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

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

The Ryzen 1000's impact was colossal, and marked a turning point in the eternal battle between Intel and AMD processors. This generation made the leap to the development of 14 nm (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, increased the CPI by 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 trend and launch 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 superior, while the Ryzen 1000 offered many more cores and also threads for less money.

It was clear from the beginning that no Intel was waiting for AMD with the ability to return to the way it was after the failure of the Bulldozer architecture. Zen+ was another wake-up call with which the Sunnyvale company confirmed that it was very serious, Zen 2 marked the consecration of MCM architecture from AMD, and Zen 3 represents, in my opinion, perfection of a design that was capable of surpassing all expectations, allowing AMD to surpass Intel, and which highlights that monolithic core architecture no longer has a place in configurations with a high number of cores.

We have updated This guide with the latest news available in the month of March 2022, and this forces us to enter some paragraphs in different parts of the article. As we said at the time, Zen 3 represents the perfection of the MCM design that AMD introduced with Zen, but Intel has known how to respond with Alder Lake-S, a generation of processors that has restored the crown of single-thread performance, and has put Intel in a very competitive position.

The chip giant's bet on a hybrid monolithic core design, mixing blocks of high-performance cores with blocks of high-efficiency cores, was a success. AMD continues to have an advantage in multithreading, thanks to the 16-core and 32-thread configuration offered by the Ryzen 9 5950X, but right now Intel and AMD processors are in a fairly equal situation, this has benefited the client a lot, which can access better processors and with much more competitive costs.

Intel and AMD CPU Equivalents – Intel and AMD Processors: Rivalry is good, but complicated

That AMD has returned to compete head-to-head with Intel is a very positive thing, there is no doubt about that. Thanks to this competitiveness between the two companies we were able to find High-performance processors with such good prices that, a few years ago, we would not have dared to imagine. For example, the Core i5 11400F is a chip Fabulous processor that delivers extremely high performance, has six cores and 12 threads, and only costs €160.28.

However, competition exposes a problem, and it happens that the catalog of Intel and AMD processors ends up growing disproportionately and in relatively short periods of time, which causes many users It is difficult for them to keep up the pace and it is every day de la situación que ocupa cada novedosa generación, cada novedosa range y cada nuevo procesador.

We've been meaning to update our Intel and AMD processor equivalency guide for a while now, but We wanted to wait for the launch of Rocket Lake-S of the enormous chip to be able to carry out a complete daily installation, which includes both that new generation and the AMD Ryzen 5000, based on Zen 3 architecture. In the article we will maintain the format of the original because we think it is the best way to offer you complete and extensive, but well-structured information.

Let's talk about architectures, manufacturing processes and also the different series Intel and AMD processors available, including both the most recent models and those that can still be found on the second-hand market, and which offer excellent value for money despite the age they may have on them. In this sense, the indefatigable Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 are two good examples.

After that last update 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 our promise.In this guide you will find an update on the latest Intel chips, and a more refined and revised list of Intel and AMD processor equivalents that will help you to clearly understand, at a glance, what your processor is equivalent to, or what the equivalent of that central processing unit you are thinking of purchasing is.

Architectures and manufacturing processes in Intel and AMD processors: Previous considerations

Intel and AMD use different architectures and manufacturing processes in their processors. As our regular readers will remember, Intel remains loyal to the monolithic core architecture, meaning that each and every core in the processor is built into a single core. a single silicon wafer, while AMD employs an architecture MCM (Multi-Chip Module), which means that these cores can be delegated to one, two or even eight silicon chips, known as chipsets, which communicate with each other using a system known as 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 case of the latter, since MCM design has undergone fundamental changes, not in vain AMD's Ryzen went through three different processes: 14 nm, 12 nm and 7 nm, and experienced profound changes at the silicon level, while Intel remained at 14 nm, and the changes at the architectural level were less, with the only exception of Rocket Lake-S, which made the jump to Cypress Cove, a adaptation from Sunny Cove architecture to 14nm development.

