The competition between Intel and AMD is the competition between tortoise and hare. But which company is turtle? Which company is rabbit? In the past few release cycles, there has been a heated debate between fans of Intel and AMD, with a lot of digital ink discussing which companies have improved significantly or not over the years. There are also comments on the original performance of the two fastest processors. < / P > < p > we think it is interesting to study the archive performance benchmark of the fastest desktop / CPU for each company, so that we can have a good understanding of the actual performance of each company over the years, and even see if there are some patterns to collect or make some bets on the future. < / P > < p > before delving into the charts, let’s start with some tables – in this way, you can see which CPUs we use as annual milestones. In the course of our research, there are some irregularities in the data; we will also discuss these, and discuss some things that simple charts cannot show. < / P > < p > although Intel and AMD launch a large number of processors each year for different price points and target markets, we are limited to the fastest desktop or “fancier” processors each year. This means that there are no server processors and no high-end desktop (hedt) processors – so we won’t focus on threadrippers or the latest Xe family of Intel components. < / P > < p > even for someone like me who has been a system builder for a whole period of time, assembling such a list is a great pain, let alone matching test results. This is particularly difficult with AMD, which doesn’t really match Intel’s ark with a single list of processors sorted by generation, type, and release date. If you think I picked the wrong “top processor” of the year, please let me know in the comments. < / P > < p > we should address some of the anomalies in the chart – first, no, it’s not an oversight that AMD didn’t launch new high-performance CPUs in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The 2013 fx-9590 was widely (and rightly so) criticized for its amazing 225W TDP and mediocre performance – Team Red’s fastest CPU in four years of operation. During this period, amd launched several generations of low-power, low-cost desktop devices, but none of them outperformed the fx-9590. < / P > < p > Intel also experienced several errors between 2013 and 2017, although not as serious or as long. The fifth generation core series basically died in 2014, although the fourth generation Core i7 series updates did provide significant performance improvements. Two years later, it was another trend technically – the Kaby lake with core i7-7700k didn’t really start until January 2017. We made up a little bit to make Kaby lake into 2016, because otherwise it would disappear completely. Coffee lake and i7-8700k appeared later in the same year. < / P > < p > it’s hard to believe it now, but once upon a time, multithreaded workloads were much more pushy than single threaded workloads. But it wasn’t a long time ago. < / P > < p > even in the Athlon era, amd can hardly catch up with Intel in single thread performance. Intel’s q962 took the lead with Intel’s q962 processor. < / P > < p > this is something many of us forget at the beginning of the 21st century – multitasking performance is too poor. In the first chart above, we are looking at the ratio between multithreaded and single threaded passmark CPU benchmark scores. For 2001-2005 CPUs, single thread scores were actually higher than multithreading, which means you can do more computing on a single thread at a given time, rather than breaking down into parallel threads. < / P > < p > you might think this is because they are still single core, single threaded CPUs, but you are wrong. Intel introduced 1C / 2T Pentium 4 2.8GhZ hyper threading in 2002, which has little impact on the actual multithreading ability. Amd launched the first true dual core desktop CPU, Athlon 64 x2 4800 +, in 2005, but it didn’t make much difference. < p > < p > before Intel’s Pentium extreme 965 (dual core / four thread CPU) in 2006, the ratio of multithreading did not exceed 100% — which means that multithreaded tasks can complete faster than the same single threaded tasks. The next year, AMD and Intel both introduced real quad core desktop CPUs, and permanently ended the era of high-performance single threaded processors. < / P > < p > even in AMD’s golden age, Intel beat AMD in terms of single threaded performance. Pentium 4 architecture, as a weaker successor of Pentium III, has been roundly and properly ridiculed, and Pentium III tends to outperform it on a hourly basis. However, the clock frequency of Pentium III cannot reach the level of Pentium 4, and, in any case, the highest performance workload of the era is single threaded, and Intel’s Pentium 4 is ahead of AMD’s Athlon in performance. Although the CPU performance of the latter is very weak. < / P > < p > unfortunately for Intel, as early as 2001, the world had turned to multitasking operating systems, and multithreaded workloads also emerged, as evidenced by the use of tabbed browsing in 2002 by Phoenix, the predecessor of Firefox. With CPU saturation, users are getting used to the environment of opening many programs all day. Multithreading performance (rather than single thread) becomes an urgent task. < / P > < p > in 2007, AMD and Intel both introduced real quad core desktop CPUs. The multithreading performance of both vendors’ feverish class CPUs has peaked – Intel’s core 2 Extreme QX9650 beat AMD’s new