for performance to price ratio AMD will beat INTEL. low acquisition costs, low follow-up costs as well as low power consumption are important, AMD's processors are still first choice. AMD also currently offers the cheapest dual-core processor. Finally, AMD processors are very suitable for use in quiet systems.
A look at power consumption is important: A cheap but inefficient processor may prove expensive in the long run.
In conclusion,: The CPU is not the only component that makes a PC energy efficient. Choose the wring motherboard or power supply and the most energy efficient processor in the world won't do a bit of good.
Low cost processor- sempron vs celeron- Even with lower operating frequency, Sempron performed well and was much superior to the Intel processor in almost all the tests.
In the benchmarking with Office apps the AMD CPU was in average 26% faster than the Intel CPU. Therefore it’s the best choice if you’re going to use the PC for Internet, texts, spreadsheets and office work.
If you use Photoshop, the AMD processor is also the best choice. It accomplished the 12 benchmarking tasks in 11.9 seconds less than the Intel processor.
In games AMD advantage was even bigger. Sempron 3000+ was up to 73% faster on Doom 3, using the same video card.
Besides being faster, the AMD processor consumes less power, heats less, makes less noise (since its fan is less demanded) and doesn’t demand special cases or power supplies.
midrange- Athlon 64 x2 and pentium core2duo-AMD and Intel are unbelievably close when it comes to mainstream CPU performance - far closer than we expected. There are a couple of exceptions, however. DivX encoding in particular is extremely strong on Intel CPUs where AMD just can't compete these days.
Although AMD remains very competitive in the vast majority of benchmarks, given the virtual price parity Intel's performance advantages in some tests make the Core 2 or Pentium Dual-Core a more sensible buy. Both the Core 2 Duo E4500 and Pentium E2160 are great choices, as are their lower clocked variants; it really boils down to price point.
Once you take overclocking into account though, it's tough to beat Intel's Pentium Dual-Core lineup. With 65%+ overclocks - with little effort and using stock cooling - the Pentium E2140 and E2160 are easily the best buys on the market today. If you're absolutely opposed to overclocking, then the AMD/Intel question is a tossup, but if you've got no problems pushing clocks then Intel is the clear choice at all price points.
highend- intel quadcore xenon vs AMD quadcore opteron-Looking purely at benchmarks, we can only conclude AMD must yield to Intel. In by far most of the benchmarks the SuperMicro server with Intel Xeon E5472 Harpertown CPUs has the best scores, and with a significant margin. For an allround server, Intel would seem to be the brand of choice for the moment. Nevertheless AMD does win in a number of benchmarks, especially a number of the FP part of Spec CPU2006. For HPC applications where memory bandwidth is as important as processing performance, a quad core Opteron server may well be the best solution.
Barcelona processors is more energy efficient in all applications than the SuperMicro server with Intel Harpertown chips. That said, the average performance difference is bigger than the average power consumption difference, so we can only conclude that Intel offers the best performance per watt. Compared to Clovertown it would be an easy win for AMD, but to beat Harpertown AMD will have to show quite a bit more performance.
It is commendable that the new Opteron CPUs work so well with the existing Opteron servers, albeit with a BIOS upgrade.