Related
Hi,
Not to long ago samsung released their new dual core processor "Orion" with has some amazing specs. They says it will be up for mass production in frist half of 2011.
Both qualcomm and lg has also new smartphone processors coming next year.
Will future windows phone 7 devices feature this? The snapdragon in the current devices is kinda outdated...
My ultimate windows phone 7 phone would feature:
512 meg ram or more
at least 1GHz Orion or similar dual core processor
800 x 480 or greater super-amoled multitouch screen
4" screen
Sleak design in aluminium
Yeah.
WP7 will get put onto all the new software as its needs to compete with Android and the iPhone.
Although the 1GHz snapdragon is a little outdated now i think some people don't realise that it is still a beast of a processor, and WP7 has been specifically designed to run perfectly on it as it was the minimum requirement for Hardware Manufacturers don't forget.
Having Qualcomms "Still in Development" 1.5 Dual Core inside a device would be fantastic, but it's not going to happen anytime soon (2012 at the earliest) and for the time being that doesn't bother me the slightest as my HD7 runs smooth as anything with what it's got. I doubt a dual-core processor would increase the usuability of any of the WP7 Phones, the only thing it would do is reduce loading times of App's/Games/etc, which is currently only seconds anyway.
Agreed, I believe in Q2 2011, the processors will finally be available for manufactures
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Audio said:
Although the 1GHz snapdragon is a little outdated now i think some people don't realise that it is still a beast of a processor, and WP7 has been specifically designed to run perfectly on it as it was the minimum requirement for Hardware Manufacturers don't forget.
Having Qualcomms "Still in Development" 1.5 Dual Core inside a device would be fantastic, but it's not going to happen anytime soon (2012 at the earliest) and for the time being that doesn't bother me the slightest as my HD7 runs smooth as anything with what it's got. I doubt a dual-core processor would increase the usuability of any of the WP7 Phones, the only thing it would do is reduce loading times of App's/Games/etc, which is currently only seconds anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True but what about Samsungs Orion then?
The other reason why im waiting for a New wp7 device is the lack of exchangeable storage on all devices...
my only concern is about the compatibility of the Phones with LTE technology as Verizon's LTE network will be up in my area by the end of the year.
i'm waiting 1G ram with using nvidia Tegra 2 cpu + 5-7 point mutil touch
CE7 supports multi-core ARM CPUs. There are plans to move WP7 to CE7 (it's currently on a CE6/7 variant) later on. That should happen before dual core chips are a reality so there's no reason Microsoft won't move to it. I would guess that would come with a major software and hardware spec update, maybe WP8. There's no point in tossing the current WP7 on much more powerful hardware because the software won't take advantage of it. Games and apps will still be targeted at the 1ghz SnapDragon so basically things will just load faster.
People really need to get out of this hardware spec mentality. It doesn't matter if the phone had a 100mhz CPU if it performs well. I know that's hard if you're a techy but you have to focus on the end result, not the pieces that make it happen.
hkcyber said:
i'm waiting 1G ram with using nvidia Tegra 2 cpu + 5-7 point mutil touch
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is this for real? Why would you need 5-7 touch points? Can you even fit 7 fingers on a 4in screen?
I sure as hell hope that Microsoft won't allow this on Pad devices.
Sure the idea with Pad devices might be good, but not with an OS built for a 4" display.
Sir. Haxalot said:
I sure as hell hope that Microsoft won't allow this on Pad devices.
Sure the idea with Pad devices might be good, but not with an OS built for a 4" display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, if MS comes out with a pad, I hope they alter the OS or make a new one optimized for a pad sized screen.
I felt like once phones hit the 1 ghz mark the cpu race kicked into over drive....the dual core phase was short lived and just about old news with quad core phones hitting shelves. Is there anything left after quad core phones? Will this be standard for awhile? I just hope its not a gimmick. Like the whole 4g deal....especially LTE....i still dont feel like the benefit of the slight boost in data transfer is worth the crappy battery life. Hspa+ seems to be a good sweet spot for data transfer.... and instead of improving networks and creating quality broadband services companies waste millions on trying to be the company with the latest inadequate tech. Most people dont even understand what they have or what they are using....if only i had a dollar for everytime i heard....."i love my iphone 4g"
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
I don't know, but as I can't see how there would enough multi-tasking to make more than four cores worth sacrificing features, I would love to see improvements in battery life instead.
