Intel vs AMD Processor Equivalents

[stilllurking]

I'm in the market for a new laptop. Hopefully sub $500 if possible.

I'm upgrading from an i3 and I use an i5 for work. This new computer would typically be used by the kids for school work. There is no need for powerful gaming specs or photo editing. Basically something that allows for Zoom meetings, Office Suite, web browsing.

As I search through the myriad of laptops, I'd like to have a cheat sheet chart that shows what an equivalent AMD Ryzen 7 processor would be in the Intel line of products and vice versa. That way, I'm comparing apples to apples when shopping. Does anyone know of such a resource or can point me to a nice chart that has it broken down well? My searches were close, but not exactly what I was envisioning.

Thanks!

[02nz]

In terms of branding, a Core i3 competes with Ryzen 3, Core i5 with Ryzen 5, Core i7 with Ryzen 7.

But honestly these are pretty meaningless, and most people focus too much on the processor. Pretty much any Core or Ryzen CPU on the market is fast enough. Having an SSD makes a much bigger difference in the responsiveness of a computer. I would also look for an in-plane switching (IPS) display, which is much better than the TN display found on most cheap laptops.

And at $500 you will be very lucky to find a decent computer with SSD and IPS, because laptops are in very tight supply right now. You are unlikely to find even a Core i5 or Ryzen 5 at this price, at least not with SSD and IPS.

[megabad]

I use Passmark benchmarks (something like cpubenchmark.net). This isn’t a perfect comparison but you can see which ones have similar performance in these tests. For most applications this would probably be close enough. As above poster stated, for the average user, it doesn’t much matter unless you are buying the lowest end CPU out there. I have a pretty junk laptop right now with an old processor that runs 1080p streaming just fine when I travel and this is probably worse than any CPU you can buy new today. If I was doing 4K video editing, I might notice it more though.

[bugleheadd]

I'm in the market for a new laptop. Hopefully sub $500 if possible.

I'm upgrading from an i3 and I use an i5 for work. This new computer would typically be used by the kids for school work. There is no need for powerful gaming specs or photo editing. Basically something that allows for Zoom meetings, Office Suite, web browsing.

As I search through the myriad of laptops, I'd like to have a cheat sheet chart that shows what an equivalent AMD Ryzen 7 processor would be in the Intel line of products and vice versa. That way, I'm comparing apples to apples when shopping. Does anyone know of such a resource or can point me to a nice chart that has it broken down well? My searches were close, but not exactly what I was envisioning.

Thanks!

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Pr ... 436.0.html

i have a Lenovo t480s for work. it is good. make sure it has usb-c as that is useful if you want multiple displays.

sounds liek you want a budget business latptop. good place to start to check out some reviews

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Notebookc ... 853.0.html

as others have said above, i dont think you can get a ryzen 7 in a 500 or less laptop. not that it matters if all you are doing is office type work. important thing is SSD for fast opening of files.

this one is #5 on the list and seems to be in your price range @$550. from a brief glance the specs look decent for the price, but i didnt take a look at how it compares to the others though: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B084SSPVFP?ta ... th=1&psc=1

[02nz]

Some suggestions that meet my criteria above:

1. HP laptop for $600 at Costco: https://www.costco.com/hp-14%22-laptop- ... 79296.html

2. Best Buy is selling the Surface Pro 7 (8GB RAM, 128GB SSD) for $700 for students: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/microsoft- ... Id=6375055. You need to add the keyboard cover for $100 or so. The storage is skimpy but not that big a deal with cloud storage (and a micro SD card slot).

3. Dell Vostro 5590, around $560 with coupon SAVE35. https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/de ... w10p1c5101. This is a Core i3, but it's 10th-gen and will be plenty quick for your kids' needs. The display is big, it's IPS, and it's light for a 15-inch laptop. Nothing fancy but it's a solid laptop.

[bugleheadd]

i find that backlit keyboards are a must have . very useful in low light environment

[fwellimort]

The questions you will have to answer is:
1. Is this laptop going to stay at home in a desk or move around a lot. How old are the kids.
If the kids are elementary/middle, 13' might make the most sense. If high school, 13/14'.
Is this laptop going to be moved occasionally or a lot (e.g. backpacks or kid's bed/sofa/lounge/etc.)
And just to note, 13/14 is going to be more expensive than 15 for the specs you need at this price range.

