It has rained a lot since the Ryzen 1000 processors arrived, a generation that marked a before and after in the field, and that took the fight between Intel and AMD processors to another level. To better understand this situation, it is enough to recall that, since the arrival of the Core 2 Quad, back in 2006, 4-core processors have remained the prominent performance standard in the general consumer market.

Each and every pitch he made Intel in the general consumer processor market, between 2006 and 2017, they were limited to a maximum of 4 cores and eight threads. Do the numbers, we are talking about an eleven-year stagnation that would not have been broken if it were not for the arrival of the Zen architecture, used in the Ryzen 1000 processors.

The clash of the Ryzen 1000 was colossal, and marked a change of course in the eternal fight between Intel and AMD processors. This generation made the leap to the development of 14nm (the FX Piledriver were based on the 32nm development), they adopted a MCM architecture (multi-chip module), they doubled the maximum number of cores and also threads in front of the previous generation, they increased the IPC in a 52% and achieved an unimaginable level of thermal and energy efficiency.

It was not by chance that, just that year, in 2017, after the presentation of Zen, Intel decided to break the inclination and publish its first general consumer processor with six cores and 12 threads. Intel and AMD processors had essential differences, since the former used a monolithic core architecture and offered a performance single thread higher, while the Ryzen 1000 offered many more cores and also threads for less money.

It was clear from the start that Intel expected AMD outside with the ability to return as it was after the skid caused by the Bulldozer architecture. Zen+ was another wake-up call with which the Sunnyvale company confirmed that it was going very seriously, Zen 2 was the consecration of MCM architecture from AMD, and Zen 3 represents, in my understanding, perfection of a design that was capable of surpassing any and all hope, in that it allowed AMD to surpass Intel, and that highlights that monolithic core architecture now has no place in configurations with a prominent number of components. nuclei.

We have updated this guide with the latest free news in the month of March 2022, and this orders us to enter certain subsections in different parts of the article. As we stated at the time, Zen 3 represents the perfection of the MCM design that AMD entered with Zen, but Intel has been known to answer with Alder Lake-S, a generation of processors that returned the crown of single-thread performance, and that has put Intel in a very competitive situation.

The bet of the huge chip for a hybrid monolithic core design, mixing prominent performance core blocks with high efficiency core blocks, was a hit. AMD continues to bring virtue in multithreading, thanks to the 16 core and 32 thread configuration provided by the Ryzen 9 5950X, but right now Intel and AMD processors are in a pretty even situation, this has benefited the client a lot, which can enter better processors and with much more comparable costs.

Equivalents of Intel and AMD CPUs – Intel and AMD processors: The rivalry is good, but complicated

That AMD has returned to compete face to face with Intel is a very positive thing, there is no doubt about that. Thanks to this competition between the two companies, we were able to find processors of outstanding performance with costs so good that, a few years ago, we would not have dared to imagine. To give an example, the Core i5 11400F is a fabulous chip that provides extremely high performance, has six cores and 12 threads, and only costs 160.28 euros.

However, the rivalry exposes a drawback, and it happens that the catalog of Intel and AMD processors ends up growing excessively and in partially short periods of time, which causes several individuals it is difficult for them to continue the rhythm and it is every day of the situation that occupies each new generation, each new range and each new processor.

We had been waiting to update our Intel and AMD processor equivalency guide for a while, but we wanted to wait for the launch of the Rocket Lake-S of the enormous size of the chip to achieve a complete start-up every day, which includes both this new generation and the AMD Ryzen 5000, based on the Zen 3 architecture. In the article we are going to maintain the format of the original because we think it is the best way to offer you complete and extensive information, but well structured.

Let's talk about architectures, manufacturing processes and also of the different series of Intel and AMD processors that there are, encompassing both the much more recent models and those that can still be found on the second-hand market, and that give an optimal value in price-performance ratio despite the time they manage to have on them . In this sense, the incombustible Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 are 2 good examples.

After that last update that we made of this guide of equivalences of Intel and AMD processors with the new Intel Rocket Lake-S we had to do the same with Alder Lake-S, and now we have fulfilled. In this guide you will find a setting every day with the new Intel chips, and a better tuned and reviewed list of equivalences of Intel and AMD processors that will help you to be clear, at a glance, what your processor is equivalent to, or what equivalence has that central processing unit that you are thinking of obtaining.

