AMD processors are more durable than Intel, so they are less likely to "fall apart." They can take more voltage, run cooler, and overclock higher (stock clock speeds considered). Also Intel have been using TIM instead of solder to transfer heat from the die to heat spreader, so it is funny that people hold them in such a high respect for product quality. They may be faster due to advancement in technology, but that doesn't mean durability. In fact, the less advanced and more refined architecture is most of the reason they can take more abuse.Originally Posted by Blue Dragon
amd shares resources and intel doesn't. most would say intel holds the market in best hyperthreading(logical cores) but others would say you can't really compare amd logical cores to intel hyperthreading...
I don't know any difference between physical cores other than how they are divided (back to hyperthreading) AMD of course holds market in # of cores, but IMO intel is just holding back. questions like these can easily turn into AMD vs Intel... but if you're wanting a unbiased opinion... don't look to me. Intel is better performing but is overpriced, AMD is almost cheap for what you get... just don't be surprised when it "falls apart".
in real world applications... Intel would be better for any one of those things, but AMD would be best with all of them!