Doesn't Moore's law apply to more than just processing speed? Like, we could see improvements in cost, speed, or energy efficiency, but we just keep going for speed? Because I'd really love to have double the battery life.
I doubt that they will be the standard for a while. Look at how amazing the HTC ONE S is performing compared to the ONE X and the transformer prime.
I think that the dual core still has a lot of life in it. Quad core phones may be in all the flagship phones pretty soon, but I don't think that they will be "standard" for quite some time.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA
I hope so.....id rather have a high performance dual core than quad.....unless quad core phones will start flying planes
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Don't worry about core counts. Just worry about overall performance.
Quad core is a meaningless number of cores.
Quad-Cores will remain flagship for at least another year. I predict the 2014 standard for lower-end phones will be quad-core. Dual-Core won't die out, however, because of low-power consumption and prices. Most changes we will likely see in the coming years:
1. Size (Probably a move to smaller 10nm chipsets, thinner screens and phones, Larger displays)
2. Optimization of Current Technologies (Software improvements, thinner AMOLEDS, power consumption)
3. BATTERY IMPROVEMENTS (It's needed the MOST)
Quad-Core phones will be short lived. Right now quad core chips are based on Cortex A9, Cortex A16 is around the corner. The A16 dual-core chips perform faster than current quad core chips and will use much less power than Cortex A9 dual cores we have now. Due to the initial expensive production costs of the A16 it will be a while before we see A16 quads hit the market.
Edit: Of course cheap phones may use the old cheaper Quad Core Cortex A9 in their phones but by no means will it be the flagship thing to have in a phone, just standard like the 1 GHz processors have become.
theherodrownd said:
Quad-Core phones will be short lived. Right now quad core chips are based on Cortex A9, Cortex A16 is around the corner. The A16 dual-core chips perform faster than current quad core batteries and will use much less power than Cortex A9 dual cores we have now. Due to the initial expensive production costs of the A16 it will be a while before we see A16 quads hit the market.
Edit: Of course cheap phones may use the old cheaper Quad Core Cortex A9 in their phones but by no means will it be the flagship thing to have in a phone, just standard like the 1 GHz processors have become.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tegra 3 has 2 A15's bro.
Smokeey said:
Tegra 3 has 2 A15's bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tegra 3 has 1.4 GHz Quad-Core ARM Cortex-A9s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A9_MPCore
Smokeey said:
Tegra 3 has 2 A15's bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sure? I looked a few places to check and saw it is still based on A9. Seems to be stamped on the same 40nm dye as the Tegra2. Its ghost core seems to have a different architecture however.
Edit: Valynor posted one of the links I was reading, thanks!
Valynor said:
Tegra 3 has 1.4 GHz Quad-Core ARM Cortex-A9s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A9_MPCore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The next generation (Wayne) has 2 A9 and 2 A15 (est. Q4-Q1 13 release).
More efficient cores seems to be what people really want vs more cores. Along those lines, battery life is more a concern than just raw computing power.
I'm waiting to see what next gen processors bring rather than focusing on if it is quad core or not.
systemf said:
More efficient cores seems to be what people really want vs more cores. Along those lines, battery life is more a concern than just raw computing power.
I'm waiting to see what next gen processors bring rather than focusing on if it is quad core or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely, definitely too early. I mean it's cool and all but QUAD CORE on a phone right now really? If we keep going this fast we will have 16 cores by 2014. But in all seriousness google and oems should just focus on battery life improvements, software, skins like sense and touchwiz refinements and user experience. Once those things are perfected you can bring new crazy features that would require a quad core powerhouse but for now it really is not needed. Just upgrade the current dual core architecture to A15 based SoC.
Someday:thumbup:
Sent from my i9250 [GSM) Galaxy Nexus
The following article is not even remotely related to E4GT (or Samsung for that matter) but I found it very interesting... There's a strong possibility of Intel dominating all mobile processors starting 2014 - 2015 ...
http://liliputing.com/2012/04/intel-pushes-atom-chip-for-android-devices.html
EDIT: I just noticed that the website (or maybe the user) removed the second post that I copied below.
