AMD or Intel?


Nov 16, 2011
I am having trouble deciding between AMD and Intel.. What are the pros and cons of the two? What would you suggest?

though to be fair i meant motherboards and cpus

the amd graphics cards are still competitve with intel

the new 7970 seems to show that--though keplers coming as well


why do people say nvidia GPU at higher price? as far as Im concerned, below 200 you go amd as the 6570-6870 are very competively priced but above 200 you can go either.

The 560 ti and the 6950 is very competitive and the 570 and 6970 are also competitive. The 580 isn't worth getting as the 7970 launches and the 590 and 6990 are competitive.
@Rawhide15: depends on what you want to compare.

intel build @ $600 (adjust for hdd price),3097.html,2970.html
amd build @500~,2903.html,3032.html
you can move some components around at different price points to build a system within your set budget.
in terms of cpu performance, intel outperforms amd by a good margin right now. they also bottleneck gfx cards less at cpu bound games and lower resolutions. they provide more minimum fps which results in smoother gameplay.
amd's current cpus are only good for using with their new 9xx series chipsets. those are one of the good stuff amd has going for them right now. 990x and 990fx offer cfx/sli on prices lower than intel's. 990fx natively supports x16/x16 cfx/sli. intel's sandy bridge only offers x8/x8 cfx/sli with p67 (b3) or z68 and x16/x16 with x79 (very costly) motherboards. but amd's current cpus bottleneck gfx cards more than intel cpus.
amd's apu's are great for entry level pcs that don't want to rely on discreet gfx cards. they offer discreet class igp with a decent cpu. recently, amd released overclockable versions of their apus which can offer even more cpu+gpu performance.
intel's igp has only one good point - quick sync. they're good for very basic tasks - web surfing, basic word processing etc.
amd's gfx cards hold the current performance crown with the new gcn-based radeon hd 7970 3gb. their gfx cards offer good performance at lower price. they also have cards like radeon hd 6670 - the most powerful gfx card that doesn't require extra pcie power connector, radeon hd 6850 - the most powerful gfx card that requires only one pcie pwoer connector. amd's gfx cards are usually plagued by amd's terrible driver support. amd has come a long way in terms of drivers, but they still screw up big time when demanding games launch.


AMD's current cpu lineup is spectacular but as they deliver enough to be above 60 fps in almost every game as long as you have enough graphical horsepower. You'd be able to OC a phenom but not an i3 so it could make a very powerful budget build. at the lower end, phenom II x4s are pretty even with the i3s. AMD just don't have anything at the high end that works well.

As for gaming, if you can buy an sandy bridge i5, buy it it will be amazing. CPU power for gaming maxes out at the 2500k and no point in going higher. phenom 2s are slightly cheaper than i3s and will be pretty even tho the i3s are faster in game. Going lower than a phenom II will see the celerons win against the athlons.

generally if you spend 1/2 the money on cpu as you do on gpu, you would not run into bottlenecks in 99% of games. a you can buy a 560 ti and an i3/phenom II and not be bottlenecked. This is a model I like for someone with a budget as it allows for very good gaming performance for a low price.


May 14, 2010
There's a line, it's called the i5-2500k. If your budget allows for it or even comes close, get it and the right parts and you're set. Intel owns everything above that line. AMD isn't even trying to compete there, every one of their CPUs is at or below that line. Below that line, AMD is viable. This is thanks to Intel not releasing K series i3s. Stock versus stock as benchmarkers often do, i3s are competitive. Overclocked, they aren't as competitive. Bottlenecks? You aren't using an i3 with dual 570s either, some games just need more CPU. AMD isn't necessarily ahead either, but their current generation is gambling on new concepts like a new architecture and APUs. If the gambles pay off and they fix issues with the present tech, their future tech will likely pull ahead of Intel. In many cases, software still needs to catch up with them. Software may not utilize 8 cores now, but what if it did? They did shoot themselves with the FM socket though. Compatible for a year's worth of CPUs and then an upgrade with no backwards compatibility. Really wish I could tell people your APUs are futureproof AMD.