Architectures and Manufacturing Processes in Intel and AMD Processors: Previous Considerations

Intel and AMD use different architectures and manufacturing processes for their processors. As our common readers will remember, Intel remains loyal to the monolithic core architecture, which means that each and every core of the processor is contained within a single silicon wafer, while AMD employs an architecture MCM (multi-chip module), which means that these cores have the possibility of being delegated to one, 2 or up to eight silicon chips, known as chiplets, which intercommunicate using a popular system such as the Infinity Fabric.

The evolution of Intel and AMD processors in terms of architecture and manufacturing development was much more intense, and much more attractive, in the situation of the second, while MCM design has undergone fundamental changesIt is not for nothing that AMD's Ryzen went through three different processes: 14 nm, 12 nm and 7 nm, and underwent profound changes at the silicon level, while Intel remained at 14 nm, and changes at the architecture level They were inferior, with the only exception being Rocket Lake-S, which gave the Cypress Cove jump, an adaptation of the Sunny Cove architecture to the 14 nm development.

To that exception that we made at the time, we must add Alder Lake-S at this time, and it happens that with this generation Intel made a considerable qualitative and quantitative leap. At the time when we talked about Intel and AMD processors, we always emphasized achievements as essential as the increase in the IPC achieved by Intel with Skylake or AMD's jump to the chiplet, but since the end of last year we must keep in mind the point of change that marked the hybrid design of Alder Lake-S, and the huge increase in IPC that Intel achieved with the Golden Cove architecture.

On the subject of architectures and manufacturing processes, we are going to talk much later in a much more personalized and specific way, so that you have a much clearer vision of the much more attractive news that has been produced with each generation gap between the different Intel and AMD processors, but I want you to be aware that the two companies had to face different challenges arising from the approach they have followed over the last few years.

Intel was very ambitious, it bet always and at all times on a colossal transistor consistency, and on a monolithic core design, something that, in the end, has turned out to be quite difficult, and expensive, to bring to the wafer. AMD, on the other hand, adopted a plan that was truly not novel. The Intel Pentium D and the Core 2 Quad are 2 clear examples of an MCM design, since the first is equivalent to 2 Pentium 4 64-bit "glued together" and also interconnected, and the second is similar to 2 Core 2 Duo united to find a 4-core chip.

AMD adopted the figure of the CCX unit, made up of 4 cores and 8 MB of L3 cache, and used it to make processors with 4, 6, 8, and many more cores. With Zen 2, he outsourced the I/O unit and created the chiplet or CCD unit, based on 2 CCX entities, which left us with 8 cores and 16 MB of L3 per silicon chip, a composition that he kept with Zen 3, although with essential changes, as we told you at the time in the article, where we examine the much more essential keys of that architecture.

An MCM type design facilitates and enables leaps in manufacturing development and the translation of the design to the wafer, progressing the success rate per wafer, reducing costs and also increasing production capacity with the same fixed number of wafers per day, week or month. Of course, it is not exactly the same to create 2 chiplets with eight cores each than to offer a monolithic processor with 16 cores, the latter envisions a much more complex and dangerous development.

Intel, on the other hand, decided sustain the monolithic core design, but entered that hybrid term that we have explained to you, and combined up to 8 prominent performance cores and 8 high efficiency cores in a single package. The two core blocks are manufactured in tennm development, and offer a different IPC. Prominent performance cores surpass anything out there today, ushering in Zen 3, while high-efficiency cores sit roughly at the level of Skylake (Core Gen6), meaning that They have a higher IPC than the Ryzen 2000.

Thanks to that hybrid design, Intel was able to increase the single-thread and multi-thread performance of its Alder processors Lake-S without space at the silicon level being an inconvenience, and without the need to deal with the adversity of moving a high-performing 16-core design to the wafer. Now I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it was a master's move on Intel's part.

