AMD vs Intel? And nVidia vs AMD?

[Legolas8181]

Which processors and cards are better?

 

[sapperastro]

Intel for processors in most cases. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Either for graphics cards. AMD usually gives the best bang for the dollar though. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html

Shortly, you will have a wave of fanboys entering the ring, arguing for their 'team' or claiming the opposite number 'better drivers!'.

Unfortunately, Intel is indeed the best maker of CPUs with little competition. AMD chips still do the job, but they need a new architecture. Badly.

AMD and Nvidia make excellent graphics cards, and both of them have driver issues from time to time, though more often than not, both do the job perfectly. They both have different features they sell; PhysX for Nvidia, Mantle for AMD and so on.

 

[RobCrezz]

Intel CPUs are better.

Nvidia and AMD trade blows when it comes to GPUs - buy based on price and what features you want.

 

[oxiide]

Well, none of those listed produce products that are inadequate for their intended use so this is the wrong way to look at it. What's "better" is what provides the best performance for the budget you have in mind.

Intel's high-end CPUs are indeed better, but dollar-for-dollar Intel and AMD generally compete reasonably well at the low- and mid-range.

 

[DubbleClick]

The more expensive ones. You get what you pay for.

 

[Legolas8181]

The more expensive ones. You get what you pay for.

If that was true Apple would be producing the best phones, tablets and computers in the world

 

[DubbleClick]

It kind of is when you're talking about desktop cpu's and gpu's. There are exceptions of course (r9 290 about same price as 770 gtx but stronger, 8320 cheaper than some i3's, but stronger in rendering - i3's still kill 9590 in single core performance -), but in general it's true. AMD does not compete with intel in the high end, therefore their top of the line products are cheaper than intels. In general, you get what you pay for.

 

[Legolas8181]

It kind of is when you're talking about desktop cpu's and gpu's. There are exceptions of course (r9 290 about same price as 770 gtx but stronger, 8320 cheaper than some i3's, but stronger in rendering - i3's still kill 9590 in single core performance -), but in general it's true. AMD does not compete with intel in the high end, therefore their top of the line products are cheaper than intels. In general, you get what you pay for.

Normally yes but not always

 

[Obnoxious]

Intel processors for better single-core performance, and effectively better performance in general. AMD have been focusing much of their attention to their APU line, which are integrated graphics built into the processor; hence an AMD CPU/APU is ideal if you do not want to purchase a graphics card too. AMD's integrated graphics are far superior than Intel's offering, however it is still no match for dedicated mid/high-range graphics card. I would recommend you purchase an Intel processor and use a dedicated/discrete GPU too for gaming.

Nvidia and AMD graphics cards are somewhat equal. Usually AMD are able to provide better performing graphics card for around the same price as an inferior Nvidia offering. Purchase what you prefer when it comes to graphics cards; usually AMD are the best bang for the buck, but you may stumble across a good deal/bargain for Nvidia GPUs here and there.

For a comparison of graphics cards, I'd take a look at Tom's Hardware Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart.

All the best.

 

[clownwolf]

Yeah I'm not sure why AMD decided to build and design APUs in the first place.

Are they trying to lower their own Radeon GPU sales? I think that's a very bad direction that they took, in terms of business.

 

[hunter315]

Because the vast majority of computers out there don't need dedicated GPUs. Billions of office machines and home desktops just need good IGPs that can play a movie and Tetris. The low end GPUs aren't where they make a ton anyway, its the workstation cards that cost $1-5k, not the 6350 level that is better when integrated into a CPU anyway.

IDK why people always believe that games make any part of the market that CPU makers are concerned about.

 

[clownwolf]

IDK why people always believe that games make any part of the market that CPU makers are concerned about.

Because they literally said so?

"Kaveri and successor APUs will ultimately be moved into high-end PCs and targeted at gamers, Lienhard said. Discrete graphics cards can be attached to rigs for a better gaming experience."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2085300/amd-to-move-away-from-cpuonly-chips-for-gaming-rigs.html

APUs are built with gaming in mind. Notice how I said APU?