2.
First, I would ignore lower end Chromebooks if Zoom is a thing. There's poor reviews with Zoom and ChromeOS currently in r/chromeos.
Zoom is a resource hog and at the rate the software is going, you probably want an i5 to be safe and at that point, might as well purchase a Windows laptop instead. I wouldn't trust Zoom with i3.

3.
In general, if you have an i5 or Ryzen 5, 8gb or more of RAM, 256gb or more of SSD
from there, you should look at size factor (13/14 vs 15) and portability/battery life.
That said, most laptops today are thin and portable if they aren't gaming laptops so don't think too much there.

4.
Anyways, (additionals from least to worst preference of price)

Renewed Lenovo IdeaPad S340 15' Ryzen 5 8gb 256 SSD
$449.99
https://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-IdeaPad-W ... ics&sr=1-4

Dell Inspiron 15 5000 Ryzen 5 is $549.99 and i5 is $599.99 (I would recommend the Ryzen option cause the performance are similar enough for real world)
$549.99
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-la ... igurations

Dell Vostro 14 3000 i5-10th 8gb 256gb in outlet but 'new'
$551
https://outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnlineSal ... I3b%2f0%3d

Dell Refurbished:
"Scratch & Dent" Inspiron 15 5000 Ryzen 7 8gb 256b SSD
$492
https://outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnlineSal ... to84zFs%3d

"Certified Refurbrished" Inspiron 14 5000 i5-10th gen 8gb 256 SSD
$543
https://outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnlineSal ... NcvDZTY%3d

Other than that, you always got the option of trying Ebay. The prices of refurbised is good if you know how to fix laptops. But I wouldn't recommend Ebay if you have to ask here.

Hope I was of help.

[DivesEtPauper]

As I search through the myriad of laptops, I'd like to have a cheat sheet chart that shows what an equivalent AMD Ryzen 7 processor would be in the Intel line of products and vice versa. That way, I'm comparing apples to apples when shopping. Does anyone know of such a resource or can point me to a nice chart that has it broken down well?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net is what you're looking for.

I'd start with the High End list and look for your specific processor(s). If it's not in that list, try the High Mid Range (you probably don't want to go any lower than that for a new PC). You'll see that these things have very specific numbering schemes which will help you know exactly which processor you're looking at. The number shown next to the left of the price column shows the "score" - an approximate gauge of the overall performance. For example, the Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz shows as 5674, while a AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is 14023. Thus, one could say (roughly speaking) that the Ryzen 7 1700 is about three times "faster" than an i5-6500.

Note that the specific models really matter - you don't want to just conclude "i-5s are slow and Ryzen 7's are fast". Differences of a few hundred points won't mean much, it's the larger gaps that matter.

[criticalmass]

I've found that Intel processors are usually nearly as good or as good as and equivalent AMD processor, although the Intel usually costs more at a similar performance point.

[02nz]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net is what you're looking for.

I'd start with the High End list and look for your specific processor(s). If it's not in that list, try the High Mid Range (you probably don't want to go any lower than that for a new PC). You'll see that these things have very specific numbering schemes which will help you know exactly which processor you're looking at. The number shown next to the left of the price column shows the "score" - an approximate gauge of the overall performance. For example, the Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz shows as 5674, while a AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is 14023. Thus, one could say (roughly speaking) that the Ryzen 7 1700 is about three times "faster" than an i5-6500.

Note that the specific models really matter - you don't want to just conclude "i-5s are slow and Ryzen 7's are fast". Differences of a few hundred points won't mean much, it's the larger gaps that matter.

OP is looking for a laptop ideally around $500 for kids to use for schoolwork. Looking in the the lists you referenced above will totally confuse him/her, as the lists are almost all workstation and desktop CPUs. There are some mobile CPUs there, but this is not the way to shop for a laptop.