Intel and AMD CPU Equivalencies – Intel Processor Architectures

• Conroe and Kentsfield: they are based on the 65nm development and were used in the Core 2 Duo 6000 and Core 2 Quad 6000, the first generation models. They marked a fundamental leap.
• Wolfdale and Yorkfield: based on the development of 45 nm, they were used in the Core 2 Duo 8000 series and Core 2 Quad 8000-9000, a minor evolution of the previous generation.
• Lynnfield and Nehalem: architecture based on the 45nm development that was used in the first generation Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors (5xx series and above, except for the Core i7 980X, which comes in 32nm). They were a remarkable jump.
• SandyBridge: it is based on the 32nm development and was used in the second generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors (2xxx series). Among the biggest leaps Intel made.
• ivy-bridge: It is an architecture based on the development of 22nm, which was used in the third generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors (3xxx series). It marked a minimal evolution compared to the previous one.
• Haswell: is based on 22 nm development and was used in fourth-generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 processors (4xxx series). The CPI improved significantly.
• Broadwell: architecture based on the development of 14 nm that was used in the fifth generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors (5xxx series). A minor jump in front of the previous one that, in truth, had a very short life.
• sky lake: Architecture based on 14nm development and used in the sixth generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 (6xxx series) ranges. The IPC improved a lot.
• Kaby Lake: It is based on 14nm+ development and used in the Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 7th generation (7xxx series) ranges. A minimal optimization in front of the previous generation.
• Coffee Lake: architecture based on the 14 nm++ development that was used in the eighth generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 ranges (8xxx series). Another minor evolution, without changes at the IPC level, which marked the jump to 6 cores and 12 threads.
• Coffee Lake Refresh: Based on 14nm++ development and used in the 9th generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and Core i9 ranges (9xxx series). Without changes at the IPC level, its most essential novelty was the jump to 8 cores and 16 threads.
• Comet Lake-S: architecture based on the 14 nm++ development that was used in the 10th generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and Core i9 ranges (10xxx series). Without changes at the IPC level, the much more attractive news was the jump to ten cores and 20 threads.
• Rocket Lake-S: architecture based on the development of 14 nm+++, which was used in the eleventh generation Core i5, Core i7 and Core i9 ranges (11xxx series). They use an exclusive architecture and raise the IPC, but lower the maximum number of cores and threads to 8 and 16.
• Alder Lake-S: is the new generation architecture It is Intel's new generation architecture. It is manufactured in development of ten nm SuperFin, and was used in each and every one of the traditional ranges of the huge chip, which means that it gave "life" to Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and other processors. Core i9. They use a hybrid monolithic design, combining prominent performance Golden Cove cores and high-efficiency Gracemont cores. They mark a huge leap in IPC (the Golden Cove cores) and are configured with up to 8 high-performance cores and 8 high-efficiency cores, which translates to 16 cores and 24 threads (only high-performance cores use HyperThreading ).

Starting from all the previous breakdown, we have the possibility of detecting without inconvenience the generation where they fit different Intel processors. To give an example, a Core 2 Quad Q6600 is one generation after the Core 2 Quad Q9300, and a Core i5 2500 is five generations after a Core i5 7500. We also have the possibility of understanding that the first one is manufactured in 32 nm, at step the second employs the 14 nm+ development.

At each and every point we have also summarized the much more essential news on performance issues. However, you should keep in mind that while Kaby Lake did not see an IPC increase against Skylake, this does not mean that it did not get a performance optimization. He succeeded, but pulling wild force, that is, raising work frequencies, a plan that was roughly sustained until the arrival of Rocket Lake-S. It goes without saying that the increase in the number of cores was the only truly attractive development at the central processing unit level since the arrival of Skylake in the situation of Intel processors.

Alder Lake-S broke that continuity in a forceful way. The Golden Cove architecture represents a huge IPC optimization over previous generations, and the Gracemont cores give it a considerable boost in multi-threaded performance. This time, Intel introduced a genuine advance in concept of design and architecture, and this allowed it to offer a huge leap over the previous generation, Rocket Lake-S, and put itself in a very competitive position against AMD.

With all that clear, we are ready to take a look at the architectures that Intel uses in the field HEDT, initials in English that refer to the category of "prominent performance computing".

