AMD vs. Intel: The Evolution of CPU Gaming Performance

Shopping Shortcuts:

After reviewing the past few generations of Intel and AMD CPUs separately, here's the latest in a series of gaming performance improvements. In this article, we will be directly comparing a decade of AMD and Intel processors. We tested Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 models with the same clock speed and the same number of active cores. This gives us a clear and interesting look at how L3 cache capacity affects gaming performance, and we've found that for current Intel games, they often increase their performance when increasing L3 cache capacity rather than adding more cores. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution from By limiting all CPUs to four active 8-core cores at the same clock frequency, we took a good look at the untested ones and compared them to older Intel CPUs. Naturally, the next step was to do the same with a wide range of AMD processors and normalize the number of cores and clock frequencies. This shows just how weak the legacy FX series is, and AMD's huge leap has been made with each successive generation of Ryzen. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution < /p>

The CPU architecture benchmark was an interesting way to gauge the progress the two companies are making. Now all we have to do is test a few more generations of CPUs that weren't in the previous articles like Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell and of course Rocket Lake, and gather all the data together.

So, for this test, all CPUs clocked at 4.2GHz except for the Ryzen 7 1800X, which ran at only 4.1GHz, but that's only a 2.5% frequency difference that significantly affects the results. Left. Models that use DDR4 memory with the DDR4-3200 CL14 and DDR3 models use DD3-2400 CL11 memory. Other than that, everything is as good as possible for the apple, and each model runs with four active cores. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution < /p>

Please note that no cores are disabled in the FX-8350, so if you think this is an octa core processor, I think 8 cores are enabled. Either way, that's a slow quad-core processor, or an incredibly awful octa-core processor, we leave that to you. During our game tests, we used a Radeon RX 6900 XT. Let's look at the data... Benchmarks

Starting with the Rainbow Six Siege results, we see that when comparing the 2012 options - AMD Piledriver architecture and Intel Ivy Bridge - we see that Intel offered a better showing with 21% frame rate and 29 % is 1% stronger, which was a huge advantage and as a result AMD had to sell its parts at a much lower price. This was nearly twice the size of the FX's dies at 315 mm², and as a result it was hugely power thirsty. And I don't remember seeing a lot of fringes in 2013, but of course, games weren't demanding at the time, and GPUs weren't nearly as powerful. In fact, it was very difficult to highlight the benefits of SMT technology for gaming. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution

< So, by 2013 it was a bad situation for AMD as it competed with Haswell and Intel was about 50 hours ahead. In this type of game, Bradwell with eDRAM has no advantage over Haswell, a small 4% profit that cannot be written. In 2015, we also received the Intel Skylake architecture, and at this point almost no one even mentioned AMD when it came to CPUs. This is because Intel offers RSS gaming performance by 73%.

This is where everything starts to go wrong for Intel. From Skylake to Kaby Lake, we see their youngest performance in generations. Basically nothing from 6700K to 7700K.

Then, as we recently found out, since Skylake is the main source for Intel's gaming performance improvement, it increases the capacity of the L3 cache. It starts with 8700K, which increases 7700K 8MB L3 cache to 12MB, increasing Rainbow Six Siege's performance by 4%. Intel then upgraded its 9900K memory to a 16MB L3 cache, and although the number of cores and clock frequency remained the same at 4.2GHz, the frame rate increased by another 5%.

Of course, while Intel AMD stuck with what was originally Skylake but with more cores and cache, it found a place to pop up again. Ryzen was first released in 2017, five years after the release of the FX-8350. The first generation architecture was about 40 percent faster than the FX series in Rainbow Six Siege. But as significant the increase was, AMD was still miles behind Intel in gaming performance. In this example, they almost made it to Haswell, where Intel was in 2013. Ryzen attracted fans because it offered more cores and as a production animal. So while the game's performance wasn't quite as impressive, it was decent, and there were other positives that contributed to the series' success and a step in the right direction for AMD.

Intel added two more things: Coffee Lake, AMD cores need to move on, and they've done that with Zen+. Here, the 2700X offers a decent 9 percent improvement — still 17 percent slower than Intel's 2018 architecture — but that gap has been slowly narrowing. In 2019, when AMD launched Zen 2, things got really hot and there was no more news from Intel, and the 3800X was only 5 to 10 percent behind the 9900K.

With the release of Zen 3 in 2020, it's finally time when AMD can surpass Intel in gaming performance and deliver the final blow to its 14nm process. The clock of the AMD clock is now 16 times faster, and of course, the Zen 3 performed very well, so in most cases AMD is faster for gaming now. Intel tried to reduce its hits with Rocket Lake, and during its investigation, Intel took a step back in cases like the one we see here.

This has been a long look at the results for Rainbow Six Siege, so we are summarizing some of the following games... AMD vs Intel: High-end gaming CPU performance

Assassin's Creed Valhalla provides some very interesting information because this information is mostly limited by the GPU and it is not used CPU well. Intel ended up offering Skylake, and AMD never got it, but if we go back to 2012, when Intel was up to 56 percent faster, today that margin is only 7 in favor of Intel, at least when it comes to clock time. - Clock with the same base number. Performance ">

Battlefield V on the AMD FX-8350 was rough. Here it ran only 47fps while 3770k was good for 95fps, which is better than Intel annually. 102% increase in performance, If not bad enough, Intel gained 37% with Haswell, at an average of 130 fps, an increase of nearly 180% over the Haswell FX-8350. For Broadwell we see an average increase of 8% then from Broadwell to Skylake up 4%, while Kaby Lake offers nothing new.