You can skip the actual article, but read the comments (from user CyberGusa) :
While as for what advantages Intel can start to offer, it's what Chippy from UMPCPortal would call High Dynamic Range Computing (HDRC). Unlike ARM, Intel is fully capable of scaling from the mobile range to the full desktop range.
This will be especially true if Windows 8 is successful, as x86 can offer legacy support where ARM can't, and can provide the higher range performance that ARM is still many years away from being able to provide as their high end next gen offerings will only rival the present gen Intel ATOMs.
MS in particular is patenting a way to easily switch between CPU's when docking. So could make a Windows system literally scale from mobile to laptop and even desktop by just docking it.
The closest ARM based devices will get to this scaling is switching from a ARM to higher end Intel or AMD chip when docked but this will also involve switching from a mobile OS to a desktop one to fully take advantage of the switch.
Though Google is making progress towards making Android a more desktop friendly OS, like with Webtop and similar UI optimizations that take over when docked that would allow Android to take advantage of such scaling but would still be more limited than switching to a true desktop OS that isn't designed with the limits that a mobile OS will have to deal with no matter how the UI is altered and optimized,
Failure of Windows 8 though could well give ARM the advantage.
Intel though is hedging its bets with support for Android and of course the Tizen project. They already bought a company last year that provides them the option to easily switch between two OS instantly, without rebooting.
While they are compensating for what advantages ARM has over them by keeping ahead of the manufacturing shrink curve by at least a year.
So while ARM is heading towards 32 and 28nm productions, Intel is heading toward 22nm and that combined with the architectural updates could potentially start giving Intel the edge.
Mind also that there have been problems with the 28nm production and Intel has strategically not helped ARM with this issue. So time table for many gives them limited time for market penetration before Intel will be able to come out with their own 22nm chips and 14nm is scheduled for 2014.
Also consider that it's not the general consumer market at stake here but also the embedded and server markets, which could give Intel more of a advantage considering that x86 hardware can run pretty much any OS but ARM is still limited to OS already optimized for it.
While ARM is also depending on Windows 8 being a success to provide it a mainstream desktop OS to provide the ability to start competing in the traditional PC markets, and thus would also be negatively effected if Windows 8 fails.
So while ARM is looking good for the rest of this year, it remains to be seen if that will remain true next year and Intel should never be underestimated.
More comments from the same user (CyberGusa):
Right now Intel only has dual core in their higher end ATOM lineup and up to 8 cores for the server market, neither of which are competing with ARM yet.
The upcoming dual core Medfield is mainly just planned for the Tablet market and shouldn't effect the Smart Phone market.
So the main advantage of ARM solutions right now is that they're much more mainstream for the mobile market, with Intel only beginning to compete for the first time. Much like how Nvidia when they first introduced the Tegra and shows slow beginnings are not indicative of how they will do in a year or two.
While as already mentioned the Intel ATOM's are still using pretty much the same architecture as when it was first introduced to the market in 2008. This is like comparing the Cortex A15 to the older Cortex A8 based ARM chips and having the Cortex A8 solution still holds its own.
So having it even come in the same ball park is actually a testament to how much ARM still has to catch up for the higher performance range they're only now entering.
Mind beating the ATOM isn't really hard, as that's the bottom of Intel's chip offerings, with the Core i-Series offering multiples times better performance that ARM is still years away from even getting close to.
While the next gen ATOM's coming out next year are Intel's equivalent of a A15 update to the ATOM. Introducing many of the technology they developed for Ivy Bridge to the ATOM.
Like Intel's Tri-Gate Transistors, a HD 4000 based GMA, putting the entire lineup under SoC, offering a wider range of processor configurations, finally adding Out Of Order Processing to the ATOM, among many other improvements.
While ARM manufacturers are having problems, the delay in moving to 28nm being the most outstanding right now, which is why many are still opting for 32nm. Especially those who have yet to deal with the increased problem of power leakage as they continue to shrink the FAB.
Even Apple is still on 45nm with their latest iPad and had to increase the battery size by 70% to compensate for the increased power consumption of the retina display and the quad core GPU's requires.
So they may up their game but it's going to get harder for them here on out as ARM was designed for low power and low performance and need time to evolve to be able to apply itself to higher end applications.
