At least one has to be better than the other

davidferna93

Honorable
May 7, 2012
1
0
10,510
I'm tired of hearing that Intel or that AMD is the best microprocessors. Can you guys please provide evidence why you think either one outperforms or is better overall than the other? Please don't post silly comments. Simply tell me why is the case that either AMD microprocessors are better than Intel microprocessors, or Intel microprocessors are better than AMD microprocessors.
 

popatim

Titan
Moderator
Hows that rock you're living under? LoL
AMD has not had anything that could pose a threat to intel since the days of Core1.
A PhenomII is an old design and even a quad core can only sometime beat intels I3-2100 which is a hyperthreaded dual core.

Dont get me wrong, there are lots of instances that you dont need the computing power of an i-series cpu and AMD's are more than up to the task.
 
The quick and dirty answer: For highly threaded applications, the AMD Bulldozer CPU's are great. For almost everything else, Intel's Sandy/Ivy Bridge CPU's and even AMD's own Phenom II CPU's are better (because the IPC of the Phenom II's is much better). That's why all of the arguments arise. AMD is behind right now and Bulldozer was hyped to the moon, but failed to deliver on that hype.
 

maui67

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2012
359
0
18,860

^+1

But I would like to add that IMHO Ivy Bridge was also hyped to the moon and hasn't delivered anything spectacular.