intel is the best but very expensive i got a quad phenom for £57 and amd and drr3 motherboard for £60

Say you have 2,000 dollars to spend on a gaming rig. You want the best performance possible in games for your money. Here are your options:

1) Buy a 1,000$ intel to get a 3% average gain in FPS when gaming over AMD's top of the line chip OC'ed and spend the other 1,000 on the rest of your components. This will leave you with settling for 1 mid-range graphics card, as intel motherboard/RAM combos are at least 400 bucks..

2) Buy a 190$ AMD, Overclock it to 4.0ghz easily and on air, buy 2 4870s, 5870s, whatever and still have almost a thousand dollars left over...3 video cards? 4? the possibilities are endless.

In this scenario you are going to get MUCH better gaming experience for 2k using AMD/ATI. Price/performance AMD simply CRUSHES intel/nVidia. HOWEVER, if you have a ZILLION dollars to drop on a gaming rig, you would get the highest performing system from an intel setup.

Intel hands down. Comparing it to AMD is an insult in every way.

I have nothing negative to say about AMD, but I've been a longtime user of Intel's chips. I moved to my current Core 2 Quad Q6700 and Windows 7 loves it, giving me a 7.3 performance rating for my CPU. Since the max score it'll give it 7.9 I'm pretty satisfied. Combined with my GTX 285, it gives me a rating of 7.4 for gaming. I can't really say anything bad about Intel either. If I had to say something, I'd agree their CPUs are more expensive than AMD. That said, I'm very satisfied with my Intel purchases. That also said, most of my PC use is multimedia editing, any my PC serves me very well in that respect.

Got an Intel i7 950 running at 4.2ghz, it's a monster! Fastest processor I've ever tried. Everything happens in an instant, and it's VERY stable.

Combined with an Asus Rampage II Extreme mobo, it overclocks like silk. So easy an 8 year old could do it.

I am about to buy a laptop so how is this for a processor?
Intel Core i7-720QM 4x1,60GHz (Turbo 2.80GHz) 6MB cache

AMD or Intel -- I don't care either way as I have both in different machines. The article title states that they are going to really dig into something and then upon reading it, it sounds like a 5th grader wrote it. Do you like AMD? Check yes or no...

I love AMD they are the little company that can. The AMD phenom II X4 965 black edition is easy to overclock and at $150 plus $120 MOBO and cheap ram is an inexspensive way to build a MONSTER gaming rig that can handle anything.

but....

Intel and it's core i5 and i7 is flat out superior accross the board. All that power and superiority comes at a huge premiun though. Intel chips and mobos are always more exspensive. Core i7 is still running $250 and core i7 mobos are around $180 not to mention you have to use DDR3 ram.

I have always used AMD since the Athlon 64 but I'm switching to Intel because benchmark numbers don't lie.

AMD if your on a budget Intel if you gotta have the best.
Either way your system will rock
I'm using a AMD Phenom II X2 550 and Windows 7 gives it a 7.6

They are faster, smoother and runs cooler. Yes AMD's are cheaper but if you want the best Intel all the way.

My RIG
ATi Radeon HD 5850 Overclocked @ 850MHz/1250MHz(soon GTX 470 depending on benchmarks)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Overclocked @ 3.2GHz
4 X 2GB PC2-6400 (800MHz DDR2) = 8190MB
Asus P5Q SE Plus.

Since the Core 2 Duo Intel has walked over AMD
My Q6600 is almost as quick as Phenom II X4 940 as you can see in these benchmarks (both CPU are stock settings)
http://www.anandtech.com/be...

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 released 2007
AMD Phenom II X4 940 released 2009

AMD better cost for performance. The additional clock speeds and HT Intel has is useless to 99% of the users out there. How many people actually max out their dual cores? That's right, not very many. Let alone Tri, Quad and soon to be Hexa-cores. For everyday use and gaming, there isn't a damn bit of difference between Intel and AMD.

In the end it comes down to personal preference, like ATI vs nVidia. What would you choose?

it depends on how the game is coded or software. if is coded on a intel based platform or archive, it is well said to perform better on a intel chip ,which is why intel usually is shown to have better frame rates on games than a amd chip, because developers favor the chip and company (they say its more flexible, but to me its bs, i think is intel telling them to code it on their chip)but other than less, its the same chip, but yet , it isnt, ive been a intel user for a awhile, and now a amd(because of prices) and really, the build quality is a little better on intels platform, than amd, but yet, amd in whole is a better buy. so to wrap things up, it depends what the coder or developer is going to use for its software, its kindof like developers choose the lead console for a game, and ps3 or a xbox 360, its the same thing, if your the leader, you run better(well in most cases :))

I've been very open on gpu's but when it comes to cpu's I pretty much go AMD all the time.

My current 965 black edition was had for under 200 bucks running stock @ 3.4ghz.

Newegg 4 life.

But they take advantage of that by spending a LOT on R&D for their chips. It's why Intel chips are now number 1.

I LOVE Core i7.

AMD for life PII 955BE is pure win

Intel for me is overpricedd POS that only is good for benchmarks

Intel: More expensive, but faster on the high end. Better route if you want to save half a minute encoding a dvd or running bench marks all day. Or if you just have too much money to hold and must spend all of it.

AMD: Way cheaper(especially when considering the rest of the system cost. Mobo and RAM). If you mainly play games, get AMD. Games are more dependent on graphics than CPU and the hundreds of dollars you save not having an intel chip will allow you to buy better graphics cards.

AMD's high-end processors are not as good as Intel's high-end, plain and simple.

Compare the two at competitive prices, however, and AMD is definately more bang for the buck.

Very VERY similar to ATI (which is AMD) graphics boards and NVidia boards, where NVidia follows the "Intel model" and AMD/ATI do the usual.

I have been an AMD user for a long time and i am very satisfied with the price and performance. I am not familiar with the current Intel cpu's but i hear they are still good. I guess it all boils down to how much you are willing to spend to get a good game rig.

Tell me again how the multiplatform strategy was supposed to fix everything. Look at your results and compare them to Nintendo, which keeps thriving with exclusives. Your loyal fans are gone. And let’s not forget the pile of IPs you purchased only to let them rot.

The worst thing is this is down from last years numbers/expectations which was down from the previous years numbers/expectations. You think about how long “down” has been a consistent part of the communication and you realize those subscriptions are what’s holding that boat together. The price cut of gamespass is still a price raise in a string of price raises. They are trying to use players to offset the missing revenue. Now call of duty is out of gamespass, which is literally WHY they bought the company. To draw people to the subscription. They realized they missed a boatload of money and that wasn’t sustainable. Now you pay for it like you would have if they never bought the company… so why buy the company? Mind you those billions still need to be paid back. Yeah it gives you a chance to say we make the biggest FPS… but the internal conversations must be brutal at high level on topics that really matter. Like revenue. Profitability. And ROI for the shopping spree.

Is this like the 10th quarter in a row they're down 33% on hardware how is that even mathematically possible. You would think their mediocrity would Plateau