Desktops forum: Intel vs. AMD CPU in desktop: Does it matter?

I had an old Dell that I had brought up to XP and ran that for several more years until the updates broke the system with nearly every update.
I do some web development and genealogical playing so I needed something for programming, web authoring and some picture modifications such as red-eye reduction, resizing, framing and a bit more. I went shopping and wasn't thrilled with the price tags either. I then took a look at other operating systems such as Mac and Linux. I settled on Ubuntu which at that time was version 8.04. I found that with a shift in gears with different programs and details I began to like Ubuntu and after less than a month, completely replaced MS. I use Bluefish and Quanta+ editors for web dev, LibreOffice replaces MS Office perfectly, the graphic editor gimp does everything that photoshop does and a smaller simpler editor is fotoxx which does great at resizing, red-eye, cropping and a bit more, much simpler than gimp.
Browsing with Firefox was no chore, I had FF on the MS as well as Thunderbird for emails. They gave me much less trouble than IE and Outlook! Since then, I've worked my way up to Ubuntu version 11.04 and wasn't pleased with the desktop changes. I've switched to Linux Mint and I've settled on version 10, which is very much like Ubuntu was. Mint is based on Ubuntu but with several differences which I prefer. The program packages are nearly the same between Ubuntu and Mint so I've kept all the familiarity. I have no trouble with Drupal or Wordpress on the development sites, nor much of anything else that I can think of.
The old Dell is still rolling along just fine and I didn't have to shell out for a new computer. It's faster today than it was with MS XP before the service packs even. I don't have to worry about viruses. I run a simple firewall. Filezilla does all my FTP work. I can even do some dabbling in subtitles for videos and some closed captioning.
I don't do any game-playing so that's a non-issue.
Total money spent; a few dollars on CDs until I had experimented with several builds of Linux and several versions of the different builds. Time spent; learning from experts and my own screw-ups, probably adds up to many days over the past three years, and I'm still learning, but if I'd stayed with MS I'd probably have that as well.
Money and time I would have spent on MS; don't know ... don't care. I'm never going back to M$.
Bought my wife a new Dell just over three years ago and later on upgraded Vista to MS-7. Big mistake. Reverted back to Vista. My wife watched me on the old Dell and Ubuntu, tried it out for herself and decided she wanted to switch too. Now we've got two desktops with no MS in the house. She's staying with Ubuntu 10.04. It's her favourite.
Keep the life in the old Dell, you won't be disappointed.

Hi,

out of experience, I can tell you there is not much difference. At least, between AMD and Intel in general. fact is, processors with higher speed, larger cache and multiple cores will score better. Your description tells me you won't need a very fast processor, although it's always comfortable to have something under the hood that is a bit more powerfull than needed (like a car salesman would say )
These days, the technology used and speeds, amount of processors, cache sizes etc are so complex that I generally use this site to compare: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
Now, let me warn you. Processor speed is nice, but a strong motor in a weak car won't do much good. So, invest in RAM (DDR3 is the standard now, and I suggest at least 4GB for a windows 7 system with office and photo editing) RAM is cheap these days, so go for it.
Buy a motherboard that has USB 3.0 , in 45 years USB 2.0 will be prehistoric.
For gamers / video editors: spend at least 1/2 of your processor budget to buy a strong graphic card with fast GPU. The rsults are amazing.
Buy a nice sata drive, most motherboards don't have IDE compatibility anymore.
Extras are not necessary for a hoe model.
I use to upgrade a computer with MB, RAM and processor for around 150€ to 250€, and the model is up to date But be warned: Dell uses its own standards concerning components placing, if you are not skilled in replacing MBs leave it or find the local computer nerd

Back to AMD vs Intel: I use AMD a lot because the are cheaper and are performing well (and were easily overclocked, in those days). There is no other big (dis)advantage, in my opinion.

success!

I always use AMD myself over Intel.

Many years ago I did try a Cyrix/IBM chip once and never again, that had to be the worst ever (and thankfully now Cyrix have gone.

Intel's can supply more power over the AMD's but you have to decipher Intel's special code for numbering the chips where as AMD number their chips based on the old way which was with Mhz or Ghz.