After the arrival of Ryzen, we look forward to similar performance to Haswell, although this is not entirely accurate while the average frame rate Constant, Ryzen lower 1% performance was about 30% better. Then AMD increased clock performance by up to 5% by increasing L3 cache capacity in the Core i7 range. From Zen to Zen +, while AMD announced Zen 2. /r>

Intel boosted performance with its eleventh generation, jumping 177 frames per second. Which is up 10%. Despite this improvement, AMD is still ahead with Zen 3, offering the best performance. 8% higher on average. This means that since 2017, Intel has achieved 20% performance, while AMD has nearly tripled that lead by 57% from Zen to Zen 3. AMD vs. Intel: Evolving CPU gaming performance

< F1 2020 isn't as hard on a CPU as Battlefield V, but until we see solid improvements in most generations CPU. In 2012, Intel could offer 46% higher performance than Piledriver with Ivy Bridge. Then from Ivy Bridge to Haswell, we see an average increase of 12 percent, and this time Broadwell offers a 10 percent increase over Haswell, so several years ago Intel had a very successful 14nm process without adding more cores. I have found.

This hangs with Skylake, and we don't see any real change from 6700K to 8700K, which was a problem for Intel because AMD started the offensive with Ryzen.

Ryzen was no surprise out of the gate as the 1800X was only able to match the 5-year-old 3770K. Zen+ speeds up AMD with Haswell or the same spot, Zen 2 equals it with Broadwell, and not so much from Skylake to Coffee Lake. With Zen 3 there will be a significant increase until it eventually conflicts with the newer Rocket Lake architecture. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution

Then from 2012 to 2013, Intel managed to increase its outstanding performance to 38%, which means that its outperformance over AMD has increased to 84%, as we have seen many times, Intel has managed to manage reasonable performance from Haswell to Broadwell to Skylake, and there things have slowed significantly for the Blues. Intel was able to improve its performance up to the eleventh generation, and in this example it was enough to beat AMD Zen 3.

But before the arrival of Zen 3, AMD had to deal with the first generation of Zen, and here it was still slower than 5-year Intel Haswell architecture. Zen+ equals them with Haswell, and Zen 2 brought them to Skylake, which means they compete with Coffee Lake. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution

< Similar Horizon Zero Dawn performs on Intel CPUs largely with Assassin's Creed Valhalla in that it is able to maximize this performance with Skylake. On the other hand, I took an AMD Zen 3 to get there. AMD improved its performance by just over 50% from 2017 to 2020, while Intel didn't move but was already ahead. AMD vs. Intel: The Evolution of CPU Gaming Performance AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution

< Explains Shadow of the Tomb Raider tells us how Intel has enjoyed the critical advantages of an efficient architecture about 10 years ago, and 32% more performance on the same frequency. Then from Ivy Bridge to Haswell we see an increase of 23% for Intel and from Haswell to Broadwell of 13%. Then everything slowed down, Skylake was only five times faster than Broadwell, which means that from 6th to 10th generation Intel increased performance by only 11 ed. Then match it with Zen +. But by the time Zen 2 arrived, AMD was moving fast and then moving forward with Zen 3, even though Intel was a bit ahead of Rocket Lake. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution

Performance summary

All the data we collected provides insights A realistic comparison of the gaming architecture of AMD and Intel processors over the past decade. We've often seen AMD beat Intel out of nowhere, while the latter has taken smaller strides in pure architecture in the past five to six years. Let's look at the average game 9... AMD vs. Intel Evolution Game Performance CPU

In 2012, Intel was 43% ahead on average when comparing the FX-8350 and Core i7-3770K in an hour. This is a big difference, given the fact that AMD was consuming more power at the time.

But if this were AMD's worst-case scenario, the difference would be even greater. Just one year later, Intel increased that percentage to 77 percent, and by 2015 it was 110 percent ahead. 5960X and 20MB L3, but that's a different story. Because of this massive performance discrepancy, AMD had to cut the price from the starting price of $195 in 2012 to $120 in 2015, while some sales lowered the price of the chip to $90. It would be like AMD had to sell a piece like the 5800X today for less than $200.

AMD apparently managed to turn this around after years. And while Zen wasn't a game beast in 2017, it was good enough to build on. Zen+ continued this trend in 2018, and by 2019, AMD outperformed Intel desktop processors.

What We've Learned

As we wrap up this interesting look at the difference in gaming architecture performance between AMD and Intel over the past decade, this development clearly illustrates why our reviews from 2018 have been more positive than AMD's Ryzen processors and why they've been so popular with Intel Before 2017.

Recommending AMD CPUs for PC gaming was very difficult. In the FX days, the arrival of Ryzen was a turning point, and while I wasn't completely sold out in the first generation, there were plenty of scenarios, at least for the game, that you could recommend. AMD vs. Intel: CPU Gaming Performance Evolution < /p>

Based on this data, you can see why Zen+ is starting to shift in favor of AMD. While the CPU was limited, it was still way too weak in terms of gaming for Intel, but most of the time, games aren't CPU limited and not all gamers just want to play. This made Ryzen a viable solution that was also cost effective. vs. AMD vs. Intel: CPU gaming performance evolution

Intel and AMD are now on par in terms of gaming performance - AMD has a huge performance advantage, which is funny to look at in 2012 - we can't wait to see what the next hardware will bring?

Behind the 12th generation Intel Alder Lake processors, many promises are coming to the market soon and big changes are expected. Which should be very exciting for potential buyers and the market in general. Make sure to keep working on this as we plan to test new chips in due course. AMD Ryzen 5 5600X on Amazon AMD Ryzen 7 5800X on Amazon AMD AMD Ryzen 9 5900X on Amazon Intel Core i5-11600K on Amazon Intel Core i7-11700 on Amazon Intel Core i9-11900 on Amazon

AMD vs. Intel: The Evolution of CPU Gaming Performance