Which is better AMD or Intel. Comparison of processors for laptops (AMD and Intel) Which processor is better intel or amd for a laptop

In one of our previous articles, we already wrote about that, now let’s approach this issue a little more carefully, namely, let’s look at: “Which is better AMD or Intel?” The choice of these two companies is not accidental, since they are the main giants in this area, however, even when choosing from two options, users may get lost, since AMD captivates us with its low prices, and Intel with its powerful characteristics and positive reviews. So what then should you give your preference to?! Let's find out!

Each chip has its own architecture, manufacturing process, cache, number of cores and their frequency. Intel and AMD have completely different architectures, which determine the stability and power of the CPU. If you take two processors with the same number of cores and identical clock speeds, you will get completely different performance. The site’s specialists thus hint to you that, for example, 4-core processors: AMD Athlon II X4 740 3.2GHz ($70) and Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz ($200) – they will differ very much in terms of power. Therefore, cores and frequency are not an indicator when comparing chips. You need to compare based on performance. For such purposes, there are sites where you can select any processor and see its performance in tests and comparison with the performance of analogues and competitors.

Is it really cheap?AMD is better expensiveIntel?
However, despite the above, AMD chips can be considered great solution for a budget PC, and Intel for the purpose of gaming assembly and other tasks that require large computing power. But inexpensive processors Intel also has it. Many people are familiar with the dual-core Pentium and Celeron. In terms of performance, in many tests they are superior to similarly priced AMD ones. But in multitasking with 4-core cheap AMDs they lose a little. If your preference is towards Intel, then we recommend immediately buying the latest generation chip. On this moment This is Haswell with socket 1150.

Comparison and selection of processors (between AMD and Intel) by price range

As for the price of 100-150 dollars, then the situation here is similar. In this segment, Intel has a Core i3 chip, which has 2 cores with hyper technology threading, which makes 2 more virtual cores. That is, the PC recognizes 4 threads. This means that in some tests the Core i3 will outperform the 4-core AMD FX with socket AM3+. Therefore, for multitasking, the best solution would be a 6-core AMD. But the fact is that many games are designed only for 4 cores, and operating systems are designed for one core, and only starting with Windows 8 - for two. Conclusion: there is no point in 6 and 8 cores, since it is better to choose 4 cores with good architecture and high performance. The Core i5 fits perfectly into these parameters, with a price starting at $190. In the highest category, AMD has only 8-core processors, with differences in frequency and memory Cache.

Intel is considered the best Core processor i7 (4 cores, 8 threads with hyper threading technology). Compared to its competitor, it is far superior to AMD with 8 cores, which according to some tests is even comparable to Core i5. This suggests that 8 cores are only marketing ploy. In addition, if you look at the AMD architecture, the cores are arranged in blocks of 2. That is, in a 4-core CPU there are 2 blocks, each containing 2 microprocessors. In a 6-core one there are 3 blocks, etc.

Ultimately, we cannot say accurately and unconditionally that this or that processor is better. We can only give a simple one, but effective advice: always compare test performance of each selected processor. They will show which tasks the desired CPUs are better at. Also proceed from the tasks that you set for the computer. And only then will you be able to answer the main question: Intel or AMD and choose the right option for yourself.

Also, do not forget that each processor has its own specific type, so most likely you will have to replace it too. As for, everything here is extremely simple and no questions should arise.

Until recently, Intel's dominance in the mobile processor segment was overwhelming.

However, with the release of the Turion 64 CPU and, especially, the Turion 64 X2, despite the impressive successes of the Intel Core Duo/Core 2 Duo, AMD was able to gain a foothold in the segment of not only budget mobile solutions, but even in the mid-price range.

Comparing the main parameters of dual-core processors from both competitors (AMD Turion 64 X2 and Intel Core Duo) of the same “weight category”, you can see that their performance is almost the same.
At the same time, Intel’s “dual-core” is somewhat more economical, which directly affects the battery life of the laptop.

But its competitor from AMD is somewhat cheaper, which cannot but affect the final cost of the laptop.
And what is more important, longer battery life, or lower cost (all other things being equal) of a laptop, everyone decides for themselves.

