What is the difference between Intel and AMD?

Question

Im going to buy a high end customized gaming PC and im not sure which to use, Intel or AMD or both?

Answer 1

Good DX11 gaming and AMD don't mix, AMD doesn't have a CPU or APU that's DX11 worthy, read this and invest in a Intel powered rig,



Performance Analysis



With the addition of numbers for the Intel Core i3-2100 and Core i5-2400 in some of our benchmarks, it's plain to see that even with a price cut, the FX-8120 struggles in most of our tests. In very multi-threaded tests such as Cinebench and WPrime, it just about manages to hold its own against the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 - slightly ahead in WPrime, a little behind in Cinebench and noticeably faster than the cheaper Core i3-2100. The Core i5-3570K is much faster in both tests, but then it costs around £30 more.



Our image editing test was a real let down with the FX-8120. It came bottom of the graph, being trounced by a staggering 500 points by the Core i3-2100 - a CPU that costs just £90. Even the ageing AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition was considerably faster while the similarly priced Intel Core i5-2400 was nearly twice as fast. Clearly, if you do any amount of photo editing, the AMD FX-8120 represents particularly poor value.



With eight cores at its disposal, you'd think the FX-8120 might stand a good chance in our video encoding test. Sadly this wasn't to be and its score of 2,150 was over 400 points short of the Core i5-2400. Thankfully for the FX-8120, the Core i3-2100 was noticeably slower, with its two physical and two virtual cores not able to keep up.



Everything started to fall away from the FX-8120 again in our multi-tasking test, where it was yet again at the bottom of the pile, coming 100 points short of the much cheaper Core i3-2100, while the Core i5-2400 was nearly 50% faster - pretty damning result. Overall, it was no surprise to see the FX-8120 rock bottom, bettered by the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition and Core i3-2100 and trounced by the Core i5-2400.



Our game test lacks data for the two Sandy Bridge CPUs as we tested these some time ago, however, with the Intel Core i5-3570K retailing for just £30-40 more, it's clear from our results that the FX-8120 isn't a great buy for games either. The Intel CPU was 60 per cent faster in Arma II while costing around 30 per cent more - not a bad rate of return if you can afford the extra layout.



Conclusion,



Sadly, its more of the same bad news for AMD or anyone with a Socket AM3+ motherboard looking for a decent CPU for around the £150 mark. The FX-8120 just isn't a good choice when it comes to the kind of applications we run on our PCs. It's regularly outpaced by far cheaper Intel dual-core CPUs, while the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 is significantly faster in many of our tests. It's not all bad news for AMD - before we get accused of being biased towards Intel, we have no qualms recommending the A8-3870K for those looking to build a budget gaming PC, while we also recommend many of its graphics cards.



As it stands, the FX-8120 will have to be a lot cheaper for it to be worth considering over an equivalently-priced Intel setup, while owners of the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition can rest assured that there aren't any worthwhile upgrades yet.



http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/20…

Answer 2

Intel is extra widespread first off. They even have a higher guideline set for usual every day tasks. They're also extra strong within the feel that they are able to yield a greater overclock and a much so much lessen core voltage. It's extra of a benchmarking/overclocking CPU. AMD on the other had offers scale back costs with first rate efficiency. AMD's CPUs do not overclock well at all. You'd be fortunate to break the 3GHz variety with them. They're better for gaming within the sense that they have a better graphic processing guideline set than Intel does. Then again AMD core voltage:overclock ratio is horrid. This motives Intel to run so much cooler than AMD's should you simply need a gaming pc a twin core 2.5GHz+ will be good from AMD. If you wish to have benchmarking/overclocking Intel will win. For multimedia it's relatively iffy. The Intel will by and large win with there extra effective guide units. I might say a few 95% danger of that. I take advantage of a AMD proccessor currently and am pleased with it can be preformance, actual world shrewd.

Answer 3

Intel

Better

More Expensive

Faster

More Reliable

Lower Energy Cost

Answer 4

I would recommend an Intel i5. The difference between Intel and AMD are: Intel are great processors at a high end price, AMD are processors for gamers on a budget. Good processors not as good as Intel and at a cheaper price.

Answer 5

bro you said you are buying a high end gaming pc then i would recommend you to go with intel these two companies manufacture processors and Amd also has there graphics cards



at low price range AMD totally blows intel away

But when it comes to mid-high price point then intel is a clear winner by a long distance



with intel sandy and ivy bridge intel took a huge leap over AMD and for amd to catch intel its very tough

as intel maintained its price point and never reduced its quality



there is nothing much difference between these processors but AMD gives you performance and lower price point



But intel gives you much better performance at higher price point



and as you are building a high end gaming pc i would definetly recommend intel

Answer 6

Intel runs cooler and is more stable. AMD is cheaper and allows more cores per price point for their chips. Generally though, you want to stick with Intel.

Answer 7

They're two different companies of computer manufacturing. Intel is much popular. I would recommend you to go for Intel. AMD could be expensive.