Back in 2006 AMD announced that they were working on a project called ‘Fusion’ which aimed to develop a system on a chip that combined a CPU and GPU on a single die. Making the dream a reality for AMD was their acquisition of graphics chipset manufacturer ATI that same year.

Benchmarks aside, from our perspective the AMD A4-5000 was fast enough for general usage. With an SSD in tow it would open up Word 2013 or any of the other Office applications in seconds for example. For those wanting to surf the Internet, e-mail, conduct some word processing or even a little graphic design, the A4-5000 will provide enough power and the run time to avoid you looking for another power socket the moment you disconnect it from one.

Today AMD is launching its second generation FX processors based on the Piledriver microarchitecture. This next step in the evolution of the FX-series aims to refine the original recipe by improving performance and efficiency. Once again the range will include processors with up to eight cores, while six and four core models will also be available...

With the exception of WinRAR and Fritz Chess, the AMD FX-8350 was no more than 6% faster than the FX-8150 in any one of our tests, despite being clocked 11% faster (though we should keep in mind both processors feature a max turbo frequency of 4.2GHz). It was a similar situation when comparing the FX-6300 to the FX-6100, though the margins here were even slimmer as the Piledriver part is clocked just 6% higher.

Today Intel is unveiling their latest CPU microarchitecture which has been codenamed Ivy Bridge. Intel has been following the tick-tock rule for the past few years, which sees a new architecture and smaller design process released over a 2-year cycle...

When compared to the Core i7-2600K the new i7-3770K wasn’t a great deal faster for the most part. Many of our real-world application tests saw very little difference in performance, such as Excel 2010, WinRAR and Photoshop CS5. That said, there were instances where the Core i7-3770K was around 10% faster, such as Fritz Chess 13. Where we saw the biggest gains was in our encoding benchmarks, here the Core i7 3770K was between 10–17% faster than the i7-2600K.

Today Intel takes the next step in the evolution of their Sandy Bridge architecture, as they push the 32nm design process to the limits with a 2.27 billion transistor architecture featuring up to 6 cores and 12 threads. Codenamed Sandy Bridge-E, users can expect the most powerful desktop processors Intel has ever developed...

There was never a question of whether or not Sandy Bridge-E was going to be fast. Rather the question was how much faster would it be? Intel’s press information was quick to point out that the Core i7-3960X is 52% faster than the Core i7-2600K in content creation applications, while it provided 114% better memory performance and 46% better game physics performance...

Today AMD is launching for the first time its new FX processor series based on the Bulldozer microarchitecture. Designed from the ground up, these new processors are geared towards mainstream users. The range will include processors with up to eight cores, while six and four core models will also be available...

Even so, when we ran our encoding benchmarks, which focus on tests capable of using all eight cores, the FX-8150 didn’t exactly shine. The Core i5-2500K was slightly faster when using HandBrake, while it was worlds faster in TMPGEnc XPress, not to mention it blasted the FX-8150 in the x264 HD Benchmark. To think that the FX-8150 had twice as many cores to play with and it still came up short, really speaks volumes about the core efficiency of the Sandy Bridge processors.

Today we are checking out the latest AMD quad-core processor, known as the Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition. The latest successor from a long line of Phenom II X4 processors, this version operates at 3.80GHz using an 18.5x clock multiplier. Although much the same from AMD, this new release does mean that previously released quad-core processors are going to become slightly cheaper again...

The new AMD Phenom II X4 980 processor is pushing the “Deneb” architecture even closer to its limits, with a standard operating frequency of 3.7GHz. Of course while it is nice to see AMD pushing their processors even further, essentially what we have here is nothing new, rather this is just a product refresh.

Today Intel is launching their 2nd generation Core processor series which has become well known as Sandy Bridge, the architectures codename. This new architecture is exciting because it takes the Core design to the next level, providing a level of performance and efficiency previously unseen. Intel has supplied us with samples of the Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K, which we put through a battery of tests...

