Is there really a difference between Intel and AMD?

[Dragonbite]

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.

[jeremyswalker]

First, you don't really need to worry about handling Linux with 64-bit. Even if you get a 64-bit processor, which is extremely likely, you can still use 32-bit Linux if you wish. As far as AMD vs. Intel, I prefer Intel chips. I have built machines with both, and the Intel machines just seem more responsive. Plus, I don't think AMD has anything to match the Core 2 or Core i7 chips. If the same holds true for laptops, I don't know.

Also, to my knowledge, Intel works more with the open-source community than does AMD. However, I have not had any serious compatibility problems on either platform (with the exception of an ATI graphics chipset).

[Lukios]

From my experience I have had better luck with Intel. I love AMD and for a long time Swore I would never get an Intel, now I have one and love it. From what I seen, AMD usually comes out with something first, then Intell comes out with it better. One thing to keep in mind though is the graphics cards. Nvidia has better support with Linux. This is just my experience from building, upgrading and fixing computers on a regular basis, as well as the bit of knowledge I have obtained over the years.

[Teber]

(cautiously) i once heard intel cpus seem to work best with the nvidia chipset, whereas amd cpus would work best with ati chipset. this would suggest intel to be the best choice.

as the above is hearsay, i would like to get other opinions/insights.

another little fact, in the dark past before i turned to linux, there seemed to be a debate about the superiority of either brand. i also heard the suitability would depend on applications used. this is old knowledge though.

[Simian Man]

I have used mostly AMDs. They used to be better value for your money, but now I think Intel has taken that mantle back. As far as Linux and 64-bit supprot goes, both are completely trouble free.

[Teber]

. As far as Linux and 64-bit supprot goes, both are completely trouble free.

thank you for that one. i will remember when koala is released.

[Dragonbite]

Does anybody have a comparison or equivalence chart between AMD and Intel chips?

Like
??? = Intel Atom
AMD Sempron = Intel ???
AMD Athlon = Intel ???
etc.

[Lukios]

just have to google it

[Screwdriver0815]

Does anybody have a comparison or equivalence chart between AMD and Intel chips?

Like
??? = Intel Atom
AMD Sempron = Intel ???
AMD Athlon = Intel ???
etc.
AFAIK:

AMD Athlon Neo = Intel Atom
AMD Sempron = Intel Celeron
AMD Athlon = Intel Pentium

[jeremyswalker]

As far as a comparison chart, Tom's Hardware publishes CPU charts on its website, http://www.tomshardware.com. They are fairly easy to find in the menu.

[Wiebelhaus]

Good Link about your question: (http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3618)

The Authority (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dual-core-stress-test,1049.html)

Amd White paper: (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25426C_WP_FINAL.pdf)

Performance Rating and why it doesn't matter anymore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Rating)

I personally am loyal to AMD! They are work horses that refuse to die.

[The Jinx]

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

[infestor]

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

for stationary PCs i agree...however on laptopts price/performance of AMD might change.

[The Jinx]

idk, my AMD lappy is doing pretty well as compared to my Intel one

[Vakman]

I am loyal to AMD yet I do buy both.
I have an Core i7 rig because nothing really compares yet AMD Phenom II is good for overclocking. Now AMD/ATi since they are closely linked, I would get Intel with an nVIDIA chip or card currently. AMD/ATi is working hard though to support Linux and may eventually surpass nVIDIA in terms of driver support. But this is off-topic.

Intel does work closely with Linux and does support open-source heavily. So if you support Linux, get Intel.

Also as far as what equals what, someone has already mentioned that Atom = Neo etc but didn't mention that:
Phenom = Core 2
Phenom II = Core i7
Now Phenom II does not even compare to the i7 and likely not the i5s either but it is the best they have. Phenom II bests Core 2 easily but that was not their line to beat. Still for price to performance, AMD usually wins and I just like them.

[KegHead]

hi!

AMD only for me---very fast and stable.

KegHead

[cholericfun]

i'm more on the AMD side, mostly for affordability.
another thing to note is that AMD has been much better with the communication bottleneck to the processor, however, intel has made an effort to change that - not too sure about the recent CPUs out there now.

[Xbehave]

I'm not a fan of Intel because they successfully spread the megahertz myth that i fell for. Apparently their letest chips pull less power than amds competitors, the only thing i do know is that low end intel chips often have virtualisation disabled but AMD always have it (if the chipset can support it)

[Megrimn]

(cautiously) i once heard intel cpus seem to work best with the nvidia chipset, whereas amd cpus would work best with ati chipset. this would suggest intel to be the best choice.

as the above is hearsay, i would like to get other opinions/insights.

