Your Next Processor : AMD or INTEL

There are countless companies in the computer industry but there is only one battle that counts... AMD vs. Intel. This is a favorite topic in the forums, yet instead of blindly pledging allegiance to one CPU or the other, let's take a look behind the scenes and find out which companies processor is the best bet.
Now I should say that I'm a hardware enthusiast at heart, so for me CPU performance matters the most. I stick with gear only as long as it keeps my PC at the front of the performance curve. After that, I drop it like a rock and move onto greener pastures, regardless if it's the same brand or not. After all, what's the point of brand loyalty? AMD and Intel don't love you back, no matter how much you might sing their praises. Put another way, it's not like AMD only sells to you, or Intel has a smiling shot of your mug on every pay stub as a testament to your past processor purchases now is it?
The nice thing about being computer enthusiast is that right now both AMD and Intel platforms support a lot of cross compatible hardware. Sure the CPU and motherboards are platform specific, but you can share DDR2 memory, videocards and other peripherals easily enough. If PC speed is what you crave, you can jump from one processor platform to the next ever couple months, taking your memory, videocards, hard drives and everything else along with you.
Anyway, the point I'm trying make is this. As a hardware enthusiast you have the pick of some of the fastest computer hardware on the planet. Ignore the urge to stick with AMD or Intel out of tradition, go out there and find the best gear based on benchmarks!
So, who offers the best performance - is it AMD or Intel? I'm glad you asked, the answer is....
...Intel. For the moment anyway, Intel's dual and quad core processors are the king of the heap. In particular, the companies Core 2 Duo/Quad processor lineup is out-pacing AMDs current Athlon64 X2/FX processor families. That may indeed change by the end of Q4'07, or it may not.

AMD is partly to blame for its current situation. Big green has not refreshed its CPU lineup since the last time PCSTATS dished the dirt on the AMD vs. Intel slugfest. AMD won the battle back then, but relying on the now somewhat dated K8 Athlon64 processor has left AMD without a good competing CPU for Intel's "Conroe". Intel published performance results on "Conroe" for quite some time before it was officially released, so it's not like AMD was blindsided by it either.
Intel Climbs Back To The Top
For its efforts, Intel has undergone more than a few self-evaluations. It had to deal with a "Prescott" Pentium 4 voltage leak issue, it stopped pushing GHz as the singular processor metric and adopted the same kind of rating system AMD had been using for years. Then, Intel abandoned Netburst and modernized the P6 core into what we now know as the Core Solo and Core 2 Duo processor.
The Core Solo was nice, but Intel's Core 2 Duo is the real beauty. The CPU was an immediate hit among gamers from the time of its release, and it continues to out pace comparable Athlon64 processors.
Intel's previous NetBurst architecture had de-emphasized FPU power in favor of special instructions (SSE, 2, 3). This is partly the reason so many gamers ditched their Pentium 4/D computers in favor of AMD Athlon64 processors and it's more powerful FPU.
With the Intel Core processor architecture, the company finally addressed the FPU issue. Intel's "Conroe" CPU core has a very powerful FPU, and that has guaranteed a very welcome reception by gamers ever since.
As it stands in the fall of 2007, the Intel Core 2 Duo processor is generally more powerful than AMD's Athlon64 X2/FX series in games, and all around.
Whether you're working on multimedia tasks, workstation or just need raw data crunching power, the Core 2 Duo trounces AMD's best almost every time.
It's also proved its mettle as an excellent overclocker!
Early stepping Intel Core 2 Duo processors could overclock to 3.2 GHz+ on air cooling, and the recent 'G0' stepping can go even further. I've overclocked to the region of 3.8 GHz with the stock heatsink in fact.
By comparison, AMD's 90nm Athlon64 X2/FX processors have difficulty overclocking much past 3 GHz.... Make no mistake about it, clock for clock Intel's Core 2 Duo is currently faster than AMD's Athlon64 X2 and FX processors.
