AMD vs Intel

closed account (S6k9GNh0)
I often hate these discussions because they often go into the direction of just one person bashing another. Please try to keep it civil.

I've waited quite a bit for the Steamroller product line to be released from AMD (supposedly coming October 11-13) but I'm starting to question my loyalty to AMD products. While they're "cheaper", their performance is often underneath Intel alternatives to the point that performance on the dollar can be debated even with the extra cost of Intel.
Honestly, I'm not the hardware expert, but I'd say Intel, they have more support, and better preformance.
The Bulldozer architecture killed it for me.
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
Please be more elaborate! Explain why the Bulldozer architecture "killed it" for you.
Also, how does Intel have more support? AMD also boasts more value while using less energy. Elaborate.
closed account (zb0S216C)
I like AMD more. Even though AMD CPUs only use D-DR, and Intel use Q-DR, AMD CPUs performs notably well.

Wazzak
AMD processors are kind of notorious for burning out quickly. Given a year or two of use, it'll be preforming at less than 70% of how it was when you got it.
Well, since Intel is more of a lets say "Name Brand", it has more forums for support, and I'm guessing a better community.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Fredbill30 wrote:
Well, since Intel is more of a lets say "Name Brand"...
and AMD is what?
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
Please be more elaborate! Explain why the Bulldozer architecture "killed it" for you.
Also, how does Intel have more support? AMD also boasts more value while using less energy. Elaborate.


I believe because in some cases their older model CPU can out perform bulldozer by more than just a little. It is also a lot cheaper as it is fairly old now. It has more power usage though, but I guess people are more concerned with performance. I've read an article recently boasting apple's new CPU is faster than a supercomputer's because it produces more power per watt (it is more efficient) but I doubt it would scale linearly, if it was as powerful as the supercomputer it wouldn't be as efficient.

I don't think it really matters which brand, although I think Intel motherboards are a bit more expensive (for quality) compared to AMDs. If you really care about that little bit of performance advantage, go Intel, if you want to save money but still have a decent computer go AMD. It really is a hard decision, Intels lower end are also starting to be appealing but you can't overclock (if you are into that).
considering i'm reading these forums on my 2.5lb samsung series 9 intel ultrabook, my opinion is a little biased. Though my main desktop uses an AMD processor.

My opinion: Intel excels in laptop hardware, AMD takes over for the desktop.
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
Need4Sleep, but you provide no references, how can you be trusted!
Also, I'm pretty sure its the other way around. The Trinity APU is pretty popular for the value while the "Bulldozer" line has been said to be the worst line from AMD ever. Piledriver (Vishera) should help this but... even I, a rather hardcore AMD fan, am expecting less than satisfying performance for the price I'll dish out.
Last edited on
I used to buy only AMD processors since 2002, but my next machine will use an Intel CPU. It doesn't look like AMD's performance/€ ratio is still higher than Intel's like it used to be.
I just bought a notebook and I think there's something wrong if some cheap notebook (Intel CPU+IGP) feels considerably faster than my desktop computer (using an AMD CPU and graphics card), although part of that can be attributed to the poor quality of the AMD graphics drivers (not that it's a very good excuse for AMD).

It's also nice being able to test new instruction sets without having to rent a root server with a newer Intel CPU every time (okay, to be fair, Bulldozer already supports AVX and the like).
Last edited on
AMD is honestly more known for better graphics cards, but Intel is more widely used and slightly more stable. But both are proven to be good manufactures.
Personally, I'm going intel nvidia for my next build. I've experienced the beauty and speed of an intel ssd + core i7 3770k + GeForce GTX 690 on my roommates PC. Overkill? yes. Does that make me want it more? Also yes.

My bulldozer build has nothing on it.
xander337 wrote:
AMD processors are kind of notorious for burning out quickly. Given a year or two of use, it'll be preforming at less than 70% of how it was when you got it.

Good thing they come with a 5 year warranty (vs. Intel's 2-3 years), then.

Having said that, and despite the fact that I'm using an AMD processor, in future I will buy Intel because I do think that they're better.

As far as graphics cards go, Intel ones suck for anything at all complex. I always go with NVIDIA.
I've used both AMD and Intel products and as far as I can see, they both performed roughly equally...other system components were a bottleneck to both products before any "shining qualities" could be observed...

Oh, and I can't help but mention...SSD technology is the single biggest visible performance boost that I've been able to apply to a system.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.