Well, my laptop has an AMD turion x2 with a nvidia geforce gpu. works great and has never had any problems. just wish flash worked better in shiretoko, but that's another issue.

[starcannon]

I generally run Intel on my netbooks and notebooks, and AMD on my desktop. I build my own desktops, and so far when parts hunting, AMD has been the most economically viable choice.

In the end, if your CPU meets your needs, it really doesn't matter which brand you choose.

GL

[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:-D

[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.

[User3k]

Long time AMD fan and user here. I only buy AMD and I only recommend AMD to others.

Of course 3D cards would be Nvidia for me. Even though this thread isn't about them I wanted to throw that in for some unknown reason, lol.

[blueturtl]

Intel chips are often regarded as better but depending on circumstances AMD has usually been able to offer better "bang for buck". However you can't have it both ways and so AMD processors have historically been more power hungry and heating prone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y39D4529FM4
(For those of you without Flash, in this video Tom's hardware tests what happens when the HSF is removed from four different CPUs, two Intel and two AMD).

For a portable computer I would go with Intel because of the power-to-performance ratio and reliability.

On the desktop... you may get a better deal with AMD since it's easier to build adequate cooling in a desktop case.

Regardless of your choice, you can't really lose now after AMD partnered up with ATi. AMD+ATi with OSS drivers vs. Intel+Intel and OSS drivers... now that's sweet. It's a good time to be a Linux user.

[Nerd King]

The reason for the price difference relative to perceived performance is simple. AMD sells overclocked processors, Intel sells underclocked ones, if you put it in simple terms. In other words, Intel processors always have room for overclocking where AMD ones just don't (they're already toasty enough thanks).

[cascade9]

(cautiously) i once heard intel cpus seem to work best with the nvidia chipset, whereas amd cpus would work best with ati chipset. this would suggest intel to be the best choice.

as the above is hearsay, i would like to get other opinions/insights.

Umm, no. IIRC nVidia actually bought out AMDs chipset business back when there were lots of people making AMD chipsets (end of slot a, start of socket a).In fact nForce4 was the 1st nVidia chipset to even support Intel, and nVidia chipsets run fine with both Intel and AMD.

Currently, Ati probably has the edge on nVidia for AMD support, but nVidia chipsets work fine with AMD. BTW, all the newer Intels (i5 and i7) are Intel chipsets only. For now anyway, hopefully nVidia gets back in the game.


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.

In reply to all the 'i7s and '5s are faster' posts (and in a lot ways thats true, but its not as much as you might guess) this is the answer.

If you've got $500 US + to spend on a CPU, then yes, you will end up going Intel..the most expensive AMDs are slower than the i7s, but they are much much cheaper. Like $200 US odd for the most expensive AMD quad, the entry level i7s are more like $300, and the top end models $1000!


Intel chips are often regarded as better but depending on circumstances AMD has usually been able to offer better "bang for buck". However you can't have it both ways and so AMD processors have historically been more power hungry and heating prone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y39D4529FM4
(For those of you without Flash, in this video Tom's hardware tests what happens when the HSF is removed from four different CPUs, two Intel and two AMD).

Actually, no. Yes, that is a real test, but I've played with Intel and AMD for years, and the _only_ time I've seen a heatsink/fan combo 'come off' the socket was when someone used a heatsink far past AMDs maximum weight, and moved it around a lot (lan freak). Even then, it wasnt the heatsink that had a problem, the 'lugs' on the socket broke under stress.

The in the P4 vs and XP Athlon series, he P4s used far more power than the AMDs. That changed when Intel brought out the Core 2 Duos, they were very effiecent. Its all changing again, the current i7s and i5s are not as efficient as the C2Ds were. They use almost as much power as the higher clocked AMD quad cores,. adn theres plenty of low energy AMD CPUs. I avoid _any_ CPU with more than 90 watts TDP. If your worried about heat, make sure your not getting some high TDP monster.

[3rdalbum]

The reason for the price difference relative to perceived performance is simple. AMD sells overclocked processors, Intel sells underclocked ones, if you put it in simple terms. In other words, Intel processors always have room for overclocking where AMD ones just don't (they're already toasty enough thanks).

Not true. Firstly, overclocking is the process of running the CPU at higher than the "stock" (default) speed. If AMD ships a CPU that runs at 4 GHz, then 4Ghz is its stock speed, and anything above that is "overclocked" (anything below is underclocked).

Secondly, many AMD CPUs are highly overclockable.

[blueturtl]

Actually, no. Yes, that is a real test, but I've played with Intel and AMD for years, and the _only_ time I've seen a heatsink/fan combo 'come off' the socket was when someone used a heatsink far past AMDs maximum weight, and moved it around a lot (lan freak). Even then, it wasnt the heatsink that had a problem, the 'lugs' on the socket broke under stress.

