Hate Intel vs. AMD debates

The problem is that there isn't one solution. You need to realize that "good, affordable, efficient" mean different things to different people. There will never be ONE solution that everyone agrees on.

Hello, I know how you feel. A lot of people have gone too big into being fanboys one way or the other.

The truth of the matter is that Intel does have better architecture, but that isn't always everything. They might lose in the high end, but for anything under $200 on the CPU AMD is very competitive and worth considering. They aren't always the best buy under $200, but sometimes at some price points they are and offer more performance for the price. It is best to consider both to come to the best conclusion.

I'm sorry that the other people made it so difficult for you. If you would like I can look over your rig and what you want it for and try and help you come to a conclusion.

I completely agree with you

There is nothing wrong with using either. When it comes down to raw power and efficiency Intel beats AMD but that doesnt mean AMD is bad. AMD cpus usually have more cores but run at slower speeds. When it comes to gaming you wont see the difference between the two brands CPUs and if your on a Budget AMD is always the way to go but if you can afford it Intel is the better of the choices though you wont see the difference in something like gaming like i said before.

I think the whole concept of being a fanboy is stupid.

Try looking up your 'Dream Machine' on Google and make your own decisions. There are hundreds of reviews out there if you just look! Just look at Tom's site alone and you'll find plenty of help with specs.

The problem is people getting called haters and fanboys regardless of whether their opinion holds merit or not. In the end just look up a ton of reviews on google with actual measured performance comparisons and then you'll get the general picture of what will give you the best bang for buck at the price point you can afford.

So are you actually asking a relevant question here? Do you need a rig?

Or are you just complaining for complaining's sake? Because this isn't the place for it. I second Arksun's comment above. Though a lot of the benchmark's you'll find through google aren't all that representative of real world performance. The first part I agree with mainly, getting called out for being a "fanboy", which I don't even see as a negative thing at all as long as I/we/they act rationally.

This is how I feel about it. 2-3 years ago, I recommended both depending on the needs and circumstances. Now fast forward to present day and we are comparing new Intels to those same AMD cpus because they haven't released anything since then. Now the decision is easy, and I NEVER recommend any AMDs anymore. Does that make a "fanboy" now? I can't help it that AMD hasn't release any new material. Why would I recommend a 2+ year old cpu on a dead socket over something that's brand new and better in almost every way? I don't like being so monotonous in my recommendations but geez. AMD needs to give us some viable options to choose from. Until then, I guess I'm going to be an Intel "fanboy" even though every personal build I've ever had has had an AMD cpu.

Just wanted to say, I liked reading this post, cause you can really feel the pain of the tech enthusiast coming out in it. We want competition and multiple powerful CPUs from different makers, I wish that there was as many makers as there used to be in the 90s, but AMD does make it hard to recommend them. Hopefully their decision to stop updating the FX line won't hurt them too much.

It is like this in all walks of life, in every aspect of human nature. People pick sides, hold their ground, and will not let go no matter how compelling or factually based your argument is. AMD vs. Intel. Mac vs. PC. Chevy vs Ford. Republican vs. Democrat. There's no real reason to it, just a bunch of people arguing over the smallest detail to prove their side is better.

I try to keep an open mind about things, and depending on the price point of a system, I will recommend both AMD and Intel builds. If you're willing to spend over $800, Intel is almost always the best choice, their higher-end i5's will beat out anything AMD has. However, I will almost always recommend a 760k or 6300 over an i3 at the same price point, because I really do believe in real-world applications, AMD is going to serve you better there, even if their single-core performance is a bit lower.

I believe AMD has hit a low spot in their CPU cycles, which isn't a huge deal, their GPU's are excellent and their APU's mop the floor with Intel. I read recently that they are revamping their entire CPU line and are building their CPU architecture over from scratch, something that was desperately needed, given how long they've been trying to reuse the same architecture by adding more cores and higher clock speeds, but not much else.

