Is there really a difference between Intel and AMD?

[keiichidono]

If you go with Intel you'll be paying more than you would for identical specs with AMD but the money is well spent IMHO. The graphics card works great out of the box, the processor runs cooler, Intel supports open source software, etc.

[Grimhound]

The difference between Intel and AMD CPUs is from my experience simply a processor:space heater ratio, with Intel being a better processor and AMD being a better space heater. If you live anywhere where you can stage a recreation of John Carpenter's The Thing during the winter, you might want to look into AMD.

[Exodist]

For the most part the chips makers are neck and neck when it comes to CORE performance. What makes or breaks the chips is the other features like larger cache sizes and so forth. A good example was Intels Core2 Duo, it was Good. Though AMDs X2 was faster. Then Intel released the Core2 Duo Exteme, the extreme had much much larger cache size and then nothing AMD had could touch it for a long time. Mind you the Core2 Duo Extreme had 8Megs of L2 cache and a hefty price tag to match.

All in all my advice would be to look on Anandtech or TomsHardware and check out there reviews. Seems for most folks Quad cores are over rated and some dual cores still are rocking hard. So when it comes down to it, just read those sites reviews then see what you wish to spend on your system. I go for deals myself. I never get the latest and greatest, so last summers model is normally the best value as far as price/performance.

Also when it comes to choosing AMD or Intel. Dont worry with the name, there are no compatibility issues and there hasn't been since the days of the 80386 chips. I have been running AMD chips since my 486DX4 100 I had when in highschool and have never ever had any issues.

So find what you want for the price you want and you can feel confident with your purchase.

- Exo

[Skripka]

The difference between Intel and AMD CPUs is from my experience simply a processor:space heater ratio, with Intel being a better processor and AMD being a better space heater. If you live anywhere where you can stage a recreation of John Carpenter's The Thing during the winter, you might want to look into AMD.

Meh.

Ditch the stock (sucky) HSF and thermal compound and you can get a PhenomIIx4 to idle at room temp, and on load not go above 45C.

[Firestem4]

personally I like AMD due to the Price to Performance ratio, but as for laptops, I've notice a better battery life when using Intel as compared to AMD

Not all of that is AMD's fault. I know from personal experience that it can be attributed to the netbook manufacturer.

My friend just bought a really nice Gateway netbook, (same as the Acer AspireOne). It has an AMD Sempron processor, very respectable specs for the netbook line. and an ATI embedded graphics chipset.

However it has poor battery performance (especially under linux) because Gateway disabled AMD's PowerNow technology which is their Power Scaling technology built into the processor. So the thing is running at ~90-100% clock speed all the time.

[Firestem4]

Meh.

Ditch the stock (sucky) HSF and thermal compound and you can get a PhenomIIx4 to idle at room temp, and on load not go above 45C.

My Athlon II X2 250 idles at 18-23C and under load I haven't seen it go above 30C.

[jeremyswalker]

For the most part the chips makers are neck and neck when it comes to CORE performance. What makes or breaks the chips is the other features like larger cache sizes and so forth. A good example was Intels Core2 Duo, it was Good. Though AMDs X2 was faster. Then Intel released the Core2 Duo Exteme, the extreme had much much larger cache size and then nothing AMD had could touch it for a long time. Mind you the Core2 Duo Extreme had 8Megs of L2 cache and a hefty price tag to match.

Athlon X2 faster than Core2 Duo?? In my experience, this comparison makes more sense with Pentium Dual Cores versus the Athlon X2. Once Core2 came out, AMD has had a hard time matching the performance. IMHO

Seems for most folks Quad cores are over rated and some dual cores still are rocking hard.

Personally, I love my Core2 Quad. Sure, it's clocked a little slower than some of the dual cores out there, but it just never quits.. never hesitates..
I will definitely get another quad core on my next build. Whenever that is... Personal opinion, of course.

[MooPi]

My experience has been that AMD cpu's are a better bang for the buck. At the very low end AMD rules completely as the Celeron is a dog in dogs fir. As you move up the price scale AMD continues to give more for your money. I'm not saying Intel doesn't make a good processor, just that they are over priced. My latest rig is centered around an AMD Athlon II 620 cpu. It is easily overclocked and runs cool even under prime95 stress testing. I've got mine over clocked to 3.2 GHz and it blows through video editing, music encoding and folding@home all at once without missing a beat. The price is what really makes this cpu stand out (99$). This rig versus an Intel set-up is in the neighborhood of 20% cheaper. The last CPU that AMD produced that had heat issues was the A socket and they have been obsolete for some time now. Cool& Quiet for AMD now keeps their products chilly. Disclaimer ( I am in no way compensated for this glowing review for AMD) HeHe

[trixman]

Looking at Laptops, since mine have not been responding to resuscitation attempts, I have realized that all of my systems have been Intel.

Is there any real difference between AMD and Intel?

Like I see AMD Sempron and Athlon as choices (and Athlon as a dual-core) and Intel Core 2 Duo Processor and Atoms listed. Is there an advantage to one over the other other than price.

Also, is there a difference in Linux adoption (Linux working better on one or the other, issues, etc.)

I just don't know anything about AMD chips. I don't even know which chips are 64bit and which are 32bit and how to handle Linux with 64bits.

not sure but the both machines i have run on intel chips and are both dell pcs and they run solid.

[u.b.u.n.t.u]

Is there any real difference between AMD and Intel?

When considering a CPU I consider it as an individual unit of hardware in comparison to other CPUs, along the lines of a cost benefit analysis.