Thermal Output Improving
The Intel Pentium 4 and D processor series were notorious for consuming a lot of power, and consequently running quite hot. The architecture Intel based the Core 2 Duo processors on is much better in this regard. While Pentium 4 architecture was at one time headed towards 150W TDP (Typical Design power), many of its current processors are now pushing 85W or less. One generation before, Intel Pentium D CPUs hovered around the 125W TDP range, late model Core 2 Duo processors (like the E6750 ) have a 65W TDP!
It's true enough that the power values AMD and Intel specify are not entirely comparable with each other, but total system power measurements give a good basis for comparison. I've conducted some power draw measurements recently, and those tests showed that Intel is genuinely kicking high power habit. An average Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 based computer system draws about 7W more power than a budget AMD Sempron 3600+ based PC system with its single CPU core running at idle. You'd think the lower power budget AMD chip would be significantly easier on the juice than the fairly high end E6750 Core 2 Duo, but the difference is pretty small.
With an Intel Core 2 Duo system under load, total power draw results are impressive. For instance, a Core 2 Duo E6750 system consumes 163W of power (total PC power draw) when running with both CPU cores under load.
A comparable Intel Pentium D 940 system consumes 253W of power with both processing CPU cores stressed, and an AMD Athlon64 FX-62 power system consumes upwards of 235W! It's clear you can save a lot on the utility bills by switching to a CPU that sips electricity. Intel offers this, with great performance. (Please keep in mind that these are total system power draw values, not just the processor.)
I've often thought that Intel is the more innovative of the two companies when it comes to designing heatsinks for its processors. The current Core 2 Duo bifurcated radial fin heatsinks are remarkably good, and very quiet.
Gone are the days of throwing out the stock heatsink for an after market cooler the second the box is opened... For good all around CPU cooling, it's tough to beat Intel in terms of noise level. The stock heatsinks are just so quiet, thanks in large part to 90mm fans and Pulse Width Modulation which allows the rotational speed to vary based on moment to moment thermal output.
Of course, these aren't the only reasons Intel is leading with the Core 2 Duo, as we'll talk about next, chipsets play a big role....

Chipsets and Dual Videocard Support The one thing that has propped up AMD for the longest time was wide support for dual videocard gaming - both nVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire technology. For Intel users who wanted to run dual videocards, there was no real option for the longest time.
That was eventually sorted out when Intel added support for dual videocards (ATI CrossFire) to its P965 Express chipset. A few Intel Edition nVIDIA nForce 590SLI motherboards also brought SLI to the Intel platform, but they weren't released in very significant volumes. That Intel Edition nVidia chipset seemed to be EOL'ed rather quickly too.
The situation is much better for gamers looking to run dual videocards with a Core 2 Duo processor nowadays. nVidia's nForce 680i/650i series motherboards are readily available, and Intel's P35 Express supports AMD CrossFire technology better than the P965 Express.
The upcoming Intel X38 Express chipset is rumored to support both nVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire! AMD has certainly lost its well deserved monopoly on multi-videocard gaming platforms. Which CPU will take the lead in quad videocard gaming platforms remains to be seen...
It's Always About The Price
Intel has been unusually aggressive with the pricing of its Core 2 Duo/Quad processors this year. Consumers have benefitted surely, but what cost us nearly $800 last CPU generation entered the market at just $300!? I don't know how they do it.
Still, I have to tip my hat towards Intel, not only are its emerging CPUs fast, they're just such a bargain. As of this writing, $120 US will get you an Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 processor which is perfectly adequate for a workstation or home PC. A year ago, an equivalent class of processor would have been 2-3 times as much.
If you're building a new computer or buying a mainstream PC, a very nice Intel processor will only set you back $150-200US. For that, what you'll get will be faster than the AMD equivalent at that price. Factor in the cost of the other computer components, the fact that going AMD is no longer 'the cheaper option', and it really just makes sense to build Intel this time around.
When it comes to budget computing, the lines become blurry. Intel's budget Celeron D processor is still based on the Pentium 4 architecture, so there are those downsides when held up to the light of the current Core 2 Duo architecture.