As for the budget solutions Intel Celeron M and AMD Mobile Sempron, today there is no fundamental difference which one to use - both of them fully meet the requirements (not the highest, it must be said) for mobile processors for inexpensive budget laptops.

Nevertheless, their performance is quite sufficient for any modern applications; they differ from their “bigger brothers” mainly only in a slightly more primitive energy saving system.

Driver AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 19.9.2 Optional

A new version AMD drivers Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 19.9.2 Optional improves performance in Borderlands 3 and adds support for Radeon Image Sharpening technology.

Cumulative Windows update 10 1903 KB4515384 (added)

On September 10, 2019, Microsoft released a cumulative update for Windows 10 version 1903 - KB4515384 with a number of security improvements and a fix for a bug that broke Windows operation Search and caused high CPU usage.

Driver Game Ready GeForce 436.30 WHQL

NVIDIA has released a Game Ready GeForce 436.30 WHQL driver package, which is designed for optimization in the games: Gears 5, Borderlands 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, FIFA 20, The Surge 2 and Code Vein" fixes a number of bugs seen in previous releases and expands the list of G-Sync Compatible displays.

The debate over which processor is better - AMD or Intel - has been going on for more than a decade. It would seem that the current state of affairs on the market eloquently indicates that the victory in the “cold war” between the brands of two North American countries was won by a company from the United States, that is, Intel. The company now occupies more than half of the global processor market in all segments. Canadian AMD almost ranks among the “third world” of chip manufacturers, based on revenue indicators. But in terms of technology, the “northerners” are in no way, as most experts believe, and have never been fundamentally inferior to their counterparts from the “south.” And today it is impossible to say unequivocally which company holds the leadership in terms of its “know-how”. Which processor is better - AMD or Intel? By what criteria are chips from the USA superior to similar solutions from Canada and vice versa?

Strengths of Intel processors

Many IT specialists consider solutions from the American brand to be ideal for working in single-tasking mode - when only one active application (or game) is running. When a user operates a PC in a “single window” format, if you will.

In addition, a number of experts agree that the world's leading software manufacturers adapt their products primarily for Intel processors. Which is no wonder due to the current market positions of the Americans. As they say, a purely “democratic” principle: “software” is written for the “ruling” majority. It, as marketers' reports indicate, uses American chips.

Another undeniable advantage of Intel processors is their relatively low power consumption. This, according to some experts, is a direct consequence of better compatibility with games and applications. The processor does not have to work too hard to accurately process all the necessary data streams. As a result, the chips do not heat up so much and therefore do not require the installation of expensive cooling systems.

Overclocking factor

For many years, users, when choosing which processor to buy - AMD or Intel, kept in mind a rather significant criterion - the “overclockability” of the chips. Many experts agree that historically it was the Canadian company that was more loyal to “overclockers” who dreamed of setting sky-high frequencies on their chips - just to work faster. A significant percentage, if not the majority, of Intel processors overclocked very poorly. Just a few years ago, based on this criterion, we would have had the right to give microcircuits from Americans a big minus. But today we’ll put a plus. An increasing number of experts agree: Intel processors can overclock superbly. Especially those that come in lines with the letter K.

Among other advantages of Intel processors is fast interaction with RAM modules. In addition, their own memory, which is the “cache,” usually operates at a higher frequency than that found on similar chips from AMD.

Cons of Intel processors

When figuring out which is better - AMD or Intel, you should, of course, refrain from an excessive flow of praise for either brand. And therefore now about the shortcomings of the “Americans”.

The most important disadvantage of chips from Intel that experts and many users note is that installing a processor of a new line, as a rule, requires replacing the socket (the connector where the chip is connected). This means that you need to change the motherboard (and sometimes other hardware components with it). These are, first of all, additional financial costs.

The next disadvantage is not difficult to “calculate”, remembering one of the above-mentioned advantages in the form of fast work in single-tasking mode. It is logical to assume, and experts say the same thing: Intel processors do not cope effectively with work if several applications are running simultaneously (we are, of course, talking about “demanding” programs, games, photo and video editors, etc.).

