AMD vs Intel processers

deconduo wrote: »

Well there's lots of factors to take in, but the tl:dr right now for desktops is Intel > AMD. For gaming there's no competition at all

Well, thats simplifying it. But yes.

Here is a chart that weighs them all by performance:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3052-5.html

The rest of the article discusses price points.

As of right now Intel outside of the Budget brackets has the commanding lead in gaming performance. Though I still like my AMD. A determining factor of my last build was actually news about Intel's antitrust suit, which basically meant they were playing dirty to keep AMD out of competition.

The FTC had sued Intel last December, accusing the chip giant of anticompetitive tactics designed to beat down the competition and build up its own monopoly. The agency had charged that Intel used a series of threats and rewards to convince PC makers such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM to avoid buying chips from the competition.
The agency had charged Intel with violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act (PDF), a fairly broad set of laws that guard against unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive acts in commerce.
The new settlement also focuses on Intel's disclosures concerning its compiler. The FTC had charged that the company modified its compiler to intentionally slow down the performance of rival chips so it could tell customers that its own chips performed better than those of the competition.
Manufacturers of products that work with Intel's chips, such as discrete GPUs, have also been granted access to Intel's CPU over the next six years, the FTC said.
Under the specific terms of the settlement, Intel is prohibited from offering rewards to PC makers in exchange for them promising to buy Intel chips exclusively or refusing to buy chips from the competition. The company is also banned from withholding benefits from PC makers who do business with non-Intel suppliers.

So here I am thinking to myself if Intel is all its cracked up to be why would it need to resort to that?

Of course if you don't care about any of that, Intel is your buy, since it bullies everything around it into inferiority, and who cares when you're trying to run the latest video game right? /:|

Myself I don't mind paying a little more for a comparable AMD chip thats built with a little more sincerity.

To answer your original question so far AMD doesn't have anything that matches up to the Sandy Bridge i7. First Gen i7s are matched by the AMD FX-8150 however or in gaming applications even the ol' and trusty Phenom II X4 Black Ed, which is still a pretty good buy.

Torqay wrote: »

Just go to PassMark and look up the CPU benchmarks, but quite frankly, AMD can't hold a candle to Intel's Core iX processors. AMD's fastest Opteron, the 6272 ranks #21, priced ~600 Dollars and is still mo match for some 1st generation Core i7. The Intel Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge CPU costs half the money and beats the AMD hands down... that's how bad AMD is.

Don't use Passmark, it's a very poor indication of a CPUs strength. If you want an in-depth look, use this bench to compare CPUs on different fronts.