May 12, 2009
Intel definetely. With Bulldozer being a piece of %^*$, and Phenom II not being produced anymore, AMD has nothing to compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge at the moment, not to mention Ivy Bridge when it comes out. So Intel is the way to go now, even if there are left some PII's at shops, buying an AM3 platform at the moment is a waste of money, because AMD will have a hard time to compete with Intel's architectures in 2012/2013, and on LGA1155 you can put the upcoming Ivy Bridge CPU's in the future, so an LGA1155 platform has a guaratied future as opposed to AM3/AM3+.
problems with threads titled like these: they always end in useless fights. usually the OP never checks back with the threads, people keep posting on who is better, then start taking shots at the brand they dislike and fight breaks out. i've been seeing quite a few of these recently.


Jun 19, 2011
First of all, What's your budget and use of the PC? If you just want a home theater or a plain PC just for school than a $300 AMD build will be good... If your a high-end gamer that play game a lot or do Adobe CS5.5 or any other programs like that than Intel is your way to go but will cost more than $1000

AMD Pros:
-Low price/performance ratio.
-OverClockable for better performance.(On some CPU)
-Great Budget Gaming at a $500 price range.(Wont be playing BF3 Max Setting tho)
-Best with AMD/ATI Graphic Card
AMD Cons:
-Slower than Intel.
-Uses lots of power.

Intel Pros:
-Uses less power than AMD's CPU when OverClocking for Performance
-Gamer Choice, Best go with Nvidia Video Cards
-Intel's 6 Cores faster than AMD's 8 Cores CPU

Intel Cons:
-High-End build only(IF OC or Playing BF3 Max Settings)
-High price/performance ratio
-New CPU released with better performance at same price range as other in less than a year...

AMD - If you dont got money or less than $600, get AMD AMD/ATI
Intel - If your rich with $600+ at least than go with Intel/Nvidia

Man i5-2500k just blows away amd :lol:
Not to start anything here, but I used to eat a lot of beans and ham (AMD) and thought it awesome until one day I had a steak (Intel). Not that there is anything wrong with beans and ham, they are in fact quite good, but I would much rather have the steak...........


Oct 22, 2011

or maybe a notification problem or any other reason



May 14, 2010

We'd all like a steak, but not everyone can afford prime rib. Beans and ham can be pretty good with some hot sauce on it and I'd prefer that over week old markdown steak.


Jan 1, 2012
At the medium to low end, I think AMD APU's are phenomenal buys for what you get in terms of price vs performance. Considering a ton of the market doesn't use a discrete graphics card, and AMD performance there is outstanding -- I don't see Intel having any advantage for the average Joe user that doesn't game more than occasionally, run scientific applications, or need all of the bells & whistles. I do think the Scorpius platform is oversold for its real world results, but its not terrible for a cheapie upgrade either. I wouldn't even consider their other stuff in terms of recommending it outside of graphics cards.

However, beyond that certain price point ... Its all Intel + Nvidia, and maybe an AMD graphics card at certain price points. I say this owning an AMD 6870 graphics card. Some of my scientific apps do pretty well with AMD 6 core processors, but they couldn't even beat a Core i5 2300 in heavy multi-tasking. AMD does offer slightly better 3+ monitor support, but they still suffer from buggy CCC drivers that have issues like not recognizing displays when I resume from sleep. BOTH ATI/AMD & NVIDIA make me wistful for the days when Matrox made comparable graphics cards. Matrox owned mutli-monitor uses, and had/has better support either.

Comes down to usage and budget.

Want to max out... Intel has the simple advantage.

Want value and normal PC usage (Office stuff, web surfing...) Go AMD for the cost. I can put a decent AMD system together for about $600. minus monitor.


Similar threads