Intel vs. AMD?

Question

I've been looking over processors for a while now and I'm a little confused with pricing. Is 66 mhz fsb really worth that much more, cause that seems to be the only statistical advantage to all of the intel processors. The price seems to sky rocket with on the intel side for what i assumed to be merely the same processor excluding the maker. Correct me if I'm wrong though, the Amd 2x and the intel core duo are the same thing, so compared side by side with the same ghz and basically the same fsb (1000 vs 1066) what are the other reasons if any for the pricing for intels to be so much higher???

Answer 1

Scooter is correct. While the AMD X2 series was superior to Intel's Pentium-D line, the Core 2 Duo architecture changed everything and moved Intel solidly back into first place. And I'm no Intel cheerleader- I've historically preferred AMD and even used Cyrix processors back in the day :)

Moreover, the price on Core 2 Duos processors themselves wasn't that high initially- I suspect it's just a matter of demand (and fewer C2D motherboards available, which pushes up the cost for a processor/motherboard combo)

People making blanket statements about AMD offering better bang for the buck (which WAS true for several years) are simply talking about how things USED to be; they probably aren't aware of recent developments.

Answer 2

Intel essentially does three things better than AMD.

a) Intel spends heck of a lot of money ( the same money they make by overcharging for their mediocre processors). on publicity and marketing.)

b) Intel (luckily for them) was actually the first company to make Processors.(at one time AMD licensed processors from Intel to use in some of their OEM products.

c) Intel is always in close cahoots with Microsoft and other such companies so they both always gang up against AMD which is normally the odd man out.

So Microsoft always makes software that is better optimized for processors made by Intel than AMD. It is hush hush secret that together they have this idea of WINTEL wherein they support each other in developmental efforts.


Essentially Intel processors are not much better than AMD in anyway. Infact in recent time AMD has been kicking Intel's butt all the time. Unfortunately for AMD, other than grab a small percentage of Intel's established markets (Corporate IT, Governmental Institutions etc), they have not made much of a dent in Intel's side.

Other Software makers too generally take into consideration only Intel's interests in their own Software developmental efforts. Case in point, Philips of Netherlands.

They were developing the Speech Recognition Software long before the creators of ' Dragon, Naturally Speaking ' were even aware that something like that could be done. So even after a lots of trial and error this particular Software by Philips would not work on any other Processor but that of Intel (Pentium ). It could not work on IBM Cyrix, or any AMD processors.

Answer 3

The thought that that first guy is a computer tech, and people actually pay him for his computer knowledge saddens me. Totally wrong, Intel 64 bit processors are just as 64 bit as AMDs are.

Now as for differences, it is not even close to as simple as you think. First off, AMD does not even use the FSB system, they use a HyperTransport, which is a totally different technology for communicating with the rest of the system. The are also other differences in internal architecture, such as different length of pipelines, different caches etc. Trying to compare them by just looking at specs is virtually impossible, to many differences in technology. It is best to use comparison benchmarks to see which one performs better.

EDIT: Just a quick comment on what Arnie says, both Intel and AMD processor use the same x86 architecture, which means software performs no differently on either type. Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory bubble.

Answer 4

The simple answer to your question is that it does not matter that much which you choose, they should both serve the purposes you need.

The complex answer is beyond the scope of this forum, but in simple terms it is this: You can not truly compare two processors designed using two different methodologies based solely on such specifics as clock speed and bus speed. This means you cant compare a Intel Pentium D with an Intel Core Duo to an Intel Core 2 Duo to an AMD Athlon XP to an AMD Athlon 64 to an AMD Athlon 64 X2. Each one of those products represents either complete redesign or major redesigns to the products themselves. 1 GHz on any one of those is not comparable to 1 GHz on another. The changes to the core architecture of the products completely change what "1 GHz" means.

Forget all marketing that bigger numbs means better, they are meaningless. The actual things to compare from one CPU to another is a largely complex and varied. "Experts" will cite certain features to make the argument that one product is better than another, but in the end, there’s always someone else with contradictory proof.

The best way to truly and objectively compare two products is to run two identical tests on two nearly identical setups and compare the results. Sometimes one processor from one company will be great for gamers, but awful for video editors and vice versa for the other company’s product. Finding out how well the processor you want handles the workload you will be placing on it is the only real way to compare the products. Lots of websites offer such comparisons, some fairer than others. I would suggest you look for the two processors your comparing on AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/

In my opinion they offer fair and unbiased reviews, avoiding the "fan boy" problem of people siding with one company’s products over another for reasons well beyond rational reasoning and actual facts.

The moral of the story is anyone who says “Product A is better because it was made by Company A” is wrong, period. It is false reasoning based on emotion, not fact. The best products come from different companies at different points in time. The published performance numbers game is over; comparative performance reviews are the only way to get the truth you seek.

Answer 5

These guys have no clue what they are talking about. AMD WAS wiping the floor with Intel, until Core 2 Duo. FSB doesn't really matter, what matters is architecture. Google athlon 64 x2 vs core 2 duo and you will quickly see that I am right.

Answer 6

Intel has no advantages.

Intel still doesn't have a 64bit processor, (they call theirs "virtual 64"), AMD has been wiping the floor with Intel for the past 3 years.

What Intel excels at is marketing. They spend a ton of money and do a great job, with a Vastly inferior product line.

You want hype-buy Intel
You want performance & a better price-AMD

Answer 7

AMD and Intel leapfrog over each other, they both excel in different areas, they are both healthy competitors you can't actually go wrong.
If you don't want to get too technical; flip a coin on this one.
I personally vote for AMD.

Answer 8

I'm using intel core i5-4440 processor. It is very faster and best perforence in gaming, web browsing,music and other.My 100% vote still goes to intel.

Answer 9

in all honesty AMD is alot better and it is less because of the name, thats the main reason intel has been around a while longer but i prefer AMD all the way

Answer 10

always intel