While Intel already dominates the higher end and just wants to start penetrating into the lower end and that's going to be arguably easier for them to do than for ARM to keep on increasing its performance.
Mind, ARM is still a 32bit architecture and only recently introduced designs for 64bit. This means they're still years away from going fully 64bit and for now we're only going to see enhancements like 64bit memory management.
While it's not easy to continue providing increasing performance and still keep costs and power consumption low. Also ARM customizations has the down side of increased hardware fragmentation.
So it's not like Intel doesn't stand a chance, it's just going to take awhile to see if they can really start competing in the mobile market or have to stay in the higher end PC market.
Comment as you see fit, and keep in mind these are just opinions, not facts !!!
First...
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Even if Intel is not on top by then they will make sure the bar is set high. Good read.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Good read. If Intel is truly interested in advancing the mobile field, I can see them doing big things in the future. At the very least, the competition they bring to the market will keep everyone else on their toes.
Transmission sent from a Galaxy S II, CODENAME style.
intel will show other processor companies how its done. their technology is quality when compared to AMD. but AMD tries to be more innovative. in the end i went with expensive intel to build my computer
Competition premotes innovation. I have read that the next few generations of processors are already developed but they only release one at a time to guarantee profits and to not outrun what they have. So, with more chips in competition this will help us see better processors faster. It will also lower cost. So, a phone might cost the same 4 years from now instead of more. I personally think it is a great idea. Even if there chips weren't much better they still will help. It is a win win for the consumer. Great article!
Sent from Team KC's founding member HTC Evo 4G LTE.
Oh and Intel is known for making low battery consumption processors. Can't wait for that by them making small chips only nanometers big
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
kc_exactly said:
Competition premotes innovation. I have read that the next few generations of processors are already developed but they only release one at a time to guarantee profits and to not outrun what they have. So, with more chips in competition this will help us see better processors faster. It will also lower cost. So, a phone might cost the same 4 years from now instead of more. I personally think it is a great idea. Even if there chips weren't much better they still will help. It is a win win for the consumer. Great article!
Sent from Team KC's founding member HTC Evo 4G LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my personal opinion, I think Intel does make outstanding processors, but their marketing skills are not customer friendly. Take for example the numerous options for the speed of a processor they sell...
let's say the new processor X came out with speeds of 1.6 GHz, and then 3 months later, they come out with the same processor X but with improved speeds of 2.2 GHz at 40% increased cost... and after another 3 months they release the Black Edition processor X with the ultimate speed of 2.4 GHz at double and even triple the price of the original !!!
Do you honestly think they will redesign the production line just to make the new and improved Black Edition processor X ??? I don't think so... In my opinion, they're probably selling the exact same processor X from the beginning to the end, but they slow down the speed in the early versions and they gradually release to full potential ... In this way, they sell the same processor (which cuts down the design/engineering and production costs) yet they stay very profitable and ahead of the market curve by announcing an improved product every 3 months !!!
In other words, the same processor X will sell as follows:
1st release) Speed minus 40% (no overclock) ... "Regular" price
2nd release) Speed minus 30% (no overclock) ... "Regular" price + 15%
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
Black Edition) Speed and overclock unlocked ... "Regular" price + 300%
The worst thing they ever did (starting with Core processors, such as i3, i5...) was to incorporate the video card into the processor, and to lock out other video card vendors from the system ... In this way, they sell the processor AND the video card at the same time, and there's no more competition at the same time !!! They call this bull **** integration something like "system on a chip" for better power consumption ... WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYONE LOOKED FORWARD TO INSTALLING AND BENCHMARKING INTEL VIDEO CARDS IN THEIR COMPUTERS ??? Why do you think AMD bought ATI video card manufacturer ?
And you think it wouldn't get any worst ? Recently Intel started to sell their TOP OF THE LINE PROCESSORS without their video integrated cards ... That means that us, the consumers, have to PAY EXTRA FOR LESS PRODUCT just to get away from their marketing schemes !!!
In the end, we probably pay "regular" price when processor X is introduced, then it's all profits from there on for Intel.
Now back to cell phones ... think of the same scenario applied to your phone with Intel Inside ...
