Clock speeds don't really mean much when you compare two different architectures. Intel and AMD processors work in a different way.
In terms of processing speed, AMD used to be mainly on top, between 2001-2006 (don't really remember, might be 2002 or 2003), but then Intel released their Core 2 processors which outperformed AMD's flagship Athlon FX line. The reason why AMD is cheaper is simply because they can't price it any higher.
Firstly, Intel is far more well-known than AMD, and owns a larger percentage of the CPU marketshare. Secondly, in general, Phenom II X4, AMD's current flagship line, can only compete with Intel's mainstream product, the Core i5, which is slightly better than the Phenom II X4 965, but on average they perform around the same. Now, if AMD priced the Phenom II X4 965 the same as the Core i5, the majority of consumers, would buy the i5, simply because based on the fact that they believe Intel is a superior and more trustworthy company - for example, where I live, nobody here really knows much about computers, and the fact that I have seen at least ten Intel ads and some Dell ads saying that they use Intel CPUs, and no AMD ones over the past few years definitely shows that at least Intel is getting their name out there, while not many people know about AMD. Thus, if you walk in their shoes, would you rather buy a processor that is made by a company, who you have seen advertisements about, and has been associated with major companies like Apple, Dell and HP, or would you rather buy a processor from a random company who you've never heard of?
Secondly, the minority of consumers who actually do know a decent amount of computers, such as gamers, and youngsters/regulars on this forum, would probably know that the i5 750 is marginally better than the Phenom II X4. AMD knows they can't sell a Fiat for the price of a Ferrari, and thus price their processors cheaper than Intel's.
Did you know that the Phenom II X4 965 was originally $240, but after Intel released the Core i5 750 at $200, it gradually dropped down to ~$180, where it is now.
Intel for now has complete control of the enthusiast desktop market, and can price their Extreme Edition processors at $1000 if they want to - AMD cannot do anything about it. Extreme editions are simply versions which have unlocked multipliers and slightly higher clock speeds, and are also higher binned. AMD, back when their Athlon 64 line which dominated the Pentium 4 series that Intel had to offer, AMD too sold their ultra high-end enthusiast CPUs for the same price. They sold their dual-core Athlon 64 FX-60 for $1000, which also featured an unlocked multiplier and higher clock speeds relative to their mainstream Athlon 64s. Although, I'd say Intel's abusing their position more than AMD did - the price difference between a Core i5 650 and 670, Core i7 860 and 870, and Core i7 930 and 960 are ridiculous, and the only major difference between them is the clock speed, which really does not justify the cost. Sure there are other very slight advantages, like higher binning and, for example with the 870, a more widespread Turbo Boost, but they don't help justify the cost much either.
AMD still sells unlocked multiplier editions - known as the Black Editions, and they are far cheaper than Intel's EE CPUs, and are only approx $20-30 more than their non-black edition, multiplier locked counterparts. They have to do this to try and appeal more to the consumer.
In most benchmarks, AMD processors seem to always lose out, and it's because simply, they are slower, but, imho, far better value for money processors. (Except Core i7 920 or 930s @ Micro Center for $200!) In real life applications, it's actually quite hard to notice the difference - unless you're purposely benchmarking it, I seriously doubt you'd notice an extra few seconds or minutes on your DVD encoding or music conversion time, or the FPS you get in your games.
In most games, it is graphic card limited, except at lower resolutions, and thus really they are both good for gaming. However, when you start adding more graphic cards in, Intel setups, as JofaMang stated previously, are better at CrossFireX/SLI, I'm just guessing because it doesn't hold the graphic card back as much.
And no way is AMD cheap offbrand stuff lol, AMD is a far bigger company than you'd think. AMD's cheap because they have to be, but be grateful that they are - you can get very decent gaming setup for a lot less than an Intel based one. I've had an Athlon 3200+ single core computer which has served me magnificently for the past five and a half years - the diffference in bootup time between that computer and my new i7 one is minimal, and so is small music conversion.
, have been spoiled by the 50% OC's that we can get with first tier Intel CPU's.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram