Sorry but if amd had the better core design, their ipc wouldn't be so horrible as to need greater amounts of power and much higher frequencies just to try and catch up to intel's cores. That's a less efficient and poor design, not a better one. I wouldn't go so far as to say amd 'sucks' but they've been running in 2nd place with only 2 competitors.
Amd's cpus don't have a different purpose, all cpus do the same thing. They process data. Intel's chips are good at gaming yes, and good at rendering, video transcoding, photo editing and on and on. Even in multitasking or 'heavily' threaded applications the stronger ipc of intel's cpus more than makes up for the lower thread count. For what they 'appear' to give the consumer, amd's seem to give more bang for the buck but when you start comparing actual performance they really don't have that big of an edge in cost/performance. Intel has equally capable solutions and/or better performing solutions at just about every price point. They may cost a little more, but if they provide more performance - shouldn't they? It's all relative. Amd's come right out and said their pricing schedule is specifically set up to compete with intel's equivalent hardware.
It really comes down to individual preference at the mid to lower end, for upper end systems amd really doesn't have much to offer. It depends what the pc will be used for, if office work then an apu from amd or an inexpensive i3 with igpu from intel will work well and so on.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram