You can look at it this way. If you have X$ to spend on a processor, and you look at AMD and Intel processors at that price, the AMD is going to be faster because AMD processors tend to be cheaper.

I agree that you get the best bang for your buck with AMD CPUs, especially once you consider the low price of AM2 motherboards.

Intel's been the better manufacturer in the various multi-core chip's IMO, they get my vote.

I consider AMD a low end to mainstream provider. If you want high end, see Intel.

hmm not sure if that best bang for buck really applys anymore, some of intel's offerings now are a steal.


but you are correct, Video card is generally more important. The key is to ensure one doesn't have a cpu that is limiting the video card.

As I'm fine with mid-range CPU's and I don't overclock, AMD is OK for me, in mid-range and low-end is more value for money. And AMD declared power consumption is closer to the real one, and despite being still at 65nm process, it manages to offer mid-range peformance, low-power CPU's.

You do know your post doesnt make any sense right?

cheaper = faster?

last time I checked the Core i7 920 costs about $80 more than the new Phenom II 940 processor and virtually destroys it in all benchmarks.

Things may have changed since I last bought a processor.  So maybe Intel can compete with AMD on price now.

Something cannot be faster only because it is cheaper.  You may be able to buy a faster processor because it is cheaper than the competition.  That was the point I was trying to make.

 So... you're saying that the more expensive chip is the more powerful one?

Agree with others that since the Core2 line started Intel have pulled away from AMD and with their product roadmap for the next few years, they are going to wipe the floor with them in the coming years.