To that caveat that we made at the time we must now add Alder Lake-S, and it is that with this generation Intel made a considerable leap both qualitatively and quantitatively. When we talked about Intel and AMD processors we always emphasized such important achievements as the increase in IPC that Intel achieved with Skylake or AMD's jump to the chipset, 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 Golden Cove architecture.

On the subject of architectures, and manufacturing processes, we will talk about it much later in a much more personalized and specific way, so that you have a much clearer vision of the most interesting news that has occurred with each generational leap between the different Intel and AMD processors, but I want you to be aware that the two companies They had to face different challenges derived from the approach they have followed over the last few years.

Intel was very ambitious, always betting on huge transistor consistency, and a monolithic core design, something that, in the end, has turned out to be quite difficult, and expensive, to put on the wafer. AMD, on the other hand, adopted a plan that was truly not new. The Intel Pentium D y los Core 2 Quad son 2 claros ejemplos de un diseño MCM, puesto que el primero equivale a 2 Pentium 4 de 64 bits «pegados» y también interconectados, y el segundo viene a ser el semejante a 2 Core 2 Duo unidos para hallar un chip de 4 núcleos.

AMD adopted the figure of the CCX unit, consisting of 4 cores and 8 MB of L3 cache, and used it to make processors with 4, six, eight and many more cores. With Zen 2, it externalized the I/O unit and created the chipset or CCD unit, based on 2 CCX units, which gave us 8 cores and 16 MB of L3 per silicon chip, a composition that was maintained with Zen 3, although with essential changes, as we told you at the time in the article, where we examined the most essential keys to that architecture.

An MCM type design facilitates and enables leaps in manufacturing development and the translation of the design to the wafer, improving the success rate per wafer, reducing costs and also increasing the capacity. productive with the same fixed number of wafers per day, week or month. Of course, creating two chipsets with eight cores each is not exactly the same as creating a monolithic 16-core processor, the latter involves a much more complex and risky development.

Intel, on the other hand, decided maintain the monolithic core design, but introduced that term hybrid that we have explained to you, and combined up to 8 high-performance cores and 8 high-efficiency cores in a single package. Both core blocks are manufactured in a 10nm process, and offer a different IPC. The high-performance cores surpass everything that exists today, including Zen 3, while the high-efficiency cores are located approximately at the level of Skylake (Core Gen6), which means that They have a higher IPC than the Ryzen 2000.

Thanks to this hybrid design, Intel was able to increase the single-thread and multi-thread performance of its Alder processors Lake-S without silicon level space being an issue, and without having to deal with the difficulties that moving a high-performance 16-core design to the wafer would entail. Now I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this was a masterstroke on Intel's part.

Intel and AMD CPU Equivalents – 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 forward.
• 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 higher, except for the Core i7 980X, which comes in 32nm). They were a notable leap.
• Sandy Bridge: 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). One of the biggest leaps Intel has ever made.
• Ivy Bridge: is an architecture based on the 22 nm development, 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: It is based on the 22nm development and was used in the fourth generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors (4xxx series). It improved the IPC significantly.
• Broadwell: architecture based on the 14nm development that was used in the fifth generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors (5xxx series). A minor leap forward from the previous one, which, in truth, had a very short life.
• Skylake: arquitectura fundamentada en el desarrollo de 14 nm y usada en las ranges Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 y Core i7 de sexta generación (serie 6xxx). Mejoró bastante el IPC.
• Kaby Lake: está fundamentada en desarrollo de 14 nm+ y usada en las gamas Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 y Core i7 de séptima generación (serie 7xxx). Una optimization mínima en frente de la generación previo.
• 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, with no changes at the IPC level, which marked the jump to 6 cores and 12 threads.
• Coffee Lake Refresh: fundamentada en el desarrollo de 14 nm++ y usada en las ranges Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 y Core i9 de novena generación (serie 9xxx). Sin cambios a nivel de IPC, su novedad más esencial fue el salto a los 8 núcleos y 16 hilos.
• Comet Lake-S: architecture based on the 14nm++ development that was used in the tenth generation Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7 and Core i9 ranges (10xxx series). With no changes at the IPC level, the most interesting news was the jump to ten cores and 20 threads.
• Rocket Lake-S: architecture based on the 14nm+++ development, which was used in the 11th generation Core i5, Core i7 and Core i9 ranges (11xxx series). They use a unique architecture and increase the IPC, but reduce the maximum number of cores and threads to 8 and 16.
• Alder Lake-S: It is the next generation architecture Intel's Core i7-10000 series. It is manufactured in the 10nm SuperFin process, and has been used in all of the chip giant's traditional ranges, meaning it has "powered" Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, and Core i9 processors. They use a hybrid monolithic design, combining high-performance Golden Cove cores and high-efficiency Gracemont cores. They mark a huge leap forward in terms of IPC (the Golden Cove cores) and are configured with up to 8 high-performance cores and 8 high-efficiency cores, translating to 16 cores and 24 threads (only the high-performance cores use HyperThreading).

