Intel vs AMD

Ranked #200 in Computers & Electronics, #3,156 overall

What to Choose: Intel or AMD?

When choosing a computer CPU it usually comes down to two choices: AMD or Intel. The CPU wars between these two corporations have been going on for years, even resulting in antitrust charges filed against Intel several times. Both companies have created some amazing and some unsuccessful products and both have followers (aka fanboys) among the techies. However no matter what company you prefer, you have to agree that competition is great for the consumers since it drives the prices down and promotes innovation.

You will find some more information about AMD and Intel, comparisons between specific CPUs throughout the years and links to Intel vs AMD benchmarks on the page below. Most importantly, check our our Intel versus AMD discussion and vote in the poll!

About Intel

Click here to find our more about IntelIntel (Integrated Electronics Corporation) is the world's largest CPU manufacturer. It was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara, California (US). Intel is the creator of the x86 CPU architecture which is now used in the majority of PCs (and since 2006 Macs as well). Intel's domination in the x86 CPU market led to charges of antitrust violations in US, EU, Japan and South Korea over the years.

About AMD

Click here to find out more about AMDAMD (Advanced Micro Devices) was founded in 1969 and is based in Sunnyvale, California (US). It is the second largest supplier of x86 architecture CPUs and, after a merger with ATI in 2006, the third largest manufacturer of GPUs (after Intel and nVidia). It is considered the underdog of the CPU market due to revenue and market share several times smaller than Intel's (19% in 2009 Q4 vs Intel's 80%).

Intel vs AMD Discussion

Does Intel or AMD make the best computer CPUs?

Loading Fetching blurbs now... please stand by

Intel is better than AMD!

Intelbetter.avi says:

All i hear the AMD fans saying is they have cheap CPUs and they work when in reality they are pretty bad. all they say back is intel suck and no clockin proof XD

the who says:

you amd fans are dumb. why comparing to a 1000$ intel cpu? a 300$ intel quad core cpus is still faster than an amd 8 core cpu.. that lame FX8150 cant even beat an i5 2500k

:P says:

@kevin
that is only 1 out of 100 benchmark test there. and FX-8150 and 8120 wins only 3 out of 100 benchmark test, and 2500k dominates everything..

if you want real benchmark try to see this link

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434

:P says:

Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3GHz - 1MB L2 - 6MB L3
Notesvs
AMD FX-8150 - 3.6GHz - 8MB L2 - 8MB L3
Notes
+ ADD ITEM+ PERMALINK TO THIS CHARTBenchmark Rating
SYSMark 2012 - Overall
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
179
147
SYSMark 2012 - Office Productivity
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
159
125
SYSMark 2012 - Media Creation
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
172
134
SYSMark 2012 - Web Development
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
184
109
SYSMark 2012 - Data/Financial Analysis
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
195
212
SYSMark 2012 - 3D Modeling
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
191
200
SYSMark 2012 - System Management
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
174
129
SYSMark 2007 - Overall
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
265
201
SYSMark 2007 - Productivity
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
273
164
SYSMark 2007 - E-Learning
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
244
247
SYSMark 2007 - Video Creation
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
251
195
SYSMark 2007 - 3D
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
296
207
Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artists Speed Test
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
12.6
14.8
DivX 6.8.5 Encode (Xmpeg 5.0.3)
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
31.3
35.1
x264 HD Encode Test - 1st pass - x264 0.59.819
Frames Per Second - Higher is Better
100.8
81.7
x264 HD Encode Test - 2nd pass - x264 0.59.819
Frames Per Second - Higher is Better
27.7
37.8
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
22
27
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc 3dsmax 8 CPU Test
CPU Rendering Composite Score - Higher is Better
17.4
16.1
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Radiosity
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
10.45
10.351
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Throne Shadowmap
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
6.677
12.321
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - CBALLS2
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
3.923
3.586
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - SinglePipe2
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
15.101
13.442
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Underwater
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
17.455
16.169
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - SpaceFlyby
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
20.995
23.361
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - UnderwaterEscape
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
17.925
20.415
Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
5860
3938
Cinebench R10 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
20381
20254
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 23 - SMP Benchmark
CPU Score in PPS - Higher is Better
3439
4512
Par2 - Multi-Threaded par2cmdline 0.4
Time to Recover 57.2MB from 707.5MB Archive in Seconds - Lower is Better
19.8
17.6
Blender 2.48a Character Render
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
46.1
50
Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1 - Monte Carlo Simulation
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
15.4
14.2
WinRAR 3.8 Compression - 300MB Archive
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
70.5
82.3
Cinebench 11.5 - Single Threaded
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
1.47
1.02
Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
5.42
5.99
x264 HD Benchmark - 1st pass - v3.03
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
100
75.5
x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
28.7
35.8
7-zip Benchmark
32MB Dictionary - Total MIPS - Higher is Better
14440
21041
Dragon Age Origins - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
159.4
118.4
Dawn of War II - 1680 x 1050 - Ultra Settings
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
82.3
51.5
World of Warcraft
FRAPS Runthrough - FPS - Higher is Better
119.4
77.7
Starcraft 2
1024 x 768 - Medium Graphics, Ultra CPU Settings
64.9
47.8
Rage vt_benchmark - 1920 x 1200
Time in Seconds to Transcode Textures - Max Threads - Lower is Better
0.26
0.21
Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark - 1024 x 768 - DX11 High Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
91.5
91
Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark - 1920 x 1200 - DX11 High Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
53.5
51
DiRT 3 - Aspen Benchmark - 1024 x 768 Low Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
170.6
114.1
DiRT 3 - Aspen Benchmark - 1920 x 1200 High Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
104.4
99.3
Crysis Warhead Assault Benchmark - 1680 x 1050 Mainstream DX10 64-bit
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
114.4
76.2
Civilization V - 1680 x 1050 - DX11 High Quality
Full Render Score in Frames per Second - Higher is Better
124.3
95.4
Civilization V - 1680 x 1050 - DX11 High Quality
Full Render Score in Frames per Second - Higher is Better
124.3
95.4
AES-128 Performance - TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark
Mean Encryption/Decryption AES Algorithm - GB/s

