Intel vs. AMD
??? are you sure... if your talking better, then intel across the board.
if you want more cores cheaply then amd but even then you can do just as much most of the time on less cores at the same price with intel.
1s you get over 200 there is no competition regardless of what your using the cpu for. amd have nothing that can compete with intels higher end offerings... sad for the consumer but true...
The comic is controversial since it is also AMD's aim to have more efficient architecture and increase core freq while maintaining or lowering the power and thermal requirement, not just increasing core count.
And IMO, the failure of Bulldozer to catch up with Intel is blow out of proportion.
Now the Piledriver FX CPU makes sense in some lower budget build as they are comparable to i3 but we know the AMD CPU will fit into the next generation of the AMD chipset mobo, whereas Intel will change the socket. So if someone has a low budget and wants a longer upgrade path, there is this option.
The APU are very good for budget gaming on medium and low detail, the mobile APU also provide excellent gaming performance for the laptop for its low price and low power requirement.
Another interesting tech from AMD is hybrid crossfire which neither Intel or Nvidia provide. This is an advantage AMD has as a major CPU and GPU maker.
So I don't know why people insist on bad mouthing AMD and make it sound like AMD is about to die as a company. For example the comic the PO post depicting AMD only cares about core count. Please don't troll the forum. I am confident that AMD will manage to get out of the current low. It's only natural to have ups and downs in a competitive market.
Seriously, I don't want to see the day when there is only Intel making x86 CPUs. I prefer competition to drive innovation to leads to more choice and lower product price which can only benefit the consumer.