This numbering method doesn't actually mean your chip will run at X Ghz or Mhz it is just a simple way to understand that a AMD 2000Mhz chip is going to be slower than an AMD 4000Mhz chip, which is far more simpler than trying to figure out why an Intel i5 123 may be slower than i4 234 by using Intel's immense calculator.

AMD's method is like telling people a CD drive reads at 36x and 40x, where as Intel would be like telling people well a 40x CD drive reads at 40x on the inside but only 3x on the outside, where as the 36x drive reads at 36x on the inside and 4x on the outside (note this is only an example) so if you intend to use discs with small amounts of data your best buying the 40x, where as if you intend to use full discs your best buying the 36x 'cos it'll run faster - by this point most people are like so confused they really don't know whether to go for a 36x or a 40x or what on earth to do.

For general home use I'd go for the AMD over the Intel any day. They're just as good as Intel and many of the new AMD chips even have an ATi (AMD) 3D GPU built into the chip, so you can save your money on a decent graphics card as well (although if you were to be using it for intense 3D gaming and were bothered about FPS at super high resolutions then I'd still stick an extra 3D graphics card in there anyway).

I once built a computer for an office I was working in as an IT technician, and I used AMD in that, it cost the guy £100 for all the parts, and their used to be arguments in the office as to who would actually use that machine, because it would do stuff far faster than any of the other machines Intel based machines in there.

It STILL boils down to which is better Chevy vs. Ford, regardless of what people say! Yes they use slightly different architectures but will accomplish the same exact tasks that are given to it!

Yes, there is a difference in speed. But remember, you must compare apples to apples not apples to oranges! Look closely at the clock speeds AND # of cores. When comparing the 2 chips!!. You MUST compare a clock speed of 3 Ghz to 3 Ghz on each processor. The differences in speed are quite frankly B.S. If the Intel does something just a little bit faster, say 1 millionth of a second faster, then for every million tasks you'd see the Intel 1 second faster. BIG DEAL!!!

So unless you're crunching some humongous numbers to save the word. "Who Cares?" I don't! In every day home use you'd never, ever see the difference. Unless you ran 2 computers, 1 Intel and 1 AMD side by side and even then you'd still have trouble noticing the difference. In fact if you blinked you may miss it.

I've had AMD's in my machines for probably the last 20 or so years and still "LOVE" them. NEVER had ANY problems with AMDs. Not that I've had any problems with any Intel's, just never used them, personal preference.

Like several people have said AMD's cost less, that means with the money you save you could upgrade the memory, buy a new mouse, make a down payment on a new monitor, etc. Are you getting similar quality and speed? Yep!

Is the difference between a Chevy and a Cadillac that monumental that you just "have to have" the Cadillac or do you feel that much better driving the Cadillac?? Both will get you from point A to point B.

In the past Intel has done some pretty low down underhanded things. I believe they were under investigation for slipping kick backs to manufacturers to use only Intel chips in their computers! If I'm not mistaken I read it on one of the ZDnets blog's. Then about 10 or so years ago there was something to do with a collaboration with M$ in that their chip somehow checked your loading software and wouldn't let it load if it appeared it wasn't genuine M$ software.

There was a uproar and they pulled that little gizmo! Do I hate Intel? No. Do I love AMD? Yes. Would I loose any sleep if Intel went out of business? Give me a nanosecond. Nope, I'd roll over and go back to sleep. Is Intel that "earth shatteringly" better than AMD? I doubt it! "LONG LIVE AMD FOREVER!"

Do yourself a favor and try to get "the most bang for your bucks" and let the processors be damned!

Note: This post was edited by its original author to add additional info. on 04/19/2012 at 3:13 PM PT

I've used both AMDs and Intel chips in my builds. Yes, currently I think the Intel chips are just slightly faster than the AMD but I don't think that the slight improvement is worth the extra money unless you are gaming, using CAD or video editing.

I believe that the people who have said that they didn't find Glenn's answer helpful are those that I call the Intel "snob"s
who believe that the Intel cpu is the best and don't consider the value for those who differ with them. They forget that if it wasn't for AMD's competition the Intel chips wouldn't be as fast and probably even more costly than they are.