As I said above, people are way too focused on CPU performance. Past a certain point, it makes little to no perceived difference. Sure, a Core i3-8145U has half the Passmark score of a Core i5-10210U, but with an SSD either will be very responsive, and unless OP's kids are using this to edit/encode videos, they won't notice the difference.

And under the current circumstances, there are very few decent laptops that are reliably in stock at reasonable prices. That and budget are the limiting factors.

[Swivelguy]

Any new laptop you can buy with i3, i5, or Ryzen in the name will be sufficiently fast for all of the uses you propose. Get one with 16 GB of memory (or upgradeable memory) and a 500 GB SSD (ideally avoid eMMC, it's a slower SSD-like thing, but a real SSD is faster). Beyond that, pick based on battery life (as described in 3rd-party reviews, ideally), and other factors like size, weight, and cost.

[Tyler Aspect]

No more Intel processors for me. There were too many security defects announced against Intel in the past year. AMD appeared to be more security conscious compared to Intel.

[02nz]

Any new laptop you can buy with i3, i5, or Ryzen in the name will be sufficiently fast for all of the uses you propose. Get one with 16 GB of memory (or upgradeable memory) and a 500 GB SSD (ideally avoid eMMC, it's a slower SSD-like thing, but a real SSD is faster). Beyond that, pick based on battery life (as described in 3rd-party reviews, ideally), and other factors like size, weight, and cost.

There are no new laptops with 16GB RAM and 500GB SSD for $500 in this market. And this is for schoolwork, where 8GB is more than enough. On 64-bit Windows, with dozens of tabs open in Chrome and Zoom, Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint all running at the same time my computer doesn't hit 8GB.

[anoop]

The generation of processor and the power consumption also matter, not just i3, i5, i7.

Core i5 used in the Macbook Air (MBA) has different specs and performance than Core i5 used in the Macbook Pro (MBP).
For example, with the 2019 MBA, Core i5 only had 2 cores, while with the 2019 MBP, Core i5 had 4 cores.
Here are the geekbench scores for both:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1908628 (2018/2019 MBA used the same processor)
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1910128 (2019 MBP)
Both are Core i5.

Like most have said processor is unlikely to be the problem for normal day to day tasks. You need more CPU when exporting HD videos (video editing), editing batches of large photos, gaming, running virtual machines, heavy development work (compilation), etc.

If you really want to compare performance, you'd have to look at geekbench (or some other benchmark) for the performance numbers of the models you are interested in.

[beastykato]

AMD is far superior to Intel these days. If it's a choice between similar price and similar form types I'd take the AMD processor every time.

Ryzen 3/5/7/9 is roughly equivalent to Core i3/i5/i7/i9

The difference between AMD is AMD has caught and up surpassed Intel on processor core count, power consumption/heat output, IPC, and severely beats Intel on price. They offer a lot more cores and threads and lower price points than intel and that results in smoother performance in mutli-tasking and unmatched performance in workstation applications.

These days you have to be careful, because when people talk about i3 that used to be a 2 core/4 thread processor on desktop machines. Those are now quad cores and core i5's now have 6 cores and maybe 8 cores now? So, what people say when they talk about the naming schemes may be representative of their experience with older core i5's for instance, but now they offer more performance.

In any case, there is zero reason to buy a Intel based processor these days. They offer no performance or price advantage. Here is a review of AMD's new flagship processor in a laptop and it's not even close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B83xurNIX4E

[palaheel]

I find toms hardware useful for these types of questions. E.g.

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus

[bugleheadd]

Any entry level CPU will do for office work. It comes down to whatever is less expensive and if you are a fanboy of one or the other. Personally I am amd supporter since for the past two decades because they were always less expensive and performance was acceptable for what I use it for.

[BroIceCream]

For non-gaming usage, computer performance is most benefited by:

• Internet access speed
• Amount of computer memory
• Hard disk speed (SSD over HDD)

A an "engineer" in the computer business, I am associated with a major motherboard manufacturer who told me that they, hands-down, prefer Intel over AMD for one reason.. quality. Intel measures its post-manufacturing validation environment in acres, whereas the "other" competitors measure them in feet. During design, Intel validates their products over a much longer period of time. He based it upon personal tours of both company facilities.