The above are just my personal opinions on Intel ... tell me if I'm wrong ! Say thanks if you believe I helped you open your eyes !
peryp9 said:
In my personal opinion, I think Intel does make outstanding processors, but their marketing skills are not customer friendly. Take for example the numerous options for the speed of a processor they sell...
let's say the new processor X came out with speeds of 1.6 GHz, and then 3 months later, they come out with the same processor X but with improved speeds of 2.2 GHz at 40% increased cost... and after another 3 months they release the Black Edition processor X with the ultimate speed of 2.4 GHz at double and even triple the price of the original !!!
Do you honestly think they will redesign the production line just to make the new and improved Black Edition processor X ??? I don't think so... In my opinion, they're probably selling the exact same processor X from the beginning to the end, but they slow down the speed in the early versions and they gradually release to full potential ... In this way, they sell the same processor (which cuts down the design/engineering and production costs) yet they stay very profitable and ahead of the market curve by announcing an improved product every 3 months !!!
In other words, the same processor X will sell as follows:
1st release) Speed minus 40% (no overclock) ... "Regular" price
2nd release) Speed minus 30% (no overclock) ... "Regular" price + 15%
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
Black Edition) Speed and overclock unlocked ... "Regular" price + 300%
The worst thing they ever did (starting with Core processors, such as i3, i5...) was to incorporate the video card into the processor, and to lock out other video card vendors from the system ... In this way, they sell the processor AND the video card at the same time, and there's no more competition at the same time !!! They call this bull **** integration something like "system on a chip" for better power consumption ... WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYONE LOOKED FORWARD TO INSTALLING AND BENCHMARKING INTEL VIDEO CARDS IN THEIR COMPUTERS ??? Why do you think AMD bought ATI video card manufacturer ?
And you think it wouldn't get any worst ? Recently Intel started to sell their TOP OF THE LINE PROCESSORS without their video integrated cards ... That means that us, the consumers, have to PAY EXTRA FOR LESS PRODUCT just to get away from their marketing schemes !!!
In the end, we probably pay "regular" price when processor X is introduced, then it's all profits from there on for Intel.
Now back to cell phones ... think of the same scenario applied to your phone with Intel Inside ...
The above are just my personal opinions on Intel ... tell me if I'm wrong ! Say thanks if you believe I helped you open your eyes !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since when Intel has Black Edition CPU?
And about locking out other video card vendors from the system, are you sure you know what you talking about?
locoboi187 said:
intel will show other processor companies how its done. their technology is quality when compared to AMD. but AMD tries to be more innovative. in the end i went with expensive intel to build my computer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel can school everyone else on microprocessor development, manufacturing, budget, evolution...but...x86 is known power hungry. I'm sure if they keep reducing their process (which they will) they can get x86 to match arm, energy consumption wise. But, on the same token, ARM will (WILL) get developed to a point where they will match x86 performance wise.
It's anybodies race. It's early (yes, very early) in the mobile computing game. Intel could very well pull through with it's very refined architecture....that's also regarded as crufty as fnck. The ARM architecture could very well also be refined to the point where they get as many operations per clock...both neck-and-neck on power efficiency.
All said, I'm both excited and doubtful in intel's ability. Microsoft is becoming irrelevant at an amazing speed...perhaps it's intel's turn as well. Wintel? Armdroid? A mix of the two?
Exciting times. Bring on the competition.
Intel never had something called "black editions". They have processors known as "Extreme editions" which are the highest quality bin CPU's which did not get chosen for the Xeon server cpus. These costs $999.
The next batch would be the second highest binned ones which would costs ~$500. Then the next are the average ones which passed all the tests but wasn't as high quality as the higher end models. These are the $200-300 ones.
The rest probably get thrown out.
Now the their integrated solution is a step foward in providing all in one solutions. They did not locking out video card makers who make discrete chipsets which absolutely crushes the integrated HD 2000/3000's. What makes these integrated solutions so attractive is the fact the their intel sync (?) encoding and other stuff is literally mind blowing.
You probably don't even know what you're talking about... like seriously? BE's are AMD's.... video makers are mainly dedicated with PCI-e interfaces....
*Edit*
Intel innovates crazily when pushed heavily. AMD punished Intel for its pentium 4 and forced them either step up or be irrelevant and stepped up they did... conroe... nehalam... clarksfield...sandy bridge.. ivy bridge...
