story was even worse: a fall of 11.3 percent as users sought smaller, cheaper, less-power hungry devices.

The result has been upheaval for the silicone industrys main players. Less than a decade ago, Intel and AMD had the world at their feet. Intels distinctive audio logo rang out wherever laptops were sold and AMDs future was considerably bright thanks to its 2006 acquisition of graphics powerhouse ATI. These chip giants haven't quite kept up with the times, though. The tech landscape is fast changing and Intel and AMD's apparent slowness to switch focus to mobile computing has allowed other chip manufacturers most notably ARM but also the likes of VIA and Qualcomm to dominate this huge new market.

Intel vs AMD: Why it matters

If youre buying a traditionallaptopor PC, AMD and Intel are your only choices for processors, but dont make the mistake of thinking the PCs slump in popularity means either company is sliding towards irrelevance. Both have ground to make up but in May 2014 Intels revenue was $52.7bn (around 37bn) and it was sitting on a cash pile of $5.67bn (around 3.7bn). Intel doesn't make all its money from PC and laptop processors, of course. It also produces graphics processors, wired and wireless network adaptors, server and workstation processors and components, plus set-top box parts. While you won't find an Intel processor in many smartphones or tablets, the firm does produce many SoCs for mobile devices.

AMD is the smaller of the two companies by some margin. For one thing, while Intel builds its own chips in over a dozen fabrication (fab) plants in the USA, Ireland, Israel and China, AMD sold off its last fab in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and others, AMD designs its own chips but outsources the manufacturing. Producing microprocessors is formidably expensive and AMDs revenue pales in comparison to Intels: merely $6.57bn (4.29bn).

Intel vs AMD: History and breakthroughs

Both companies have a history of innovation. When Intel produced the 8080 processor in 1974, it lay the groundwork for the x86 processors which provided the foundations for desktop PCs for nearly 30 years. Its an astute marketeer, too: its mid-2000s Centrino platform, consisting of a low-power processor, a wireless chip and a mobile chipset, took the market by storm with its reputation for desktop-class computing power and long battery life. Its shift from the x86 brand to Pentium (copyrighting a series of numbers proved impossible) was a similar stroke of PR genius.

The ability of Intels marketing department to outspend and out-think others continues. The success of Intels Ultrabook trademark might be perilously tied to Microsofts stumbling efforts with Windows 8, but the companys understanding that consumers need short, snappy brands rather than clock frequencies and other jargon endures.

AMDs position as underdog is a consistent one. Marketing consultant Mercury Research reported AMD hit a record 22 percent share of the market in 2006; now the company hovers around the 17 percent mark, thanks in part to its dominance of the console market: both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have custom 8-core AMD 'Jaguar' processors at their hearts.

Arguably, AMDs largest recent innovation was its acquisition of Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) manufacturer ATI in 2006. The $5.6bn transaction (about 3bn) saw AMD join Intel in being able to deliver integrated graphics chips - that is, GPUs that live on the same chip as the CPU. The result is less graphical horsepower, but vastly reduced power draw and heat output. Forget fire-breathing, discrete graphics cards (last year'sRadeon R9 280Xdrew around 250W at its peak and needed two cooling fans) AMD understood that the future of silicone lay in reducing power consumption and size as much as in increasing computational power. These days, people don't need more power: they want better battery life from portable devices.

AMD vs Intel: Challenges

On the face of it, both AMD and Intel were well-placed to answer the needs of users as the sales of mobile devices exploded. The desktop PC market was in steady decline, laptop sales were on the rise, and the mobile phone was begging for reinvention. Intel already had an incredibly strong reputation with its laptop Centrino platform, and while AMDs Turion competitor was a distant second, the race was on to win a market that knew mobility was the future of computing.

Intel started strongly. Remember the netbook? Before the netbook, spending less than 500 on a laptop would net you something slow and bulky with limited battery life. The first netbooks the likes of the Asus Eee PC 701, released in the UK in 2007 cost under 200, weighed under a kilo and, while unlikely to be seen at many LAN gaming parties, offered enough processing power to run basic work applications and critically applications that ran in web browsers. The processor at its heart? An ultra-low voltage version of the humble Celeron.

The netbook was a critical and commercial success, and Intel capitalised with its Atom processors. This was Intel silicone at its cheapest: bought in batches of a thousand the earliest Atom CPUs were reputed to cost manufacturers under $30, and for a few years the netbook ruled. Consumers wanted small, cheap computers and Intel, with its wealth of experience in mobile processors, was perfectly placed to answer the call.