[abracadabra11]

I find toms hardware useful for these types of questions. E.g.

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus

+1

Also see their CPU hierarchy

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cp ... ,4312.html

[beastykato]

For non-gaming usage, computer performance is most benefited by:

• Internet access speed
• Amount of computer memory
• Hard disk speed (SSD over HDD)

A an "engineer" in the computer business, I am associated with a major motherboard manufacturer who told me that they, hands-down, prefer Intel over AMD for one reason.. quality. Intel measures its post-manufacturing validation environment in acres, whereas the "other" competitors measure them in feet. During design, Intel validates their products over a much longer period of time. He based it upon personal tours of both company facilities.

I build custom PC's for people and am just a general enthusiast. So, my experience certainly isn't big as that of an engineer who may deal with 10's of thousands of processors being ordered for massive server companies, but I have had a few thousands CPU's through my hands over the years.

In that time, I don't think I've ever seen a processor fail from either brand. I've seen components around them fail like the motherboards and I've seen CPU's degrade over time. For instance, if a 3.0Ghz processor was overclocked for 4.0Ghz I've seen them degrade to where they couldn't handle the overclocked speed and had to be lowered to 3.5Ghz. So, as a matter of quality, especially at the consumer level I don't think silicon in general fails very often. This can be seen across many things, there are still plethora's of decade old computers, phones, etc that are still functioning without issue.

Intel certainly had the advantage of market share and thus compatibility in the past when they dominated the industry. So, a lot of software was designed on Intel architectures primarily, but that hasn't been the case for quite a while now.

[Starfish]

I'm in the market for a new laptop. Hopefully sub $500 if possible.

I'm upgrading from an i3 and I use an i5 for work. This new computer would typically be used by the kids for school work. There is no need for powerful gaming specs or photo editing. Basically something that allows for Zoom meetings, Office Suite, web browsing.

As I search through the myriad of laptops, I'd like to have a cheat sheet chart that shows what an equivalent AMD Ryzen 7 processor would be in the Intel line of products and vice versa. That way, I'm comparing apples to apples when shopping. Does anyone know of such a resource or can point me to a nice chart that has it broken down well? My searches were close, but not exactly what I was envisioning.

Thanks!

You are doing it wrong.
For a laptop the processor is way down on the list of important things. Usability and portability are far more important.
I would not buy my kid a very cheap laptop with a powerful processor because it will cost much more important things like the quality of the screen. And I wouldn't want the responsibility for destroying their eyes.

[02nz]

A an "engineer" in the computer business, I am associated with a major motherboard manufacturer who told me that they, hands-down, prefer Intel over AMD for one reason.. quality. Intel measures its post-manufacturing validation environment in acres, whereas the "other" competitors measure them in feet. During design, Intel validates their products over a much longer period of time. He based it upon personal tours of both company facilities.

Is there any data that suggests AMD is less reliable than Intel? I haven't seen it. Actually I've never even heard of a CPU failing (other than under extreme circumstances, not normal use).

[BroIceCream]

Is there any data that suggests AMD is less reliable than Intel? I haven't seen it. Actually I've never even heard of a CPU failing (other than under extreme circumstances, not normal use).

Even though two have thought I said "reliability", I never said that. I meant quality, functional accuracy, recovery to internal and system failures, accuracy to design specs, etc. Of course, this information is not available to the general public - but it is available to OEM customers.

[02nz]

Is there any data that suggests AMD is less reliable than Intel? I haven't seen it. Actually I've never even heard of a CPU failing (other than under extreme circumstances, not normal use).

Even though two have thought I said "reliability", I never said that. I meant quality, functional accuracy, recovery to internal and system failures, accuracy to design specs, etc. Of course, this information is not available to the general public - but it is available to OEM customers.

I see, millions and millions of CPUs have been made and are used all the time. Nothing to indicate that AMD CPUs perform less well (within specs) than Intel. But you have top-secret information about "recovery to internal and system failures" (whatever that even means) that is only available to a select few. Please let us know how this information impacts the OP's use case: school work for his kids.

[squirm]

AMD will give you more logical cores at all price points. In general I like AMD.

[squirm]

AMD is far superior to Intel these days. If it's a choice between similar price and similar form types I'd take the AMD processor every time.

Ryzen 3/5/7/9 is roughly equivalent to Core i3/i5/i7/i9

The difference between AMD is AMD has caught and up surpassed Intel on processor core count, power consumption/heat output, IPC, and severely beats Intel on price. They offer a lot more cores and threads and lower price points than intel and that results in smoother performance in mutli-tasking and unmatched performance in workstation applications.

These days you have to be careful, because when people talk about i3 that used to be a 2 core/4 thread processor on desktop machines. Those are now quad cores and core i5's now have 6 cores and maybe 8 cores now? So, what people say when they talk about the naming schemes may be representative of their experience with older core i5's for instance, but now they offer more performance.

In any case, there is zero reason to buy a Intel based processor these days. They offer no performance or price advantage. Here is a review of AMD's new flagship processor in a laptop and it's not even close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B83xurNIX4E

Yes all the way.
Intel would still be at 2 core / 4 thread on i3 if it wasn't for AMD.

AMD provides value and performance and best of all, competition.

[criticalmass]

Is there any data that suggests AMD is less reliable than Intel? I haven't seen it. Actually I've never even heard of a CPU failing (other than under extreme circumstances, not normal use).

Even though two have thought I said "reliability", I never said that. I meant quality, functional accuracy, recovery to internal and system failures, accuracy to design specs, etc. Of course, this information is not available to the general public - but it is available to OEM customers.

Have you seen the data you say is available to some (oem) customers? Please share the winners/losers and generally how much you are talking about. How relevant is the data you write about to a typical home PC user?

[dwc13]

You can find a ~$500 notebook computer for your children that will suit the needs you have identified (Zoom, Office, internet). If you're willing to buy a notebook with an older (previous generation) CPU, you might be able to find a really, really good deal as sellers are looking to unload these older -- but still very capable -- devices. Look for a computer powered by a AMD Ryzen mobile 3xxx (or even 2xxx) processor, or a 9th (or 8th) generation Intel mobile CPU. I have a Huawei MateBook D 14 (Ryzen mobile 2500U, Vega 8 graphics, 14" FHD IPS screen, 65 watt USB-C charger) purchased in 2018 from Walmart for @$530 and it's fantastic.

As several others have mentioned, the processor brand most likely won't make much of a difference. Historically, Intel CPUs have dominated the notebook segment because they were flat-out better in terms of efficiency (ipc) and power usage. AMD mobile processors were primarily relegated to the low end of the market; most of the offerings skimped on components (e.g., low quality screen; no dual channel memory; mechanical HD instead of SSD; fewer heatsinks, etc.) in order to hit a low price point. Fortunately, that is starting to change with the release of notebook computers featuring AMD's Ryzen mobile 4000 CPUs. However, unless you get a "can't pass up" deal on a notebook computer with a new Ryzen mobile 4xxx CPU, it's probably overkill for what your children need.

I didn't get the impression from your original post that weight (or battery life) is much of a consideration. This sounds more like something for the children to use so they won't be asking to use your computer.

Make sure the notebook computer has a FHD (1920 x 1080) screen, preferably an IPS panel. Don't buy one with a 1366x768 screen, no matter how "good" a deal it might seem. Also, having a Gigabit ethernet port is a plus because Wi-fi can be fickle at times, especially if multiple wireless devices are connected at the same time. And right now many of us are staying at home and surfing/gaming online, streaming Netflix...

[beastykato]

Is there any data that suggests AMD is less reliable than Intel? I haven't seen it. Actually I've never even heard of a CPU failing (other than under extreme circumstances, not normal use).

Even though two have thought I said "reliability", I never said that. I meant quality, functional accuracy, recovery to internal and system failures, accuracy to design specs, etc. Of course, this information is not available to the general public - but it is available to OEM customers.

I understood that to a point. I also touched on the software integration as part of the "quality". I would have included power consumption as part of Intel's overall quality as well up until about 3-4 years ago. Reliability is a form of quality though, but I do understand where you're coming from in regards to large corps they have a lot of thoughts in regards to their business, but I don't think those apply to this OP.