Expand / / Spoiler: When it comes to functionality through time, Intel is the gradual and steady tortoise into AMD’s speedy-but-intermittent hare. (charge: Aurich Lawson / / Getty Images)
The remark wars between Intel and AMD lovers are popular for the past few release cycles, even with a great deal of electronic ink spilled about that firm has–or hasn’t –improved substantially through recent years. There has been no lack of comments about the present raw functionality of every corporation’s fastest chips, either. We believed it’d be fascinating to dive into archived performance benchmarks of their speediest desktop/enthusiast CPUs for every firm to have a great summary of the way each has done over time –and possibly to see whether there are designs to be gleaned or to create some bets as time goes on.
Before we dive in to graphs, let us begin with a few tables{} way, it is possible to see which CPUs we are using as landmarks for every year. While we are at it, you will find a few flaws in the information; we will talk about those too and discuss the things a very simple chart will not reveal.
Twenty decades of enthusiast calculating
| Year | Intel Model | AMD Model | Notes |
| 2001 | Pentium 4 2.0GHz (1c/1t) | Athlon XP 1900+ (1c/1t) | |
| 2002 | Pentium 4 2.8GHz (1c/2t) | Athlon XP 2800+ (1c/1t) | Intel presents hyperthreading |
| 2003 | Pentium 4 Extreme 3.2GHz (1c/2t) | Athlon XP 3200+ (1c/1t) | |
| 2004 | Pentium 4 3.4GHz (1c/2t) | Athlon 64 FX-55 (1c/1t) | |
| 2005 | Pentium 4 3.8GHz (1c/2t) | Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2c/2t) | |
| 2006 | Pentium Extreme 965 (2c/4t) | Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2c/2t) | Intel requires the undisputed performance guide hereand retains it for a short time directly. |
| 2007 | Core 2 Intense QX6800 (4c/4t) | Phenom X4 9600 (4c/4t) | Intel and AMD both start the very first authentic quad-core background CPUs |
| 2008 | Core 2 Intense X9650 (4c/4t) | Phenom X4 9950 (4c/4t) | |
| 2009 | Core i7-960 (4c/8t) | Phenom II X4 965 (4c/4t) | |
| 2010 | Core i7-980X (6c/12t) | Phenom II X6 1100T (6c/6t) | Intel and AMD both present hex-core background CPUs |
| 2011 | Core i7-990X (6c/12t) | FX-8150 (8c/8t) | |
| 2012 | Core i7-3770K (4c/8t) | FX-8350 (8c/8t) | Intel abandons hex-core background CPUs–but a couple miss them{} big single-threaded profits |
| 2013 | Core i7-4770K (4c/8t) | FX-9590 (8c/8t) | AMD’s underwhelming FX-9590 starts –and it is Team Red’s last enthusiast CPU for 2 years |
| 2014 | Core i7-4790K (4c/8t) | FX-9590 (8c/8t) | Intel’s 5th production Center expires. AMD releases low-power APUs, however no urge to FX-9590 |
| 2015 | Core i7-6700K (4c/8t) | FX-9590 (8c/8t) | |
| 2016 | Center i7-7700K (4c/8t) | FX-9590 (8c/8t) | only speaking, 2016 has been an Intel whiff–Kaby Lake did not really release until January 2017 |
| 2017 | Center i7-8700K (6c/12t) | Ryzen 7 1800X (8c/16t) | Launch of AMD’s Zen structure, return of this Intel hex-core background CPU |
| 2018 | Core i9-9900K (8c/16t) | Ryzen 7 2700X (8c/16t) | |
| 2019 | Core i9-9900KS (8c/16t) | Ryzen 9 3950X (16c/32t) | AMD’s Zen Two structure starts, Intel whiffs difficult in the Operation section |
| 2020 | Core i9-10900K (10c/20t) | Ryzen 9 5950X (16c/32t) | AMD’s Disposition 3 eventually Fragrant Intel’s long-held single-threaded performance album |
Though both Intel and AMD clearly launch a vast variety of chips for various price points and goal markets annually, we are restricting ourselves on the fastest desktop computer or”enthusiast” chip from every year. That usually means no server chips without a High-End Desktop (HEDT) chips either–hence we will not be considering either Threadrippers or even the overdue version XE series Intel components.
See 38 staying paragraphs | Remarks
