Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why is Intel preferred over AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 4, 2012 6:58:13 PM

I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?

More about : intel preferred amd

July 4, 2012 6:59:52 PM

i would love to know the answer to this to ... i much rather pay 100 for 8core core :) 
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 4, 2012 7:06:31 PM

This is why: 2500K vs. FX-8150 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

The 2500K is far ahead in everything but programs that love more threads.

Basically, without getting too technical, Intel's architecture is much faster than AMD's (especially Bulldozer). Ghz don't mean anything unless you're comparing CPU's from the same manufacturer and same generation.

Also, AMD's "8 core" CPU has 8 integer cores, but only 4 execution cores, making it not perform as well as a true 8 core CPU should.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 7:20:16 PM

Intel beats out AMD at every price point. I don't see how that makes you pay more for a "name".
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 7:27:12 PM

Mundaneum said:
I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?


No offense to your uncle, but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Sure, their prices are a bit steep, but performance-wise, AMD isn't even close at this point. I really wish they were to provide some competition, which would force Intel to lower prices, but I don't see that happening for a while.
Score
0
July 4, 2012 7:51:24 PM

Short answer, Intel is faster, much faster in some situations, and more efficient.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 7:57:23 PM

daswilhelm said:
Intel beats out AMD at every price point. I don't see how that makes you pay more for a "name".

And thats a load of crap, perpetuated by articles with outdated pricing, incomplete information, bad test system setup, and the foolish assumption that young children make that computers have no other purpose than playing CPU intensive games on. (Which the vast majority of games are actually not *that* CPU intensive. Just sayin...

Edit: Oh,, and the assumption that anything above 60FPS average gameplay actually matters.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:03:24 PM

i was gonna say AMD makes junk, but decided to be nice about it. way to go blaming "outdated pricing"? lol good one...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:07:11 PM

nekulturny, the fact of the matter is that Intel beats AMD in performance. There are no fake benches or made-up statistics. It's just the FACTS. That being said, AMD chips are great for what you pay for them, but if you think they are going to perform better, you're lying to yourself. And you can go ahead and call me a douchebag fanboy, yada yada yada, but I speak the truth. I've used AMD CPUs for years, because I didn't want to spend so much money on a processor, but I always knew I'd get better performance from an i5 or i7.

Edit: Oh,, and the assumption that people only buy computers to play games is bullcrap. Video and photo editing, rendering etc. also matter to many more than you realize.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:08:48 PM

I don't dispute the Intel makes a better product, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you're getting all pre-defensive on me, then I'd say its you whos being the fanboy. I merely dispute the fact that, the extra power at the extra cost is actually necessary.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

I look at articles like this and say, what is Don Wolligroski smoking? 1 to 6 FPS difference is really a make or break deal? No.. it isn't. Especially when you consider all factors.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:12:27 PM

"And thats a load of crap, perpetuated by articles with outdated pricing, incomplete information, bad test system setup, and the foolish assumption that young children make that computers have no other purpose than playing CPU intensive games on."

C'mon man, that is not what you were saying and you know it. You were saying the test systems were a sham and the information was incomplete etc. and that is total BS. Okay, let's throw out 99 out of 100 benches and just select one at random, and you know what? They will still say that core-series chips perform better. And I have always used AMD chips so the fanboy comment, I just find hilarious. I'm just being honest.

"I look at articles like this and say, what is Don Wolligroski smoking? 1 to 6 FPS difference is really a make or break deal? No.. it isn't. Especially when you consider all factors."

It depends on the game, and the OP never said it was a build strictly for gaming. If you use CS5 or 6, or do any rendering the extra $100 jump to Intel makes an enormous difference, and the price-to-performance ratio looks much, much better.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:32:38 PM

nekulturny said:
I don't dispute the Intel makes a better product, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you're getting all pre-defensive on me, then I'd say its you whos being the fanboy. I merely dispute the fact that, the extra power at the extra cost is actually necessary.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

I look at articles like this and say, what is Don Wolligroski smoking? 1 to 6 FPS difference is really a make or break deal? No.. it isn't. Especially when you consider all factors.