Price factor

Intel processors, when compared with solutions in the same class as AMD, are, as many experts believe, more expensive. Not significantly, of course, but on average by 15-17 percent. If we take a purely financial criterion, then the choice between which processor to buy - Intel Core i3 or AMD FX, may be difficult. These two classmate chips cost approximately the same. But if we compare the “giants” - Intel Xeon MP and AMD Opteron Dual Core, then American microcircuits in most modifications comparable in class will most likely be significantly more expensive. And therefore, many experts consider the price of Intel processors to be a disadvantage.

Advantages of AMD chips

Having praised and criticized processors from Intel, let's try to summarize the pros and cons of the “Canadians”. First, about the advantages of AMD processors. Having said that Intel prices are higher, we will automatically write down the fact that AMD chips are cheaper as a plus. Same with multiplatform. To put AMD chip from the new line, in most cases the motherboard does not need to be changed. The socket will most likely be the same.

Another advantage of AMD processors can be easily guessed from the fact that Intel does not cope with multitasking very effectively. According to most experts, Canadian microcircuits behave very well when simultaneously running several demanding applications.

AMD processors, although this is no longer a clear competitive advantage, traditionally have good overclockability. Especially in lines like FX. Let's write it down as a plus.

Cons of AMD processors

For many users who are deciding which processor is better - AMD or Intel, the argument in favor of the second is the fact that the first gets quite hot. And therefore, it often requires the installation of an expensive cooler (remember that we said above that there is no need to do this when using chips from Intel).

In principle, the disadvantages of AMD chips are also easy to guess based on the advantages of their American competitors. This is higher power consumption, not so much high speed data exchange with RAM, compatibility with games and applications from the world's leading developers is slightly worse.

Based on the advantages and disadvantages of the “Canadians” and “Americans” listed above, what preliminary conclusions can we draw (referring, of course, to the opinion of experts)? If we are talking about which processor to choose - AMD or Intel - for games, then the first one is highly likely to be more suitable. Simply because gamers love, firstly, to get carried away with “overclocking”, and secondly, to “upgrade” their PCs (install more powerful processors as they are launched on the market). In terms of the first component, AMD is at least not inferior. In terms of the second, it is superior. Since installing a new AMD processor will most likely be easier than Intel, based on the absence of the need to change the motherboard.

What is the best processor for a laptop?

If a user is deciding which processor to prefer, AMD or Intel, for a laptop, what should he pay attention to first (besides Intel's undivided sales leadership in this segment as well)? First of all, the fact that chips such as AMD Trinity types A4 and A6, according to many experts, are ahead of competitive solutions from Intel in terms of graphics processing (at a low cost compared to similar chips from Intel). But this is only at the level of budget laptop models.

If we are talking about the middle and “premium” price segments, then it is much more difficult to determine what is more powerful - the “mobile” Intel i5 or AMD, for example, the A10. Some experts give preference to the Americans, others - to their Canadian counterparts. The first arguments are energy saving, which is very important for laptops, since one of the main criteria for their functionality is battery life. AMD supporters, in turn, say that the solutions of the Canadian brand ideally implement the transfer of certain types of modules from the motherboard (such as, for example, the graphics subsystem) to the processor architecture.

AMD and Intel: history of relationships

First, some historical facts. The American company Intel appeared in 1968, the Canadian AMD a little later - in 1969. The confrontation between brands, which has been relevant for the last decade and a half, as noted by many experts interested in the history of the IT market, did not begin immediately. At first, the Canadians simply copied the flagship American product - the 8080 processor, releasing it under the AM 9080 brand. Their first independent development was the AM 2900 chip.

Pentium and its competitors

Intel, of course, was conquering the market at a rapid pace, offering consumers a wide range of processors with different prices and performance. In the 90s, the Pentiums, which later became legendary, appeared. However, their undivided leadership was prevented by processors like K6 from AMD, which, according to experts, were in no way inferior to solutions from the Americans. Gradually, more and more new brands of chips from Canadians were introduced to the market - Athlon, Duron, Sempron. Their competition with Intel chips was very high. Users kept asking themselves the question: “Install on the computer Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon?" Many who decided to choose the second option did not regret it.

Intel is the sales leader

More or less equal competition between solutions from Intel and AMD continued until the mid-2000s. The Canadian company's market share either approached or moved away from that of its competing US corporation. It is worth noting, of course, that there was no period when AMD overtook Intel in terms of global sales.