Based on all the previous breakdown, we can easily detect the generation in which they are framed different Intel processors. For 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. Also, we can understand that the first is manufactured in 32nm, while the second uses the 14nm+ process.

At each point we have also summarized the most important news in terms of performance. However, you should keep in mind that, although Kaby Lake did not mark an increase in IPC compared to Skylake, this does not mean that it did not achieve a optimization of performance. He succeeded, but with wild force, that is, by increasing working frequencies, a plan that was maintained roughly until the arrival of Rocket Lake-S. Needless to say, the increase in the number of cores was the only truly attractive novelty at the central processing unit level since the arrival of Skylake in the case of Intel processors.

Alder Lake-S broke that continuum in a resounding way. The Golden Cove architecture represents a very large IPC optimization compared to previous generations, and the Gracemont cores give it a considerable boost in multi-thread performance. This time, Intel introduced a genuine advance in design and architecture concepts, and this allowed it to offer a huge leap forward from the previous generation, Rocket Lake-S, and place 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 "high-performance computing."

• Haswell-And also: architecture based on 22nm development. It is used in the Core i7 Extreme 5000 series, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads.
• Broadwell-And also: architecture based on 14nm development. It is used in the Core i7 Extreme 6000 series, configured with up to ten cores and 20 threads.
• Skylake-X: architecture based on 14nm development. 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. It optimizes IPC compared to its predecessors, and achieves 18 cores and 36 threads.
• Kaby Lake-X: architecture based on 14nm+ development. 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 14nm++ development. 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 have been now completely framed in the professional "hardcore" field, this is on the Xeon line, so I'm not going to continue improving this chapter because I understand that it is meaningless in a medium based on the general consumer market.

Intel and AMD CPU Equivalents – AMD Processor Architectures

• K8: It is clear that we are dealing with a legendary architecture. It has used 90nm and 65nm processes, and gave life to processors from the Athlon 64 X2 and Sempron series.
• K10: fue muy longeva, tanto que empleó los processes de 65 nm, 45 nm y 32 nm. Los procesadores Phenom, Phenom II, Athlon X2, Athlon II y Sempron han empleado esta arquitectura.
• Bulldozer: based on the 32 nm development, although it went through multiple revisions and reached 28 nm (Excavator). It is used in AMD FX, Athlon II X4 processors (and also lower ones) and in the 4000 series APUs and higher (up to the 9000 series).
• Zen: It is based on the 14nm development and is used in the Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 1000 series processors, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, as well as in the Ryzen Pro 1000 series, Threadripper 1000 series, and Ryzen 2000 series APUs. It represented an increase in IPC of the 52% compared to Bulldozer.
• Zen+: It is based on the 12nm development and is used in the Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 2000 series processors, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, as well as in the Ryzen Pro 2000 series and Threadripper 2000 series and in the Ryzen 3000 series APUs. Minor IPC optimization has been introduced.
• Zen 2: an architecture based on the 7nm development 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 Threadripper 3000 series. It introduced a significant IPC optimization compared to the previous generation.
• Zen 3: It is also based on TSMC's 7nm manufacturing process but introduces key architectural innovations that significantly increase IPC compared to the previous generation. It is used in the Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 5000 series, as well as the next-generation Ryzen Pro Mobile, configured with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, and the Threadripper PRO 5000 WX.