Hey everyone, its Mundaneum's wacky uncle!
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:43:45 PM

Keanu Reeves said:
"And thats a load of crap, perpetuated by articles with outdated pricing, incomplete information, bad test system setup, and the foolish assumption that young children make that computers have no other purpose than playing CPU intensive games on."


Alrite, lets assume for a minute, that due to the fact that I have several thousands posts under my belt in the course of many months on this forum, and the fact that I own both a Sandy Bridge i5 system and an AMD system, that I'm not a complete moron, and I actually might have something to say thats worth considering. Theres too much jumping to conclusion in these kinds of threads, and not enough with the listening ears.

Quote:
C'mon man, that is not what you were saying and you know it. You were saying the test systems were a sham and the information was incomplete etc. and that is total BS. Okay, let's throw out 99 out of 100 benches and just select one at random, and you know what? They will still say that core-series chips perform better. And I have always used AMD chips so the fanboy comment, I just find hilarious. I'm just being honest.


It is a sham, that artcile they benched 6 games known to be more CPU intensive, that makes sense, they want to test the CPUs to see which ones perform better. Heres the problem. Theres over 1000 computer games on the market, most of them are GPU limited, not CPU limited. How about the COD series? My Phenom II system can run those at or above 60FPS every time. How about Medal of Honor? Same deal. That article benched BF3 single player, and btw, didnt bother to mention that BF3 multiplayer is a completely different ball game. What about a Phenom II 965? He didn't include that one in his lineup. Its only $120, would that screw up his point that the i3-2100 is a better choice at $130?


Quote:
It depends on the game, and the OP never said it was a build strictly for gaming. If you use CS5 or 6, or do any rendering the extra $100 jump to Intel makes an enormous difference, and the price-to-performance ratio looks much, much better.


Yes it does, and most games simply are not CPU limited. Skyrim, Starcraft II are a couple exceptions, but even there, AMD is still "good enough", that only the most anal videofiles are going to complain about framerates. And those are the people that indeed should be buying Intel. As far as CS5 or 6, if you have the money go for it. Not everyone can afford to just "jump" up $100 bucks.

As far as what the OP said, he didn't say what the computer was for, he asked a general question, and I responded to one of the replies he got, NOT the OP. The OP should get accurate information, that is my goal. If you disagree with it you are entitled to do so, I like a respectful discussion as much as the next person.

But if you're going to respond like this guy:


daswilhelm
Hey everyone, its Mundaneum's wacky uncle!
===

Please don't waste my time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:53:23 PM

your wasting your own time, posting your own nonsense. enjoy.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 8:57:17 PM

daswilhelm said:
your wasting your own time, posting your own nonsense. enjoy.

And if you keep trolling the forum, you won't make it to your 100th post. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, just stop posting.
Score
0
July 4, 2012 9:15:29 PM

well, look at best gaming cpu for the money june 2012 and i think it will be clear why intel is the better price per performance
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 9:17:25 PM

I have looked at it. Just because one guy writes an article and just because he owns a website doesn't make it true. I've given my reasons for saying so. Lest we not fall into the trap of using "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacies.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 9:21:20 PM

Can't really say that one is better than the other, for the most part you can look at it as getting what you pay for, Intel performs better than AMD but generally it costs more. Also depends on what applications you are running. Intels seem to run cooler as well, doesn't save you to much money because their stock heatsinks are so bad you have to replace them anyways. AMDs aren't the greatest either but unless your doing some extensive computering it'll run fine on a stock heatsink.
Score
0
a c 132 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 9:32:06 PM

mace200200 said:
Can't really say that one is better than the other, for the most part you can look at it as getting what you pay for, Intel performs better than AMD but generally it costs more.