The Sandy Bridge architecture is very exciting as it incorporates so much into such a small package. While the architecture may not be revolutionary, it is a large step forward from the Nehalem/Westmere architectures, as it does almost everything a little better. Take the Clarkdale based Core i5 655K processor that we featured in this review. In comparison the Core i5 2500K is a significantly more powerful CPU and GPU.

Today marks the release of the Phenom II X6 1100T, which is AMDs new 6-core flagship processor, and it is here just in time for Christmas. In true AMD fashion they are not asking a price premium for this new processor, but rather giving it away at the existing Phenom II X6 1090T MSRP of $265. The 1090T has already moved down to the bargain basement price of just $230 to make room for the new 1100T model...

The release of the new Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition does little to improve upon the performance of AMDs hexa-core CPU series. However that said, it does help improve the value of these high-end desktop processors by making the 1090T Black Edition model even cheaper.

Today AMD is replenishing its ranks with five “new” processors, which include an ultra affordable dual-core model and a modestly priced hexa-core processor. The most interesting processor included in this new release is the Phenom II X6 1075T which will be situated between the 1055T and 1090T Black Edition processors in terms of price and performance.

The Phenom II X4 970 takes a very small baby step over the 965, as it offer just a 100MHz performance gain while previous models have typically gone up in 200MHz increments. The Phenom II X4 970 also costs 12% more than the 965, while the best case scenario will only show a 3% performance increase. Adding to this is the fact that there is really no difference between the 970, 965 or 955 models.

Today AMD is launching its first hexa-core desktop processors, as we take the covers off the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition and 1055T processors for a round of testing. Based on the architecture codenamed Thuban, these new 45nm processors are designed to provide users with six working cores without breaking the bank...

So under the right circumstances the Phenom II X6 processors are extremely fast, faster than the Core i5 and Core i7 quad-core processors. Again the problem is that most applications lack proper support for these new processors, which is half the reason why the Core i7 920 appeared no faster than the Core i5 750 in most tests back when we did our clock-for-clock comparison, despite its support for Hyper-Threading. Few applications could make use of the 8 threads supported by the Core i7 920 and as a result the Core i5 750 appeared just as fast with only 4 threads.

Today we are throwing the new Intel Pentium G6950 processor head to head with the AMD Phenom II X2 550. Although both are dual-core processors priced at just $100 US, that is where the similarities stop, as these are two very unique processors. For this reason we are interested to learn how they compare in a number of tests...

When comparing clock-for-clock performance the Pentium G6950 was considerably faster in Excel and Photoshop, while the WinRAR performance was much the same. The encoding benchmarks showed very similar results between these two budget processors, with the only real win here going to the Phenom II X2 550 in the x264 HD Benchmark 3.0 test. However, when comparing clock-for-clock performance the Pentium G6950 won all three encoding benchmarks quite convincingly.

Today Intel is releasing a number of new affordable Core i5 and Core i3 desktop processors, which are the first ever to include a built-in GPU. They are also the first processors to be manufactured using the 32nm design process making them even more efficient than existing products. So get ready as we show you exactly what they are all about...

The new Core i5 6xx and Core i3 5xx series of processors are now amongst the fastest dual-core processors money can buy. Even some quad-core processors fell victim to the Core i5 661, as it defeated the AMD Athlon II X4 620 in virtually every test. The AMD Phenom II X2 550 also struggled to keep pace with the Core i3 540 in most tests.

Today Intel is officially unveiling their new Core i7 870, 860 and Core i5 750 processors, designed to work on the LGA1156 platform. The Core i5 750 will be the first mainstream Intel processor built using the Nehalem architecture, and at just $200, this is an exciting quad-core part. So get ready for a round of benchmarks, as we put these new processors to the test...

That said, we are still very pleased with the new LGA1156 platform simply because the Core i5 750 is such a stellar processor at just $200 US. This new mainstream processor is the perfect step down from the Core i7 920, as it stands to save users around $250 US on their CPU/MB/RAM combo. Users should be able to get their hands on a Core i5 750 combo with 4GB of memory and a P55 motherboard for around $400 US, which is amazing given the power.

