Who Makes The Better CPU - Intel or AMD?
- 9
- Add a Comment
This yesterday in one of the forums a poster asked the age old question, what CPU should he buy, Intel or AMD? The poster was considering buying a new HP lappy and wasn’t sure which of the CPU’s he should get. Naturally this subject always open up another round of debates as to which CPU is better. The answer is fairly simple. Either should work just fine.
Over the many years I have been using computer systems, I have used both Intel and AMD processing chips. I haven’t found anything dramatically different between the two. Both companies are notorious for their wild benchmark testing procedures which can’t be trusted. AMD just admitted a few weeks ago that their latest benchmarks for some of the processors were inaccurate and promised to redo the testing. But Intel has done the same thing over the years, so both companies are equally at fault.
It is understandable why consumers ask the question which CPU is better. CPU speed measured in megahertz or gigahertz is confusing. Once it was fairly simple. The faster the CPU, the better performance in theory. But now we have many more options to choose from. Single core, dual core, quad core chips from both companies. Add to the mix 64bit vs 32 bit processors. Plus Intel came out with a new numbering system which no longer indicated CPU speed without one having to look at a chart to see what the numbers are. We also have the low end CPU’s like Duron, Sempron, Celeron, and so forth and a variety of BUS speeds that change every 24 hours! 
For the average consumer if you get one of the new dual cores from either company, you should be fine.
Comments welcome.
9 Comments
lumpy
July 11th, 2007
at 5:03am
I have a number of machines, mostly older. I do not have any multi-core machines. Over the years of building machines though, I must confess that I have developed a preference for AMD. I seem to have better performance (luck?) from them. All things considered though keep in mind that is is based on actual usage by a power user and not any benchmark testing.
I still have a PIII 850 running on an old Creative M003 Mobo (almost 10 years now) running ME, a celeron (366?) running Debian and am actually typing this on an AMD AtholonXP2100+ at 1.73 GHz. I also have two other AMD machines awaiting the next build of Ubuntu. Since my PC use involves lots of bare bone text editing, speed is not much of a factor for me. Going “old school” means I build a lot more machines for the same buck.
I agree with your last sentence regarding the dual core. I know a lot of people who have built dual core machines and they seem to perform great. I have also played a multi core one of my friends just built.
I think one should spend a bit of time considering what the weakest link is when they build a PC. The slowest component will often determine the overall speed. Hooking a 16billion GHz machine up to a modem will not suck the Internet through it any quicker. The same is true for hard drive or network cards.
Ron Schenone
July 11th, 2007
at 5:37am
Hi Lumpy,
I agree. PLUS a faster CPU will not make you type any faster as well.
Thanks for your comments and for sharing your experience with us.
Regards, Ron
Scott King
July 11th, 2007
at 5:56pm
I find the motherboard to be very important when building a system. I have several “faster” systems, however my old Athlon system still seems to run faster and smoother, even after 4 years of hard use. I use a 3.4 Ghz P4 system at work, it has 1.5 Gb Ram, however I am not impressed with the performance.It’s a cookie-cutter box, stamped out by the thousands. As far as AMD vs. Intel, it’s anybody’s game if you use good components that work well together.
Ron Schenone
July 11th, 2007
at 7:09pm
Hi Scott,
Agree. Good hardware makes a huge difference. I believe we have all experienced sitting at a system with a fast processor only to find that it is a slug.
Thanks for your comments.
Regards, Ron
Chris
January 31st, 2008
at 7:36pm
Hi,
I am a graphic designer on a budget and am looking at two computers with different processors. Can anyone tell which processor is better and if the difference is significance?
AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core TL-62 2.10Ghz
Intel Core 2 Duo 1.67Ghz T5450
Thanks, Chris
Ron Schenone
February 1st, 2008
at 6:53am
Hello Chris,
Those cpu’s should perform fairly closely. But remember. It’s not just the cpu that determines performance.
TECH
May 16th, 2008
at 5:11am
I favor intel, and have always did it, but it doesent matter which you choose, I think it is a principal choice.
Both of them are really good companies, who know their stuff, and there is no big change between them.
I use intel, couse I have always did and like the logo.
AMD can take more heat than Intel, when overclocked (tested on 8 cpu’s 4 from both) The AMD could take 140 degrees celcius (average), while the Intel processors could take 120 degrees celcius (average).
But they are equal in speed, so there is actually no need to favor one.
The choice should be simple.. Whats cheapest? Whats fastest? Whats the most stable? What do I need it for?
Ron Schenone
May 16th, 2008
at 7:49am
Hello TECH,
Good points. I use both Intel and AMD chips and both perform well for me.
Dave
June 28th, 2008
at 12:25pm
If youre going to run cad on any system benchmark the FPU. Intel for years has outperformed AMD. This is based on my 23 years of experience. Unless AMD has changed regarding FPU, Intel is my choice.