I have no reason to believe if Arm shoved into intel into a corner like AMD did, they wouldn't pounce like they did on amd... let's just say.. if history has taught us anything... I' would feel really bad for ARM due to intels insane budgets, R&D, and advanced chipmaking facilities..
lilotimz said:
Intel never had something called "black editions". They have processors known as "Extreme editions" which are the highest quality bin CPU's which did not get chosen for the Xenon's server cpus. These costs $999.
The next batch would be the second highest binned ones , which would costs ~$500. Then the next are the average ones which did passed all the tests but wasn't as high quality as the higher end models. These are the $200-300 ones.
The rest probably get thrown out.
Now the their integrated solution is a step foward in providing all in one solutions. Not locking out video card makers who make discrete chipsets which absolutely crushes the integrated HD 2000/3000's. What makes these integrated solutions so attractive is the fact the their intel sync (?) encoding and other stuff is literally mind blowing.
You probably don't even know what you're talking about... like seriously? BE's are AMD's.... video makers are mainly dedicated with PCI-e interfaces....
*Edit*
Intel innovates crazily when pushed heavily. AMD punished Intel for its pentium 4 and forced them either step up or be irrelevant and stepped up they did... conroe... nehalam... clarksfield...sandy bridge.. ivy bridge...
I have no reason to believe if Arm shoved into intel into a corner like AMD did... let's just say.. if history has taught us anything... I' would feel really bad for ARM due to intels insane budgets, R&D, and advanced chipmaking facilities..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel Black Edition ... Intel Extreme Edition ... the idea was "top of the line". Look at the point I'm trying to make, not the wrong words I used.
Intel may claim that their integrated graphics are great for many thing, but look at the larger picture... pay premium dollar for the ability to use the video card of your choice !!
EDIT: The cheapest processor comes with integrated graphics, while the most expensive one comes without it. I remember when I bought my laptop a few years back (1st generation Intel i5). I was reading about Intel not allowing manufacturers to put other cards in order to bypass the integrated one. In the end, I bought this Intel i5 laptop with NVidia GeForce 325M with Optimus. Check to see how Optimus works with Intel's integrated card and you'll understand what I meant in my previous post.
In the end, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that Intel's products are great (except their video cards) but their marketing scheme will hurt the consumers if they take control of the mobile processor.
All the info by the commenter not withstanding, I have a hard time taking anyone who uses "effect" instead of "affect" seriously.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
AMD has managed to become a solid competitor in the gaming CPU space. The latest Ryzen 5000 series processors based on the Zen3 architecture are becoming the go-to choice for a lot of gamers around the world. The biggest advantage that the new Ryzen series offers over Intel is power efficiency. In fact, even the last-generation Ryzen 3000 series processors, have proven to offer rock-solid performance with comparatively less power draw. Intel recently launched its new 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop processors, however, it hasn't received a lot of positive feedback primarily due to the fact that the company continues to drag its 14nm++ process.
If you are in the market for buying a new CPU for gaming, then AMD is a pretty good choice. Let's check out the best AMD CPUs for gaming that you should buy today.
AMD Ryzen 5 5600XThe newly launched Ryzen 5 5600X is the best AMD Ryzen CPU that you should buy for gaming in 2021. It offers the best performance to value ratio and thanks to AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, it draws less power compared to Intel counterparts. The processor is highly recommended for all sorts of games, whether you want fast frame rates or a high-resolution experience.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.6GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
35MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
65W TDP
~$279
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 5800XThe new octa-core champion, the Ryzen 7 5800X takes on Intel's new 11th-gen Core i9-11900K. While both offer almost similar performance, AMD is selling the 5800X at over $100 less than Intel. That in itself is a huge point to consider, especially since the chipset crisis has lead to consumers hunting for products left, right, and center. Additionally, as mentioned with the case of the 5600X, this one also draws comparatively less power thanks to the 7nm processor.
