What is better, AMD or Intel? Why?

[GoldenI]

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.

 

[sunnk]

You and I are around the same age and anyways it may be helpful if you could post the smileys at the end of the post since it does get hard to decipher :lol: Anyways keep up the good work on the forums just try to be a bit reasonable in terms of these threads. I myself gave into intel for this thread even though I run a AMD processor.

thanks buddy for your advice on smileys i ll put it at the end and even one in middle because i love to put smileys

 

[InvalidError]

Sure, tech moves so fast

Fast? Not for desktop CPUs.

Raw CPU performance has been almost on neutral since the ~2004 brick wall at ~3.5GHz: the pace has gone from doubling raw performance every 18 month to doubling every 4-5 years. Performance-per-watt is where all efforts are going and that too is only doubling every three years or so.

GPUs can continue to scale as long as die shrinks and yields make them economically viable and SoCs still have a lot of catching-up to do. Desktop CPUs on the other hand are almost stagnating because clocks are already about as high as AMD and Intel seem to be able to push them without compromising power-efficiency and they are running out of new tricks to improve IPCPC. The only way to increase performance is to increase core count but throwing 48 cores/threads/whatever at code that makes little to no use of more than two cores is pointless. Unless ways are found to help programmers efficiently use many more threads with much less effort, this will turn into a dead-end as well.

 

[sunnk]

persnolly my fx 6100 gain performance about 20-30% in encoding and multithreaded apps over my phenom ii x4 955be.

look at this video + read the discrimination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b7u7gSnXkg

the guy there has a fx 6100 and he is telling that his fx 6100 is far better then his older phenom ii x6 1090t.

my fx 6100 is even far better then my 955be but i sold 955be xD

just chill guys be happy with your favourite cpu manufacturer

have a nice day and sorry for my argument but that was true what i said

(extra:- guys do you know how much best answers do i need for gold medal i past 100 best answers in graphic and display but its showing silver medal i have 101 nowi got 25 best answers in 5 days XD)

 

[AMD lover]

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.

While intel may be better for gaming i can't help but notice that the most powerful cpu intel has to offer is the Xeon.That being said AMD offer the 16-core Opteron .I will agree that intel runs cooler and consumes less power however i have being packing a AMD Athlon X2 Kuma and it's been running fine for 6 years now so far and tbh i've never had a intel cpu that lasted me that long

 

[Corelogik]

Intel has the better raw speed and performance, AMD has the better price/performance ratio. (This may or may not change with the next one or two generations of AMD CPUs planned to come out in the next couple of years, however, AMD should still win on price alone. They're simply less expensive than Intel across the board. Have been for years.)

Decide what you want/need your computer to do and then ask yourself if the few extra seconds it takes an AMD to complete a bench mark test, is worth the many extra dollars the Intel gear will cost you.

For me, for my uses and for my bank account, AMD wins every time.

 

[TT_uJeed420]

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.

they dont run hotter amd's run ridicously cool my idle temp is 13c and max temp is 41 in prime 95 with full fft's. my intel dual core runs at temps 90c in prime95 so intel chips dont run cooler than amd thats just wrong.

 

[stickg1]

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.

they dont run hotter amd's run ridicously cool my idle temp is 13c and max temp is 41 in prime 95 with full fft's. my intel dual core runs at temps 90c in prime95 so intel chips dont run cooler than amd thats just wrong.

The temperature you see in software is based on an algorithm inside each CPU. Intel and AMD have a different algorithm and they don't share it with software developers.

Unless it is 13C in your room, you CPU cannot run at 13C. When something is cooled by air, it is physically impossible for it to get colder than the surrounding air. Unless of course you use phase change, chilled water, or sub-zero cooling. Otherwise known as below ambient cooling.

So the temperatures are similar, Intel just reports them a little higher and more accurately. AMD reports a max safe temp of 62C for their chip. That is the max safe temp as reported by their algorithm. Actually physical temperature of the chip varies.

 

[bobcohen45]

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.

 

[bobcohen45]

I wish AMD would compete better at the high-end, but it doesn't. For a long time it did for a lower price. I would buy AMD because it competes with Intel and we've all benefited from that competition. You can be pretty sure that Intel CPU's would be only half as fast as they are now and would cost more. Keep on going AMD!

 

[Guardianofterra]

if your gaming and streaming get a AMD if your on a Budget get a AMD but if you can afford a i5 or i7 then get it if you want but watch this first
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE&list=TLbfwkIG9ffxo&feature=player_detailpagey
yes intel will beat amd in some areas and amd will beat intel in some areas but AMD offers bang for you buck and delivers good reliable performance