says:

Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3GHz - 1MB L2 - 6MB L3
Notes vs
AMD FX-8150 - 3.6GHz - 8MB L2 - 8MB L3
Notes
+ ADD ITEM+ PERMALINK TO THIS CHARTBenchmark Rating
SYSMark 2012 - Overall
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
179
147
SYSMark 2012 - Office Productivity
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
159
125
SYSMark 2012 - Media Creation
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
172
134
SYSMark 2012 - Web Development
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
184
109
SYSMark 2012 - Data/Financial Analysis
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
195
212
SYSMark 2012 - 3D Modeling
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
191
200
SYSMark 2012 - System Management
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
174
129
SYSMark 2007 - Overall
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
265
201
SYSMark 2007 - Productivity
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
273
164
SYSMark 2007 - E-Learning
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
244
247
SYSMark 2007 - Video Creation
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
251
195
SYSMark 2007 - 3D
Score in SYSMarks - Higher is Better
296
207
Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artists Speed Test
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
12.6
14.8
DivX 6.8.5 Encode (Xmpeg 5.0.3)
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
31.3
35.1
x264 HD Encode Test - 1st pass - x264 0.59.819
Frames Per Second - Higher is Better
100.8
81.7
x264 HD Encode Test - 2nd pass - x264 0.59.819
Frames Per Second - Higher is Better
27.7
37.8
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
22
27
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc 3dsmax 8 CPU Test
CPU Rendering Composite Score - Higher is Better
17.4
16.1
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Radiosity
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
10.45
10.351
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Throne Shadowmap
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
6.677
12.321
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - CBALLS2
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
3.923
3.586
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - SinglePipe2
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
15.101
13.442
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - Underwater
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
17.455
16.169
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - SpaceFlyby
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
20.995
23.361
3dsmax r9 - SPECapc - UnderwaterEscape
Render Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
17.925
20.415
Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
5860
3938
Cinebench R10 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
20381
20254
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 23 - SMP Benchmark
CPU Score in PPS - Higher is Better
3439
4512
Par2 - Multi-Threaded par2cmdline 0.4
Time to Recover 57.2MB from 707.5MB Archive in Seconds - Lower is Better
19.8
17.6
Blender 2.48a Character Render
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
46.1
50
Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1 - Monte Carlo Simulation
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
15.4
14.2
WinRAR 3.8 Compression - 300MB Archive
Time in Seconds - Lower is Better
70.5
82.3
Cinebench 11.5 - Single Threaded
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
1.47
1.02
Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded
Score in CBMarks - Higher is Better
5.42
5.99
x264 HD Benchmark - 1st pass - v3.03
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
100
75.5
x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
28.7
35.8
7-zip Benchmark
32MB Dictionary - Total MIPS - Higher is Better
14440
21041
Dragon Age Origins - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
159.4
118.4
Dawn of War II - 1680 x 1050 - Ultra Settings
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
82.3
51.5
World of Warcraft
FRAPS Runthrough - FPS - Higher is Better
119.4
77.7
Starcraft 2
1024 x 768 - Medium Graphics, Ultra CPU Settings
64.9
47.8
Rage vt_benchmark - 1920 x 1200
Time in Seconds to Transcode Textures - Max Threads - Lower is Better
0.26
0.21
Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark - 1024 x 768 - DX11 High Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
91.5
91
Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark - 1920 x 1200 - DX11 High Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
53.5
51
DiRT 3 - Aspen Benchmark - 1024 x 768 Low Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
170.6
114.1
DiRT 3 - Aspen Benchmark - 1920 x 1200 High Quality
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
104.4
99.3
Crysis Warhead Assault Benchmark - 1680 x 1050 Mainstream DX10 64-bit
Average Frames per Second - Higher is Better
114.4
76.2
Civilization V - 1680 x 1050 - DX11 High Quality
Full Render Score in Frames per Second - Higher is Better
124.3
95.4
Civilization V - 1680 x 1050 - DX11 High Quality
Full Render Score in Frames per Second - Higher is Better
124.3
95.4
AES-128 Performance - TrueCrypt 7.1 Benchmark
Mean Encryption/Decryption AES Algorithm - GB/s

­™ says:

@Andrei
Apple sucks by the way. selling overpriced products even there are lots of better products that are cheaper than them and now it getting worst cause they putting amd chips on it. they really sucks because they monopolizing people. there are lots of better products than them. Only rich noob people buy their product. Mac with amd 2 cores at 1000$? while you can have an asus laptop with core i7 and discrete gpu at 1000$..

