That's the question folks. Me personally, I am both. I use AMD chips in budget builds, while picking out Intel chips for my personal rig and the workstation I built at work. It's been about 5 years since I've used AMD's higher end offerings though. So, for those with a preference, what is it?
DOH... CPU != GPU lol... I like AMD because they are cheaper, and the sandy/ivy bridge processors have issues on the distro I use most... of course I am a little behind as distros go...
I'm going to pretend like I didn't jump on the net to check if Nvidia was getting into the CPU business. My approaches to computer hardware are almost all centered around gaming. My work deals with CAD software and modelling, so I periodically check up on the latest offerings in workstation GPUs, but other than that, it pretty much mirrors my gaming rig requirements for processor speed, memory, etc. From my experience with both AMD and Intel, Intel has performed better for my needs, though obviously at a bit of a higher price tag. Back when I made the switch, I thought of both AMD and Intel in terms of sports cars, where AMD was a Camero, and Intel was a Dodge Viper. Both will work and perform well, Intel is just a bit more beefy. I also didn't get into overclocking before I made the switch so I'm not sure what AMD's overclocking potential is, though I know that Intel chips have a higher thermal threshold.
These days, Intel all the way. Amd is targetting the embeded, low power, low cost market now with their APU. They've thrown the towel in the ring of performance CPU. Their last effort in that field was the 965k. I recommend them to people who are "civilian" and need something to surf and do office work. They're also adequate for HTPC use. But for someone who need a workstation or is into video encoding/processing or other heavy duty application, the Intel i serie is a must.
Gimme a break. AMD's chips are just fine. I have the Phenom II X6 running now, and it's great for games and everything. Any modern CPU will be, since the CPU is not very likely to be a bottleneck in games or multimedia these days. That's usually down to the graphics card. I'd only look at Intel if I were building a hackintosh.
Except AMD disagree with you... They already indicated that they are not going to compete anymore in the desktop cpu market. They will still compete in the GPU market though. And beside, games aren't the only thing that need more cpu power. I work in the engineering business, electrical engineering that is, and we have plenty of simulations and conception/design software that need all the cpu cycle you can give them. In that market Intel has the edge. I don't have anything against AMD, I even have two pc using AMD cpus. I also use AMD gpus. But lets not kid ourself, AMD has lost the lead since Intel launched the i series and they are falling more and more behind with each release of their A series. They don't even call their chip cpu anymore, now it's APU...
I have an AMD based cheapo laptop....Works OK but you could fry an egg on it, it gets so hot. Had to buy a cooling platform for it.
It depends which series.. For Intel, I'll take pretty much any Pentium but have always avoided the Celeron.
For me, I've been an AMD man. My current machine is running their FX-4100 series chip, quad core, 3.6GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996), with 16GB of G-Skill Ripjaws X series RAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231426). I bought all of my computer components last year and everything is still working like a charm. I even built my little bro's PC with one of their latest APU chips (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113281) with nearly the same build as myself. Throw in an EVGA graphics card with nVidia, never had to look back. To Intel's credit, their iCore series is pretty sweet. However, everything I've ever needed to do on a computer has worked with AMD (Including, but not limited to, programming, build/run virtual machines (Had UNIX & Ubuntu running at one point, currently have CentOS running), & gaming). Until the time comes when AMD isn't capable of doing what I need it to do, or if it goes by the way side, I'll have no need to buy an Intel. Maybe if I ever felt like building out a server room and needed the extra horsepower, I might look into an Intel CPU. However, let's be honest, I'd still probably make it work with an AMD.
This is the bigger factor for me than price. Yes, a comparable AMD processor probably costs 15%+ less than Intel's, but they have always had heat problems. Back in the 00's , their stock heatsinks were insufficient. That isn't a problem any more, but they're still hotter than Intel's chips. I've seen too many friends' AMD PCs (both home- and factory-built) ruined by heat to go with them to save a little money.
Liquid cooling or buying a better after-market heatsink/fan assembly does the trick. All of my AMD builds have the stock heatsink/fan assembly on them. Either I'm not truly pushing my CPU to the max or because I'm not over-clocking it, I haven't had a need for any more cooling. That and the tower that I have has plenty of ventilation and about 4 fans inside of the tower, not included the fan over the heatsink. Then again, I've heard many folks having this issue. *Knock on wood*, I haven't had this issue. Moreover, I still have my original Xbox 360 built in November 2005
Part of the problem with AMD chips(and this may be outdated, I haven't worked with AMD chips for a few years) is that the thermal threshold is much lower. If I recall, you want to keep AMD chips below 60 Celsius, while Intel chips can get much hotter before damaging. Before I ever started overclocking, I ran an AMD 6000 3.0ghz dual core which would average around 45-50 celsius under video game loads(occasionally up to 54). This was with an aftermarket cooler. When I upgraded to an Intel E8500 3.16ghz and then a few years later to the i7-870 I have now, average temps under load where pretty much the same as the AMD chips, also using aftermarket cooling. The Intel chips seem to have much more headroom if you do plan to overclock, or if you have less than adequate cooling.
AMD for low end, Intel for high end. AMD is a great value at low budgets, but if your building a PC over 600$ and you want to game on it, Intel is best. AMD high end CPU's are cheaper than high end Intel CPU's, have more cores, and are clocked higher, but they also get way hotter, use much more electricity, don't take advantage of hyper threading, and get lower preformance in games, and many other high requirement programs. Not dissing AMD at all though. They serve a valuable market position, and if they wern't around Intel would have a monopoly, and would probably bone us even harder when it comes to price and incremental performance upgrades.
For me, it has always been mostly about "bang for the buck", and that generally means AMD. Yea, you could get 10% more performance from an Intel, but to me that is not worth the 25-50% increase in price. I also like the fact that AMD has been pushing the industry for the last 20 years. First to break 1 GHz, first to make a consumer 64 bit CPU, first in multi-core, they may be second in sales, but they generally have been first when it comes to introducing new technology. For those of us that remember "CPU progress" before AMD, remember that without competition it took them 13 years to go from 4.77 MHz to 33 MHz.
Except that now your getting way more with intel than with amd. No amd APU can get close to what intel offer presently, especially if you need raw processing power. AMD are targetting the low cost walmart market today. Now I'm not talking about their GPU, but their CPU/APU aren't in the same race anymore.
Once again, it depends on what your price area and performance requirement is. I built a nice quad core for the wife last year, CPU was right at around $100. Can't get a decent Intel for that price. Personally, for 98% of those out there, "bleeding edge" is just not needed. With multiple 64 bit cores, the only reason to go for anything much over $150 is if you want a million FPS gaming rig, video rendering, or CAD. My 2 core 64 bit Athlon 6000+ from 7 years ago is still performing perfectly for me, and does anything I need (I have however upgraded the RAM, and the video card 2 times).