The problem arrived in tablet form.We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, said Steve Jobs in 2008. Netbooks arent better than anything, he added at the 2010 launch of the first generation iPad. Apples chief operating officer Tim Cook agreed, describing netbooks as not a good consumer experience, and thus the iPad came to be.

The issue for Intel and AMD was not that they failed to anticipate consumers preference for mobile devices. The problem was the form factor: the iPad sold 300,000 units on the first day of its availability in 2010. In picking traditional form factor laptops and netbooks, with traditional desktop operating systems built around traditional x86 hardware, Intel and AMD had backed the wrong horse. In fact, Intel, Microsoft and HP had tried to make tablets a success years before the iPad, but the combination of Windows (an OS designed for the keyboard and mouse), short battery life and chunky, heavy hardware meant no-one wanted to use them.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasnt that the iPad and following tablets from the likes of Sony, Samsung and others didnt need processors. It was that they needed a new type. And the kingdom of the SoC (system on a chip) in which a computers entire functions are embedded on a single chip was already ruled by British processor giant ARM.

ARMs processors are a completely different architecture than the traditional chips favoured by Intel and AMD. ARMs Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processors are physically simpler than x86 processors, which means they cost less and draw less power. As the iPad and the stampede of tablets which followed took off, it seemed AMD and Intel had missed a significant boat. Fast forward to 2015 and the netbook is dead, slain by high-quality tablets that perform well, offer long battery life, and cost much less than a standard laptop.

Intel vs AMD: New form factors

Even Microsoft, long-time ally of x86 hardware, piled on the misery for Intel and AMD. Windows RT, released in late 2012, was the first version of Windows that would run on ARM-powered devices, theoretically giving Microsoft access to low-cost tablets and potentially freezing Intel out even more. However, the Windows RT platform flopped: in 2013 Microsoft had to take a $900 million write-down on its unsold Windows RT devices, and the companys chief financial officer Amy Hood understated things spectacularly when she said we know we have to do better, particularly on mobile devices.

While we were impressed with the Surface Pro 3, it's the best of a relatively bad bunch of so-called "two-in-one" devices which supposedly offer the best of both worlds: one minute a full Windows laptop, the next a tablet. The problem is that Windows 8's touch interface just isn't that good, and few developers have made apps for it. Instead, Microsoft's immediate future hangs on the success of Windows 10 which will run on everything from 4in smartphones to the largest-screened PCs and even the Xbox.

Intel isnt hanging its hopes on Microsoft, though. At CES 2015, it unveiled the Curie module, a button-sized module for wearable devices. This uses the Quark SE SoC which can be powered by a coin battery. For its relatively slow start in the world of tablet, wearable and ultra-portable computing, Intel still has plenty left in the tank. Thats before you look at its latest round of processors: Intels Core M chips will all be based on 14nm processes, meaning more computational welly for lower power draw than ever before.

Change focus to gaming worth around 1.72bn to the British economy according to the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment and theres an entirely different story to be told. Intel does deal with graphics processing, of course, but its expertise lies in integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are ideal for small laptops: an integrated graphics processor doesnt add much to the price of a laptop, doesnt draw too much power and contrary to popular opinion does offer enough 3D processing oomph for the odd game.

For anyone looking to play the latest releases at detail settings that put the latest consoles to shame, though, discrete graphics cards have always been the answer, and its here that AMD has a significant edge. AMDs current crop of graphics card run the gamut from low-profile, passively-cooled cards up to its latest R9 290X cards, which retail around 400 for the card alone. Discrete graphics arent the only gaming arena AMDs strong in, either. As well as having its chips in both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, it also supplies the GPU in Nintendos Wii U. It might not have much to shout about in developing platforms such as tablets or hybrids, but gamers have plenty to thank it for.

Intel vs AMD: Which should you buy?

If youre building a desktop PC, the choice between AMD and Intel is as real as ever. The choice is as complicated as ever, too: visit any well-known online retailer and youll be faced with a choice of over 600 CPUs. If youre driven by budget, AMD has a strong command of the lower price-points, but if you opt for AMD it doesnt mean you exclude yourself from high-end computing: the companys top-end Athlon processors put up a tough challenge to Intels flagship Core i7 CPUs.

