AMD or Intel?

[Littlezapper]

I hear everyone say that intel is always better but I think that that is a bit overblown because as I look at AMD processors all that I see that is a huge deal is that they tend to get hot with their high wattage.

 

[iblowuup]

For a while now Intel has been the leader in CPUs. Intel CPUs are without a doubt better performance wise than AMD CPUs. What AMD can offer often though is better price performance and great integrated graphics in their APUs. Of course talking about CPUs solely in terms of brand is an incredible generalization. CPUs are very unique however subtle it may be and often times it really depends on what you want to use a CPU for.

As a rule of thumb though, AMD offers more cores, higher clock rates, higher power consumption, and lower prices while Intel simply offers a much better architecture which allows them to beat AMD at lower clock speeds and with fewer cores. Depending on your price range and needs either one may be a better choice but often times Intel ends up beating AMD.

 

[8350rocks]

I hear everyone say that intel is always better but I think that that is a bit overblown because as I look at AMD processors all that I see that is a huge deal is that they tend to get hot with their high wattage.

This depends on what you're using the CPU for, additionally...AMD CPUs actually run cooler than Intel CPUs. The max core temp on the FX series AMD CPUs is 62C, where as an Intel CPU can reach 90+C and still be within operating limits.

the i5s tend to trade blows with the FX 63XX series and FX 8XXX series in many games. In productivity applications, however, the FX series tends to really shine. The FX 83XX series can keep up with and even beat the 3770k in many productivity applications.

In this instance, what you're using your PC for can make an enormous difference in which CPU makes the most sense. AMD tends to give better performance per dollar spent, where as Intel tends to have lower power consumption. In my mind, desktop PCs have never been a power consumption concern...especially since they don't run on batteries, and any A/C unit or refrigerator will cost you 10-50x what it costs in power to run a PC full tilt for an entire month anyway. Nobody complains about how much power their A/C unit draws when their house is 72F inside and it's 100F outside.

 

[Guest]

I hear everyone say that intel is always better but I think that that is a bit overblown because as I look at AMD processors all that I see that is a huge deal is that they tend to get hot with their high wattage.

This depends on what you're using the CPU for, additionally...AMD CPUs actually run cooler than Intel CPUs. The max core temp on the FX series AMD CPUs is 62C, where as an Intel CPU can reach 90+C and still be within operating limits.

I caught your ruse. A lower operating temp doesn't mean its a easier chip to cool.

 

[8350rocks]

I hear everyone say that intel is always better but I think that that is a bit overblown because as I look at AMD processors all that I see that is a huge deal is that they tend to get hot with their high wattage.

This depends on what you're using the CPU for, additionally...AMD CPUs actually run cooler than Intel CPUs. The max core temp on the FX series AMD CPUs is 62C, where as an Intel CPU can reach 90+C and still be within operating limits.

I caught your ruse. A lower operating temp doesn't mean its a easier chip to cool.

It's easier to cool than haswell...Ivy Bridge runs about same/same. Air cooling is sufficient for IB or FX...for haswell, if you intend to OC at all...better go more drastic cooling than that.

 

[MajinCry]

[
I caught your ruse. A lower operating temp doesn't mean its a easier chip to cool.

Strawman.

8350rocks was saying that the FX series runs cooler. It does.

You're making it out as if he said something otherwise.