• Haswell-And also: architecture based on the development of 22 nm. It is used in the Core i7 Extreme 5000 series, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads.
• Broadwell-And Too: architecture based on the development of 14 nm. It is used in the Core i7 Extreme 6000 series, configured with up to ten cores and 20 threads.
• Skylake-X: architecture based on the development of 14 nm. It is used in the Core i7 and Core i9 Extreme 7000X and 7000XE series, and also in the Core i7 and Core i9 9000X and XE series. Optimization of the IPC in front of the previous ones, and it obtains the 18 cores and 36 threads.
• Kaby Lake-X: architecture based on the development of 14 nm+. It is used in the Core i5 and Core i7 7000X series with up to 4 cores and eight threads.
• Cascade Lake-X: architecture based on the development of 14 nm++. It is used in the Core i7 and Core i9 10000X and XE series, configured with up to 18 cores and 34 threads.

Intel has released much more powerful processors after Cascade Lake-X, but these has now been completely framed in the professional «hardcore» field, this is in the Xeon line, so I'm not going to continue to improve this chapter because I understand that it makes no sense in a medium based on the general consumer market.

Intel and AMD CPU Equivalencies – AMD Processor Architectures

• K8: it is clear that we are facing a mythical architecture. It has used 90nm and 65nm processes, and brought to life Athlon 64 X2 and Sempron series processors.
• K10: It was very long-lived, so much so that it used the 65 nm, 45 nm and 32 nm processes. The Phenom, Phenom II, Athlon X2, Athlon II, and Sempron processors have employed this architecture.
• bulldozer: based on the development of 32nm, although it had multiple revisions and reached 28nm (Excavator). It is used in AMD FX, Athlon II X4 (and lower) processors, and 4000 series and higher APUs (up to 9000 series).
• Zen: It is based on 14nm development and is used in Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 1000 series processors, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, such as Ryzen Pro 1000 series, Threadripper 1000 series and in the Ryzen 2000 series APUs. It was an increase in the IPC of the 52% in front of Bulldozer.
• Zen+- Based on 12nm development and used in Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 2000 series processors configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, such as Ryzen Pro 2000 series and Threadripper 2000 series and in Ryzen 3000 series APUs. Entered minor IPC optimization.
• Zen 2: an architecture based on 7nm development that is used in the Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 3000 series processors, configured with up to 16 cores and 32 threads, as in the Ryzen Pro 3000 series and Threadipper 3000 series. essential optimization of the IPC in front of the previous generation.
• Zen 3: It is also based on TSMC's 7nm manufacturing development, but introduces essential architectural innovations that greatly raise the IPC compared to the previous generation. It is used in the Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, and Ryzen 9 5000 series, as well as the new generation Ryzen Pro Mobile, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, and the Threadripper PRO 5000 WX.

Equivalences Intel and AMD Processors

With everything we have said previously, we have it very simple to distinguish a Ryzen 1000 processor from a Ryzen 3000 processor, for example. This information allows us to understand that the first would be manufactured in 14 nm development and would have a lower IPC to the Ryzen 3000, which would be manufactured, in addition to this, in 7nm development. We would also know that this Ryzen 3000 would be behind, in terms of IPC, a Ryzen 5000 processor.

AMD has known successfully combine IPC increases with wild capacity increases pulling higher frequencies and a gradual increase in the number of cores. Zen increased the IPC and the number of cores compared to the previous generation, Zen+ slightly increased the IPC and the working frequencies, Zen 2 raised the IPC remarkably, increased the working frequencies and doubled the maximum number of cores and also threads , and finally Zen 3 has raised the IPC to a large extent, raised the working frequencies a bit and kept the maximum number of cores and threads.

AMD does not differentiate architectures of general consumption of those aimed at the HEDT field, where it competes, as we understand, with the Threadripper series, and the same applies to the EPYC series, aimed at the professional field. However, the ratio of cores and also threads differs greatly, since AMD's much stronger for the general consumer market, the Ryzen 9 5950X, has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the much stronger Threadripper chip out there today adds 64 cores and 128 threads.

Intel and AMD processors: Ranges and keys

Without further ado, we will see a breakdown finished with each and every one of the ranges and keys of the main Intel and AMD processors that have been marketed over the last few years. In order to make this catalog much easier for you to ask, we are going to limit ourselves to arguing the differences, and the much more essential news, that were generated in each and every range with the main changes of architecture. Of course, we'll also include the much newer Intel and AMD processors.