If you look at benchmarks, many cheaper Intel PSUs outperform similarly priced AMD parts in largely single/dual-threaded applications such as most games. As someone else said above, Intel is no longer systematically more expensive than AMD for a given performance level.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 9:35:24 PM

InvalidError said:
If you look at benchmarks, many cheaper Intel PSUs outperform similarly priced AMD parts in largely single/dual-threaded applications such as most games. As someone else said above, Intel is no longer systematically more expensive than AMD for a given performance level.

I guess I'd have to agree with that now that I think about it, over the past few years Intel has gotten a little cheaper while AMD is starting to get more expensive, but still it's pretty hard to find an Intel CPU for around $100 that would out perform an AMD.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 9:43:05 PM

I think intel has gotten more expensive. Ivy Bridges cost more than Sandys. Intel doesn't drop the prices on their CPUs. Meanwhile AMD does. Yes, they charged far too much for Bulldozers are first, but when the demand weaned down, they adjusted the prices accordingly. I have friends on these forums who are die hard on Intel and even a couple of them will admit that 8120s aren't bad at their current $170 price point. Meanwhile the better performing 2500K Intel remains at its initial $220 price point, even though its a generation old now, and replaced with a generational equivalent 3570K which is priced more.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 4, 2012 9:54:26 PM

nekulturny said:
I have friends on these forums who are die hard on Intel and even a couple of them will admit that 8120s aren't bad at their current $170 price point.


I'm kind of one of those people, although I'd still recommend a Phenom II X4 for gaming.
Score
0
a c 132 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 9:57:51 PM

mace200200 said:
but still it's pretty hard to find an Intel CPU for around $100 that would out perform an AMD.

For gaming, the Pentium G630 (~$68) gives most sub-$100 AMD chips a run for their money. For productivity, you need to step up to Pentium G850 (~$92) to make things more even while staying under $100.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 10:06:01 PM

Didn't think they still made pentium, that stuffs gotta be pretty old school by now.
While looking for Pentiums online I also came across some i3's that were like $120, thats not a bad price, or CPU at all!
Score
0
a c 132 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 10:10:13 PM

mace200200 said:
Didn't think they still made pentium, that stuffs gotta be pretty old school by now.

They may be branded Pentium but the Gxxx are dual-core Sandy Bridge with HT turned off... cut-down i3-2xxx.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 10:13:51 PM

My policy is, if I can help it, I won't recommend a dual core in 2012 for a modern system. HyperThreading of i3 is nice, but 2 HyperThreads is not the same as having 2 extra Physical cores in regards to comparing a Phenom II to an i3. The benches do show this, which is part of that information I consider some of Tom's articles to do a disservice by omitting.

Phenom II @3.7GHZ (perfectly safe overclock on a 965 model with the stock heatsink) vs an i3-2100
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=362

Every bench which calls 4 threads into play, clearly the 4 physical cores will trump the 2 physical +2 HyperThreads
Score
0
July 4, 2012 10:18:44 PM

Intel are better but cost more, more than they should for the performance increase and AMD are better is you are aiming for a mid to low end PC or are on a budget, the main reason why AMD gets slagged off is because the Bulldozer CPU's were a massive disappointment i didn't perform as well as people would like, although the phenom CPU's are very good for the cost even if they are a couple of years old.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 4, 2012 10:20:09 PM

Yea to many things run on multiple cores these days I wouldn't plan on buying a CPU that isn't at least quad either. Looks like the cheapest Intel Quad is about $200.
Score
0
July 4, 2012 10:28:15 PM

Amd Cpu's are great, i bought a FX chip after reading all the hate it got and still gets. and i am loving it
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 4, 2012 10:33:52 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Although if you live near a Microcenter, you're set http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml... $169.99