It's a tough call. I suppose if I were putting together a budget PC right now I might just opt for a Celeron D instead of an AMD Sempron, mainly because of the flexibility of upgrading that LGA775 socket to a Core 2 Duo CPU at a later date. Now the socket AM2 AMD Semperon is a better budget processor all around than the Celeron D, but the upgrade path for AM2 just isn't as alluring right now. Like I said it's a tough one. The choice seems to be sacrifice a little performance now for better upgradability down the road, or benefit from entry level performance now and sacrifice upgrade performance later on.
The Ebb and Flow of CPU Architecture
Blind loyalty towards one brand precludes you from the decision making process. Is 'A' better than 'B,' or does 'B' have a better marketing program than 'A'? If you're not up on current CPU tech, this kind of decision making can quickly turn confusing.
Consider this; AMD and Intel are both corporations in the business of making microprocessors. The aim of a corporation is to make money, there's no hidden agenda to that. Intel has proven that in a short span of time, it can re-engineer a failing processor lineup and completely turn around its fortunes. AMD has shown us that in that same period of time a stagnant processor architecture can loose momentum because of a lack of innovation on a timely basis.
This is the ebb and flow of the tech industry, despite their commitment to convince you otherwise...

One CPU Core Against the Other Having no preference to Intel, no preference to AMD, allows you to understand that as a consumer, hyper-competitive companies tend to trade market dominance from one season to the next. 'A' is not always going to be better than 'B', and vice versa.
It'd be nice to have a third option, a 'C' to choose from, but sadly all of Transmeta's best technological advances have come under the Intellectual Properly gavel. Still, the impact it had on energy efficient processing is due more credit than history has bestowed... but that's a story for another day.
As it stands right now, Intel dominates the processor market - in value, in performance, in inertia. I'd be remiss to count AMD out just yet though.
AMD has been delayed by technological kinks, missed release dates that may have kept it in lock step with its largest competitor, and for better or worse swallowed $5 Billion in debt for ATI at the beginning of this year. There are positive signs from AMD if you know where to look though...
The AMD 690G chipset is a resounding success for example, and if Intel has taught us anything, it's that chipsets pave the path to PC dominance.
AMD has not been asleep at the wheel on the processor front either. Much delayed perhaps, but not asleep. It is readying a new core, called 'K10', and a slew of intermediary processors based on 'Barcelona.' Not much is known about the performance of AMD's upcoming 'K10' Phenom X2 and Phenom X4 desktop processors right now, but we should find out very shortly if the 'Agena' and 'Kuma' chips will give Intel a run for its money.
While much of AMD's success the last few years can be traced to its partners, Intel has guaranteed the success of the Core 2 Duo processor with well designed chipsets. As they say, "it's the chipsets, stupid."
The Intel Core 2 Duo is a very efficient processor, its TDP values are roughly half of what the Pentium 4/D series use to be, and real world testing shows that complete computer systems equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo use considerably less power.
This is all well and good, but the real ace up Intel's sleeve is not that it has a processor which is faster by some percentage points, it's that the Core 2 Duo is faster and aggressively priced! I can't remember a time when you got so much value in a CPU for so little.
Mind you, Intel's Extreme Edition processors are still priced in the stratosphere, but its regular desktop CPU lines are very affordable. Compared to AMD processors in the same price bracket, Intel has the upper hand.
So as these things go, when it comes to AMD or Intel? Intel wins this round. The bottom line is simply that Intel has outmaneuvered AMD, scrapping an entire generational branch of CPUs for a double headed offshoot that rocks. The Core 2 Duo performs really well, so it's what I've been recommending.
But before we close up this debate, there's one more point you should consider. Along with casting away brand loyalty and judging CPUs based on cold hard benchmarks, there's another option we rarely see mentioned on sites set with deconstructing the latest and greatest technology. If the computer you have right now does what you need it to, you really don't have to choose between AMD or Intel's latest do you? ;-)