Keep in mind that many of the much older Intel and AMD processors still have the possibility to suggest optimal performance if they are accompanied by the correct configuration, and that in the end, when choosing a processor, the essential thing is the real pretensions of each individual.

Equivalences Intel and AMD Processors – We start with Intel processors

• Core 2 Duo: These are old 2-core, 2-thread processors that have been largely superseded, but still perform well with games from the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation, as well as lax apps.
• Core 2Quad: it is an evolution of the precedents that has a total of 4 cores. They have the possibility of displacing recent games thanks to their 4 cores, but not completely perfectly due to their low frequencies and their limited IPC.
• Intel Celeron: Cheap processors with 2 cores and 2 threads that cover the much more basic and cheap level. Much more recent models offer optimal performance in general office automation, multimedia and web browsing, and also with less rigorous games.
• Intel Pentium: Models based on the Skylake architecture have 2 cores and 2 threads and, as a general rule, do not offer essential performance optimization compared to Celerons. With the advent of the Kaby Lake architecture, Pentium G4560s and higher have 2 cores and 4 threads, making them a solid alternative for budget multimedia PCs. They perform well in most of today's generation games, except for those much more recent ones that need a minimum of 4 cores and eight threads to run properly, like Cyberpunk 2077, for example.
• Intel Core i3: Up to 7000 series (Kaby Lake) have 2 cores and 4 threads up to generation. With the arrival of Coffee Lake they made the jump to 4 cores, and with the arrival of Comet Lake they rose again until they reached 4 cores and eight threads. The much more recent models have a prominent IPC and offer good performance in general, which makes them an attractive alternative to build low-cost gaming equipment. Its 4-core, 8-thread setup stuck with Alder Lake-S. It is used for work and play.
• Intel Core i5: continues to be among the ranges with the best performance-price ratio that Intel offers today. Models based on Kaby Lake and earlier come with 4 cores and 4 threads, but with the arrival of the Coffee Lake architecture they made the leap to six cores and six threads. With Comet Lake (Core 10000) it raised the count to six cores and 12 threads, a number that continues with Rocket Lake-S. The arrival of Alder Lake-S marked an essential change, as the non-K Core i5 Gen12 supports all 6 cores and 12 threads, but the Core i5-12600K has ten cores (six high performance and 4 high efficiency) and 16 threads.
• Intel Core i7: As before, there was a major jump in core count with the newer architectures. Until the 7000 series (Kaby Lake), this range had a 4-core, 8-thread configuration. With the advent of the Coffee Lake architecture, Intel upped the count to six cores and 12 threads, and in the 9000 series it has configured them with eight cores and eight threads. Comet Lake-S marked another rise, as it dropped them to 8 cores and 16 threads. They offer unusual performance and can go with anything. They are ready to overcome in a completely perfect way the transition that they are going to mark PS5 and Xbox Series X. Rocket Lake-S holds the count of 8 cores and 16 threads, but Alder Lake-S bumped it up to 12 cores (eight high-performance and 4 high-efficiency) and 20 threads.
• Intel Core i9: they became the newest find in Intel's range in the general consumer market. They started with the 9000 series (Coffee Lake Refresh), they offer outstanding performance and have 8 cores and 16 threads in such a generation. Comet Lake-S upped the configuration to ten cores and 20 threads, with Rocket Lake-S it's shrunk back down to 8 cores and 16 threads, but with Alder Lake-S it's increased to 16 cores (eight high-performance and eight high-end). efficiency) and 24 threads. They stand up to anything and have an extended shelf life ahead of them.
• Intel Core HEDT-series: they are high-performance processors that have between six and eighteen cores, and thanks to HyperThreading technology they have the possibility of working with a thread with each core, which leaves us with configurations of up to 36 threads. They are aimed at the professional field and use a specific interface, which marks an essential difference compared to general consumer resolutions, which allows them to mount quad-channel RAM configurations and have a greater number of PCIE lines.