Equivalences between 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 14nm development and would have a lower IPC al Ryzen 3000, que estaría fabricado, además de esto, en desarrollo de 7 nm. Asimismo, sabríamos que ese Ryzen 3000 estaría por detrás, en concepto de IPC, de un Ryzen processor 5000.

AMD has known successfully combining CPI increases with increases in wild capacity by 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 significantly, raised the working frequencies and doubled the maximum number of cores and threads, and finally Zen 3 has raised the IPC considerably, raised the working frequencies slightly and maintained the maximum number of cores and threads.

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

Intel and AMD processors: ranges and key points

Without further ado, we will see a finished breakdown 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 easier for you to consult, we will limit ourselves to explaining the differences, and the most important news, that were generated in each and every one of them. range with the main changes architecture. Of course, we will also include the latest Intel and AMD processors.

Keep in mind that many of the older Intel and AMD processors They still have the possibility to offer 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 needs of each individual.

Intel and AMD Processors Equivalences – We start with Intel processors

• Core 2 Duo: These are older 2-core, 2-thread processors that have been widely outdated, but still perform well with games from the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation, as well as with less demanding apps.
• Core 2 Quad: It is an evolution of the previous ones that has a total of 4 cores. They can run recent games thanks to their 4 cores, but not completely perfectly due to their low frequencies and their limited IPC.
• Intel Celeron: Economic processors with 2 cores and 2 threads that cover the most basic and economical level. The most recent models offer excellent performance in general office automation, multimedia and web browsing, and also with lax games.
• Intel Pentium: los modelos basados en la arquitectura Skylake tienen 2 núcleos y 2 hilos y, por norma general, no proponen una optimization de desempeño esencial en frente de los Celeron. Con la llegada de la arquitectura Kaby Lake, los Pentium G4560 y superiores montan 2 núcleos y 4 hilos, lo que los transformó en una alternativa sólida para PCs multimedia económicos. Rinden bien en la mayor parte de los juegos de la generación de hoy, salvo esos mucho más recientes que necesitan un mínimo de 4 núcleos y ocho hilos para marchar adecuadamente, como Cyberpunk 2077, por poner un ejemplo.
• Intel Core i3: Up to the 7000 series (Kaby Lake) they have 2 cores and 4 threads up to the generation. With the arrival of Coffee Lake they made the jump to 4 cores, and with the arrival of Comet Lake they went up again to reach 4 cores and eight threads. The most recent models have a high IPC and offer good performance in general, which makes them an attractive alternative to build low-cost gaming equipment. Its 4-core and 8-thread configuration was maintained with Alder Lake-S. It is used for work and play.
• Intel Core i5: It remains one of the ranges with the best performance-price ratio that Intel offers today. Models based on Kaby Lake and previous ones have 4 cores and 4 threads, but with the arrival of the Coffee Lake architecture they made the jump to six cores and six threads. With Comet Lake (Core 10000) the count rose to six cores and 12 threads, a figure that continues with Rocket Lake-S. The arrival of Alder Lake-S marked a major change, as non-K Core i5 Gen12 maintains 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 in the previous case, there was a significant jump in core count with the new architectures. Until the 7000 series (Kaby Lake), this range had a configuration of 4 cores and eight threads. With the arrival of the Coffee Lake architecture, Intel increased 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 increase, since it left them at 8 cores and 16 threads. They offer exceptional performance and can handle anything. They are ready to perfectly overcome the transition they will mark. PS5 and Xbox Series X. Rocket Lake-S maintains the 8-core, 16-thread count, but Alder Lake-S upped that to 12 cores (eight high-performance and four high-efficiency) and 20 threads.
• Intel Core i9: They became Intel's new top of the range in the general consumer market. Starting with the 9000 series (Coffee Lake Refresh), they offer high performance and have 8 cores and 16 threads in that generation. Comet Lake-S increased the configuration to 10 cores and 20 threads, with Rocket Lake-S it was reduced again to 8 cores and 16 threads, but with Alder Lake-S it has increased to 16 cores (eight high-performance and eight high-efficiency) and 24 threads. They can handle anything and have a long lifespan ahead of them.
• Intel Core HEDT Series: They are high-performance processors that have between six and eighteen cores, and thanks to the technology HyperThreading has the ability to work with one thread per core, which allows us to configure up to 36 threads. They are aimed at the professional field and use a specific interface, which makes a significant difference compared to general consumer resolutions, which allows them to mount quad-channel RAM configurations and have a greater number of PCIE lines.