Remy says:

Intel makes a better processor out-the-door, but it comes with a higher price point. For an enthusiast or even a home-body that wants to take a crack at building their own PC, its a better call to save a few extra bucks for the Intel, maybe by skimping on the RAM or harddrive size (both of which are relatively easy to upgrade later).
However, if you are trying to kit out an office with 20 computers that are going to run nothing more than word processors, browsers, and accounting software, then go with AMD; the lower price point more than makes up for a lack in high-end performance.
I'd also say that AMD is not dead-in-the-water yet - their onboard GPUs are excellent (comparable only to Intel's yet-to-be-released Ivy Bridge), and they make a good SoC all around. Both companies are seem to be aiming at the portable market, looking to replace ARM SoCs in tablets (and possibly phones), and AMD's low-power consumption and better SoC integration give it a good headstart.

sapo says:

farts are better

®™ says:

@SAGAR
if you have money get the 2500k or 2600k and you will not regret, if low budget stay away from FX4100 and better get the Phenom II X4 BE.. I have FX6100 and it really sucks. Im selling it and replace it with 2500k..

alan says:

i prefers intel i7640m

Reese says:

Intel has a clear architectual advantage over AMD when it comes to processing power. Even when AMD piles on the cores, it's simply not close enough, anymore. And now that the pricing gap has lessened, I fear what it could mean for AMD. The Llanos APU's are quite promising, but bulldozer has been a disaster. Even the older Phenom X6 processors best their 8-core flagship in most tests. I wish AMD could catch up, but without the capital from profits, how can a company compete research-wise? I'm still hopeful, as I am one to root for the underdog.

(1) says:

poor amd fanboys, still trying hard to prove they are the best.. dont be stubborn and wake up. amd is cheap but intel performs better. and also FX8150 is slower than the old Phenom X6.. And stop saying that amd performs better than intel cause that is a stupid and dumb opinion. 4.5ghz FX8150 can't even beat a stock i5 2500k or 2600k. oh yeah Guinness world record of 8.49ghz, because 6 out of 8 cores are disabled in able to reach it and no benchmarks cause the result is very poor. AMD is cheaper but intel is Faster and the best :P

says:

Intel fanboys speak with reasons but AMD fanboys speak nonsense and only describe their situation without further details.seems like amd cpu for a kid who have little penny and speak only things that pleases them.

Third says:

@Zakster
very funny.. AMD cant beat intel even on water, A FX8150 cant even beat a 2500k even at 5ghz, how much more the 2600k and 3960x? and also AMD didnt make the fastest cpu and the fastest is the i7 3960x. AMD achieve the highest overclock at 8.429 because they disable some cores. only 2 cores are running when they overclock the FX8150 on liquid nitrogen.
http://cdn.technoreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-8150.jpg

®™ says:

ohh I overclock my FX6100 and it cant even run stable at 4.5ghz using NH-D14 cooler.. Im gonna sell it and replace it with 2500k.. I thought this FX6100 runs better than my old Q9550, AMD really sucks...

®™ says:

AMD FX-SUCKS, I have FX6100 and it really sucks, very weak. I regret buying it. now Im gonna sell it and get the i5 2500k.. AMD you SUCKS!! wasted my money!

य़ says:

forget the i7.. i5 2500k is the best bang for budget.. AMD's bulldozer FX is weaker then phenoms, and 2500k kicks the ass of phenom and bulldozer FX

stub says:

amd fanboys are too stubborn cant accept the truth that their products is really weak...

swangin says:

@nothing is better than each other
because intel is better :P

antimo says:

AMD FX 8-Core Processor Black Edition vs Intel Core i7-3960X Processor Extreme Edition search this up

Fallap says:

I prefere Intel CPU's

But I prefere AMD GPU's more bang for the buck there. :)

Enter says:

Intel give you more for the money then a AMD CPU

OPS says:

@nothing is better than each other
amd will never win against intel, even if the piledriver will come. they still cant beat it.. intels technology will still be fast. now intel introduce their tri-gate transistors technology which will triple the performance and they will use it to their upcoming cpu's.. and bulldozer is really weak, their FX-4100 is slower than intel i3 or even Pentium G and its slower than the phenoms..

claysm says:

This argument isn't really an argument, is it. AMD processors simply cannot compete with the per-clock performance of Intel processors. Sure the Athlon completely trounced the Pentium III back in the day, but ever since then Intel has demolished AMD. The Phenom's are good value up to around the $130 range, but after that, just save and get something Sandy-Bridge based. Or at this point wait for Ivy Bridge. Might be noteworthy that I have a Phenom II X4 970 in my pc at home. Got it on sale :P

expert in pc says:

Intel is better because it makes higher quality, faster, and better processing than AMD but its more expensive, if you can afford it then it should not be a problem

zig says:

Intel

Kyle says:

Intel makes higher quality, faster, and better processing per watt processors. AMD makes decent processors that can't quite compete with Intel's on processing power, but make up for it with a cheap price tag.

