Hey i was just wondering if you like amd or intel better. I prefer intel but it is just me. please tell me your opinion

Intel. They run cooler.

depends. AMD is better low-cost stuff.

I really like AMD. It's much more efficient than Intel.
Though, I'll agree with >>2. They're much more cooler.

AMD has better performance at the same or even higher price point as Intel, meaning you get more when you pay for AMD. In my experience, you are paying a premium for Intel. In my experience AMD also overclocks higher.

That being said, AMD has little in the high end market right now that matches with Intel (look at the Xeon E5 series). If you have a lot to spend on a very good computer, you'd probably use Intel. I myself like and want to support AMD, since I don't have a lot to spend on a computer. Plus, if Intel takes over the market, it would be like Windows. The same high prices you pay for Windows from the lack of competition would happen with processors.

>>5 I see your point. Hate for another monopoly to pop up. And you're right about the low/mid range AMD's; more for your money. Intel still runs cooler though, and that's necessary for more compact builds.

My old laptop had an Intel. It ran infinitely better than my current AMD.

>>7 That is pretty vague. Intel and AMD have a wide range of power in their products. If they were the same price, that would be different.

>>8 Plus, mobile processors are totally different. AMD's usually have an APU, with no dedicated GPU (or an APU Xfired with a GPU) so it is even less comparable.

>>9 Intel is using IGP's now to do the same thing, and traditionally, AMD Radeon APU's have had more powerful graphics, but less powerfull processors than the more expensive intel equivalent.


>>8 Yes, but AMD's top stuff right now is about as powerful as Intel's lower end stuff.


>>5 This is true. With the exception of high-performance tasks such as gaming, video editing, and the like, most people do not actually need a very powerful processor.


>>6 Additionally, Intel has a history of abusing their market share and generally taking advantage of their near-monopoly.

http://www.computershopper.com/shoptalk/industry-news/ftc-brings-lawsuit-against-intel-monopoly


>>9 (again), Speaking of mobile processors, I kind of want to see when Nvidia will release their project denver arm processors. Arm is traditionally a mobile platform, but apparently they plan to make a desktop version that is x86 compatible.

>>10 I admit, I'm not sure what the difference between and AMD's APU (sorry about the incorrect terminology before) and Intel's IGP is. I was sure it was simply two different names for the same technology, but now I'm not as sure. Also, I'm pretty sure the AMD APU's run a lot hotter.

About Denver ARM: I haven't heard a lot, but it looks pretty promising. If they can bump up the power to the same level as desktop CPU's, they'll produce a lot less heat and use a lot less power, since the ARM architecture is designed for phones and subsequently have much fewer transistors. I've also heard there is already x64 support.

>>11 APU is Accelerated Processing Unit, which means it's a processor and, well, anything else. AMD APU's are their name for their integrated graphics, so it is not different from IGP. I will admit, AMD has done an incredible job in terms of their advertising, because they've all but taken over that term. Whenever someone I know hears the word APU, they think AMD.

I just looked up the ARM project and I'm not sure what the point is. Sure it'll be less heat and power consumed, but it will also be far less powerful. Won't bumping up the power also increase the heat and power consumption?

>>12 Yeah, I realized that after I said it (which is why I apologized). AMD has a top-tier advertising department, especially with hyper-threading. No one knows exactly what the difference between threads are and what cores are, but they know AMD processors have 8 of them and more is better. An exaggeration, of course, but you get the idea.

As for the ARM, it's just a better way to make processors, as far as I know. A need for fewer transistors means less heat and power consumption even at the same power as regular desktop CPU's, at least as far as I understand it.