My gaming desktop's outfitted with an AMD proc. I'm led to believe that they're faster than what Intel has to offer, & quite frankly, most signs point to me being right.
So, I'm biased towards AMD.
AMD CPUs need to go die in a fire. Time and time again they fail against Intel equivalents, even when Intel tries to let them win. Intel's true capacity for semiconductors is being routed for government-grade tasks not pertinent to the consumer. I want Intel's stock to be invested in by the government and for them to have a monopoly on the semiconductor industry, if that gives you an idea.
For those touting the AMD 8-core thing, a certain Broadwell i7 is about to annihilate that Cracker Jacks nub of junk.
Intel has consistently ousted AMD in semiconductors for a long time… those of you complaining about Intel lacking performance were likely using ancient chips… my 1997 Pentium II wasn't all too great with 2008-standards web browsing either. It can't be compared to an AMD chip made half a decade later, though, that's for sure.
AMD, you make good GPUs. Intel sucks in that department. Please kindly be fking out of the CPU industry kthx
From a consumer standpoint, AMD dying basically means we don't have any choice when it comes to processors and Intel could double their prices with ease, and there's no guarantee that antitrust laws would be used to break up Intel in such a case... your wallet needs Intel to have a competitor, even if you don't want it to have one
The BBC pulls it off pretty nicely despite being a media entity, which Intel is not. Not saying it couldn't go wrong, though. Still, there's no logical reason besides anti-trust claims for Intel to have competitors. At that point then it's just bickering over different takes on capitalism, and you don't see and end to that anytime soon, do you?I want Intel's stock to be invested in by the government and for them to have a monopoly on the semiconductor industry, if that gives you an idea.