Noah says:

Unfortanetly Intel is better. But I think its nothing thats wrong with the processor, its the OS. Windows was "accidentally" (I say it in quotes cause I dont know if they did it on purpose or not) designed (or vice versa) around how intels chips work.

waldenthree.net says:

intel

jillfelldown says:

It all depends on what you want your machine to do. AMD is okay for a basic machine they are at a lower price point and work but I prefer Intel because it does everything well. AMD is not good for gaming or running multiple programs while Intel is.

AMD is better than Intel!

anon says:

Want to know why I prefer AMD? I was picking a CPU between Phenom II and Intel i5-2500K. AMD's was about 30% slower in benchmarks, but TWO TIMES CHEAPER. Intel can go f*ck themselves with pricing like that.

mani says:

am using intel and amd since 4 four years...... however i feel and realize that amd beat intel.... later amd processer`s and graphic cards have a temp problem but now its much better

The One says:

AMD is better value and has produced a value range of Llano. Intel still boasts the scene, but AMD is gradually getting bigger.

henkspermatank says:

AMD gives better performance for the price u give. A fcking octa core is hardly €300, while intel's hexa-cores cost up to €1000.... the performance from those hexa's is still better tho.. but seriously..... really gonna pay €1000 for it???

Kevin says:

For now, I have to choose AMD, simply because most of the people that chose Intel seem to bash anybody that has anything good to say about AMD.

People have benchmarked these CPU's;
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz 6,738
AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core 7,136
AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core 8,214

According to these tests, it indicates that not only that the FX-8150 is faster than the i5-2500k, but also the FX-8120. I would have loved to see people argue that their point is valid by using real benchmarks, but they didn't.

The CPU that I might get is this;
Intel Xeon E3-1230 @ 3.20GHz 8,462

Most people don't get the chance to simultaneously test two equal CPU's on two different computers, which tells me that majority of the people saying the other is a poor choice is generally just a mere observation.

If you want to know where I got these benchmarks, here you go. It even gives you a general price tag for each one so you can even compare the prices of each on Newegg.com and Amazon.com. Unfortunately, it does not show prices on TigerDirect or other major retailers for computer parts.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html#

Andrei says:

i say tha AMD is better becuse of there high preformence they can show really good in gams and, you can open lots of tabs in your explorer (Internet) but intel is worse and it's proven that apple usess AMD 2 duo which means the best selling all time winner is apple and there computers last for years

Rick says:

Yeah, I may be a fan-boy, but that's fine. I've used both AMD and Intel since my first build and have noticed AMD always seemed to perform better for my systems. Being a gamer, the higher the processor speed the better, but with my most recent build, I was left to build with an Intel processor (because my Best Buy didn't have any AMDs in stock). I have constantly run into over-heating errors from Day 1 - no over-clocking done to it, and the inside of my case is clean as a whistle...

Daniel Breaux says:

AMD

Shawn85 says:

AMD is better. Read this. Nvidia fans are airheads controlled by basic marketing.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDIA-s-GPU-Share-Dwindles-as-AMD-s-Rises-237215.shtml

SAGAR says:

WHICH ONE SHOULD I BUY AMD FX 4100, 3.6MHZ OR FURTHER
I USED TO WORK WITH 3D MAX AND MAYA

OR SHOULD I BUY INTEL

Dugger says:

I'm not really a "fanboy" for either side. My next computer (a desktop replacement) will have an Intel chip. But I need a lot of CPU power. Most of the people I know DON'T--and would be wasting their money if they paid for it. Many of them would get better performance at a lower price if they went with AMD. And we'd ALL be a lot worse off if Intel didn't have competition.

Cassilias says:

I had only AMD CPUs (two computers) and I can say that AMDs are good. Intel CPUs are quite expensive, at least for me but everybody says that INTEL CPUs are faster and better. Can't say....

MillBucks says:

AMD has proven it self to me!

Zakster says:

Been an AMD user from the start...Ever since building my first CPU which I took months to investigate before building and heard that the same spec AMD beat the same spec Intel out of the water...Not to mention, these guys are at the cutting edge of technology where it is now Intel trying to match pace...The XBOX 720 will now be featuring the AMD chipset with Radeon, another AMD product at the graphic helm...This is Microsoft breaking mold for a good reason...Also, AMD has held on to the creating the Guinness World Record for making the fastest CPUs for quite a few times in a row...

Been an AMD guy from the start...Will continue to be so...

Jack Privitt says:

I have been using AMD for over 15 years. I would with both. I prefer AMD because in does the same as of better for less.

Ryan says:

For price aware gamers I would argue that AMD is the better choice, since the fx-8150 unarguably performs at the slightly below, the same or slightly better level as the 2600k on games. (see pages 12-15 of http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/1 , 12-15 are the game benchmarks. Also one can buy a fx-8120 for $209 off Newegg (110 dollars less than a 2600k on Newegg). Not to mention with a decent water cooler one can fairly easily get even the fx-8120 stable at 5Ghz. Of course you can always overclock the 2600k as well putting them back in their cycle of barley beating or losing to one another (in games).Saving $100 dollars on your cpu would also allow you to buy s better videocard, which would make much more of an effect on game performance than an i7 ever would. Also the bulldozer tends to perform a bit better in (non-game) programs that are actually 8 threaded but those are few and far between, and likewise the 2600k outperforms it in quad threaded application.

