Top 10 AMD processors

The absence of X in the marking traditionally means that we have a processor "slightly stripped down" in the possibilities. Its base frequency has been reduced from 3.7 GHz to 3.2 GHz, while in “turbo mode” it also decreased from 4.3 to 4.1 GHz. But this allowed the processor to meet the 65-watt thermal pack: you can safely buy it in the boxed version, the regular Wraith Spire cooler works more than adequately. In addition, the processors Pinnacle Ridge, he also got RGB-backlit, if it is so important to you.

The loss of performance due to lower frequencies cannot be called tangible: the AMD Ryzen 7 2700 processor perfectly pulls heavy applications, and in frankly processor-dependent games it does not turn the image on the monitor into a slideshow. Well, except that if you are not a typical “expert” who sees with the eye the difference between 90 and 95 fps, and it becomes comparable in scale to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Moreover, the acceleration capabilities of the 2700 are practically the same as those of the 2700X. Familiar picture on the FX? Indeed, if you want from a cheaper processor, you can achieve the same results, which will give more expensive ... and with the saved you can buy a more efficient cooler.

We take Ryzen 7, “cut off” two cores (that is, we get 6 cores / 12 threads in SMT) and we get ... perhaps, a contender for the title of “popular” processor. At the same time, if we compare Intel with the 8th generation, its closest competitor from the same price segment is i3-8350K. But it's hardly worth comparing them, and the trick here is simple: because of the peculiarities of the memory subsystem, in the case of Ryzen processors, the paradoxical rule “less cores - more speed” often works. If you assemble a computer primarily for games, the difference with the Ryzen 7 2700X will be scanty, especially at high resolutions at maximum speeds. When working, yes, a large computational load “pulls” the eight-core line better. But to crawl on the belly in the mud under Verdun in Battlefield 1 (let's take the game as an example of a thoroughly loading processor and supporting a large number of threads, and traditionally poorly optimized for its developer) in the end it will be better on the “five”, turning the price difference into a more powerful video card or memory is faster and bigger.

Outwardly, there are not so many changes in comparison with the predecessor of the first generation (Ryzen 3 1300X) - it has grown from 3.7 GHz to 4 GHz turbo frequency, support for DDR4-2933 has appeared. The heat pack is kept at 65 W, so that the processor can easily manage with a simple cooler without a lot of heat pipes, and the dropsy will definitely be needed only for beauty or when overclocked.

The overclocking potential of the processor is usual for all Zen +, that is, we can talk about the possibility of exceeding the 4 GHz bar not on boost, but all the time. Of course, it will also begin to warm up noticeably stronger. But is it really necessary to "drive" the budget option?

It continues our ranking of the best AMD Ryzen 3 2200G processors. The troika has as many physical cores as the Five have. But, firstly, there is no support for SMT, so Ryzen 3 2200G streams only 4. Secondly, the integrated video accelerator here is not Vega 11, but Vega 8. So you can end up talking about a loss in overall performance to third. But at the price, this processor is closest to the schoolchildren's favorite - the “Hyperpnya” Pentium G4560, which is not playable without a discrete video card, and indeed, to be honest, raising it to the rank of “best state employee” looks in many ways contrived, rather, it’s subsequent upgrade. Well, the same “gag” can be the 2200G, which is without a video card even on “minimal” and not in FullHD, but it doesn’t pull out fps in the same adventures of Geralt from Rivia. Moreover, the Vega 8 clearly cuts the possibilities - for example, with the GeForce GTX 1060, everything becomes much more interesting and at higher quality settings. For a working computer, the processor will be enough even more.

The only "but" is that the budget processor will still have to put in an expensive pair of memory, so the total cost of the assembly will be higher than expected. But with a further upgrade, you can simply change the processor.

The direct heir of the rulers on the now-defunct Bose, like AM3 +, the FM2 + socket has been transferred to the current AM4 socket and can now work with DDR4 memory. Simply put, we now have a simple and inexpensive “stone” on a 28-nanometer process technology and without a third-level cache, which has 2 compute modules and a built-in Radeon R7 Graphics video accelerator. Computational module? Yes, the processor’s “roots” are old - in fact, it became the development of the same Piledriver microarchitecture (familiar with spoken English now slyly smiled), which stopped for AM3 + on the 32-nm Vishera generation, and on FM2 +, “losing weight” to 28 nm, in the form of a Steamroller reached the current 4th generation (Excavator).

Being released on the “ancient” technical process and microarchitecture, the APU doesn’t particularly affect performance of either processor cores operating at a base frequency of 3.8 GHz with a boost of up to 4.2 GHz or integrated video (although it is faster than “embedded” priced from Intel). This option is clearly designed for office and home use, where the most difficult task would be to watch 4K-video on YouTube. But at the same time, using a single socket for all desktop processors will always allow upgrading to Ryzen 7 2700X, if the motherboard power subsystem allows - for low-power “plugs” and “mother”, usually inexpensive ones are taken, without a sufficient number of VRM phases and their advanced cooling. In this case, you can immediately use the speed of NVMe SSD, and USB 3.1 ports, which are offered on motherboards for AM4 socket.

However, if you compare the prices of the top-end A12 with the younger ones of the Ryzen 3, then the prospects are not bright. 14-nanometer processors are both faster and more economical, and this applies to both pure processor power and the integrated video adapter. And the price gap is minimal. Even overclocking doesn’t particularly straighten the situation, since the A12-9800 doesn’t particularly want to “chase”

One of the best six-threaded AMD processors for the AM3 + platform, literally "popular" recently. With a base frequency of 3.5 GHz (TurboCore boost up to 4.1 GHz), many processors in this series quietly mastered overclocking to 4 GHz "to a constant" even without increasing the voltage, and the bar 4.5-4.6 GHz was also taken on low-cost motherboard boards without clever VRM, without needing top-end coolers.
At the same time, the processor was cheaper than the rest in the 63XX line, physically no different from them - only the stock frequencies differed, which, taking into account the ease of overclocking, were taken quietly by the FX-6300. Under overclocking, the guides to which on the Web are simply in bulk, the processor even now is able to show decent gaming performance, with the exception of the most processor-dependent games that can heat it up just as well as the OCCT stress test. As for solving resource-intensive tasks with multithreaded computing, for example, 3D modeling or working with multimedia content, Vishera line processors leave Intel’s comparable competitors far behind: they are selling new ones for the same money ... only Intel Celeron.