AMD Versus INTEL Chips Comparison

AMD and Intel, both manufacture microprocessors based on the x86 architecture. The tussle between these two organizations has probably been the most prolonged war in the computer world. The corporate rivalry dates back to 1969, with the setting up of the Advanced Micro Devices Corporation, just one year after the establishment of Intel Corporation. In January 1995, both the organizations settled whatever litigation they were involved in, but the processor war continued.

When thinking about a processor, you have to take into account the main features that are going to be of interest to you and affect you the most, positively or negatively. While most people would look at the price and speed aspect, there are others who are also interested in the finer aspects like graphics performance, gaming capability, power consumption, and other such related features. To keep it simple, sit back and think what you will be doing the most on your machine, and then go ahead and choose accordingly.

AMD Versus INTEL Chips Comparison Chart

Here, to make things simpler, we will compare and contrast both the processors on the various platforms on which they are tested.

Comparison
Features	Intel Vs. AMD
Price vs. Performance	When it comes to the performance to cost ratio, AMD definitely has the advantage. Its processors were cheaper as compared to Intel and they definitely did provide high value performance. But with the advent of the Intel's Quadcore and Core 2 Duo processors, the situation has totally changed. The performance of a quad-core processor is, perhaps, the best in the market and its price is continuously falling.
Power Consumption	When it comes to the overall power consumption of a system, Intel definitely suffered the initial setback. Its Pentium 4 processors had a very bad reputation of 150W TDP. Intel tried to solve the problem in its Core 2 Duo processor, which goes to less than 75W TDP. But experiments have still proved that a machine running on an Intel Core 2 Duo processor consumed at least 7W more power than an AMD Sempron.
3D Gaming	This is basically the feature that had allowed AMD to hold its own for a long time. Even with no graphics card, AMD's 64 bit processor could take on the load and support the gaming features of advanced games. Intel, however, suffered an initial setback, because the multi-threading features that it allowed were not used by many games earlier. The AMD Athlon 64 bit could beat the Pentium 4 computers in almost all respects when it came to gaming. But the turnover again happened with the introduction of the Quadcore and Core 2 Duo processors. The scenario changed completely. Besides the equivalent features that these two processors could provide (when compared to the AMD Athlon 64), they also had an added feature of supporting dual video cards.
Graphics	The comparison would again be the same as that of 3D gaming. AMD is a winner when its processors are compared to Intel's previous processors, but Quadcore and Core 2 Duo processors, with their supreme features, have helped Intel to regain the share of the market that it deserves.
MP3 and Video Encoding	AMD's 64 bit processors provided faster encoding of MP3s as well as videos. The reason is simple - a 64 bit processor will, of course, be faster than a 32 bit processor. Intel's 32 bit processors had higher clock frequencies, but while the clock frequency of a 64 bit processor could be less, it worked at almost twice the speed than what was mentioned in its manual. This feature was also combated by Intel with its Core 2 Duo and Quadcore processors. If we do not run experiments to test the minutest details, then both the companies can provide good encoding capability for any average user.
Cooling	Computers working on Intel's Core 2 Duo processor and Quadcore processors definitely have superior cooling features and better heat sinks, when compared to the AMD machines. Not only this, but the Core 2 Duo processors could reach to a speed of 3.2 GHz on proper cooling.
Office Productivity and Multitasking	Finally, we come down to the basic features that every computer user is worried about - the level of office productivity, internet browsing speeds and multitasking that their machine would provide. Just as a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit processor cannot be compared with respect to office productivity; similarly, it is better if we don't compare these processors as well, on the level of their office productivity. You cannot actually notice a spreadsheet launching faster on your screen or your letters being typed faster. Both the organizations are equivalent when compared on the basis of their office productivity. But, coming down to multitasking, AMD with its 64 bit processors provided better multitasking features, and none of the Intel's processors, before the launching of the Core 2 Duo processors could match up to it. But with the entry of Intel's Core 2 Duo and Quadcore on the scene, we can again consider the situation as being pretty well-balanced.

To summarize and make it simple, if you are looking for an overall high-end processor, you can choose between the Intel Core i7 or the AMD Phenom II series. For something that will cost a little less than the above, but still be good enough for your gaming and graphics experience, the Intel Core 2 Duo or the AMD Phenom I series is a good bet. And if price is your major concern, the either go in for the Intel Celeron, Centrino, Atom or AMD's Sempron or Athlon Neo.

Before we end this discussion, let us consider a few more common features that both these processors can handle equivalently. It may not be of much concern to many people, but the processors manufactured by both the organizations support the sharing of the DDR2 RAM, peripherals and the video cards equally well. As a computer user, it is in fact not necessary to be a die-hard fan of the chips of either organization. Just wait for the more advanced chip to be launched; it may be from any organization, but you will definitely be the one to benefit.