All that test proves is that there was a time when Intel CPUs were more fail-safe than their AMD counterparts (which could again be used to justify the higher price of equivalent Intel chips). It doesn't have anything to do with mounting a HSF. Nowadays AMD chips have comparable safety measures I think. My point was that for a lower price, there is always a tradeoff. If it's not in performance it's in something else.


The in the P4 vs and XP Athlon series, he P4s used far more power than the AMDs. That changed when Intel brought out the Core 2 Duos, they were very effiecent. Its all changing again, the current i7s and i5s are not as efficient as the C2Ds were. They use almost as much power as the higher clocked AMD quad cores,. adn theres plenty of low energy AMD CPUs. I avoid _any_ CPU with more than 90 watts TDP. If your worried about heat, make sure your not getting some high TDP monster.

Obviously the designs vary. My older rig had an Intel Pentium 233 MHz CPU which was specced for a TDP of about 20W tops. The current AMD K6-III+ 400 MHz CPU in that rig has a TDP of 10 watts tops! So in this case, AMD is both more efficient and powerful at the same time.

[spoons]

BAck in the P4 days the AMD Athlon 64's were beating them on performance per Mhz. They ran cooler too. The Athlon 64 X2 couldn't keep up with the Core 2 Duo, and there was nothing to match the Core 2 Quad. That was where Phenom came in. Phenom, though, was on the old 65nm process as Intel moved to 45nm. Phenom II's are competitive with Core 2 Duo's and Core i5 chips. The Phenom II are hotter, though, although you'll get cheaper AMD motherboards than i5 boards. The core i5 is faster clock for lock than the Core 2 Quad, and the Core i7 also includes hyper threading which makes a 4 core i7 appear as 8 cores, this makes it use up more CPU cycles for more performance. It also uses tri-channel DDR3. Nvidia haven't made an i5 or i7 chipset yet because of legal disputes, but you probably wouldn't want to anyway because nForce has been rubbish after nForce 5 was released, except for 790i but that was ridiculously expensive and needed DDR3.

There's no point in being loyal to either company, both are out to squeeze as much money from you as they can. It's a bit like Google being the "good guy" compared to Microsoft but as of late you can see them starting to show their true colours. Just use whoever provides the best options to you at the best price, doing anything else is just daft.

[holastickboy]

An important thing to remember is though although one processor may be faster than another (eg, core i7 is faster than Phenom 2) it doesn't mean that a Phenom 2 wont be awesome. Many people just seem to get caught up in the big numbers game and not realise that although its not the fastest around, doesnt mean that its not fast.

[cascade9]

All that test proves is that there was a time when Intel CPUs were more fail-safe than their AMD counterparts (which could again be used to justify the higher price of equivalent Intel chips). It doesn't have anything to do with mounting a HSF. Nowadays AMD chips have comparable safety measures I think. My point was that for a lower price, there is always a tradeoff. If it's not in performance it's in something else.

Actually, its got everything to do with mounting a heatsink. Yes, intel did have thermal protection before AMD did.....but pulling of the heatsink is totally unrealistic test. I've seen literally hundreds of systems over the years, and a lot of them were from the P4/XP era, and like I said, I seen it happen once. Thats more user error than a design fault. When you put a 700g+ heatsink on a socket rated for 454g and then lug it around to 3+ lans a week, as the guy I know who had his heatsink fall off, its not an AMD problem.

BTW, I know of serveral other people with similar setups and they didnt have any problems. The person who had the heatsink fall off was very rough with his computer.

As for justifing higher prices, thats just Intel. Depending on what benchmark you want look at, the athlon XPs were the fastest things around at the time. The P4s did better on (some) game framerates, and video encoding, but for everything else he XP was faster. Even when the XP was (debatably) faster, the fastest P4s were more expensive.

IMO, the lower price of AMD is in part because they dont have the performance crown. But its also that Intel has always priced its CPUs higher. Intel has way more deals with tier 1 manufacturers than AMD has ever had, even now theres lots of manufacturers who are 'Intel only'. That doesnt make AMD bad. Its probably harder to find a linux distro preinstalled on a tier 1 than it is to find an AMD CPU. Does that make windows superior?

[MooPi]

All I know is I've got a blazing fast AMD rig that I could overclock through the roof that would still stay cool. My stock speed for my Athlon II X4 620 is 2.6 GHz. I've had it OC'd to 3.6GHz before I backed it down for the sake of stability. I love to watch it chew through encoding and folding@home because it just amazes me.

[NoaHall]

AMD Black editions are awesome.