Originally Posted by TANN3R
I love that you made an account just to comment on this thread.
Anyways, Everyone has an opinion and no one will ever agree one way or another who is better. It doesn't matter if one product is far superior than the other, people are always going to pick sides whether it's AMD or Intel. No amount of arguing will change this
Problem is I am not sure who is truly superior. So many different qualifiers. I do believe Intel has the upper hand and in some cases handily. But on the broad spectrum of performance I think the best meter is: does it perform to users needs be it specific or general people. For simple web browsing and Facebook games and such either side is more than adequate considering just recent ( last 2-3 year) releases. ( Even older generations do that fine ). For gaming you have to make 2 sides, one with single core and poorly coded ( wow sc2 and the like) and the other say Gaming evolved type (not sure what to call them exactly). In the prior Intel has the advantage and by quite a bit. But we must make consideration for the fact that those games are poorly coded or use old instruction sets ( not excuses just facts that have been proven and agreed upon by both sides). The latter is easier for both simply put because they are GPU bound games. But that doesn't make the fact that either can play them any less relevant. But of course at that point particular CPUs within each start to play a bigger role, as in the 8350 or 3960k would have no issue but lower tier from those would start to exhibit less performance ( more so on AMD but keep in mind way less options available).
Now professional software performance definitely lends itself more favorably to Intel. But I have postulated that particular fact due to Intel market share and software being programmed and optimized for Intel that lends itself to the reason for the outcome. Now this by no means something dirty or underhanded transpired, but rather it is the evident conclusion to the market share and expected. But this has nothing to do with how the chip is manufactured and therefore doesn't give an accurate definition to the true performer. But then does the software dictate the true performer? In basic terms yes. But then say what happens if the software changes and then the roles reverse? What does that say of true performance? Problem is that this is nothing more than speculation based upon what ifs. Never been a big fan of what ifs.
So there is a lot to consider when talking performance, more than I can cover in short. But there are truths and then there are opinions. Truth Most all produced chips today, CPUs, perform at a level that can be considered adequate to excellent. Unfortunately when some claim a particular new chip is poor they are using the same range adequate to excellent but changing the adequate to poor. In my mind I think a 3800+ AMD today is a poor performer, a beast back in the day. But that performance today would pale greatly against today chips in head to head with current meters. That is why I am not a fan of people using the word poor or stomped or useless or... any negative qualifier when such is obviously an opinion based on a poor meter. AMD has made a great set of CPUs recently and though still falls short of Intel in current meters for performance, well in some of them, they do make a great addition to anyone that wants great performance at a reasonable cost ( excluding the 9xxx series CPUs). And if you got a bit more money then Intel will not disappoint. But just remember some people, including me, will only buy one side or the other, and that in no way means we are blind to facts nor that we will condemn others for purchasing the oppositions offerings.Edited by Durquavian - 7/26/13 at 3:38pm