In the mid-2000s, Americans began to consolidate their leadership in sales even more confidently. But the question of Intel's technological superiority remains open. And therefore, the expert community does not have a clear opinion as to which processor is better - AMD or Intel, despite the difference in financial indicators between companies.

Intel and AMD: platform comparison

Many experts believe that AMD was even ahead of Intel in terms of technology in some lines and classes of devices - this was in the late 90s and early 2000s. A more or less equal confrontation took place until the end of the 2000s, while solutions such as AMD Athlon in the K8 and K10 architectures and Intel chips in the Core 2 Duo and Quad models “fought” among themselves in the global sales arena. Users of those years sometimes did not have at their disposal objective criteria that allowed them to decide which chip - AMD processor or Intel Core 2 Duo - to choose.

Intel Technological Breakthrough

However, in 2008, the Americans developed chips running on the unique Nehalem architecture, which made it possible to produce chips such as Core i5 and i7. These processors, in the production of which technology was also involved Sandy Bridge, according to experts, played a decisive role in shifting AMD’s position in the segments of similar chips.

The Americans, having created a significant technological foundation, continued to surprise the market. Processors made at even higher standards have gone on sale. new platform- Ivy Bridge. Their performance caused exceptional delight among IT market experts. What has the Canadian corporation been doing all this time? Nothing special, experts say. All they did was refine the K10 platform, which was certainly good, but in many ways inferior in terms of manufacturability to Intel chips.

AMD's attempt at revenge

AMD, according to some experts, had a chance to catch up with its competitors by introducing chips to the market on the promising Bulldozer platform. However, in practice, the product turned out to be very ambiguous, according to experts. By most criteria, it loses to solutions based on the Ivy Bridge architecture from the Americans. Therefore, for many experts, the answer to the question of which is better - AMD or Intel, based on the comparative characteristics of the two platforms, was unambiguous. The American solution in this case outperformed the product from the Canadian brand.

At the same time, experts note, processors based on Bulldozer, as well as their improved modifications on the Vishera platform, show excellent performance in multitasking mode. That is, one of AMD’s traditional competitive advantages, as can be seen in the example of such chips, is preserved.

Criterion of goals and objectives

Experts recommend that if the user is in doubt about whether to choose Intel or AMD, look at the types of tasks that will be performed on the PC. For games, as we said above, solutions from “Canadians” are at least perfectly suitable, and, quite likely, they will look more advantageous than American ones. If we are talking about home PCs on which games will be launched infrequently, then, most likely, chips from AMD will also be the optimal solutions. Mainly due to their relatively low price when it comes to processors such as Trinity and LLano. For office PCs, in turn, processors like Pentium G may be more optimally suited, as they cope well with resource-intensive tasks within a single thread. If the user is interested in high technology and ideal performance, and price is a secondary factor, then it makes sense for him to pay attention to expensive solutions based on chips such as Intel Core i7 with index 3970. This processor guarantees stable and fast operation with all types of games and applications.

Which is better - AMD processor or Intel processor? This issue is constantly the subject of heated debate on the Internet. Owners of components of one and another brand argue fiercely with each other, although in fact in most cases they dealt only with their “favorites”. Accordingly, during such a dialogue, it is not possible to establish the truth.

We will approach the comparison as an independent party and compare both solutions according to a number of distinctive parameters

Price policy

The first thing most people pay attention to is the price of the processor. After all, not everyone can afford to spend an extra hundred dollars on computer components, and it is not advisable to overpay in all cases.

AMD processors can be safely classified as middle and even economy class. If you are very limited in budget, but your goal is to assemble a current generation system, then you should give preference to this company. For example, a quad-core AMD FX-4350 with a frequency of 4.2 GHz costs about four and a half thousand rubles (as of the beginning of 2014), and the most expensive of the freely available AMD FX X8 9590 models costs just over ten thousand.