Today we are taking a look at AMD’s latest processor based on the Phenom II architecture. Surprisingly this is not a quad-core or even triple-core part, but rather a dual-core processor. That said, do not be fooled by the new Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition, it has a serious bite...

For the most part the Phenom II X2 550 proved to be faster than the Core 2 Duo E7400, which costs 20% more at $120 US. Although the Phenom II X2 550 did show one or two weaknesses, it was the gaming performance that impressed us the most. Not only was this new AMD processor faster than the E7400 in all three tested games, it was also comparable to the Phenom II X4 910.

Today we are checking out a new and rather important processor for AMD, that is designed to set an even higher level of performance for the Phenom II X4 series while maintaining that amazing level of value. The new Phenom II X4 955 is an AM3 processor designed to work with either DDR2 or DDR3 memory, making it very flexible…

This not only makes the Phenom II X4 955 more affordable, but also much more compatible, as it can be used with existing hardware. This gives those already using the AM2+ platform a nice and cheap upgrade path, as they can move to AMD’s flagship processor for just $245 US without having to sacrifice their existing hardware.

Today we are checking out the new AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920 quad-core processors that should bring various performance and efficiency improvements over existing AMD Phenom X4 processors. Furthermore, these new Phenom II X4’s will remain very affordable just like existing Phenom processors, so let’s take a look...

It would be wishful thinking to believe that the Phenom II X4 processors were ever going to give the Core i7’s a run for their money, at least in terms of performance. For starters AMD are pitching the Phenom II X4 940 for just $275 US, while the 920 version is set to cost just $230 US. Also keep in mind that the architecture of the Phenom II X4 is much the same as the original, with a few tweaks here and there.

Today we are doing a little Intel Core i7 overclocking with the new ASUS P6T Deluxe motherboard. The results were impressive, and achieving them could not have been much easier. Those considering the new Core i7 920 processor will no doubt be very interested in our findings…

As we have found, it will be feasible to purchase the Core i7 920 processor along with the ASUS P6T Deluxe motherboard for roughly $600 US. If you are prepared to overclock, what you will have effectively done by taking the cheapest possible route, is to have built one of the most powerful computer configurations possible.

This is the day we have been waiting for as today we finally get to show you the new Core i7 series as Intel unveils the Core i7 940, 920 and 965 Extreme Edition processors. These new processors are much unlike previous Intel microprocessors and this is why we have been so excited to check them out. Intel has also been eagerly awaiting the arrival of these new processors and with good reason...

Wow … this is really all I could say when testing the new Core i7 processors, what an amazing piece of hardware. Despite having known the exact specifications for quite some time now, and already having had high hopes for the Core i7 series, it is fair to say they exceeded all of our expectations. After all, when you consider just how impressive the existing Core 2 processors are, who really thought that a little more than 2 years later we would see their demise to a greatly superior processor.

Today we are taking the new king of budget processors to see just how far it can be pushed and we are of course talking about the Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 processor. Costing just $135 US this dual-core processor comes clocked at 2.53GHz on a 1066MHz FSB featuring 3MB of L2 cache. The question is with a little overclocking how does the king of budget hang with the high-end competition?

The fact that we were able to reach 3.8GHz without having to use a water-cooling system is impressive. However, while 3.8GHz is a huge achievement for this E7200 processor, we are just as impressed with the 3.6GHz overclock. At this frequency the E7200 almost ran no hotter than it did at 3.0GHz, as we were not required to adjust the voltage in any way. Furthermore, at 3.6GHz it is possible to get away with using cheap DDR2-800 memory. For gamers the best performance gains can also be seen when going from 3.0GHz to 3.6GHz, as pushing the processor further only accounted for very minimal performance gains!

Today we are pitching the new Phenom X4 9850 against the ever so popular Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor. Currently both these affordable quad-core processors are sitting in the same price range, leaving the question to which you should choose, AMD or Intel?

The very first article that we published this year, on the 1st of January, was titled “Clock for Clock: Phenom vs. Core 2 Performance” and that particular article told us a great deal about the Phenom’s performance. In fact, the data that we recorded in that article shows very similar performance trends to that seen between the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Phenom X4 9850. In that original article we took the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Core 2 Duo E6850 processors and compared them to the Phenom X4 9500.

