AMD Or Intel Processor?! - Page 2

AMD is cheaper because it doesn't perform as good. Temps in a laptop is everything. The hotter it is, the more prone it is to fail.

everyone who has said intel is always better is a liar.
*looks back at the netburst era*
Currently intel outpreforms amd in all areas, however AMD is launching Griffin (first mobile release in several years. It features split power planes which allows both cores to adjust themselves dynamically independently of each other theoretically making for kickass battery life) before June. This should shake things up if your going to wait that long.
Otherwise: Keep your options open, dont go for one brand or the other just because they are that brand.
The preformance ratio between AMD and Intel chips: is 3:4 (if you want to get technical, AMD's chips run 3 Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) whereas Intel's preform 4. For those of you who said intel was better you are wrong as, looking at desktops, AMD's Phenom run 3 IPCs where Intel's Penryn run 4, the AMD chips are faster per clock. So suck it.) favoring Intel (that is for turionx2/athlonx2 and core2duo) per clock. So if you had an intel core 2 duo at 1.8 it would be the equivalent of a turion x2 at 2.4. The lower operating frequencies of the intel chips translates into less power and heat making them better for the mobile market for the next 2 or 3 months.
Cheers, and good luck with your search!
~lag

Intel was always better and more stable and it will always stay that way... except if AMD changes something radically.

my vote would go with intel...

It depends on what games you're playing. The source engine was buiilt off of the Ati technology. You'll get higher FPS with Ati cards.

Not always better, just been better since 2006.

AMD proc's are unstable? in what way? id love to hear this.


Also, when AMD's spider tech comes into play. Watch out Intel it will be Prescott vs San Diego all over again ^__^

Both Intel and Via have failed at delivering a combined graphics processor and CPU platform, with Intel killing its Timna project in 2000, and Via failing with its Matthew microprocessor project.

And that's where Fusion and Nehalem come into play. I looked at AMD's Spider announcement, and it relies quite heavily on their ATI graphics division. They're trying to compete simultaneously with Intel in the CPU and chipset arena and with Nvidia in the graphics arena. While I would agree that they seem to be making leaps and bounds graphically and challenging Nvidia for the first time since the 8800 series was released, there's still no indication that AMD can seriously compete with Intel in the desktop and notebook CPU or chipset markets. Intel has simply been too far ahead of them in R&D since they implemented their "tick-tock" roadmap.

i agree, kinda.....

to the normal joe smoe buying a pc, or laptop, price is the key factor, not can this run crysis at so and so fps, so the AMD being cheaper, id say the norm is more likely to go with the amd system

and they have quarterly losses, what company doesnt?

to me, its all spin to help eaither other out, intel and amd know they are the only 2 desktop/laptop proc maker

so they spin each other around to get more hype, and more buys

someday this year we will see where amd takes over and its z0mgwtfbbq amd is soooo hawt

then a few years, intel......

soulsaver