i have found that
intel is the best for hd stuff and games like garrys mod and half-life 2
amd is build for gaming and is ok at other things
it depends on what you play
but to make intel better for gaming get a nvidia gpu

my vote is on intel

This has developed into a really interesting thread.

Personally i much prefer the principles behind AMD, since the start they have had strong, wide and simple instruction architectures.

Intel has however always had extremely vast amounts of money, and they used there money to bend, contort, twist and atomize there architectures during the pinnacle of the RISC race.

Intel is an extremely monopolistic company; happy to use the latest half written programs for messy optimizations as long at the resulting core out-performs the competition.

P.S. MP companies ARM and MIPS shit on these guys ( tho there delegated smaller problems )

God I love Sebastian. Known him forever and the guy never ceases to amaze. The fact that he would write that much for a simple topic... Sebbby, I'm fairly certain we might just be related somehow!

=|:J{O
Exciting!

completely depends on what you use it for,
i go for amd for its low prices, but high end in some factors.

i do find intel a bit overpriced, but there is the equivalent.

This has been a much discussed topic almost everywhere mainly because there are only two options and both are very alike. BUT depending on what you need, one will be better for you than the other. Currently Intel owns 71% of the processor market but recently, they have been slowly losing this. Just a few months ago they were at 74%. The lowest that they have ever been was in 2006 in which they only had 52% of the market. (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html) AMD is more about parallel computing, aka more cores, hence the AMD FX-8000 series, the only native 8 core desktop processor series. Intel is more centred around single core and if you compare the usage of single core processing by Intel to AMD, Intel just blows AMD away. But AMD, in the multi-core testing scene, blows Intel away. Most games nowadays are better on single core than multi-core mainly because its easier to do so. Many games also offer support for multi-core, though. Some through mods/dlc (Optifine has an option for multi-core rendering) and some have it built-in.

Intel's flagship processor line would be the Core i7 series, the i7 CPUs are definitely powerful and less power demanding than the AMD CPUs but are very expensive. AMD's Flagship processor line would be the FX series. It boasts easy overclocking, fast processors, and many cores all at a good price but are very power demanding and are not as powerful as the Intel core i7 line. AMD's FX-8350 is the first native 4GHz processor and it has 8 cores, one of four desktop processors to have this many cores. (FX-8350, 8320, 8150, and 8120)

I have an AMD FX-8350 and I run it at normal speeds with a 1GB GDDR5 Radeon 7770 Video card and 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3 RAM. I get about 100-250 FPS in Minecraft on Fancy, Far render distance. I also get about 250 FPS in TF2 at max settings. I highly recommend the 8350. It has been able to handle everything that I've thrown at it including massive renders with amazing resolution. The FX-8350 starts at around $190 CAD and ATM only has in box stock fan cooling but I believe that like AMD did with the FX-8150 and include water cooling they will eventually do the same with the 8350. (I got my system for around $600) Also, no cooling compound should be needed if you're doing stock cooling as there is already a patch of thermal compound on the stock fan. My processor runs at idle at 30C and around 35-40C when under intense gaming so AMD has definitely either, made a better stock cooler, or improved temperature and performance.

Also, I believe that an AMD processor will go together better with an AMD Video Card than a Intel processor with a AMD Video Card. They would still work with each other but with full AMD, I would expect less incompatibilities and such. (Correct me on this if I'm wrong on this)

Also, while we're talking about AMD or Intel, NEVER get Integrated Intel Graphics. I had a computer with Intel integrated graphics and they decided to drop support for it just before Windows 8 was released... I, not knowing this, nor did I expect it, upgraded to Windows 8 only to find that Intel had stopped supporting their 6 year old product. (AKA the integrated graphics chip became "legacy") MEANWHILE Nvidia, around ten years after their product is released, drop support. In other words, don't get Intel powered graphics chips or expect your product to be dropped earlier than if you got video from a different brand.

Depends on where you need the CPU for. I'd prefer Intel because of it's stability, and heat dissipation. I also prefer Intel compiling code.

I have had some issues with AMD in the past, both with gaming and compiling code, not sure how that goes now though, I tend to stick with Intel.

I guess AMD could be a good solution for a bit lower budget gaming rigs, as long as the cooling is well taken care off ( proper heatsink and fans, good thermal compound, proper air flow in the case etc ).

It's a matter of preference really.

I have an AMD A6 Quad Core in my laptop at 1.6GHz and it is still faster than my friends Intel Core i7 Quad Core 3.1Ghz (OC'd) Laptop. Also AMDs generally have better built in graphics. That is if you do not want to buy a graphics card (AMD A-Series has ATI Radeon HD built in)

This is kinda obvious. I don't know.

Intel Core i7 holds up unnecessary amount of memory taking up the RAM your computer holds. However, AMD takes out the memory your computer doesn't need so your percentage of memory is lower.

I like KFC.

More processed than Intel AND AMD.

I like the AMD-FX 8350, I have seen people over clock it to 8.5Ghz!

As I find, the Intel is highly priced, and you get matching performance with AMD.

AMD offers higher OC speeds. The only downside I see to buying an AMD is heat. I find AMD processor run way hotter than Intel, but I don't care about heat. I can put cooling systems in for heat issues for way less than the Intel Processor would end up costing me.

I guess I am just an AMD fanboy, but I like their products over Intel.

Its a simple choice. Use Intel if your looking for a quality processor. For a low cost processor, you have amd.

In my experience as a Red Hat Certified Engineer, Intel is far superior when it comes to servers.

AMD, Intel doesn't like to work with alot of things.

I'm pretty sure I7 is only minimally different from I5 according to the ict team at my school.

i only run AMD on all my systems and server. i will admin that intel is really snappy in speed, but amd's price point and power consumptions are amazing!!

so my vote is AMD

WaterNode that is true one coer amd processer reached a speed of like 5.6

Intel is great, am using an i5-3470 currently.

AMD is definitely cheaper, more for budget builds.

nu intel...


i7 hit the world record for the fastest commercially available processor...

...or something like that

Intel have a faster processor on the market right now but their parts are expensive, where as AMD can compete with speeds and has cheaper parts.

It's a no brainer

Intel. I have an intel core i7 processor and it is amazing.

Intel, I Run 3rd Gen i7 and It Is Super Fast.

intel ftw! i run on an core i5 but there is the i7 i think intels are faster