Yea thats a pretty nice deal, and if you do in fact live near a MicroCenter, then thats the place to be. But when talking about Intel in terms of pricing as a company, you have to keep in mind with Microcenter, they're basically selling those CPUs at little nor no profit, perhaps even a loss. Intel is not selling MicroCenter CPUs at a wholesale discount, MicroCenter is subsidizing the CPUs on their own accord to generate business. I'd say thats not a good sign of MicroCenter's ability to stay in business in the longrun. They do have a pretty lowsy reputation for online orders, get your bargains from em while you can I say.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2012 2:49:01 AM

nekulturny said:
And if you keep trolling the forum, you won't make it to your 100th post. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, just stop posting.



if i was trolling the forums, wouldnt i have more than 100 posts already? good show.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2012 3:20:56 AM

I would grab a pentium G series proc and upgrade to an i5 later (im kicking myself for going with a cheap amd + athlon 2 x3 right now)

In some (most from what I am seeing but I could be wrong) benchmarks a pentium G performs pretty near a phenom 2 x4, yes in CPU intensive games you might see a hit but meh, you still won't have to drop 100 bucks on a new mobo if a phenom isn't doing it for you.
Score
0
July 5, 2012 3:38:11 AM

Mundaneum said:
I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?


Yes, you're paying for the name because it represents a faster processor, though AMD is often "good enough".... but my next build is going to be Intel because I want SPEED.
Score
0
July 5, 2012 3:47:13 AM

I can say honestly, for the i series, at least Sandy Bridge, everyone makes such a big deal. Here is my take on it. I'm a tech, I work on many different computers. Quite honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. It seems like they cost much more, but for me, I don't see a huge performance difference. I mean yeah sure, the benchmarks say one thing, but for example, my system right now is going on 5 years old, it's an older AMD rig with a socket AM2 board, I've accumulated 6 gb of ddr2 that I've upgraded it to over the years, and I put an Athlon II quad in it, which I have overclocked to 3.3 ghz. I worked on an i3 2120 system recently I think. I hear oh even the i3 is better than the Phenom II 6 cores. Honestly though, When I looked at the Windows 7 experience index, my processor is showing as 7.3, vs the i3 rated at 7.1. I mean I'm talking a 2 year old AMD processor vs this i3 that everyone recommends as a great budget gaming chip and my chip was a budget chip when it came out? I'm sorry, but I don't see the value there. Your i5's and i7's yeah, they are great. But if I go to my local microcenter, for 200 bucks I can have a nice FX 8120 8 core with a motherboard. Intel cannot touch that, and at that point, you are at least in i5 performance territory I would think. But when I see for intel when some of the cheapest boards are 75, so total cost I'm paying more for intel, just don't see it. Your i7 is basically a server chip and is overkill for what most people do.

Personally would I like to upgrade? Yeah, but probably to like an AMD FX 6100 for an 8 core. But right now, my quad runs everything I throw at it. As I said, not saying the intels are junk because they aren't, but for the extra cash I'm going to spend for them, I'd rather get a better graphics card or an SSD. Just my 2 cents.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2012 3:56:29 AM

Thanks guys, love this thread.

Op, my hat off to you.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2012 5:27:21 AM

mouse24 said:
I would grab a pentium G series proc and upgrade to an i5 later (im kicking myself for going with a cheap amd + athlon 2 x3 right now)

In some (most from what I am seeing but I could be wrong) benchmarks a pentium G performs pretty near a phenom 2 x4, yes in CPU intensive games you might see a hit but meh, you still won't have to drop 100 bucks on a new mobo if a phenom isn't doing it for you.



i couldn't be happier with my Pentium G620... picked it up for $50 @ microcenter
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 5, 2012 5:38:27 AM

Alright enough already i am not blaming anyone but mods please...close this thread before it get's out of hand thank you!
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 5, 2012 5:43:50 AM

They always do don't they? I really should stay out of the CPU section, I'm much happier in the Homebuilt section, less threads like this made by hit and run posters that I'm so naive, I fall for :lol: 
Score
0
a c 99 à CPUs
July 5, 2012 5:54:55 AM

Mundaneum said:
I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?