1. Intel CPUs are, technically speaking, actually better than AMD's. Intel CPUs use less power (i.e., generate less heat) for the same processing punch. Less heat equates to quieter operation and increased reliability, especially inside a laptop.
2. AMD has specialised in CPUs for low-end PCs and laptops, and price them to manufacturers accordingly.

That's why 'budget' or 'value' PCs and laptops are mostly AMD powered, while high-end ones mostly feature Intel CPUs and support chips.

Bottom line: If you can afford Intel, that should be your choice.

Your advice to add memory is sound, but make certain you are running a 64-bit version of your operating system. A good friend bought a computer with 8Gb of RAM, but with a 32-bit version of Vista. His system can only address 4Gb of RAM, the other 4Gb are just sitting there.

It makes a difference. Each piece of a computer is made by a separate company. Same with the software. All those companies have people working on computers to make their product function properly. The thing is, and I learned this when I had a computer with an AMD chip, there is a difference on how those components and software(s) work on every chip. I had a lot of problems with many components and software packages on my AMD chipped computer and the customer service people I spoke to at a number of companies all said that their products worked very slightly differently depending on the chip in the computer.

If you notice when filling out forms to submit service issues to some places, they ask the computer make, model, OS and chip. That is why. So here is the thing, most of these companies will be making their stuff on computers using Intel chips (just because of odds due to sales) so their products are made to work on computers with Intel chips. Some have people working on computers with AMD chips also so they can find out how they should tweak their design for this reason. But many do not.

I dont want any company in any industry to rule the market, so I hate to say this, but if you want to lessen the odds of problems with hardware components or software on any computer, you are better off buying a computer with Intel chips. If things change in the future and some other company eventually has a commanding lead in sales, then go that way for the same reason.

If your DELL will STILL (mostly, but slowly) do what you need, you should be able to find a full-size desktop for ~$400 (usually last year's Win7 model---any brand with 1 year warranty + the 1 year added by many credit cards) from a local dealer/big box (get the $100 support contract and plan to be without for a few days semi-annually, if you aren't technically minded) and replace it in 2 years (and donate to school/charity). Almost any (full-sized, not nano/brazos/atom processor-based) computer built this decade will suffice. The alternative is to hand-build a machine for ~$1000 (or get one pre-built) and you're off to the races!

$ 400 --- Intel CPU + Motherboard
$ 50 --- CASE
$ 70 --- Power Supply
$ 200 -- Graphics
$ 250 -- 2 Hard disks (one ~100GB SSD, one 1TB spinning), 1 DVD
$ 70 -- RAM

One additional point - if you like your machine to turn on fast (and otherwise run fast) a SolidState Disk as the boot disk (Operating System resident) is MOST gratifying ! . . . . . . . Low cost machines are not yet implementing this 'super' feature.

going bact to trs80 modiii. My first ibm xt clone from radio shack came with intel and every machine since has as well. I have no record with AMD nor cirix (who) but NEVER had an intel chip fail, ever, even when my abuse and misuse should have causes it. Personally if you can afford the best then buy it but it is your data. Two places I never cut costs are motherboard with chipsets and hard drive. Golly that trash80 seems so long ago but what a fire it lit.

I finally built up my Media PC and it rates at 7.3 in Win 7. I used the Asus F1A-75M-Pro with the A8-3870. These chips have a 6000 series DX11 graphics chip on the core along with 4 cpu cores. hard to beat. The total cost of board, cpu, ddr3 8gb samsung memory (low profile low power) around $300. Since this board has HDMI output along with DVI, VGA I use it for my 54" plasma. Other boards by Asus have Display port output.
AMD has taken the ATI designs and thoroughly implemented them into the silicon with the CPU's.

I also put in the Hauppauge 2250 card and have tested it to see what it can do. I can convert old VHS tapes (6 hours at a time) to mpeg while recording a TV show at the same time. The new case by Silverstone GD06 fits all of this along with 3 2tb drives and a bluray burner inside. Looks like my Onkyo and only slightly larger.

Look seriously on AMD's website. These combined GPU's and CPU's are killer.