Intel and AMD Processors Equivalences – Let's go now with AMD processors

• AMD Athlon 64 X2: These were, at the time, the rivals of the Core 2 Duo, although they offered lower performance. They have 2 cores and 2 threads, and can also run less demanding applications and games from previous generations.
• AMD Phenom II: They arrived in a transitional era, so they competed with the Core 2 Quad and the first generation Core (Lynnfield). They have between 2 and 6 cores and offer a performance that is far superior to the Athlon 64 X2. They are outdated, but the models with 4 and 6 cores still offer an acceptable experience in many games and applications.
• AMD Athlon: There are versions with between 2 and 4 cores. The performance of the versions based on Bulldozer and its derivatives is good for any basic task, and the 4-core models offer acceptable performance in less demanding games.
• APUs: They are resolutions that have a processor and a graphics unit in the same casing. There are very varied configurations both by architecture at the central processing unit level and GPU as for information. Thus, for example, the less powerful and older models are based on the Bulldozer architecture at the CPU level and the Terascale 3 architecture at the GPU level, while the most outstanding ones will use the Zen 3 architecture at the CPU level (up to 8 cores and 16 threads) and will come with a Vega GPU in 7nm development. An attractive alternative for making multimedia and entertainment equipment. gaming quickly without investing a lot of money.
• AMD FX 4000: They use the Bulldozer architecture, add 2 finished modules and have 4 integer cores at very high working frequencies, apart from an unlocked multiplier. They offer an acceptable performance in less demanding games.
• AMD FX 6000: They support the Bulldozer architecture, have three finished modules and 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.
• AMD FX 8000-9000: Like the previous ones, they are based on Bulldozer. They have 4 full modules and eight integer cores. They have a low IPC, but they work at a very high frequency and can withstand overclocking. They still offer good performance and can run recent games, although not perfectly.
• Ryzen 3: como hemos dicho, la arquitectura Zen marcó un colosal salto a nivel de IPC en frente de Bulldozer (un 52% mucho más que los modelos de primera generación). Estos modelos tienen 4 núcleos y 4 hilos hasta los Ryzen 3000, que brindaron el salto a los 4 núcleos y ocho hilos. Son muy económicos y tienen la posibilidad de desplazar cualquier game de hoy con garantías.
• Ryzen 5: There are three variations, the 1500 models and below, which add four 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 very limited. They perform very well, can run recent games perfectly and are ready to handle demanding multi-threaded applications. Keep in mind that the more advanced models, based on Zen 2 and Zen 3, offer a significantly higher IPC.
• Ryzen 7: They add 8 cores and 16 threads in their 4 generations (1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 series). They offer incredible performance in any field and are ready to easily 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 higher IPC.
• 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 among the most powerful processors available in the general consumer market, and can handle anything.
• Ryzen Threadripper 1000: They are high-performance processors that use the Zen architecture and have up to 16 cores and 32 threads. They are included in a more advanced interface, and thanks to this they can use configurations of memory in quad-channel and suggest a higher proportion of PCIE lanes.
• Ryzen Threadripper 2000: an evolution of the previous ones based on the Zen+ architecture. They have up to 32 cores and 64 threads and use exactly the same interface. They are designed for professionals who use very demanding multi-threaded applications (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 memory in quad channel and gives a large number of PCIE lines.
• Ryzen Threadripper Pro 5000: These use the Zen3 architecture, which means they offer a significant IPC improvement compared to the previous generation. They also have up to 64 cores and 128 threads, and can work with eight-channel memory configurations.

