CPUBoss
Compare CPUs to see which is faster
Best CPUs All the CPUs ranked in real-time!
Single Thread Performance
Cinebench R10 and Passmark Single Thread Benchmarks
CPU Reviews Get all the details about the latest CPUs
- 3.5 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
- 4 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
- 3.4 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
- 3.5 GHz
- Hexa core
- Unlocked
- 2.6 GHz
- Dual core
- 1.8 GHz
- Dual core
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
- 1.8 GHz
- Dual core
- 3.3 GHz
- Dual core
- 2.4 GHz
- Dual core
- 2.5 GHz
- Dual core
CPU Comparisons Top contenders go at it head to head
News
three weeks ago
-
Intel win because intel core i5 3570k cpu with gpu and AMD only apu
Shirako
-
for price/performance relation what is better a i3 3220 with lga 1155 or a i3 4120 with lga 1150
somnath
-
In reality 4771 is better. About same performance or sometimes better and much lower power consumption. New instructions too. And the 4820k 3d mark 11 is probably from overclocked bencmarks from the futuremark community.
ArneBo
-
-
FX 8320 if u plan to get aftermarket cooler,liquid or air... Overclock it to 4ghz or 4,2ghz and it beats 4570anyday.
Bl00ddrunk
-
Hmmm In a fully multi-threaded app (like CAD rendering for example) does 12 logical cores actually trump 8 physical cores?
ddearborn
-
Actually, the A7 will probably be better, because IOS is lighter, and the A7 is just a very clever chip. http://gizmodo.com/iphone-a7-c...
Kelvin Jongenotter
-
Exynos 5 Dual vs Celeron 2955U
The celeron for sure, although you can't really compare an ARM cpu to an X86-64 cpu.
Derpotron
-
-
not true. you're probably deriving your estimates from that one video, but they didn't actually calculate it right. 80w vs 125w is a difference of about 40w, which is about half of the wattage of a typical intel. that means AMD uses approx 50% more wattage on average. if the difference was only $10 a year, then that would mean intel costs about $20 a year to run. obviously this is highly inaccurate, especially if you use your PC alot. so how do you go from $8 a month to run something (that's well over $100 a year) to only a 10% difference in cost despite using 50% more electricity? that just doesn't add up. furthermore, you actually pump in more electricity than used. so if a processor needs say 125w, you're actually needing to pump in over 150w. most power supplies, even the good ones, can only deliver 80% of the electricity that passes through it into usable electricity for the PC, which means it needs 20% more electricity to pump in the right amount. a 400w power supply is actually a 480w power supply, for example. obviously, 20% of 80w is lower than 20% of 125w. and that's not just for the CPU, that applies to everything powered in a PC. and it ALL adds up. most people own their PC's for about 3-5 years, and it's going to be a trend for some time since it's taking them 5 years just to make processors twice as fast as processors 5 years older. (the phenom II x4 released in 2009 is actually a smidge over/under 50% of the performance of an 8xxx) we're not really going to be seeing huge leaps and bounds like we did in 2000-2008. back then, a simple upgrade could mean triple the performance. today, you'll be lucky to get 20% from intel or amd over previous generations. so people will be generally keeping their PC's longer than 2 years, because there just isn't enough progress in that time to warrant an upgrade. those energy savings costs over a 3-5 year period far outweigh the initial cost benefit of an AMD for the performance. the intels in the long run, last longer, which means more time between upgrades, and cost cheaper when everything is factored in. even the cheapest intel board is capable of overclocking well. but the cheapest or even mid range amd motherboards are really crappy at overclocking. furthermore, due to the high wattage of AMD FX, you're going to reach your boards max TDP long before you reach your max overclock. so if you're running a 125w processor on a 125w board, you have little room for overclocking. you will then need a 220w board, which is more cost.
Joe Joejoe
-
-
-
Los 64 bits solo son para despuès de 32Gb de memoria RAM, y en realidad no usan ni siquiera 4 hilos 2x32bits, no creo que ese procesador sea 100% mejor que el A6X solo es mejor por la memoria cache que tiene el A7 256kbs VS 64kbs y los 28nm vs 32nm para el menor consumo de batería, aunque esto claramente no se nota porque el iOS7 es pésimo manejando las funciones en reposo. Es pesimo, los 300 ingenieros de Apple solo agregar unas 4 cosas a su chip. =) Apple parece que está sorprendiendo. =P Mr. LOL iOshit... :D
jose manuel leon
-
El A7 es un cpu Quad-Core, es mentira que digan que es de solo dos nucleos, Apple no tiene nada nuevo. =( Es una lastima el engaño que hacen a la gente, por mi parte sigo con BlackBerry.
jose manuel leon
-
I just don't understand AMD FX-8320 is faster, cheaper, overclocks better and this site still recommends the inferior part ?!
Angel G.
-
Lol you guys are just sad even talking about gaming on these kind of processors. Tbh get the i7 4500u for everyday use = much more battery life and get a gaming desktop.
ANON
last month
-
1.47 GHz | Quad core
-
2 GHz | Quad core
-
2.7 GHz | Quad core
-
2.5 GHz | Dual core
-
1.24 GHz | 61 cores
last month
-
-
Oh my God Rick...yeah, its 170$ on the paper but in reality its nothing. You are just AMD hater with stupid mission of loosing time searching for anything that can help you in your stupid holly war against AMD!
Lino Pugliari
-
Umm how can water cooling not allow a higher CPU speed? Surely it cools better than air ?
Roger
-
just proves the FX series is a joke. The x3 720be wasn't even top of the line 5 years ago when it was released.....and the 6300 is barely 2x as fast 5 years later. the 6300 is even slower than the FX 4X series in many cases. I wouldn't exactly call that progress. Not to mention, the FX 6300 also uses about twice the power at full load. not impressed one bit. 5 years in the computer world, and they can barely double CPU performance. AMD has been churning out quad cores for the last several years, and with the end of the FX line and move to APU/GPU only, all they're poised to churn out is even more quad cores with subpar graphics performance. If you're buying your very first PC it's not soo bad....but if you're trying to upgrade from any Phenom II processor, you'll find that the minimal gains aren't worth the cost. $500 to build a machine for barely 2x the performance? what a rip.
Joe Joejoe
-
The fact that the most important thing for them is single-core performance is just biased. If they want to make it that way, they should be showing test results on different things like video editing and gaming. Obviously, Intel will win in gaming because there isn't any game (as far as I know) that uses 8 cores. Most games use 4 at most. By the way, I own the i5 because I'm using it for gaming and wanted something efficient, and I don't plan to do anything like video editing.
msueiro
Trending
|
|
|
|
|