With the activities you're performing in your present desktop it would be wise for your to consider an entry level AMD CPU because it is cheaper & provides good performance. I have been using AMD CPUs for the past 7 years at home and in the office & they never disappoint. Unless you're into something that is CPU or graphic intensive, it will be a waste of money to buy the high-end models. Your PC vendor is the best person to help you choose the right AMD CPU for your present needs. Hope this information helps.

Yes. I guess AMD's do run hotter but as stated in a pryor post"I have not had any cooler problems."
I will admit to burning up one AMD and it took the board with it. But had it been Intell i would have been the same. I had the fan off upgradeing ram and missed seeing a wire tha blocked the fan. Computr ran for three hours under heavy video load (Ultima online) been afew years back) before frying. So I don't think the heat from AMD is that big a deal.

Which was supposed to be fixed with BIOS or firmware update. It's not the processors fault if it was running hot and noisy. I also have a Pavilion (since 2007) with an AMD Sempron processor. Still runs great. Will keep using it for the foreseeable future.

Hi Mel,

This is a question I get frequently from customers considering a new build. Which processor is better, Intel or AMD???

The question seems simple, but the answer is quite a bit more complex than the question. The problem with the answer is that BOTH companies make excellent CPUs, but they make it very difficult to determine which CPU is best suited for your particular need. As an example, we'll start with the Core i7-i5-i3 processors. This designation of processors is already in their second generation. Intel offers 24 different Core i7 CPUs, 23 different Core i5 CPUs, and 12 different Core i3 CPUs. That's just for desktops!!! That's a total of 59 CPUs to choose from in the Core i family. Not to mention another 14 families of CPUs aside from the Core i family. But the complexity goes beyond that.

Not only do you need to choose between CPUs, you also have to consider what motherboard you're going to use. Intel CPUs use 4 different Socket Configurations (LGA 1155, 1156, 1366, 2011) for their Core i family of processors. There are also a large range of motherboard selections depending upon your selection of CPU and your particular graphics needs (onboard or Graphics Card).

Not to be outdone, AMD currently advertises about 55 different CPUs including their Sempron, Athlon II, Phenom II, A Series and FX Series of CPUs. Fortunately, there are only a couple of CPU Socket configurations to consider when looking at the AMD Family of processors.

So your question is, "would I see a great difference between using AMD versus Intel?" The answer as you may have guessed by now is "It Depends." I like to use the analogy of buying a car, with the question being, "Will I see a significant difference in my commute time by buying a Ferrari instead of a Cadillac?" They're both fine cars in their own right. They will probably both get you to work in exactly the same amount of time. The Ferrari is fully capable of going very, very fast. A feature you'll pay for in considerable measure and seldom use. The Cadillac will get you there in comfort and style, without the outrageous price tag. Does anyone need a car that can go 200MPH??? But I guess it does impress the chicks, right?

Mel, the way you described your computer usage tells us that the most complex task you'll be performing is "light photo work". If you were my customer, and you asked me to build a system for you that would best suit your needs, I'd probably stick with the less expensive AMD system with lots of DDR3 Memory. If you really wanted to step things up, you would gain a lot more speed and overall satisfaction by adding a Solid State Drive (SSD) to hold your Operating System and Programs. This would give you ultra quick start up, very fast internet speed, and plenty of processing power for the light photo work you mentioned. This is a system that you could build yourself for under $500.00 with a few bells and whistles to boot.

Just to be clear Mel, this is a suggestion based upon your stated need for computing power. There are some users out there that WANT THE FERRARI!!! In that case, I'd have to say that a carefully balanced system using a multi-core CPU, high numbers in all CPU caches, ultra high clock speed, high volumes of high speed RAM, multiple high speed graphics cards, well engineered cooling and the fastest bandwidth internet connection would fit the build. Of course, this system would cost not $500.00, but closer to $12,000.00.

The short answer Mel is that you don't need a Ferrari to do what you do on your computer. Keep it simple and inexpensive. As I said earlier, the only "extras" I'd be looking for would be lots of RAM (8GB or so), and possibly an SSD for your OS and Programs.

I hope this helps Mel, and good luck.