For anyone that has the money intel obviously makes faster processors than AMD. It just comes down to what you are trying to do and what you are willing to pay.

john says:

Cheap
Effective
Efficient

cass says:

I think amd is better cos if we compare the price and performance of both, I dont think that I would buy an overpriced intel i7 instead of buying an amd fx.. Sum up.. Enjoy your ”better” intel and your 1000$ that's not in your pocket..

fallenangel_o4 says:

AMD!

kiz says:

go go AMD~!!!
<-- fanboy

nothing is better than each other says:

AGAIN

Why are people comparing 'clock to clock' simply I just could not understand.

dadsa says:

The guy in the left said intel gives you more from the same money, what a guy.

nothing is better than each other says:

An addition to the post I gave you guys

Efficiency?

Bulldozers are not efficient when overclocked, when it's at stock it's probably not going to be far. But this is because bulldozer are eight core and it's a new architecture, I think they are going to fix this in piledriver release.

We should wait for Piledriver.

nothing is better than each other says:

I'm tired of people using clock speeds to say what's better. But Bulldozer run at faster clock speed, meaning that the base clock speed of FX-8150 is faster than i5-2500k. These days, clock speeds don't decide if a CPU is better than the other, hate to break it to you fanboys. But actually not this day, it's since the days where AMD naming schemes goes like 'Athlon 2000+' around 2005. Now they are comparing clock-to-clock performance, but then this is not reliable in my opinion. I don't care about how processor are backward compatible, but surely AMD are better and this section. If you are trying to compare that sandy bridge is better than Bulldozer, it is, but at some section it's not. And people who said fail to bulldozer doesn't know what is they talking about or just high because actually, it's just games who fail at bulldozer, when you try running fully-8 core utilizing program like cinebench you will see that bulldozers beat sandy bridges. I also don't like how people comments on things before they understand how it fails and stuff, because how bulldozer fail is because the software are only utilizing dual core, and those games are out to date or old game.

Joke.

TCB <3 says:

I'm tired of people using clock speeds to say what's better. These days, clock speeds don't decide if a CPU is better than the other, hate to break it to you fanboys. Sure Intel can overpower an AMD in clock speeds, but every single AMD processor I've used is better at gaming and multitasking. And Intel is a shady company, they purposely make it to where if you buy an upgraded CPU you'll have to buy a new motherboard and ram from them also, putting a lot more money in their pockets. AMD is almost always backwards compatible. I'm a straight up PC gamer, and AMD has always done better for gaming than Intel has for me, and they seem to last a lot longer too. AMD ftw

ronn says:

After so many years using intel... at last i am using AMD now for the sake of trying it (or to experience it). Guess, it is always first time for everything and you know what? nothings is wrong with AMD, the best part is the graphic is awesome.

ati boy turjo says:

actually i will go for amd....its cheap....and so powerful for gaming..... ..intel is cool...but money is a great fact for me.....

Kostas says:

I say AMD, knowing full well that Intel Chips will always win pound for pound in the benchmarks. But, I do not make spending decisions as if I have an unlimited budget. My rig is running a Phenom II X6 1055t (2.8 Ghz). I built this rig in October 2010, and with the combinations of Crossfired 5770s, it runs very well as a solid gaming rig. The AMD chip at the time cost $200, think now it is around $150. Very cheap for a hexacore, Intel's cheapest 6-core is $1000. Now, of course that one would kill my AMD in the benchmarks, I bet many of Intel's quads do as well. But guess what? I need my computer for gaming, internet browsing, and schoolwork. I am not making PIXAR movies. I am just fine with my "inferior" chip that has a great cost-per-core ratio.

Avro Arrow says:

Yeah that's a good point. AMD-based laptops are more balanced machines because under a certain price point, all Intel laptops have Intel graphics processors which are like having an albatross around your neck while all AMD-based laptops have ATi graphics processors which are amazing in comparison.

The Shurmanator says:

I prefer AMD. I can do everything as well if not better on my cheap little $500 laptop with my Athlon 64 x2 than my friend with their more expensive laptop with an Intel pentium B950 chip

 
view all 544 comments

Intel or AMD Poll

Loading poll. Please Wait...

Intel and AMD Comparison

Both AMD and Intel came out with a lot of great CPUs throughout the years. We could observe the competition between Pentium vs K5, Pentium 2 vs K6, Pentium 3 vs K6-3, Celeron vs Duron and so on. Back then it was all about the clock rate of the CPU, but it all changed with Pentium vs Athlon XP competition which started in 2000. Intel could clock their P4s higher while AMD could deliver better performance per clock.

For example, a 2 GHz Athlon XP would easily outperform a 2 GHz Pentium IV; however, the P4 could run at higher clock speeds due to it's architecture. Intel used the bigger numbers in marketing to great effect. As such, AMD adopted a "performance rating" for their CPUs rather than raw gigahertz.. Ironically, Intel soon reached a limit on P4's clock speed and switched to a Performance Rating system themselves, thus ending the "MHz wars".

AMD was the first to introduce a 64-bit processor targeted at an average consumer in 2003. Intel soon followed; nowadays all modern CPUs can run 64-bit applications, while being backwards-compatible with 32-bit ones. For an average user the most noticeable benefit is being able to use 4 GB and more RAM (32-bit systems can only address up to 3.25 GB).

