AMD vs. Intel

I've heard that AMD processors are better (by better I mainly mean faster) for games than Intel, but that Intel processors are better for general applications. The same with Ati and nVidia cards, Atis' are better for applications and nVidias for games.

Is this true, is there anything that can be comented referring to this matter?

 

The ultimate question...which can never be answered. Both brands have there place, and both excel in gaming and in multi-tasking, etc. There is no one processor that is solely better than the other, there are too many variables. Find me an AMD that is good in gaming, and i'll find you an Intel that can compete for a similiar price. Same for an Intel in multi-tasking, you can find and AMD that can compete in the same price range.

This being said, i predict the majority of this thread wil be filled with user bias and fanboyism. "Intel rockxorzz!!!" "no AMD is teh 3l1te!!!11!1" etc.

 

This is not something that can be answered by saying "this is better" or "that is better" . . . it's something you won't get a clear answer to, I agree with 4W4K3.

There are differnet processors, so the answer will vary. Which processors do you want to compare?

 

As a general observation for desktop chips AMD has the design advantage at the moment(as in what is on the market today). Pretty much any AMD desktop chip when put against a competing Intel chip in the P4 line at the same price will easily take the lead in performance. Also, Intel's top end cannot compete with AMD's top end chips. But as stated above simply saying "AMD is better than Intel" is an uniformed statement and there is no real answer. One could for example say that a Athlon64 3200+ is generally a better chip than a 3.2Ghz P4, that may not be in every test or benchmark, but overall it has the lead. If you factor in the $50+ price difference in favor of the AMD chip one could possibly conclude that AMD is better.(but only in this case)

 

As far as I understand it, the new dual core desktop CPU's from AMD beat the Intel ones in every single test on each different application of CPU testing. With dual core you can't make a mistake going to AMD. It's cheaper anyway. Now, Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4 is a different story and so is Turion vs. Centrino (which is just about the reverse of the dual core war).

 

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=2

Intel's new Conroe chip basically blows AMD away in the gaming field even on non-intel optimized games. Maybe the market is going to finally shift?

Personally I want to see little addon's so I don't have to buy an entirely new setup for each main cpu upgrade ;-P

 

That's a half-truth. Thy compared Intel's new flagship chip...to an AMD that isn't even there "top of the line" chip. Why not compare it to a K6-2 while you're at it? Those benchmarks and the entire review are flawed, you aren't even comparing chips on the same level.

The X2 series is meant to excel in multi-tasking/high-traffic environments, not gaming.

 

OK, well normally these AMD vs. Intel threads can get a bit messy, so no Holy wars please. It's fine so far.