What is better, AMD or Intel? Why?


Nov 11, 2010
I am currently in the process of purchasing a new CPU for my computer as an upgrade (for gaming), and I am seeing quite the contrast in terms of views.

Some people are devoted AMD fans, whilst others are devoted Intel fans.

Why do I see people claim that an AMD 8-core processor is inferior to a high-end Intel i7 quad-core? Is it the quality of the processor from Intel, or... what? Is Intel the "Apple" of the CPU world, where you are merely paying for brand name instead of the actual quality?

I do not know as to what I wish to purchase to upgrade my system, but I know I want a processor that will last me five years.


The Intel i7 (and i5) offers superior performance, especially in gaming. They also consume less power. There are a bunch of multithreaded apps that the 8 core AMD have the edge over the i5 and in some cases the i7. The FX chips cost much less than the i7's (about $100) and are equal or less than the i5's. AMD offers acceptable performance for a lower price, Intel offers optimal performance for a higher price.


Jun 5, 2012
You get what you pay for, for the most part from either brand. The new $200 8 core CPU's from AMD perform right on par with the $200 i5's from Intel, depending on what games your playing. I kind of like AMD, you can spend $60 on a CPU then later upgrade to a $200 one without having to buy a new board because they'll all fit in the same socket. AMD's also run hotter though, but you can OC them pretty high if your into that.


Jul 1, 2012
The architectures of both AMD and Intel are quite different. If you are gaming then go for the Intel line of processors, for starters go with a 3570k. At the core Intel processors are more efficient than AMD processors like how you mentioned AMD 8 cores processors are weaker than a high end quad core intel i7. Also what do you mean with a processor that will last you five years? You want one that will keep up with the newest CPUs like the upcoming Haswells? Or just one that will be enough to game with for the next five years?


Oct 6, 2012
Depends on what you are doing. Productivity goes with Intel, unless you're going to be using the 8 core AMD FX chip for things like video editing and rendering and what not. But for gaming, not so much.

So if you are on a low budget, I would say AMD, especially for budgets like $300 / $400. They have nice apus which is a processor with a descreet level integrated graphics in there.

But really, if you are on no budget, you can get really nice cpus from intel.

And also for the apple thing, apple products are overpriced and they are not very good. A desktop from apple for $2000 would be like $1000 or even less if you were to build it or maybe even buy a prebuilt.

They have very different architecture, intel being in the lead of most advance / efficient.


Mar 26, 2012
I'm not choosing any side but if you want your cpu to last for 5 years, I would recommend an Intel cpu. The main reason is that intel cpu's use less power than AMD cpu's. This will save you some money in the long term. In my opinion, AMD is great for budget gaming pc's, and even their APU's are impressive to me.

Check this out and see what the performance difference is between 2 cpu's of the same price range.

Hope this helps
Intel has the better CPU's overall (certainly for gaming), but AMD CPU's can hold their own in certain uses. That's the most diplomatic answer I can give you on this Election Day, lol.

Also, a comparison of the i7 3770K vs. a FX-8350: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551

The 3770K wins almost all benches and quite a few by a very large margin.

The 8350 can hang (and since it's cheaper, it's not a bad buy), but the i7 is superior in almost every way (definitely in gaming, although at high resolutions, it doesn't really matter because you're GPU bound at that point).

Edit: Damn, errbody jumped on this one, :lol:



I think you did well to stay diplomatic! I sold my blue chip for bill money, but as I current red chip owner, how about a handshake?
lol, this thread will easily end up being a flamestorm soon enough. Or maybe I'll be happy and time will prove me wrong.

I will say though that DJ's comparison should take into account the price range, the 8350 is meant to compete with the 3570K's price range, not the i7-3770k which is about $100+ more. A CPU that is that much more ought to outperform one $100 less.


Other than that, carry on folks!

I voted libertarian today. *watches the flame wars start* :lol:

In all seriousness. Both brands have their strengths and weaknesses. As far as your initial post wanting a processor to last you at least 5 years, thats a lot to ask from any CPU be it Intel or AMD if you expect to constantly be buying new games and wanting them to play in fully maxed out settings. The fact is, more often than not, your video card is the most important factor in determining gaming performance. This is not to say the CPU is not important, and there are certainly a handful of games that AMD's newest processors can take a performance hit in comparison to Intel CPUs at similar price ranges. Most games are not quite so picky. The trick is to find a balance between your video card and CPU, and while you can look at benchmarks to guide you, some of it will fall upon "rules of thumb". I would avoid trying to "future proof" a new build to meet your expected needs beyond 2-3 years.

