AMD vs Intell processors

[DarkNight_DS]

Viper1 said:

Senlis said:

Lets say I have 80-100$ to spend on a processor.

Lets see what AMD has to offer: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001028%201302820275%20105101317&name=3.0GHz%20and%20higher

Lets see what Intel has to offer: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%204027&name=%2475%20-%20%24100

 

The AMD processors are dual core ~3.2 GHz.  The Intel processors for that price are a fast Pentium 4 or a slow dual-core.  How much would it cost to get a ~3.2 Ghz Intel processor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%201302820275%20105101317&name=3.0GHz%20and%20higher

Now I know that Intel processors are faster because of the way they are made.  But that is a very significant price difference.  I don't think that the gain in performance warrants the cost of buying Intel.

I see an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz (65 watts) for $119 which will knock the socks off either of those AMD chips (89 and 125 watts) at $80 and $90 USD.  You save the $20 or $30 that year just in energy savings.

 

Back in the pentium 4 days, AMD moved into prevelance by being more efficient per clock.  Meaning they could do more with the same GHz the pentium 4 line could.  Since the Core 2 Duo architecture, the tables have turned and now Intel does more per clock than AMD.

 

Now if Intel posted actual power consumption numbers and not a median then things might actually be comparable.  AMD posts their worst numbers meaning the most the cpu will ever use under the worst conditions at it's given clock, more often then naught AMD posts slightly higher numbers then people actually see used at the worst time.  AMD does this so people buy a proper heatsink and fan combo.

Sadly that 65 watt number means nothing to anyone.