Today we are brining you a preview of the new Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processor, which to our surprise is available at a bargain basement price. The E8400 will be compared to the E6850 and the QX9650, both of which operate their cores at 3.0GHz...

The new E8400 is a very impressive processor and the fact that it can be purchased for the same price as an E6750 is remarkable. Although the E8400 is clocked at 3.0GHz like the E6850, it will actually be replacing the E6750 at $183 US. The E6850 will be phased out by the E8500, while the E6550 will be retired by the E8200. This means consumers are really getting a free performance increase out of the new E8000 series.

Today we take the not so affordable Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and overclock it using affordable means. Using nothing more than a simple air-cooler and a couple of quick and easy BIOS tweaks, it is possible to reach 4GHz with the QX9650. The question is, at this incredible frequency how much more performance does the average user stand to gain?

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 certainly is an impressive piece of technology and while it might not be a killer buy at $1200 US, it has shown us exactly what the move to the 45nm process has to offer. Apart from being able to reach 4GHz without having to resort to extreme cooling measures, the QX9650 has impressed us with low operating temperatures and improved power consumption. However, today’s mission was not to determine how good the QX9650 is as a processor, but rather to demonstrate its performance once overclocked.

Today’s overclocking article is a little different than normal for a few reasons. This article is also a bit of a guide, as it shows users exactly how we achieved certain overclocks. It also shows off the overclocking performance of the E4600 as well as its standard 2.40GHz performance, which was quite impressive anyway.

Overclocking the E4600 to 3.0GHz is relatively easy and all we were honestly required to do was increase the FSB in the ASUS P5K-E Deluxe BIOS to 250MHz. Leaving the memory multiplier as it was, this resulted in a memory frequency of 750MHz which the G.Skill memory was easily able to handle given that it is designed to work at 800MHz. When operating at 3.0GHz the E4600 demonstrated similar performance to the Core 2 Duo E6850 processor, which costs $280 US, so I guess for a $150 US processor this is a good result for the E4600.

Currently Intel has a stack of Core 2 Duo dual-core desktop processors on offer and what was once just a family of four, has now become many more. The problem is, while they vary in price, there is also a very big difference between them all in terms of performance. This is because Intel has not only created a range of processors that operate at different frequencies, they also feature different front side bus speeds and L2 cache capacities. Today we are going to compare the 1MB, 2MB and 4MB L2 cache processors at the same frequency using the same front side bus...

Clearly the more cache the better when it comes to the Core 2 Duo processors. This was evident in games such as Far Cry, which saw a 31% rise in performance when moving from the 1MB to the 4MB L2 cache. Other games such as X3: Reunion also saw a 28% performance increase for the 4MB cache over the 1MB cache processor. Clearly those looking for maximum performance are going to give the E4000 and the new E2000 series a miss.

Next year AMD will do its best to hit back at the Intel Core 2 processor series with its upcoming AM2+ platform. Currently, Intel are very pleased with how things are going, and certainly do not wish to forfeit any more market share to AMD. Therefore, over the next six months Intel plans to dramatically increase the number of Core 2 Duo processors on offer. The problem with this is consumers like yourself will have a much harder time choosing the right Core 2 Duo processor!

The Intel Core 2 Duo processor line-up is certainly going to expand in 2007, how much we are yet to see. Keep in mind Intel will also have a range of Core 2 Quad processors on offer next year, so this might complicate the buying process for some users. Of course gamers will be more than happy to stick with the Core 2 Duo processors for now, as the quad-core versions offer no extra performance in today’s games. That said, the possibility of twelve Core 2 Duo processors clocked between 1.8GHz and 3.0GHz does make picking the right processor difficult. Currently with just four options the choices are rather obvious. Those on a tight budget will go for the E6300 and those that can spend a little more will give the E6400 a miss and move right onto the E6600. When money is not so much of an issue the E6700 becomes a viable option.