I look at different processors from AMD and Intel and AMD's seem to be way more bang for the buck. I didn't just look at speed and cores, all of the little details and for 30% cheaper you get the same thing for AMD, why? I just look at AMD's top 6-core processor for around 3-400 bucks, and intel's for around the same everything running over a grand?? What is it?
They are totally different and can not be directly compared because of different architecture. Some of the better quads (I5 2500K) from Intel beat the X6 AMD's for not much more money. AMD has though very good bang for the buck.
^+1. Intel's 2xxx series CPU's are much faster PER-CORE than AMD's phenom line so 4 of intels cores give about the same performance as 6 AMD phenom cores. And since most programs are unable to utilise 6 cores, the intel CPU is significantly faster. AMD's Phenoms are about the same per-core performance as intel's older Core 2 CPU's.
Also, what the heck is with posting this under the "Antec" heading when it has nothing to do with Antec.
Basically it has to do with performance. Intel's CPUs performs better than AMD's CPUs.
A dual core Core i3-2100 (slowest Core i3 CPU) can beat a quad core Phenom II X4 980 BE in games (fastest Phenom II X4 CPU). Outside of games, the PII X4 980 can beat the Core i3-2100. The dual core Core i3-2100 can even hold up well compared to the six core Phenom II X6 1100T BE (fastest Phonem II X6 CPU). Again, outside of games the PII X6 1100T BE would be the better option.
The six core Intel Core i7-980X can rip apart the Phenom II X6 1100 BE in every single benchmark. There is simply no comparison. If you want the best performance for whatever you want to do, then you need to pay for that performance. Consider the Core i7-980X like an exotic car. The more exotic the more expensive the car. In this case the Core i7-980X would be the most exotic of all exotic cars.
Lastly, games do not take advantage of 6 cores. At best, they barely take advantage of 4 cores. The majority of games can use 2 cores. There are a decent number of games that can take advantage of 3 cores; on average a 26% boost in performance over two cores. There are a few games that can use 4 cores; the performance increase over a 3 cores is roughly 6% on average. That is based on a review from Anandtech either earlier this year or late last year.
They're 2 very different companies that create processors based on x86 architecture. The posts above are correct, however in addition to that there's more.
Instruction Sets and their implementations: Most of AMD Processors and Intel Processors use similar instruction sets, but there is also some deviation from the standard norm. These is why they have so many different variations in applications outside of gaming (ie media encoding).
Architecture: Yes they both produce x86 architecture however they design them differently, ie Intel will be using 3d Transistors in Ivy Bridge, while AMD has been recently combining an extra Integer Processing Unit into a core and saying that it's dual core.
Power Wattage: Intel's offerings are usually more power efficient than AMD's.
And there's probably more differences as well.
Right now, as of Today (Oct 18 2011), Intel definitely has the lead. Intel i5-2500K is comparable in performance (across the board) to AMDs new FX-8150 and it's about $30-50 cheaper, but when Q1 2012 comes and we start to see AMD's PileDriver and Intel's Ivy Bridge that might be a different story.
On a side note, why does Antec even have it's own section?