phenom x4, despite huge gains on both sides. < / P > < p > the new quad core CPU has enough multitasking performance, which can handle low priority background tasks and high priority foreground tasks at the same time, without obvious damage to the foreground tasks, which shifts the focus to single thread performance. This is especially unfortunate for AMD, because Intel has not only improved multithreading performance, but QX9650 has also made a breakthrough in single threaded performance. < / P > < p > with nearly 70% of the single threaded performance advantage replaced by Intel’s QX9650, and the focus suddenly returns to the dominance of single threaded performance, at least in these high-end CPUs, the first golden age of AMD in the 21st century has officially ended. < p > < p > compared with i7-965 extreme in 2008, Intel’s i7-975 extreme in 2009 is not much improved, but the hex core i7-980x in 2010 is a melting pot. At the same time, although amd has made steady progress year after year, it is still at a disadvantage. < / P > < p > 2007-2013 was an exciting time to improve CPU performance and functionality, but it was a pretty boring time in terms of the battle between Intel and AMD. Intel has been leading the way in terms of single threaded and multithreaded performance. < / P > < p > in the whole running process of phenom and phenom II architecture, amd has achieved steady growth in multi-threaded and single threaded performance. In this way, it can almost catch up with Intel in single threaded performance, but it has never been close to Intel in terms of multithreading. < / P > < p > both companies released their first six core CPU in 2010, but AMD’s x61100t uses the same K10 architecture as the x4965 in 2009. Intel’s i7-980x not only achieves chip reduction, but also adds a new set of AES instructions. This nearly tripled Intel’s multithreading performance, while still maintaining a small single thread boot time. < / P > < p > in 2011, amd was fully engaged in multithreading with its ill fated eight core bulldozer architecture. While bulldozer does start to gain a significant position on Intel in the field of multithreading, it comes at a cost. The new fx-8150 actually regresses in single threaded performance. < / P > < p > by 2012, AMD’s bulldozer had become a piledriver and almost caught up with Intel in terms of multithreading, but only because Intel reduced its core number from six to four when it reduced its process to 22nm. This gives amd “almost as good” multithreading performance, with twice as many cores, and three years behind Intel in single threaded performance. < / P > < p > in 2013, to make matters worse, amd launched the ultimate piledriver CPU (the abominable fx-9590). Despite Intel’s increasing engineering leadership, the CPU represents a competitive Hail Mary approach – it is primarily synchronized with the Intel i7-4770k, but only through clock frequency and voltage, which are usually left in the extreme overclocking area. < / P > < p > compared with 125w of fx-8350 and 84w of i7-4770k, the rated TDP is 225W, and fx-9590 is almost unusable CPU. In typical cases, air cooling is not challenging, and the noise and waste heat of the fans are obnoxious, and even the hard core amd fans can’t make excuses for them, especially when their competition is still easy to beat. < / P > < p > in fact, amd survived the three-year downturn without releasing a new CPU, which shows that a small part of the market – and the profit margin of each manufacturer – is the biggest and fastest CPU. In 2014-2017, the red team continued to launch new desktop CPUs – but all of the new designs were aimed at a “financially more reasonable” market segment, focusing on cheaper APUs. < p > < p > despite AMD’s fiasco, intel was surprised. To our credit, blue team did continue to release new performance CPUs, and achieved incremental performance improvement of single thread in this period of time, but single thread improvement was not much. In 2016, it was difficult to upgrade from a 5-year-old CPU. < / P > < p > in 2017, everything changed, and AMD finally released a brand new, friendly architecture codenamed Zen. The Zen architecture brings power and thermal efficiency back together, while making the original multithreading performance significantly higher than Intel’s best performance. Although Zen’s single threaded performance still lags behind Intel, it has made several big leaps to recapture the title. < / P > < p > at best, Zen + in 2018 is only a minor improvement in multithreading performance, but it has a small share of Intel’s single threaded lead over the original Zen. Intel’s first viable i9 product, i9-9900k, briefly regained red team’s title in multithreading performance, but the lead did not last long. < / P > < p > in 2019, Intel made a big deal of fanatics – its best CPU is the i9-9900ks, which has little improvement compared with the i9-9900k in 2018. At the same time, AMD’s ryzen 93950x has achieved a huge multi-threaded leap and a powerful single thread growth. Ryzen 9 3950x is a 16 core / 32 thread giant processor that demonstrates the best performance of its new Zen 2 architecture. Amd has not yet fully caught up with Intel’s single threaded lead, but it has more than doubled the multithreading performance of the i9-9900ks. This brings us to this year. Still struggling to delay the 10 nanometer process, Intel released i9-10900k, which is still running on the same architecture as 9900k and 9900ks, but has made significant progress in both single threaded and multi-threaded workloads