Both companies soon started looking for other ways to increase performance rather than raising clock speeds. In 2005, AMD released the first Athlon 64 X2 dual core processors and surpassed Intel in US retail sales for some time. Intel released dual core Pentium D, later followed by a new Intel Core series (Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7). AMD continued their dual core Athlon X2 CPU line and the quad core Phenom (which wasn't very successful at all), later followed by a much improved Phenom II.

So how do you decide whether an AMD or Intel processor is better now? Your best bet would be to check the benchmarks on popular hardware sites. Neither the raw MHz nor the number of cores will tell you exactly how fast the CPU will perform!

Links to Intel vs AMD Benchmark Tests

 Intel vs AMD Benchmark
  • 2010 Desktop CPU Charts on TomsHardware is probably the biggest collection of the newest CPU reviews and benchmarks using games and various applications in one place.

  • PassMark Software site has a huge number of graphs with the latest AMD vs Intel benchmarks. Note, however, that these are results of a synthetic benchmark and don't necessarily indicate how well will the CPU run the "real world" applications.

  • Xbit Labs regularly post new CPU benchmarks, reviews, tests and overclocking guides.

  • Newegg is one of the best places to buy computer hardware. More importantly, you can read CPU reviews from real people like yourself instead of relying just on the big computer hardware review sites.

Intel and AMD News

New AMD and Nvidia GPUs coming, Intel postpones Ivy Bridge
DigiTimes is reporting that both AMD and Nvidia are set to launch new GPUs in the next couple months. AMD will be launching new Radeon HD 7870 and 7850 GPU's in the first few weeks of March. AMD rival Nvidia is expected to launch its next GPU ...
CyberpowerPC Zeus Desktops Incorporate Intel Core i7-3820 and AMD FX CPUs
CyberpowerPC today announced its Zeus series -- a powerful new line of desktop computers that offer the power of thunder with Intel's new i7-3820 CPU; the speed of AMD's lightning fast FX CPUs; the refined design of NZXT's Switch 810 chassis, ...
AMD graphics CTO leaves company
"Eric Demers and Carrell Killebrew are gone". - AMD has issued an official press release that one of the key? "As cheap as netbooks". - Intel has revealed some additional information on the 2012 mobile strategy to its partners and?
Key developments in Intel's antitrust tangles with competitors and government ...
1993: The Federal Trade Commission drops a probe into alleged anticompetitive behavior by Intel. 1995: AMD and Intel settle all litigation between them. Intel gets $58 million, while AMD gets $18 million. 1998: The FTC accuses Intel of violating ...

Comments

submit
  • Reply
    DAVID Feb 7, 2012 @ 11:21 pm | delete
    I have been building my own pc`s for about 18 years now and I will tell you that AMD & INTEL both build good cpu`s with varrying degrees of strongpoints ,but having said that intel is much more picky with setup then most of the AMD`s I have used well not counting the older cpu gender.I like INTEL as far as performance (mhz) but I beleive AMD has good performance for the price.AMD performs just as good as INTEL if the setup is right,INTEL seems to perform good on motherboards that are not intel based (imo) as AMD seems to perform good on just about any board other than SIS boards wich I have never considered a performance board,and I don`t even know if they still make chipsets anyway.AMD also doesn`t seem to be already pushed to the upper level of its ability as INTEL seems to always be squeezed to it`s max mhz already,this can be good or bad depends on what kind of lifespan you are wanting from your cpu.I personaly don`t think as far as gaming in particular goes that the cpu you choose matters as much as your video card does,but with that respect also some setups with similar cpu and memory will just perform better than others.I am currently on duel core 7750BE non overclocked cpu,and I also happen to have 3 other duel core AMD cpu pcs and one duel core INTEL,and they all perform good but the ones that game the best are my AMD pc`s,but opening a large zip file seems to go very fast for the INTEL cpu.So as I still build much better pc`s for people than the ones I have,I don`t think I would ever suggest INTEL over AMD ,for the price I just don`t think you can beat AMD ,now if INTEL would come down off their price a little that might change,or if it was 10 years ago I might say that AMD was lacking some.But tomorrow is a different day.
  • Reply
    Rob Jan 26, 2012 @ 9:15 am | delete
    Im left in the middle but the new intels are way more effient than AMD. AMD 1055T was great at multitasking and video coding and my intel core i5 is better at gaming. Both have pro's and cons but for me I find intel wins the day but all depends on how you use your computer
  • Reply
    MALAYSIA Jan 10, 2012 @ 10:20 pm | delete
    INTEL is not that good as AMD
  • Reply
    somy Jan 2, 2012 @ 10:49 pm | delete
    depends...If you need a cpu for gaming it is AMD and for anything else is Intel
  • Reply
    Edutopia Jan 2, 2012 @ 2:38 am | delete
    I don't have brand loyalty to either AMD or Intel. I'll buy from either company and it comes down to whichever company offers the best price/performance ratio in the price range that I want to buy my chip at. For a while that was Pentiums and then it was Athlons and now it is the Intel i5.
  • Reply
    waldenthree.net Jan 1, 2012 @ 11:36 am | delete
    Appreciating your topic. I know both companies well. Hope AMD can compete with Intel with some great new products ! Congrads on being on Squidoo Top 100 List. Am going for next level 54. See you soon again. OOPs ! Just got a new idea for a lense. Thanks.
  • Reply
    John_Michael Dec 23, 2011 @ 10:58 pm | delete
    AMD just AMD
  • Reply
    nonamen Dec 7, 2011 @ 10:37 am | delete
    i like the two of them
    +AMD is good because it has backwards compatibility
    +intel does not
    +intel is better in multitasking
    +amd is not
    +amd = x64
    +intel = x86
    +amd cheap
    +intel reasonable
    +intel is made before amd
    +AMD graphics good and cheap
    +intel graphics sucks
    +intel ready to go
    +amd best for oc use
  • Reply
    bob Nov 21, 2011 @ 12:38 pm | delete
    What about Via?????
  • Reply
    Sam Dec 16, 2011 @ 5:17 pm | delete
    via is the worst chipset avoid taking it is a horor
  • Reply
    Obscure_Treasures Nov 17, 2011 @ 3:09 am | delete
    Intel vs AMD really sounds interesting. I prefer Intel though. Great lens
  • Reply
    bob Nov 21, 2011 @ 12:37 pm | delete
    wut? lens
  • Reply
    Jay Nov 8, 2011 @ 10:25 pm | delete
    Intel may have better processors but a decent Intel CPU is much more expensive than an AMD one!

    Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition - 3.4GHz Quad for $130
    Intel Core i5-2400 - 3.1GHz (Turbo Boost 3.4GHz) Quad for $190

    $60 more dollars for almost the same thing?
    If you have lots of money to spend, Intel is great.

    But I still think AMD beats Intel as cost is a major component of processors.
  • Reply
    i sucks Oct 30, 2011 @ 11:40 pm | delete
    intel better, AMD Best
  • Reply
    vasudev Oct 17, 2011 @ 8:40 pm | delete
    a phenom processor is better than i5/i7
  • Reply
    epic fail Oct 16, 2011 @ 10:38 am | delete
    amd fanboys will shut their mouth now because of the epic fail amd bulldozer
  • Reply
    FTW Oct 16, 2011 @ 1:03 am | delete
    WTF.. intel is the best FTW.. amd is faill. their 8core Bulldozer FX-8150 smashed and defeated by a quad core i5/i7 sandy bridge.. and price is sucks its expensive than 2500k but performance sucks...
  • Reply
    robert Dec 10, 2011 @ 11:16 am | delete
    ahaha look at this no fail d it all power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nKQ5uDA8TM ahah
  • Reply
    FTW Jan 30, 2012 @ 3:58 am | delete
    haha look at this. it is fail, running at 2 cores :P
    http://cdn.technoreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-8150.jpg
  • Reply
    DonD Oct 10, 2011 @ 5:16 am | delete
    I have been using intel for years ad i have no problem with it, im happy using intel as my CPU. Great info and lens
  • Reply
    ebestcomputer Oct 5, 2011 @ 3:55 pm | delete
    I am a fan of both AMD and Intel, we shall see if Sandy Bridge E or da Bulldozer take the crown.
  • Reply
    BookNow Sep 29, 2011 @ 3:32 am | delete
    Nice lens. Thumbs up! :-)
  • Reply
    mavens Sep 14, 2011 @ 2:12 am | delete
    I choose Intel FTW
  • Reply
    PocketfulofParis Sep 11, 2011 @ 3:44 am | delete
    intel
  • Reply
    Vasudev Sep 10, 2011 @ 11:18 am | delete
    for a gamer an AMD CPU would be better , also an ATI grapgics card
    Intel ALWAYS charges more for the same performance n also Nvidia
  • Reply
    ali Sep 10, 2011 @ 1:05 am | delete
    nic amd
  • Reply
    Chris Sep 6, 2011 @ 5:44 pm | delete
    AMD - Better gaming and video experience
  • Reply
    TeamSTM Sep 4, 2011 @ 10:44 pm | delete
    I like my Laptop which is AMD, but my Desktop is Intel, which I use more than my Laptop!
  • Reply
    sayeen Sep 1, 2011 @ 1:21 pm | delete
    nice lens...i would go for inter anytime...
  • Reply
    gatorsquid Aug 30, 2011 @ 3:02 am | delete
    nice lens!
  • Reply
    rootDaemon Aug 13, 2011 @ 9:41 pm | delete
    Great content, I can't wait to see your other lenses.
  • Reply
    Mosoma Aug 11, 2011 @ 7:59 am | delete
    Very informative. Nice lens.
  • Reply
    Webguy7 Aug 8, 2011 @ 1:54 am | delete
    I've always used Intel, and wanted to know why someone would pick AMD anymore. After all, AMD has lost market share, and some sites such as http://www.cpubenchmark.net show AMD getting blown away by Intel in the high-end CPU range. Combing the web has given me mostly just the obvious answers - AMD costs less and works fine for most computing. More than a decade ago, AMD was either ahead or very close to Intel, but they seem to have fallen behind. The irony is that Intel has gotten ideas for features in their recent processors from AMD. For example, the QuickPath Interconnect in the Core i7 is similar to AMD's preceding HyperTransport bus.
    I do like ATI videocards, and was saddened when AMD bought ATI... ATI is a leader, but not AMD- anymore.
  • Reply
    TIRMassageStone Aug 3, 2011 @ 12:09 pm | delete
    I've never used AMD, so I cannot say which is better.
  • Reply
    steven71 Jul 21, 2011 @ 3:00 am | delete
    AMD is better than INTEL. AMD brands on the contrary are less efficient when it comes to power consumption, not as fast as Intel in performance speed, tend to be low priced in most cases and are better for multimedia and gaming owing to their faster clocking.