1. The most expensive Intel CPUs perform better than the most expensive AMD CPUs in Windows games, which is the most taxing thing that most people do. The guys chasing benchmarks go for Intel because of that, and tell their friends to do the same.

2. Intel spends billions of dollars on advertising every year. AMD spends essentially none and few have heard of them. In fact, many of the search results for "AMD" online turn up websites for amyotonic muscular dystropy (Lou Gehrig's disease) and age-related macular degeneration. Few outside of the enthusiast community have heard of the Advanced Micro Devices AMD. The general population has heard of Intel and thinks of anything they haven't heard of, including AMD, as an inferior "off brand."

3. Intel has pulled some stunts in the past where they paid vendors to not offer AMD-equipped models and/or penalized them for offering AMD-equipped models. The margins on consumer PCs is razor-thin, so giving up the free Intel money was suicide. There was a huge lawsuit over this where AMD got paid over a billion dollars because of Intel's tactics.

4. AMD's parts cost less than Intel's because of #1 and #2. They could charge a grand for that FX-8150 but nobody would buy it because Intel's $300 parts outperform it in Windows games. So they have to price according to what the market will bear. Note that their server products are inexpensive too, that is not because of lack of performance in server programs (Intel CPUs perform a little better for MANY times the price) but because they are much less expensive to produce than the Intel parts and AMD wants to spur sales. AMD uses reasonable-sized CPU dies even in their high-end server parts; they just use two dies where Intel uses one huge, difficult-to-manufacture die. Intel used to use the same efficient multi-chip module designs as AMD does now when they used the old FSB architecture, they have not figured out how to do so now that they have moved to an AMD-style IMC-and-point-to-point-bus architecture with the Nehalem Xeons.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 5, 2012 6:56:33 AM

Yet, at any particular time, Intel can just screw over AMD. They're just waiting for them to get wiped out by the other companies and go in and screw everyone else.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2012 8:24:25 AM

MU_Engineer said:
1. The most expensive Intel CPUs perform better than the most expensive AMD CPUs in Windows games, which is the most taxing thing that most people do. The guys chasing benchmarks go for Intel because of that, and tell their friends to do the same.

2. Intel spends billions of dollars on advertising every year. AMD spends essentially none and few have heard of them. In fact, many of the search results for "AMD" online turn up websites for amyotonic muscular dystropy (Lou Gehrig's disease) and age-related macular degeneration. Few outside of the enthusiast community have heard of the Advanced Micro Devices AMD. The general population has heard of Intel and thinks of anything they haven't heard of, including AMD, as an inferior "off brand."

3. Intel has pulled some stunts in the past where they paid vendors to not offer AMD-equipped models and/or penalized them for offering AMD-equipped models. The margins on consumer PCs is razor-thin, so giving up the free Intel money was suicide. There was a huge lawsuit over this where AMD got paid over a billion dollars because of Intel's tactics.

4. AMD's parts cost less than Intel's because of #1 and #2. They could charge a grand for that FX-8150 but nobody would buy it because Intel's $300 parts outperform it in Windows games. So they have to price according to what the market will bear. Note that their server products are inexpensive too, that is not because of lack of performance in server programs (Intel CPUs perform a little better for MANY times the price) but because they are much less expensive to produce than the Intel parts and AMD wants to spur sales. AMD uses reasonable-sized CPU dies even in their high-end server parts; they just use two dies where Intel uses one huge, difficult-to-manufacture die. Intel used to use the same efficient multi-chip module designs as AMD does now when they used the old FSB architecture, they have not figured out how to do so now that they have moved to an AMD-style IMC-and-point-to-point-bus architecture with the Nehalem Xeons.


what an utter fail. i would expect you to use your vast knowledge and wisdom to answer a technical question the OP had:
Quote:
Also, could someone explain the execution process mean?


but no. it seems you felt that educating about the capitalist process with the evils involved in it would be a most enlightening experience.

so what did we learn?