Intel and AMD processors: Equivalences

After this long walk, we finally found ourselves ready to get to know a Intel and AMD processor equivalency catalogTo avoid a colossal catalogue that would take us weeks to write, and which we ourselves take quite a long time to read, we decided to group the equivalences by ranges and accompany them with a simplified but useful explanation.

To give an example, It would make no sense to list them one at a time. each and every one of the Intel and AMD processors that are included in 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 you would end up feeling overwhelmed by so much content.

This approach is the most appropriate if we want to reason the equivalences correctly, but without the need to enter into colossal lists. extension. We also accompany this, specific examples that will serve as a reference, But if you have any questions, don't worry, you can leave them in the comments and we will be happy to help you. Without further ado, let's get to it.

• Core 2 Duo: We have already said that these are quite old processors, and that they are limited by their IPC and their 2 cores. They surpass the Athlon 64 X2, but they are obsolete. The models with a higher working frequency are close to the Core i3 series 500, although their raw capacity is generally lower than that of these.
• Core 2 Quad: Their 4 cores have allowed them to withstand the passage of time better than their predecessors. The most powerful models, such as the Core 2 Quad Q9450 and above, offer acceptable performance and are close to a Core i5 750. Their direct competitor is the AMD Phenom II X4, although thanks to their higher working speeds the latter offer superior performance. For example, the Phenom II X4 965 performs much more than the Core 2 Quad Q9650, but it does not 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're talking about the first-generation Cores. Up to the Core i5 (in fact), we can make a rough equivalence with the Core 2 Quad Q9450 and higher, and also with AMD's Phenom II X4 and FX 4100. Higher models, such as the Core i7 860, can handle eight threads thanks to HyperThreading, so they are at a similar level to the FX 8100 and 6100. Also included here are AMD's Phenom II X6, which have six cores, albeit with the lack of standard support that we have already addressed, which is essential.
• Intel Core 2000: They provided a significant leap in performance compared to the previous generation. The Core i3, which has 2 cores and 4 threads, is exactly the same as the FX 4300, the Core i5, with 4 cores and 4 threads, is much more closely equivalent to the FX 6300, and the Core i7, which has 4 cores and 8 threads, is similar to the FX 8350, although the latter are inferior in raw performance. As a point of interest, I remind you that the Pentium G4560, which has 2 cores and 4 threads, offers performance similar to the Core i5 2500 in applications that use 4 threads thanks to its higher IPC.
• Intel Core 3000: They maintain the exact same core count and overall performance as the previous generation, so their closest equivalents are exactly the same, as no significant increase was made in either IPC or clock speeds.
• Intel Core 4000: They do not increase the number of cores, but they did bring a jump in IPC and working frequencies, in this way giving a higher performance than the previous ones. They surpass the FX 8300, FX 6300 and FX 4300 in performance, and quite clearly, but they remain below the first generation Ryzen processors (1000 series).
• Intel Core 5000: It was a controversial generation, as it had a very short lifespan. It represented a "tick" (reduction in manufacturing development) compared to 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 regarding the equivalences between Intel and AMD processors.
• Intel Core 6000: While it was another generation that didn't bring an increase in the number of cores, the truth is that it made up for it with a higher IPC and much higher working frequencies. Its closest equivalents are the Ryzen 2000 series in terms of IPC, but it must be remembered that that AMD generation has many more cores and threads. For example, the Ryzen 5 2600 has a single-thread performance similar to the Core i5 6600, but the former has six cores and 12 threads, and the latter 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 eight threads.
• Intel Core 7000: sostiene tanto IPC como recuento de núcleos, si bien Intel logró un pequeño incremento de desempeño en frente de la generación previo subiendo las frecuencias de trabajo. Su desempeño bárbaro es tenuemente superior al que dan los procesadores Ryzen serie 2000, pero tienen menos potencial multihilo. Siguiendo con el ejemplo previo, el Ryzen 7 2700X tiene un desempeño inferior en monohilo relacionado con el Core i7 7700K, pero el primero suma 8 núcleos y 16 hilos y el segundo se restringe a 4 núcleos y ocho hilos.
• Intel Core 8000: represents another small step up in raw performance in terms of frequencies, with no change in IPC. The most important news is an increase in the maximum number of cores that affected the entire series. The Core i3 has 4 cores and 4 threads, the Core i5 has six cores and six threads, and the Core i7 has six cores and 12 threads. In terms of raw single-thread performance, they are practically at the same level as the Ryzen 3000, but the latter have greater multi-thread potential. For example, the Ryzen 5 3600 is equivalent to a Core i7 8700, although the latter has more single-thread performance. The Ryzen 7 3700X is above 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.
• Intel Core 9000: no changes at the IPC level. Intel again pulled out a frequency increase and an increase in cores to provide better 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 has eight cores and 16 threads. Its single-thread performance is a bit above the Ryzen 3000 due to its higher clock speeds, but the latter have superior multi-thread configurations, since they reach 16 cores and 32 threads. Let's look at examples of direct equivalences, a Core i9 9900K is a bit 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 latter only has six cores and six threads).
• Intel Core 10000: It didn't bring any changes at the IPC level. Intel increased frequencies and core counts and also threads. The Core i3s now have 4 cores and eight threads (competing with the Ryzen 3 3000), the Core i5s went up to 6 cores and 12 threads (competing with the Ryzen 5 3000), the Core i7s have 8 cores and 16 threads (competing with the Ryzen 7 3000) and the Core i9s have ten cores and 20 threads (approaching the Ryzen 9 3900X).
• Intel Core 11000: Intel has increased the IPC, but failed to surpass the Ryzen 5000 processors from AMD, which offer slightly better single-thread performance and much better multi-thread performance, while Intel tops out at 8 cores and 16 threads, and AMD achieves 16 cores and 32 threads. Let's look at specific examples: the Core i5 11600K is roughly equivalent to the Ryzen 5 5600X, while the Core i9 11900K is on par with the Ryzen 7 5800X.
• Intel Core 12000: With these new processors, Intel has reclaimed the single-thread performance crown, clearly outperforming the Ryzen 5000, and it was able to offer very competitive multi-threaded performance. It was also able to market this generation at a very attractive price. In intensive multi-threaded tests, the most 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 get very close to the Ryze 9 5950X.
• AMD Ryzen 9: 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 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Rocket Lake-S also did not increase the maximum number of cores and threads, but reduced them to 8 and 16, respectively. However, with Alder Lake-S, Intel managed to compete without problem with the Ryzen 9, in fact it surpassed some models, such as the Ryzen 9 5900X, but the Ryzen 9 5950X is still the most powerful processor in multithreading in its category.
• Intel Core HEDT and Threadripper series: First-gen Threadripper processors have comparable IPC to the Broadwell-Y-based Core Extremes, but fall slightly behind the current Skylake-X. The second-gen Threadrippers have closed the gap in terms of IPC, but thanks to their higher core and thread counts (18 and 36 for Intel's most powerful model and 32 and 64 for AMD's most powerful) they are superior overall. The Threadripper 3000 series raised IPC again, and thanks to the increase in maximum cores and threads (64 and 128 respectively) they became the most powerful in their class, a situation they have yielded to the newer Zen 3-based Threadripper Pro 5000.

Read also: Motherboard Repair and Motherboard Components