Myself I like Intel. They've always been solid and have done well as far as thermals are concerned. Perhaps AMD may be a little less expensive, but IMHO, the extra money spent for Intel is worth it.
I build with AMD. I always base it off a game I want to play that is usually pretty advanced or at least over taxed for previous system. I make sure it can run that game on high settings.. AMD always gets me there for the least $$$. This last video card I bought was also AMD. Normally I go for Nvidia but when the HD7790 1st came out, MSI ran a deal for the card thru Newegg where it was like $50 off instantly and I also got a free game with the Never settle campaign.. I was running a Palit Nvidia GTS 250 and it wasn't very hard to find an affordable upgrade from that old thing... That said, I notice the 7790 didn't last long and I knew it had driver issues last I knew.. The box with mine in it has been powered down for a yr since I don't game anymore.. I buy INTEL only.. If I'm not building a computer and prefer to buy ( and this is almost always Refurbishd for family members ect... ) I don't consider AMD.. That's partly because I deal only with Dell refurbished or used units since they are so cheap and easy to work on
Only used once Cyrix/AMD CPU in 1997-98. But I am a great fan of Intel systems with Nvidia GPU's with stability and performance.
Someone mentioned the dead notebooks because the heat, so nvidia belongs here hands down. And yes there are notebooks dead because the heat with AMD chips as well, but way less than Nvidia counterparts. But we are talking about the GPUs not CPUs. And there are many notebooks with an Intel Cpu with an external graphic chip, no matter if Nvidia or AMD, those are less durable than the ones, no matter if Intel or AMD, which runs on integrated GPU. But usually, there AMD wins hands down.
Cheevo, ignore everyone that supports Intel. Go for AMD. Here is why: They're better than most people say. A lot of people claiming Intel is far better than AMD are often paid by Intel. Synthetic benchmarks are also bribed (paid) by Intel to make AMD scores look worse than they really are in comparison. Never go by synthetic benchmarks. They're bulls**t. Look on Newegg to see the ratings of AMD CPUs. Almost all of them are 5/5. AMD is making changes to make their CPUs more efficient to stay competitive. They're also coming out with Zen and K12 CPUs late next year which were designed by Jim Keller. If you don't know who he is, Google him. He's one of the greatest CPU architect designers of our time. Those are the selfish reasons to go for an AMD. Now for the selfless reasons: AMD is 1/10th the size of Intel. They are not as heavily funded in the research and development (R&D) as Intel is and yet they are still being competitive in the budget segment. As consumers, they need our support. They're also the 2nd largest chip maker in the world. All of their business practices have been positive throughout history. You never hear them doing anything illegal or wrong to other companies. Intel has performed numerous illegal acts against AMD to ensure people don't buy AMD products. As a result, they have hurt AMD's financial position tremendously in which they may never recover. Although Intel is playing nice now, they've already done the necessary damage to AMD to ensure they (Intel) will remain more competitive than AMD is in the CPU market. To those that support Intel, here is what they are doing: You are supporting a much larger, ultra-rich company that has played dirty in the past with various illegal acts and got caught for it. When you support Intel, that means AMD is less funded. When AMD is weakened by profits, Intel gains more money and is given less incentive to advance their CPUs above what they are today. They may give a 5% increases in performance and make their CPUs roughly 5% more efficient in their next CPU generation, all for the same price of the previous generation of CPU. Those small numbers prove that Intel isn't making an effort. If they did try (and they can if they wanted), then AMD would get crushed and go bankrupt. If AMD were to go bankrupt, Intel would become a monopoly. If Intel became a monopoly, they would get split up into divisions which would be costly for them. In turn, with having no competition, their high-end CPUs would double in cost from $500 to around $1000 or more. The Intel consumer would have no one else to blame but themselves. Sure, AMD may still be making GPUs, but that isn't as profitable as it once were, either. The people in the CPU division would be all out of work. To those that support AMD, here is what they are doing: AMD becomes better funded. They make better CPUs and GPUs that are more efficient which then forces NVIDIA and Intel to produce more powerful and efficient CPUs and GPUs. The consumer wins in the long run, as does AMD. Support AMD.
Intel has the most advanced CPU's today. They are reliable and consumes low voltage. If Intel makes something I'll buy it without second thought.
In my opinion it is six of one and a half dozen of the other. If it is a gaming/general purpose rig I prefer AMD. If it is a server/business rig I prefer Intel. My "main" machine is an AMD K10 ( MSI A88X-G45 ), and yes it crashes often... Not because it is a poor design, but because of all the crap ware I have loaded into it... And the SATA power plug to my SSD boot drive which I have to replug every 3 months or so. My secondary machine is a dual quad core Intel ( Supermicro X7DVL-3 ) server which never crashes, but there is very little loaded onto it at any given point. It is also currently set up as a tri boot to my choice of XP Pro x86, 7 Ent x64, or 10 Ent x64. The XP's only uses are playing ancient Amiga .mod files via my 1992 purchased player called Wowii and a bored game from the mid 1990's called LegalCrime, neither of which will run on anything newer than XP. Haven't done much at all with 7 yet, and 10 runs my opensim & WAMP servers. Strangely I have 24GB of RAM installed but 7 and 10 only see 8GB of that. XP sees only 4GB but it is 32 bit so that is expected.
yep, me too good times I remember lol; here Intel and only integrated graphics for a while unfortunatelly (no $$$) but works fine at least @ Engineer 2K2
Yes Intel with integrated graphics also works fine. The most important thing which I have noticed is that Intel systems are stable and compatible with almost all software's released for windows platform - All developers make sure that their software should run properly on Intel platform as the mass is using Intel. This does not endorse AMD as inferior but personal experience and preference do matters !
Depends on the used software. Gaming wise it's clearly intel i3/i5, but if you only use your computer for heavy calculations like video rendering, you could go with a eight core AMD FX system which is worlds cheaper then a i7. For my light gaming/emulating old school consoles + mainly browsing the internet I prefer my power efficient haswell core i3.