    http://www.techyv.com/article/intel-vs-amd-processors
  • Reply
    Abenton Jul 19, 2011 @ 10:01 am | delete
    Both have there benefits I guess. But thanks for the read, it was really informative. On my budget laptops: http://www.squidoo.com/getting-the-hottest-new-laptops-under-300, I can use both aswell..
  • Reply
    WeeGee Jun 26, 2011 @ 7:34 pm | delete
    Really, if you put AMD's top CPU (Phenom II hex-Core) against Intel's (i7 Quad-Core), you come out with The i7 on top, even if just by a little. However, if you consider the budget/economic CPU's of Intel vs. AMD, you find that AMD provides more bang for the buck. If you think Cheap-And-Good, go for AMD. If you want Costy-But-Exceptional, take a look at the new Core Series, 2nd Generation(Core 2 Duo, i3, i5, and i7).
  • Reply
    markets Jun 21, 2011 @ 3:21 am | delete
    This is like nVidia vs. ATI... there will always be fans of both sides. If you don't mind the cost, Intel is the way to go.
  • Reply
    techieguy Jun 19, 2011 @ 2:50 pm | delete
    I have only owned Intel processors, but I did build a PC for my friend that was an AMD. His still runs while mine crapped the bed.....however I DID use an Nvidia GPU in mine so maybe it conflicted with the Intel board/chip? but it did run smoother than the ATI card that I upgraded from, but this could have just been from the fact it was a 1GB compared to the 256MB ATI. Also, his case had a much better cooling system
  • Reply
    simplycyber May 31, 2011 @ 2:01 pm | delete
    I use both of them. And i think both of them have their advantages and weakness. Nice lens!
  • Reply
    dfrye1 May 25, 2011 @ 1:43 pm | delete
    Both are great processors. It is a matter of preference.
  • Reply
    pingky May 19, 2011 @ 6:18 am | delete
    Very useful. It actually doesn't matter which one to choose
  • Reply
    Rizingsun 25 May 7, 2011 @ 6:13 pm | delete
    I's easy ladys and Gents, for the best results on you PC. All depending on what you nee your PC to do but if you want Gaming and great performance from your PC is doing the BIGGEST NO NO...LOL Combining BOTH WORLDS!!! INTEL CPU AMD motherboard and a AMD Video card LMAO! thats how you say F!@#$ I got the best PC ever!!!
  • Reply
    forexoval May 7, 2011 @ 5:31 am | delete
    +More Pricing Processor AMD and Intel CPUs April 2011
    http://devicegadget.com/hardware/pricing-processor-amd-intel-cpus-april-2011/2065/
  • Reply
    OrganicMom247 May 6, 2011 @ 8:34 pm | delete
    Nice lens. I prefer AMD.
  • Reply
    aansystone Apr 27, 2011 @ 1:37 pm | delete
    awesome discussion, i don't know why but some how its embedded in my mind that intel is better than amd and the poll result shows that its amd.
  • Reply
    Wedding_Mom Apr 22, 2011 @ 1:55 am | delete
    Great lens. Very useful. It actually doesn't matter which one to choose, if your satisfied with what you have right now, better stick to it.
  • Reply
    Big_Joe Apr 22, 2011 @ 12:00 am | delete
    Nice work, great information and resources, Thanks.
    A Like, A Share and A Blessing by Big Joe.
  • Reply
    Williams Built Desktops Apr 18, 2011 @ 6:42 pm | delete
    "Intel could clock their P4s higher while AMD could deliver better performance per clock."

    This was and still is is very true. I build desktop computers and I always use AMD unless I have a specific request for Intel. I have never once had a problem with the reliability or performance of my AMD processors and they cost me a lot less, resulting in lower prices for my customers.
    I rarely have problems arise from unlocking cores because I know how to tune my devices without creating heat problems. It's true with both Intel and AMD that hidden cores are sometimes faulty, but hat's the risk you run with overclocking.
    I don't care what brand you're a fan of, if you want to build a great computer on a reasonable budget, go with AMD, but if you want to stay true to Intel, go ahead and spend a ridiculous amount of money.
  • Reply
    UKGhostwriter Apr 18, 2011 @ 6:22 pm | delete
    great lens ... the verdict is out here!
  • Load More

by

Chadrew

I don't have anything against Intel but I usually choose AMD CPUs due to their superior price versus performance ratio. Their Black Edition processors... more »

Feeling creative? Create a Lens!

Powerful Quad Core CPU 

Intel Core i7-950 3.06 GHz 8 MB Cache Socket LGA1366 Processor

Amazon Price: $324.42 (as of 02/15/2012)Buy Now

This CPU has four cores running at 3.06 GHz, guaranteeing enough power for the most demanding games and apps. The Core i7-950 is a great choice if you want one of the fastest processor on the market.

Today's Bestselling CPUs 

Loading Fetching RSS feed... please stand by