I do prefer AMD as a company over Intel if we must go there in the "fanboy" department. Intel makes a better processor, but they lock everything that doesn't have a "K" next to it and you pay an extra $100 for that "k". That's price fabrication and I hate it. Not only that, but they tell other manufacturers what chipsets are allowed to overclock, and have even forced updates disabling B85 and H81 chipsets from overclocking (even though they are perfectly capable of it) in favor of more expensive chipsets like Z97. That's ridiculous. Intel is becoming a bully and literally the only thing standing in their way is AMD. Lose AMD's CPU line, and Intel could charge $1000 for an i3. Who could stop them? You would have no choice, a full monopoly in the CPU industry would occur.

Just my $0.02

You shouldn't favor any company over the other. A company is about making money. You should only choose the best product for your needs and your budget.

Intel have a very wide product line, and to make some product more "valuable", they disable some features on the other products. This is so their products doesn't compete against each other.

There was a motherboard manufacture which made it possible to overclock on non-Zxx-motherboards (cannot remember who currently).

AMD have almost no effect on the pricing of Intels product. Intels pricing scheme have followed the same pattern throughput the entire core I series. Intel could raise the pricing of their top line products by an additional 20% without suffering to much marketloss. Have they done it? No.

Of the 8 or so pcs that I have built in the last few months 6 amd and 2 intel. Are there huge differences only on the games you would expect. For the most part I install amd because of the absolute steal I get the 8320 for 99$. But does that make it better no but it let's you use more resources elsewhere. The problem is people will put down other stuff so bad it throws off people just starting to learn.

This is a prime example of why there is so much confusion out here, because your information you're basing your preferences on is incorrect, Intel has never charged an extra $100 for a K series, it has always supposed to be an additional $20 for a K, and an additional $20 is worth getting a completely unlocked CPU.

A non K:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116900&cm_re=4770-_-19-116-900-_-Product

A K series:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901&cm_re=4770K-_-19-116-901-_-Product

Even though Newegg has the price difference at $30, that's still $70 away from $100.

Only the overclockers are after the Ks anyway, so anyone with zero overclocking intentions can get their CPU for supposedly $20 cheaper, so it really depends on how you look at it, but at least have the information correct especially when advising others!

@ cwb50,

True we have fanbois here, mostly because of what they have learned, and some of it learned the hard way, and we also have those that will help you no matter what.

So No!, AMD is not going to kill you in your sleep!

Someone has already asked you to post a list of what you are considering, and I 2nd that?

I disagree. A company should not be only about making money. Everybody needs to yield a profit of course, I'm not saying that, but there comes a point where you need to put the customer first, and quarterly profit margin second. I don't believe Intel is capable of doing that.

And no, you would not believe how much AMD's products influence Intel's lineup. They are always trying to compete in the lower i3 and pentium line with AMD' Quad-Cores. In fact, even the Tom's Hardware article said the Pentium G3258 was a direct attack on the 750k at an aggressive price point. Asus is the company that recently broke past intel's ALREADY IN-PLACE LOCK and enabled overclocking on the cheaper chipsets, It is only a matter of time before Intel fires back and once again blocks that feature (likely through a windows "hidden auto-update").

And no, I wouldn't be surprised if 40% of Intel's CPU market-share went out the Window if they had a 20% price increase. The i3 barely competes with AMD's 6000 and 760K, Mark-up that price and that whole market share goes out the Window. Think of it like this, you have two identical vehicles, one by Chevy and one by ford. The Ford costs $10,000, the Chevy costs $9,900. 90% of people will choose the Chevy every time, even if it is relatively a small amount. People are after the better deal, nothing else.

Funny, this thread is about hating these debates, and yet that's all it has turned into.

Alright, I will admit that margin is lower than I have seen before, but the point remains the same, why lock all of your processors in the first place? Why can't we overclock every processor, when they are more than capable of doing so? Limiting your own processors so people pay more isn't a practice I prefer.

Sadly, companies going for the profit, will obvious have a greater chance of surviving, hence most companies it like that. Are you saying Intel isn't putting their costumers first? Remember who is the greatest supplier for servers and laptops. They're definitely capable of doing that.



That is why I said:




Fire back? Why? Please come with an example where intel "fire back" because of an motherboard manufacture action.