1) a product that performs under the most stressful conditions will benefit from word of mouth referrals.

2) advertising increases the sales of a product.

3) intel is just as guilty as quite a few other large corporations such as GM, nvidia, ford, sony, samsung, google, and microsoft, to name a few, at backing illegal back door deals and applying pressure to dealers, manufactures and vendors further down the supply chain.

4) the price of a product is reflected by the demand in the market as much as the manufacturing process and supply.

now it was a bit of a challenge for myself to be able to wrest such useful technical knowledge but by golly after i scraped away the obvious disdain; i think i got it.

1 and 2 are directly correlated to the first part of 4 and the latter part of 4 is can be eased by doing 3.

thanks for that
:pfff: 
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 5, 2012 8:29:17 AM

I assumed that somebody reported the thread or he checked it out to see if he needed to lock it. But lol.

I guess he could have answered the technical question, but number 3 is the main reason I will not buy an Intel product for myself, believe it or not corporate greed still disgusts some people. I hate walmart but I can't afford to shop anywhere else, at least I still have a choice in which processor I can buy. I'll still recommend Intel to others if I feel their budget, and expectations merit if of course.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2012 8:31:53 AM

really its time for my monthly warning i get from a mod.

figured i might as well get it out of the way . . .
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
July 5, 2012 8:41:07 AM

LOL, well I'll clear the air since I realized smoking a cigarette just now that someone might ask. MY money didn't pay for the i5 rig. Max's Grandfather paid a shop to build that for him for his birthday last year.
Score
0
July 5, 2012 9:55:13 AM

Mundaneum said:
I don't understand the difference. My uncle said Intel cost more for the name. I want to know because next summer I plan on building a PC. Also, could someone explain the execution process mean? And why does a 3.6 GHz 8 core AMD CPU cost $100 less than a 3.4 GHz Quad-core Intel CPU?



The reason you are getting such wildly differing answers, and some interesting takes on modern capitalism, is that the world of CPU's at the moment is far from clear cut, and it's no longer a market dominated by desktops either (or even notebooks).

Firstly, Intel and AMD have chosen very different paths in addressing modern processing requirements. Typically with Intel you get fewer physical cores than AMD, but they do a bit more computing per cycle, hence your correct observation that you can get an 8 core AMD when Intel only offer you 4. This can also explain why in some benchmarks, Intel's fewer cores can produce better results than an AMD with more. What you pay for them will fluctuate depending on where and when you purchase them, but generally AMD's stuff is a bit cheaper.

What you have to do is evaluate at each price point which CPU performs better for the type of work you are going to give it.

You also have to consider the motherboards that go with the CPU's, again, you may find that when you come to buy, one manufacturer has a better overall offering than another.

Both AMD and Intel are as bad as each other at changing CPU sockets, so my advise is usually get the board with the features you need now and expect to replace it with your CPU in a few years time.

To computer enthusiasts AMD do usually come up with some interesting stuff, and the current APU's and FX chips are no exception. You get access to some very powerful compute for less money than Intel; and the fun stuff, such as unlocked chips, are available at a much lower price point.

For pure gamers Intel's current architecture does produce better results, this is why on this site the 'Best Gaming CPU's' section currently has no AMD products in it. This, however, can lead some to think that this makes the Intel CPU's better all round, or that you cannot game on an FX chip, which is not necessarily the case.

The good news is that you really cannot go wrong, any modern multi core processor coupled with a mid range GPU will run any game well in HD and chew though most processing tasks with no problems. What makes modern PC's slow is the hard drive, so make sure you budget for a decent SSD.

Score
0
a c 99 à CPUs
July 5, 2012 11:19:03 AM

This topic has been closed by MU_Engineer
Score
0
!