Equivalences Intel and AMD Processors – We are going at this time with AMD processors

• AMD Athlon 64 X2: These were, at the time, the opponents of the Core 2 Duo, although they offered inferior performance. They add 2 cores and 2 threads, they also have the possibility of displacing less rigorous apps and games from previous generations.
• AMD Phenomenon II: They arrived in a transition season, so they rivaled the Core 2 Quad and the first generation Core (Lynnfield). They add between 2 and six cores and offer a barbaric performance superior to that of the Athlon 64 X2. They are outdated, but the models with 4 and 6 cores still offer an acceptable experience in many games and apps.
• AMD Athlon: There are editions that have between 2 and 4 cores. The performance of the editions based on Bulldozer and its derivatives is good in any basic task, and the 4-core models offer an acceptable performance in less rigorous games.
• APUs: They are resolutions that have a processor and graphics unit in the same package. There are very varied configurations both by architecture at the central processing unit and GPU level and by information. In this way, to serve as an example, the less powerful and much older models are based on the Bulldozer architecture at the central processing unit level and the Terascale 3 architecture at the GPU level, while the much more prominent ones will use the architecture Zen 3 at the central processing unit level (up to 8 cores and 16 threads) and will come with a 7nm Vega GPU in development. An attractive alternative to make fast multimedia and gaming equipment without investing a lot of money.
• AMDFX4000: they use the Bulldozer architecture, they add 2 finished modules and they have 4 integer cores at very high working frequencies, apart from unlocked multiplier. They propose an acceptable performance in less rigorous games.
• AMD FX 6000: they support the Bulldozer architecture, they have three finished modules and they have six integer cores at very high working frequencies, apart from an unlocked multiplier like the previous ones. Their performance is good, but they do not offer a completely perfect experience in recent games.
• AMDFX8000-9000: Like the previous ones, they are based on Bulldozer. It has 4 finished modules and eight integer cores. They have a low IPC, but they work at a very high continuity and can withstand overclocking. They still offer a good performance and have the possibility to work with recent games, although not perfectly.
• Ryzen 3: As we have said, the Zen architecture marked a colossal leap at the IPC level in front of the Bulldozer (a 52% much more than the first generation models). These models have 4 cores and 4 threads until the Ryzen 3000, which provided the jump to 4 cores and eight threads. They are very cheap and have the possibility of displacing any game today with guarantees.
• Ryzen 5: there are three variations, the 1500 models and below, which add 4 cores and eight threads, and the 1600, 2600, 3600 and 5600 models, which have six cores and 12 threads. AMD released a Ryzen 5 3500 with six cores and six threads, but its availability was extremely limited. Their performance is really good, they handle recent games completely flawlessly and they are ready to work with rigorous multi-threaded apps. Keep in mind that the much more advanced models, based on Zen 2 and Zen 3, offer a considerably higher IPC.
• Ryzen 7: add 8 cores and 16 threads in its 4 generations (1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 series). They offer incredible performance in any field and are ready to smoothly overcome the transition that will mark the new generation of consoles. Again, keep in mind that the Ryzen 7 3000 and 5000 have a much more prominent CPI.
• Ryzen 9: we have multiple editions, the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 5900X, which have 12 cores and 24 threads, and the Ryzen 9 3950X and 5950X, which have 16 cores and 32 threads. They are about as strong as there is in the general consumer market, and they have a chance with anything.
• Ryzen Threadripper 1000: These are high-performance processors that use the Zen architecture and have up to 16 cores and 32 threads. They are contained within a much more advanced interface, and thanks to this they have the possibility of using quad-channel memory configurations and suggesting a greater proportion of PCIE lines.
• Ryzen Threadripper 2000: an evolution of the precedents based on Zen+ architecture. They add up to 32 cores and 64 threads and use the exact same interface. They are intended for experts who use very rigorous multi-threaded apps (rendering and content creation, for example).
• Ryzen Threadripper 3000: it was the penultimate evolution of AMD's high-performance processors. They have up to 64 cores and 128 threads and use an interface that supports quad channel memory and provides countless PCIE lanes.
• Ryzen Threadripper Pro 5000: They use the Zen3 architecture, which means that they offer a remarkable IPC optimization compared to the previous generation. They also add up to 64 cores and 128 threads, and have the possibility of working with eight-channel memory configurations.

Intel and AMD processors: Equivalences

After this long walk, we find ourselves complete to enter, finally, to know a catalog of equivalences of Intel and AMD processors. To avoid a colossal catalog that would take us weeks to write, and us a lot of time to read, we decided to group the equivalences by ranges and accompany a simplified but useful explanation.