Intel took a different path, significantly increasing the prices of their processors. Therefore, they are unlikely to be an economical solution for the work computer of an accountant or office employee. The cost of mid-level Intel Core i5 and Intel Core i7 models ranges from six to ten thousand rubles (there are cheaper and more expensive configurations, but we won’t take them into account). The top six-core i7 on the s-2011, in general, costs from 32 thousand rubles. The difference with AMD's offerings is clearly not in Intel's favor, but everything falls into place when you look at both processors in action.

Working capabilities

What we buy a powerful processor for is its performance, speed, and ability to solve the tasks assigned to it. Let's see what both companies can offer their clients in this regard.

AMD, although not a stellar performer, offers an excellent cost-to-performance ratio. When configured correctly, everything works stably and does not cause any complaints. Multitasking is perfectly implemented - with AMD processor You can easily run several applications at the same time: unpack an archive, surf the browser, play music in the player, install a repack of a game, and so on. A similar Intel model will show much more modest results in this regard. It is also worth paying attention to the predisposition to overclocking: the performance of most AMD processors can be increased without problems by 10-20% compared to factory settings using standard software tools.

With the exception of multitasking, Intel is ahead of AMD in everything. Already due to the fact that application and game developers optimize their creations specifically for this brand of processors, Intel’s performance is significantly higher. Besides, clock frequency second and third level memories are much faster, and work with RAM is implemented at the highest level. Working with 3D graphics, editing photos and videos, and other resource-intensive tasks - it is recommended to use Intel solutions for these purposes (as long as one running application is active, there is a significant increase in performance). According to the same reason Intel is the favorite brand of processors among gamers computer games, where CPU power plays the second most important role after the power of the video card.

Energy consumption and heat dissipation

A very important criterion not only for those who want to save money, but also for owners, for example, of laptops. The lower the power consumption, the longer the device will last without recharging. With heat generation, everything is clear - overheating leads to interruptions in operation and failure of components.

AMD brand processors consume comparatively more energy than their competitors, which is why you need to be more careful when choosing a motherboard and power supply. Otherwise, critical problems, brakes, and freezes may occur. The same applies to heat dissipation, which is quite high (especially in older models), which is why the standard cooler supplied with the processor cannot cope with cooling under increased load. It is strongly recommended that when buying a CPU from AMD, you also purchase high-quality cooling from Zalman or another well-known company - it will also make much less noise during operation.

Intel. As I said earlier, in most cases they are much more economical and heat up less (average AMD ones are 125 Watts vs 95 Watts Intel ones). However, there were some exceptions here. The older Intel Core i5 and i7 models have already caught up with AMD's flagships and even exceeded their power consumption by 5 Watts with all the ensuing consequences. Now, buying a high-quality motherboard, power supply and good cooling has become a top priority for anyone who uses their computer to its full potential. After all, it’s one thing to come to terms with the loss of a cheap budget processor, and another thing to “lose a large sum of money.”

backward compatibility

The presence of backward compatibility in the processor allows it to be used with other computer components or software technologies that can already be called outdated.

AMD is focusing on multi-platform. That is, if you have an old motherboard with an AM2 or AM2+ socket, you can easily insert not only processors with the same name, but also AM3 solutions. For example, having a system with a combination of an m2n-mx motherboard and a Phenom X3 8450 processor, it is quite possible to remove the old processor and install a Phenom II X4 955, almost doubling the performance. Thus, AMD becomes an ideal option for lovers of step-by-step upgrades.

Intel processors, on the contrary, cannot be called universal. Each new line is released on a new platform (with the exception of LGA 1155 processors), which leads to the need to also replace the motherboard during the update. In principle, if you think logically, expensive solutions from Intel are bought not just to surf the Internet and watch movies, but for more resource-intensive tasks. That is, you cannot limit yourself to one processor - you also need RAM good, both the video card and the power supply are powerful. Therefore, it cannot be said that Intel’s single-platform nature is such a big drawback.

Which processor is better: Intel or AMD?

It's an interesting time for CPU manufacturers. The time when laptop battery life was measured in just a few hours and was considered efficient, and when the bulk of computer enthusiasts had noisy, hot desktop PCs in their homes, is long gone. Sales of desktop PCs fell 9.8 percent. In new markets the story is even worse: a decline of 11.3 percent. It's simple, users now prefer smaller, cheaper and less power-intensive devices.