Clock speeds: 3.8GHz – 4.7GHz
8-Cores, 16 Threads
35MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$420
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 9 5900XThe latest top-of-the-line CPU offering from AMD in 2021, the 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X throws Intel’s latest Core i9-11900K and even the 10-core Core i9-10900K from last year, out of the park in almost every single aspect. It not only offers a better performance package, but it manages power and thermal more efficiently thanks to the 7nm process. It is currently selling more expensive than AMD’s suggested price, but it is totally worth it and should last you for years to come.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.8GHz
12-Cores, 24 Threads
64MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$549
Buy from Amazon
Best APU: AMD Ryzen 5 3400GThe chipset crisis continues to haunt us, with most gamers unable to get a hold of a new GPU. But if you are planning to build a budget gaming PC, then you should consider the Ryzen 5 3400G. Since it is an APU, it comes with integrated graphics that should be enough for 720p or 1080p gaming at low to mid settings. Additionally, both the CPU and GPU are unlocked which means there is potential for tweaking them as well. AMD has announced that its latest APUs, the Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G, will be hitting stores in August. These are going to be much better than the 3400G, so hold on to your money if you can.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.2GHz
4-Cores, 8 Threads
4MB L3 Cache
PCIe 3.0
Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics
65W TDP
~$149
Buy from Amazon
These are currently the best AMD processors for gaming, and while you might point out that there is also the Ryzen 9 5950X, that would just be overkill for a gaming rig. For a more balanced setup, it is best to either go for the Ryzen 5 5600X if your main purpose is only gaming. If you plan to do gaming alongside multiple tasks like streaming and video rendering, then get the Ryzen 7 5800X or the 5900X if your budget allows.
Recently, Ryzen 5 5600G and 5700G have better APU for now
5800X is the best for gaming giving better scores than 5600X & 1-CCX(8-core) so lowest latency.
myaccountaccess krogerfeedback
The past couple of years has seen AMD gain a better grip on the CPU market with its Ryzen series. While the Ryzen 3000 series of processors competed strongly against Intel last year, the latest generation has become a favorable choice of many thanks to the excellent performance. Gamers, PC building enthusiasts, and even professionals prefer going for the Ryzen 5000 series instead of Intel. One of the reasons for that is AMD’s Zen 3 architecture based on the 7nm node, whereas Intel is still stuck on its 14nm architecture for the past six years.
Let’s check out the best AMD CPUs for performance
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
AMD continues to offer high-end desktop (HEDT) class processors to mainstream users with the Ryzen 9 5950X. Featuring 16-cores and 32-threads, it is one of the most powerful processors from the company. It isn’t affordable by any means especially when you look at the $799 price tag, but compared to other competitive HEDT processors, this is actually a really good price. If you don’t want to jump over to the Threadripper series, then this is your best bet.
Clock speeds: 3.4GHz – 4.9GHz
16-Cores, 32 Threads
64MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$920
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Sitting below the 5950X is the 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X that gives Intel’s latest Core i9-11900K a run for its money. It’s an incredibly powerful processor for gaming and creative workloads, at the same time it manages power and thermals more efficiently thanks to the 7nm process. The processor delivers more performance per watt consumed, compared to the 8-core 11900K. The only issue is that the Ryzen 9 5900X is difficult to get hold of and is currently selling more expensive than AMD’s suggested price.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz – 4.8GHz
12-Cores, 24 Threads
64MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$680
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
It is neck-to-neck when comparing the Ryzen 7 5800X with Intel’s Core i7-11700K. While it is slightly more expensive than the Intel counterpart, it's worth it paying extra as it offers faster gaming performance and almost the same performance when it comes to core-CPU-based tasks. There is also the additional benefit of the 5800X’s lower power consumption, which means it can reach its full performance potential even on less expensive motherboards.
Clock speeds: 3.8GHz – 4.7GHz
8-Cores, 16 Threads
32MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
105W TDP
~$400
Buy from Amazon
AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX
The newly launched AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX laptop CPU is part of AMD's 5000 series 'Cezanne' generation. It is targeted towards high-performance laptops. The octa-core processor comes with a base clock speed of 3.3GHz and a boost clock of 4.8GHz. The TDP is rated at 45W which is quite impressive for a powerful processor like this. According to AMD, thanks to the Zen 3 architecture, the new 5000 series has made significant leaps in IPC compared to the previous generation with an average IPC gain of 19-percent.
Clock speeds: 3.3GHz – 4.8GHz
8-Cores, 16 Threads
16MB L3 Cache
PCIe 4.0
35-45W TDP
Beast cpu still in 2022