Which one is better Intel processors or amd processors ?

Answer 1

There is very little to choose between them these days. AMD used to be significantly better value, but competition between the two companies has equalized that now.

Answer 2

In terms of performance, Intel Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad holds the performance crown by far from AMD.

Given it's lower performance, AMD had some aggressive price cut to remains competitive in the market.

So there you have it. If you're going for good performance, go for Intel. If you're on a budget, AMD does offers some pretty good bargains, at the cost of the performance of course.

I hate to say this but no matter how you look at it, Intel currently is the better choice. AMD can only cut their price so much they are going to go bankrupt if they sell their CPU any cheaper.

And they are loosing revenue currently, there's a reason for that.

As a consumer, it's your right to get the best CPU for your money, not go on a mission to save a company. If I were you' I'd choose intel CPU and nVidia's graphic card.

AMD and ATi merge has had negetive impact on them, at least for the moment.

Answer 3

The balance of power in the processor market is very clear: Intel's Core 2 Duo leads, while AMD's Athlon 64 X2 family lags somewhat behind without necessarily being inferior for the average user. But is the situation the same in the notebook space? Both companies offer powerful dual-core processors for portable computers, and we've begun feeding benchmark results into a new Interactive CPU Charts category for mobile processors. You've asked for it, and now you've got it - you can easily compare performance.

Intel maintains a stringent naming scheme for its processors. Former CPU generations with a single processing core were called "Pentium" in the desktop and "Pentium M" in the mobile space (although the latter is based on an entirely different architecture). All modern dual cores for mobile and desktop computers are called "Core Duo" (Yonah core) or "Core 2 Duo" (Merom core).

In contrast, AMD has introduced a different brand for its mobile processors: the Turion 64. While Turion CPUs with a single processing core have been available for almost two years, the dual-core version Turion 64 X2 (Taylor and Trinidad cores) was launched in late spring of 2006; this was shortly before Intel launched its Core 2 Duo micro architecture, and clearly earlier than the mobile Core 2 Duo. Adoption of the Turion 64 X2 was slower, however, as there were fewer system designs available. In addition, Intel has been doing a great job with its Centrino brand, which basically bundles the mobile processor, mobile core logic and mobile wireless solution.

Unfortunately, it has become impossible for non-enthusiasts to decipher AMD's and Intel's model numbers. Both companies follow their own nomenclatures to express clock speed, cache size, features and energy consumption within a single model number. Moving away from gigahertz numbers as the sole figure for performance makes a lot of sense, as clock speed has been only one part of the performance equation in recent years. Unfortunately, the product nomenclatures require some knowledge in order to determine exactly what, for example, a Turion 64 X2 TL56 is.

While there are still many Pentium M and Turion 64 notebooks on the market, not to mention all the low-cost processors that we haven't even mentioned here, the future clearly belongs to dual core processors. Two CPU cores not only translate into better performance, they also provide excellent system responsiveness - this is why we recommend against purchasing a single core system today if you care about a future-proof notebook. Even the energy requirements - which should be as low as possible to achieve long battery runtime - are negligible, because modern multi-core processors shut down transistors or even whole processor segments when they aren't used.

For more information visit this link http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/27/dual_core_notebook_cpus_explored/

Answer 4

Personally, I have always used and prefer AMD processors. They just seem to work better than Intel.

Answer 5

AMD processors -
(Pros) A lot Cheaper, Better for games, FSB is 800mhz & 1000mhz, Bigger cache for graphic.
(Cons) Smaller L2 Cache, Avg for multi-tasking

Intel processors -
(Pros) Big L2 Cache, Great for multi-tasking, Duo 2 processors are 1/2 times faster than AMD in multi-tasking, photoshop, graphic animation.
(Cons) 800mhz up to 1333mhz but has a slower front cache size than AMD, Very expensive, Higher quality evens out to same gaming experience as AMD.

Answer 6

it depends on the kind of work yu do.both intel and amd are of good quality.for more details you should visit the amd and intel websites and see what are the positive and negative points of both the kind of processors and then decide which to buy.

Answer 7

AMD is cheaper & better for gaming (I think...), but I prefer Intel. Their Core 2 Duo is great!

Answer 8

AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD !!!!

AMD is far far better than Intel. cheaper too.

ppl say that it generates heat! Nos, its overcome. No heat!!

Enjoy with AMD!!!