For example, there would be no point in listing one at a time each and every one of the Intel and AMD processors that fit into each and every one of the generations that we are going to see now, since in the end the list would go on forever and we would end up feeling overwhelmed by so much content.

This approach is much more successful if we want to reason the equivalences correctly, but without the need to enter lists of colossal extension. We accompany, in addition to this, specific examples that will serve as a reference, but if you have any questions do not worry, you can leave it in the comments and we will be happy to help you. Without further ado, let's go for this reason.

• Core 2 Duo: Now we have said that they are quite old processors, and that they are limited by their IPC and their 2 cores. They surpass the Athlon 64 X2, but are obsolete. The models with a higher frequency of work are close to the Core i3 500 series, although their barbaric capacity is generally lower than that of these.
• Core 2 Quad: their 4 cores have allowed them to better withstand the passage of time compared to the previous ones. The much more powerful models, such as the Core 2 Quad Q9450 and higher, offer acceptable performance and are close to a Core i5 750. Its direct rival is the AMD Phenom II X4, although thanks to its higher working speeds, the latter offer superior performance. For example, the Phenom II X4 965 performs much better than the Core 2 Quad Q9650, but it doesn't support SSE4 standards, so the Intel chip is a better option, especially if we are going to use it in games.
• Intel Core x00 series: we talk about the first generation Core. Until the Core i5 (in fact) we have the possibility of carrying out a rough equivalence with the Core 2 Quad Q9450 and higher, and also with the Phenom II X4 and FX 4100 from AMD. Superior models, such as the Core i7 860, have the possibility of driving eight threads thanks to HyperThreading, so they are at a level similar to that of the FX 8100 and 6100. AMD's Phenom II X6 also fit here, which add six cores , albeit with the lack of standards support that we have corrected, and that is essential.
• Intel Core 2000: Provided an essential leap in performance over the previous generation. The Core i3, which have 2 cores and 4 threads, are precisely equivalent to the FX 4300, the Core i5, with 4 cores and 4 threads, are much closer to the FX 6300, and the Core i7, which have 4 cores and eight threads, are assimilated to the FX 8350, although these are inferior in wild performance. As a reference of interest, I remind you that the Pentium G4560, which add 2 cores and 4 threads, offer performance similar to the Core i5 2500 in apps that take advantage of 4 threads thanks to their higher IPC.
• Intel Core 3000: They maintain exactly the same core count and performance generally as the previous generation, so their much closer equivalents are precisely exactly the same, as no essential increase in either IPC or clock rates was caused.
• IntelCore 4000: they do not increase the number of cores, but they did bring a leap in terms of IPC and working frequencies, thus giving greater performance than the previous ones. They outperform the FX 8300, FX 6300, and FX 4300, and quite clearly, but fall short of the first generation Ryzen processors (1000 series).
• IntelCore 5000: It was a questionable generation, since it had a very short useful life. It represented a "tick" (reduction of manufacturing development) in front of Haswell, and marked the beginning of 14nm, but there was no increase in the number of cores and no wild performance, so we maintain what we saw in the previous point in what that to equivalences between Intel and AMD processors is related.
• IntelCore 6000: Although it was another generation that did not bring an increase in the number of cores, the truth is that it made up for it with a higher IPC and much higher operating frequencies. Its much closer equivalents are the Ryzen 2000 series in terms of IPC, but it must be remembered that this generation of AMD has much more cores and threads. To serve as an example, the Ryzen 5 2600 has a single-thread performance similar to the Core i5 6600, but the first has six cores and 12 threads, and the second only has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Ryzen 7 2700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i7 6700K has only 4 cores and 8 threads.
• IntelCore 7000: Holds both IPC and core count, although Intel achieved a small performance increase over the previous generation by raising the working frequencies. Their barbaric performance is slightly better than the Ryzen 2000 series processors, but they have less multi-threading potential. Continuing with the previous example, the Ryzen 7 2700X has lower single-thread performance relative to the Core i7 7700K, but the former adds 8 cores and 16 threads and the latter is restricted to 4 cores and 8 threads.