Yeah, the only reason I chose that comparison is because the OP specifically talked about AMD's 8 cores chips vs. the i7, but you're right.


Jul 10, 2010

I would hope the moderator would just delete questionable posts...

As far as original post, it depends. If its just a pass or fail grading system, then either setup will get the job done within a specific budget.

I did a custom build for my daughter with the A8-3870K processor from AMD that includes a Radeon 6550D right on the chip. I put in 8GB of 1600Mhz RAM, and some inexpensive sata hdds to dual boot Win7 and Linux. It very easily plays a game like Dirt 3 at 1080p with medium settings. You could opt for the A8-3850 chip from AMD even, and still get decent overclocks and game performance. That's the budget minded system with an eye on the power its drawing. I'd consider this the minimum rig to check into.

AMD and Intel processors have different designs. Intel seems to have more leverage on the overall market, including software, and seems more prepared and ready to go at launch time. AMD seems to have a different approach where they design what they want without as much collaboration to ensure maximum compatibility and performance, and then has to play catch-up. That's just my perception of the news over the years.

I'd give Intel the thumbs up for long term reliability.


Nov 11, 2010
Well, I have ~$600 to upgrade the motherboard, processor and purchase a new monitory. Oh, and a new HDD/SSD. . . . .

Perhaps you fellows could recommend me a great CPU that will last me a while? Which one should I go with, if I intend on gaming/programming/occasionally edit images in PS?


Mar 8, 2012
the answer is "Intel".

years ago AMD would have been better but, since the C2D came out, Intel has always been better across the board, sometimes a lot, some other times a little.

Having said that, depending on what computer you are being offered, you could get a better deal with AMD .. depends on the vendor. AMD products aren't as easy to sell as Intels, so you might get more CPU for your money. I'm being very generic here though, you'd have to do quite a bit of specific research to be sure.

At that budget level, my advice would be to forget an SSD, it would cut into your budget range causing you to sacrifice on things that more directly impact your performance. What kind of monitor are you looking at? Do you need RAM? Power supply? Anything else?


Nov 11, 2010

12GB of Corsair XS3 RAM
850AX Corsair Professional PSU
2x Radeon 6850s

I am good for everything else; I am mainly looking for a motherboard/processor/monitor... I am looking for a nice 1080p monitor, if it is possible.



Yeah, AMD CPUs performed better in games than what Intel had to offer from about 2002 through mid 2006... That's when Intel released the Core 2 Duo / Quad series. That was a game changer. During 2002 to mid-2006 AMD taught Intel that GHz was not the end all be all. They taught Intel that IPC (Instructions Per Clock) execution was far more important. The more IPCs the CPU can execute every 1MHz, the more powerful the CPU will eventually be.

With C2D & C2Q Intel turned AMD's upside down. At this point AMD will never catch up to Intel in terms of overall performance unless Intel let's them. The amount of money that Intel spends on R&D is about 5x more than what AMD spends. Naturally, not every single $1 Intel spends is on desktop CPUs, but the same can be said about AMD since they also have a graphics card division.

For the lack of any better terms Intel serves the performance end of the market for people willing to pay more money for more processing power. AMD serves the value end of the market with less expensive CPUs but also overall less processing power. This is not to say that AMD CPUs are poor performers, instead it just means that Intel has better CPUs to offer (with a price premium).

As long as the CPU is powerful enough not to bottleneck the graphics card, and the game is not overly dependent on the CPU, then the gaming performance between the best AMD CPU and the best Intel CPU should be small.


Go ahead and grab an i5 if you want, but the FX-8320/50 wouldn't be a bad choice either.

I'm not too keen on crossfire vs a single, stronger card though.

This is a good monitor,
although, if you want the extra 3 inches *no dirty jokes intended*, I just picked up one of these about a month ago. Well, not this model exactly, but I don't see the difference looking at the specs:



Feb 13, 2012

I've never seen anyone say it better than that. Great job. You sir, deserve the best answer gold medal.

Lol, Oh I could make it worse I assure you. The downside about this monitor is after awhile, it feels like its normal size. And using the 17 inch monitors at my college, well, they just seem so tiny! Once you go 27 inch, you don't go back. :whistle:

Similar threads