In 2014, the position of desktop PCs strengthened slightly, and only because companies were replacing their PCs that were running the no longer supported Windows XP, but in 2015 sales fell again. According to analysts, there will be a "moderate decline" across the board because sales of Windows tablets and hybrids - 2 in 1 laptop/tablet - have increased.

Overall, this was a revolution for the major players in the industry. Just ten years ago, Intel and AMD had peace and quiet. Intel's distinctive logo appeared everywhere laptops were sold, and AMD's future was bright thanks to the acquisition of ATI graphics. And in such a cloudless atmosphere, these giants little by little began to lag behind the times. The technology environment was changing rapidly and Intel, and especially the slower AMD, were slow to pivot to mobile devices, allowing other chip makers, especially ARM, but also VIA and Qualcomm, to dominate this huge new market.

Why AMD and Intel

If you're buying a traditional laptop or PC, you only have two processor options - AMD and Intel, and the sharp decline in PC popularity doesn't mean they've gone beggarly. Keep in mind that Intel's total revenue in 2014 was $55.8 billion. But, of course, Intel receives its income not only from the sale of processors for PCs and laptops. The company also produces graphics processors, wired and wireless network adapters, servers, workstation processors, and much more. And although you are unlikely to find Intel processors in most smartphones or tablets, the company produces quite a lot of SoCs for mobile devices.

AMD is in some ways the weaker of the two companies. On the one hand, while Intel is creating its own manufacturing, opening more than a dozen facilities in the US, Ireland, Israel and China; AMD sold off its last fabs back in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and many others, AMD designs its own chips but manufactures them outsourced. Microprocessor production is terribly expensive and AMD, compared to Intel, looks pale at only $5.51 billion.

History and breakthroughs

Both companies have their own history. When Intel released the 8080 processor in 1974, it laid the foundation for all x86 processors, which powered all desktop PCs for nearly 30 years. They later demonstrated commercial acumen: in the mid-2000s, the Centrino platform, consisting of a low-power processor, a wireless chip, and a mobile chipset, took the market by storm, with a reputation for desktop-class computing power and long battery life. And the company's switch from the x86 brand to "Pentium" was like the brush of a PR genius.

Intel's marketing department's ability to think continues to this day. True, the success of the Intel-branded ultrabook was riskily associated with Microsoft's efforts to promote its Windows 8 OS.

AMD's position as an underdog is consistent. AMD now has a 17 percent market share, partly due to console gaming devices: at the core Xbox One and PlayStation 4, built-in 8 core AMD processor"Jaguar".

Perhaps AMD's biggest relatively recent innovation was the acquisition of an ATI graphics processing unit (GPU). Thanks to this, AMD has almost caught up with Intel in the ability to install integrated graphics processors - that is, GPUs located on the same chip as the CPU. The result is less graphics power, but a significant reduction in power consumption and heat. Forget fire-breathing, discrete graphics cards (last year's Radeon R9 280X ran at 250W at peak and needed two fans). AMD realized that the future of silicon is not only about increasing computing power, but also about reducing power consumption and size. These days, most people don't need more computing power, they want better battery life on their portable devices.

Intel or AMD problems

At first glance, AMD and Intel occupied the market good position and responded to all the needs of mobile device users. The desktop PC market is in a steady decline, laptop sales have been increasing, and Cell phones required rethinking. Intel, with its Centrino-based laptop, already had an incredibly strong reputation, and its rival AMD's Turion was just a second behind, the race was on to win a market that already knew that mobility was the future of computing.

Intel started strong. Remember your netbook? The first netbooks – e.g. Asus Eee The PC 701, released in the UK in 2007, cost less than £200, weighed less than a kilogram and still offered enough processing power to run basic desktop applications and applications running in web browsers. What processor is it based on? An ultra-low version of the humble Celeron.

The netbook was a major commercial success, and Intel capitalized on its Atom processor. This was Intel silicon at its cheapest. Thousands of the earliest CPU Atoms found on netbooks cost manufacturers less than $30. Consumers wanted small, cheap computers, and Intel, with its extensive experience in mobile processors, was able to answer the call.