• Intel Core 8000: Represents another small advance in barbaric performance pulling frequencies, with no change in IPC. The most essential news we have is an increase in the maximum number of cores that affected the entire series. Core i3s have 4 cores and 4 threads, Core i5s have six cores and six threads, and Core i7s have six cores and 12 threads. In barbaric single-thread performance they are practically at the same level as the Ryzen 3000, but the latter have a higher multi-thread potential. To serve as an example, the Ryzen 5 3600 is equivalent to a Core i7 8700, although the latter has much more single-thread performance. The Ryzen 7 3700X comes out on top with its 8 cores and 16 threads, and the same goes for the Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X, which have 12 cores and 24 threads and 16 cores and 36 threads.
• IntelCore 9000: no changes at the IPC level. Intel again pulled a rise in frequencies and an increase in cores to provide greater performance. The Core i3 and Core i5 had no changes, but the Core i7 went from six cores and 12 threads to eight cores and eight threads. The Core i9 add 8 cores and 16 threads. Its single-thread performance is somewhat above the Ryzen 3000 due to its higher clock frequencies, but the latter have superior multi-thread configurations, as they reach 16 cores and 32 threads. Let's go with examples of direct equivalences, a Core i9 9900K is somewhat above a Ryzen 7 3800X, while a Ryzen 5 3600X is above a Core i5 9600 thanks to its six cores and 12 threads (the second only has six cores and six threads).
• IntelCore 10000: did not bring changes at the IPC level. Intel raised frequencies and count of cores and also threads. The Core i3 went on to have 4 cores and eight threads (compete with the Ryzen 3 3000), the Core i5 went up to 6 cores and 12 threads (they do in front of the Ryzen 5 3000), the Core i7 add 8 cores and 16 threads (they compete with the Ryzen 7 3000) and the Core i9 have ten cores and 20 threads (they are close to the Ryzen 9 3900X).
• IntelCore 11000: Intel has increased the IPC, but failed to surpass AMD's Ryzen 5000, which gives slightly better performance in single thread and much better in multithread, while Intel peaks at 8 cores and 16 threads, and AMD achieves the 16 cores and 32 threads. Let's go with specific examples: the Core i5 11600K is approximately equivalent to the Ryzen 5 5600X, while the Core i9 11900K is at the level of the Ryzen 7 5800X.
• Intel Core 12000: With these new processors, Intel has recovered the crown of single-thread performance, clearly surpassing the Ryzen 5000, and it was with the ability to suggest a very competitive multi-thread performance. It was also with the ability to market this generation at a very attractive price. In intensive multi-threaded tests, the much more realistic ones, the Intel Core i5-12400F performs practically at the same level as the Ryzen 5 5600X, and the Core i5-12600K also plays in the league of the Ryzen 7 5800X. The Core i7-12700K is only slightly slower than the Ryzen 9 5900X, and the Core i9-12900K manages to come very close to the Ryze 9 5950X.
• AMD Ryzen This range had no direct rival from Intel, since we were talking about configurations of up to 16 cores and 32 threads. With the arrival of the Comet Lake-S series, Intel launched the Core i9 10900K, a chip with ten cores and 20 threads that is still not at the level of the Ryzen 9 3900X, which adds 12 cores and 24 threads. Rocket Lake-S did not increase the maximum cores and threads either, but reduced it to 8 and 16, respectively. However, with Alder Lake-S, Intel managed to compete smoothly with the Ryzen 9, it did outperform certain models, such as the Ryzen 9 5900X, but the Ryzen 9 5950X is still the much stronger multi-threaded processor in its category.
• Intel Core HEDT and Threadripper series: The first generation Threadripper processors have an IPC comparable to the Broadwell-Y based Core Extremes as well, but fall a bit behind the present Skylake-X. For their part, the second-generation Threadrippers have closed the gap in terms of IPC, but thanks to their greater number of cores and threads (18 and 36, the much stronger model from Intel and 32 and 64, the much stronger model from AMD) they are superior in general terms. The Threadripper 3000 series once again raised the IPC, and thanks to the increase in the maximum number of cores and also threads (64 and 128 respectively) they became the most powerful in their category, a situation that they have yielded to the recent Threadripper Pro 5000, based on in Zen 3.

Also read: Repair of motherboards and motherboard components