Intels is dominant, though, and across mid-range and high-end processors theres an enormous amount of choice. For powerful, everyday computing the Core i5 continues to serve well: you can pick one up for around 150 and up. True power users those editing video, rendering 3D animations, or those who simply want to get to the top of the SETI@home leaderboard, can opt for Intels Core i7 chips.

Intel Vs. AMD Processor Comparison 2013It's early 2014, and the time is soon approaching where processor giants AMD and Intel will go up against each other and release their newest line of processors, making the 2013 versions older. Of course, AMD might have jumped the gun, and taken the lead, by releasing their Kaveri line of processors, but Intel cannot just be ruled out of the race as yet. Before the 2014 cycle begins, let's take look at the last year's processors and see who gained the upper hand.Advertisement

Ever since computation came into existence, the war of being the best processor has existed. And there have been only two contenders for the title: Intel and AMD. The fight for being the best has always brought out the best technology from these two manufacturing giants.

In this competition of Intel vs. AMD processors, many a time, Intel had the upper hand with their progressive thinking and amazing technology upgradation. However, it will be unfair on the part of AMD to rule them out, as gamers will prefer AMD.

2013 saw amazing chips being launched by these masters of the trade. Before we go on to the latest from 2014, let's see who scores the best rating and who stands at the second best (I will refrain from saying worst) position by comparing Intel and AMD processors.

The Flashback

Before we proceed to this year's launches, let us go down the memory lane. Intel has had many launches ever since its launch. Be it the old Celeron or the Pentium processors, they have always managed to gather better customer satisfaction with their launches. AMD, on the other hand, is not too far behind with Sempron to the latest FX series launches. The cutthroat competition that these two have can be observed from the fact that every time either of them launched a variant, the other launched its competing variant. In 2012, the launch of Bulldozer processors was a huge hit for AMD, while Intel maintained the competition with Ivy Bridge processors. The latter also saw the core size reducing to almost 22nm in Ivy Bridge (massive size reduction from Sandy Bridge processors) while AMD maintained the minimum feature size of 32nm.

Intel Vs. AMD 2013

Both the companies decided to go a step further by creating some amazing processor variants. First, let us have a look at Intel's 2013 launches.

Sandy Bridge-E

Intel came up with the Sandy Bridge-E processor, i7-3970X in Q4:2012. Sandy Bridge-E is the name for the eight-core processor that is based on the earlier-launched Sandy Bridge microarchitecture. However, out of these eight cores, some cores may be disabled. With this launch, the die size remained 32nm while the maximum TDP was 150W. The i7-39xx series had only DMI as their I/O bus with about 5 GT/s. This launch saw the end of the 2012's launches and made way for the 2013 launches. The main specs of the processor i7-3970X are:

Feature ValueNumber of Cores 6Number of Threads 12Clock Speed 3.5 GHzCore Size 32nmTDP 150 WMemory Bandwidth 51.2 GB/s

Haswell

The latest from the Intel factory is the Haswell microarchitecture-based processors. This was launched in June 2013 and was formerly known as Rockwell. This processor has reduced the die size to 22nm from the previous 32nm. With this launch, Intel has targeted the hybrid or convertible market by making a low-power processor. The processors with this microarchitecture are expected to be launched in three segments - Desktop version (Haswell-DT), Mobile/Laptop version (Haswell-MB), and BGA version (Haswell-H, Haswell-ULT, Haswell-ULX). The processors based on Haswell are i7-47xx, i5-4670K, i3-43xx, i3-4130, and Xeon E3- 12xx. The specs for i7-4770K are:

Feature ValueNumber of Cores 4Number of Threads 8Clock Speed 3.5 GHzCore Size 22nmTDP 84 WMemory Bandwidth 25.6 GB/s

To compete with these processors of Intel, AMD came up with Piledriver in the second quarter of 2012, Richland in first half of 2013, and Steamroller in the second half of 2013. Let us take a look at their functionalities.