The problems started with tablets. "We don't know how to make a $500 computer without it being junk," Steve Jobs said in 2008. "A netbook is worse than this," he added when launching the first generation iPad in 2010. Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook agreed, describing the netbook as "not a very good consumer experience." This is how the iPad was born.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that they didn't anticipate consumer preference mobile devices. The problem was the form factor: on its first day of sales in 2010, the iPad sold 300,000 units. Choosing between traditional laptops and netbooks, versus traditional desktops operating systems built on traditional x86 hardware, Intel and AMD were backing the wrong horse. In fact, Intel, Microsoft and HP tried to push the tablet long before the iPad, but Windows combination(an OS designed for keyboard and mouse), short battery life and heavy hardware meant that no one wanted to buy them.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that the iPad and subsequent tablets from Sony, Samsung, etc. didn't need processors. They were still needed, but in new types of processors. And the kingdom of SoC (system on a chip) - in which all the functions of a computer are built into a single chip - was already ruled by British giant ARM.

ARM processors have a completely different architecture from traditional Intel and AMD chips. The ARM reduced instruction set (RISC) architecture is physically simpler than an x86 processor, which means they are cheaper and consume less power. The rapid rise of the iPad and the sharp decline of Windows tablets showed that AMD and Intel were late to this boat. Fast forward to 2015 to the netbook, it turned out to be stillborn, killed in the bud by high-quality tablets that work well, they offer for a long time run on battery power and cost much less than a standard laptop.

New form factors

Even Microsoft, a longtime ally of x86-bit hardware, has added to the misery for Intel and AMD. RT Windows, released in late 2012, was the first Windows version, running on ARM devices, theoretically giving Microsoft access to low-cost tablets. However, the RT Windows platform has taken a hit: Microsoft lost $900 million in 2013 on its unsold RT Windows devices, and the company's CFO Amy Hood said, "We know we have to do better, especially on mobile devices."

While we were all impressed with the Surface Pro 3, it turned out to be the best of a relatively poor selection of so-called two-in-one devices that supposedly offer the best of both worlds: minute, full Windows laptop, another minute - tablet. The problem is that Windows 8's touch interface isn't that great, and few developers are writing apps for it. Now, Microsoft's immediate future depends on the success of Windows 10.

However, Intel did not place all its hopes only on Microsoft. In 2015, the Curie module appeared, a miniature module the size of a button. It uses Quark SE SoC, which can be powered by a coin-sized battery. And although its spread in the world of tablets and ultra-thin computers cannot yet be called triumphant, Intel still has a lot in store.

Intel or AMD, which is better for games?

Targeting games is a completely different story. Intel is betting on graphics processing, but its interests lie in integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are ideal for small laptops. The integrated GPU doesn't add much to the price of the laptop, doesn't use up too much power, and - contrary to popular belief - actually provides decent enough 3-D processing for not very resource-intensive games.

For anyone who plays, trying to run the latest games at high detail settings has shown the inconsistency of the latest consoles. But nevertheless, discrete video cards have always been a worthy alternative, and here AMD has a significant advantage. Today there is a whole palette AMD video cards, from low-profile passively cooled cards to the R9 390X graphics card, which retails for $500. However, discrete graphics are not the only strong point AMD. As a supplier of its chips for the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, AMD did not ignore Nintendo's Wii U. And although today they are not able to announce their new platform developments, for example, tablets or hybrids, avid gamers have something to thank them for.

What to buy AMD or Intel

If you're building a desktop PC, the choice between AMD and Intel is as clear as ever. But on the other hand, it is complicated, since in any well-known store you will be faced with a huge selection of 600 CPUs. If you're basing it on budget, AMD has a good choice not bad processors at lower standard prices. But choosing AMD doesn't mean giving up on high-performance computing; the upper limit of Athlon processors is comparable to the leading Intel Core i7 processor.

And yet Intel dominates both the mid-range CPU and high-end processors, where there are a huge number of them. For powerful, everyday computing, the Core i5 is great. You can buy it for about 250-300 dollars. More advanced users - those who do video editing, 3-D animation, or those who participate in leaderboards - can choose the Intel Core i7 chip.

So, when buying a desktop PC or laptop, Intel is preferable to AMD. True, if you are not strictly limited by budget.