Intels marketshare is mostly in the higher-end region. Where there are little to no competition. You cannot compare cars to CPU architecture. They are build completely differently, and will perform differently in most workloads.

To me selling unlocked processors for more is just greed plain and simple. A money grab. I can see charging more for additional cores, Hyper-Threading, or a higher clock speed. Because that is tangible added value. But being able to overclock was always an option even if using the bus instead of the multiplier. Then making board manufacturers take out this option is pissing on your customers. In a way I see it as stealing. There are plenty of ways for Intel to make money. Charging extra for the "luxury" of overclocking components you worked hard to pay for is just crass.

It's not really a debate as far as I'm concerned...Intel is clearly Far superior/quality...

But you pay a premium. Then bang for the buck comes into play. But that has been discussed in thousands of threads.

Not everyone overclocks nor needs an overclockable CPU, overclockers are a minority of the entire worlds computer usage and computer sales. IMO there's nothing wrong with Intels pricing no one is making you or anyone else buy any CPU you have a choice. Pretty much anything in life can fall into the category of you get what you pay for, from CPUs to GPUs to the car you drive as well.

If I have an AMD vs Intel argument it is not regarding pricing!

It is regarding clinging on to AMD loyally for years with their performance promises after performance promises falling short of their claims, even though the CPU is unlocked, it's overclocking benchmark performance is pitiful or seriously limited, but you can still game with it? What kind of CPU worthy defense claim is that?, then here comes more hopes and claims from AMD that turn out to be, Yep, You Got It! the same ole, same ole, garbage performance claims, steadily falling behind Intels performance!

Until AMD fans like myself start jumping ship and discover what they've actually been missing, so like I said, you get what you pay for, and you get a whole lot more when you pay for Intel over AMD, but you just live in your little world of illusion and have a great day!

Once you pull your head out of the sand, and actually get yourself a highly overclockable, and benchmark performing Intel CPU solution, then you'll also be looking in the rear view mirror at AMD!

And FYI: AMD has not always sold unlocked multiplier CPUs either, so they're not clean on the pricing end either, but AMD selling unlocked multiplier CPUs today like candy, is really because they don't have any other choice!

I remind you of the earlier days of the original FX series of CPUs like the FX57 or FX60, which was some expensive CPUs that came with an unlocked multiplier, but those good ole days for AMD were also the end of days for AMD to wear the performance crown!

IMO, AMDs greatest mistake, was turning away form the very ones that put them where they were in the first place, The Overclockers!

When Intel took the speed crown away with the Core 2 Duo, instead of AMD fighting to get it back, they lost ground by settling for business typical CPUs, trying to at least fully appease the server market, and abandoning the overclockers, but you probably don't have a clue as to what I'm even talking about do you!

IMO------------Intel is the more expensive CPU-------BUT----------Intel delivers "the better performance". That being said, the difference you will notice between Intel and AMD is-----------------------------------ZILCH!!!! NADA!!!!! NOTHING!!!-----------------unless, of course, you're only willing to settle for nothing less than "today's latest and greatest" ------------realizing that tomorrow-this will be a "has-been". Right now, I'm still running an AMD FM-1 board with a NON-APU CPU (the quad-core 640) and still getting VERY playable results--------------having invested in a very good GPU and sufficient memory (16GB) and ample power supply.
So, it's your choice--------------Intel for the "slightly" better architecture-------------amd for the price points.
Regardless, your choice of CPU/APU is also going to reflect on your choice of MB--------------and please don't forget to WYSIWYG them!

There is actually a lot of Overclockers out there...I wouldn't call them a Minority....And yes the AMD's you see some quite high OCing, because they have to, to even get remotely close performance wise to Intel.... and yes Hyper-threading is very effective I have found Obviously..., There is just no comparison... Intel is just simply Better.

But only if OC'ing is your "game"-------------------the difference in performance between Intel and AMD is miniscule--------------UNLESS you're looking at the highest end products-------------otherwise, even as a gamer, I can't see it--------------and I doubt that very many gamers even notice---------until other pieces of their systems start lagging----------------then the entire focus is directed to the CPU/APU (as the bad guy)----------or maybe it's the MB!!