Piledriver

The successor to the Bulldozer processors are the Piledriver-based ones. The core size remained the same as the previous one, i.e., 32nm. The architecture hasn't changed from the previous one; it has only incremented in its features. The clock rates were increased and so were the instructions per clock cycle. The power consumption has also reduced due to the switch over to hard-edge flip-flops. The AMD APU, AMD FX, and Opteron are the processors that are based on this microarchitecture. The specifications for the AMD FX-8350 are:

Feature ValueNumber of Cores 8Number of Threads 8Clock Speed 4.0 GHzCore Size 32nmTDP 125 WMemory Bandwidth 19 GB/s

Richland

AMD's answer to the Haswell processors is Richland. Though we cannot say AMD has exceeded Intel's processing power, this AMD processor surely has an edge over Haswell's graphics core and is also cheaper. The die size has not changed and remains at 32nm. The new APUs are backward-compatible with the older motherboards as the sockets haven't changed. The processor range has four quad-core and one dual-core part. A10 series is based on this microarchitecture. The specs for A10-6800K are:

Feature ValueNumber of Cores 4Number of Threads 4Clock Speed 4.1 GHzCore Size 32nmTDP 100 WMemory Bandwidth --

Steamroller

This latest offering from AMD has a reduced core size of 28nm which is close to the Haswell's die size of 22nm. There are some major changes in the architectural aspect of the processor lines. There is an independent instruction decoder for each of the core equipped with better instruction schedulers. Along with improved memory controllers and larger caches, AMD aims to increase the instructions per cycle to 30%. The main aim of building Steamroller was to achieve greater parallelism with pipelined floating-point (FP) units and two integer units. Kaveri A-series APU and Berlin APU series are the new line of AMD processors. The specs are yet to be released.

AMD Inches Closer to Intel

Wondering what influenced me to make such a comment? Well, this list of 2013 launches would be incomplete without a special mention to AMD's FX-9590 processor. AMD nailed it by launching a 5GHz processor, FX-9590. This is the first 5GHz processor, and it was launched in Los Angeles in June 2013. It is the most powerful processor to be launched till date. It is a 8-core processor with Piledriver microarchitecture. The TDP is 220W but AMD seems to not get enough of the die size, which remains the same as 32nm. The L3 cache is 8MB while there are four 2MB L2 caches. We will have to wait till Intel launches a competitor processor. Till then, AMD surely has an upper hand this year.Gaming

AMD Richland and Intel Haswell are the new processor lines from two of the major processor-making companies in the world. In this section we compare their on-board graphics, and their gaming capabilities. It goes without saying that to play the latest games, you will need a dedicated graphics card, and no matter how good integrated graphics get, they are never going to be enough to run the latest games. However, these two companies have improved their graphic cores tremendously, to a point where a low-end graphics card becomes unnecessary. Of course, people who opt for discrete graphics rarely go for low-end versions, making this a moot point. But, more powerful and capable integrated graphics is a boon for the development of the mobile market, where discrete graphics is simply not an option.

When it comes to comparing the integrated graphics from both these manufacturers, there is very little to choose between them. Of course, both have made improvements over their predecessors; Intel's Haswell is far better than its Ivy League, while AMD's Richland is also better than its Trinity.

The higher end processors from the Richland line seem to be better than the processors from the Haswell line, at least in terms of Integrated Graphics; Intel's HD Graphics 4600 compares only with entry-level AMD APUs. In gaming, it would be wiser to choose AMD over Intel, as AMD's Socket FM2 products are better for entry-level tasks. It should be kept in mind, however, that even though the performance of the integrated graphics have improved, today's games have become even more demanding. Do not expect smooth game play in full HD resolution on integrated graphics. Neither Richland nor Haswell can achieve that. For multimedia, it would be wiser to choose Haswell, as Richland struggles to cope with 4K content, and suffers in video transcoding tasks.

Price-wise, once again AMD scores over Intel, with processors from their Richland line being cheaper than Intel's Haswell. The downside here is that these processors take a lot of power, so you might not be saving in the long run. Also, they are known to heat up more than Intel's processors, so this is something you must keep in mind as well.

More to Come

As we know, these manufacturers announce their future models well in advance. So, here's a list of Intel processors that we will see in the near future.

Broadwell - This is the tick version of the Intel processor series. The MCP (Multi-chip Package) will be used in this version with a 14nm shrink in the die size.

Skylake - This Intel's processor version is expected to be released in 2015 and will retain the 14nm die size.

Skymont - Intel decides to go the extra mile by further shrinking the die size to 10nm by launching this processor.

With so many new processors being launched every year, the nail-biting competition between the two processor giants is in no way coming to an end. But for now, AMD has nailed it with the 5GHz processor launch and is surely leading the competition. We will have to wait till Intel's next launch to see if the tables turn. For now, we'd say opt for Richland if online gaming, and games with low system requirement is what you will be playing, or opt for Haswell if multimedia is more important than gaming.Read more at Buzzle:http://www.buzzle.com/articles/intel-vs-amd-processor-comparison2010.html