home WiFi

Which is better Radeon or Intel? Which processor is better: AMD or Intel? The final choice for the best processor

18.01.2024

Which processor is better: Intel or AMD?

It's an interesting time for CPU manufacturers. The time when laptop battery life was measured in just a few hours and was considered efficient, and when the bulk of computer enthusiasts had noisy, hot desktop PCs in their homes, is long gone. Sales of desktop PCs fell 9.8 percent. In new markets the story is even worse: a decline of 11.3 percent. It's simple, users now prefer smaller, cheaper and less power-intensive devices.

In 2014, the position of desktop PCs strengthened slightly, and only because companies were replacing their PCs that were running the no longer supported Windows XP, but in 2015 sales fell again. According to analysts, there will be a “moderate decline” across the board because sales of Windows tablets and 2-in-1 laptop/tablet hybrids have increased.

Overall, this was a revolution for the major players in the industry. Just ten years ago, Intel and AMD had peace and quiet. Intel's distinctive logo appeared everywhere laptops were sold, and AMD's future was bright thanks to the acquisition of ATI graphics. And in such a cloudless atmosphere, these giants little by little began to lag behind the times. The technology environment was changing rapidly and Intel, and especially the slower AMD, were slow to pivot to mobile devices, allowing other chip makers, especially ARM, but also VIA and Qualcomm, to dominate this huge new market.

Why AMD and Intel

If you're buying a traditional laptop or PC, you only have two processor options - AMD and Intel, and the sharp decline in PC popularity doesn't mean they've gone beggarly. Keep in mind that Intel's total revenue in 2014 was $55.8 billion. But, of course, Intel receives its income not only from the sale of processors for PCs and laptops. The company also produces graphics processors, wired and wireless network adapters, servers, workstation processors, and much more. And although you are unlikely to find Intel processors in most smartphones or tablets, the company produces quite a lot of SoCs for mobile devices.

AMD is in some ways the weaker of the two companies. On the one hand, while Intel is creating its own manufacturing, opening more than a dozen facilities in the US, Ireland, Israel and China; AMD sold off its last fabs back in 2009. Today, just like ARM, VIA, MediaTek and many others, AMD designs its own chips but manufactures them outsourced. Microprocessor production is terribly expensive and AMD, compared to Intel, looks pale at only $5.51 billion.

History and breakthroughs

Both companies have their own history. When Intel released the 8080 processor in 1974, it laid the foundation for all x86 processors, which powered all desktop PCs for nearly 30 years. They later demonstrated commercial acumen: in the mid-2000s, the Centrino platform, consisting of a low-power processor, a wireless chip, and a mobile chipset, took the market by storm, with a reputation for desktop-class computing power and long battery life. And the company's switch from the x86 brand to "Pentium" was like the brush of a PR genius.

Intel's marketing department's ability to think continues to this day. True, the success of the Intel-branded ultrabook was riskily associated with Microsoft's efforts to promote its Windows 8 OS.

AMD's position as an underdog is consistent. AMD now has a 17 percent market share, partly due to console gaming devices: the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are powered by an 8-core AMD Jaguar processor.

Perhaps AMD's biggest relatively recent innovation was the acquisition of an ATI graphics processing unit (GPU). Thanks to this, AMD has almost caught up with Intel in the ability to install integrated graphics processors - that is, GPUs located on the same chip as the CPU. The result is less graphics power, but a significant reduction in power consumption and heat. Forget fire-breathing, discrete graphics cards (last year's Radeon R9 280X ran at 250W at peak and needed two fans). AMD realized that the future of silicon is not only about increasing computing power, but also about reducing power consumption and size. These days, most people don't need more computing power, they want better battery life on their portable devices.

Intel or AMD problems

At first glance, AMD and Intel were well positioned in the market and answered all the needs of mobile device users. The desktop PC market was in a steady decline, laptop sales were rising, and mobile phones were in need of a rethink. Intel, with its Centrino-based laptop, already had an incredibly strong reputation, and its rival AMD's Turion was just a second behind, the race was on to win a market that already knew that mobility was the future of computing.

Intel started strong. Remember your netbook? The first netbooks - such as the Asus Eee PC 701, released in the UK in 2007 - cost less than £200, weighed less than a kilogram and still offered enough processing power to run basic work applications and applications running in web browsers. What processor is it based on? An ultra-low version of the humble Celeron.

The netbook was a major commercial success, and Intel capitalized on its Atom processor. This was Intel silicon at its cheapest. Thousands of the earliest CPU Atoms found on netbooks cost manufacturers less than $30. Consumers wanted small, cheap computers, and Intel, with its extensive experience in mobile processors, was able to answer the call.

The problems started with tablets. "We don't know how to make a $500 computer without it being junk," Steve Jobs said in 2008. "A netbook is worse than this," he added when launching the first generation iPad in 2010. Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook agreed, describing the netbook as "not a very good consumer experience." This is how the iPad was born.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that they didn't anticipate consumer preference for mobile devices. The problem was the form factor: on its first day of sales in 2010, the iPad sold 300,000 units. By choosing between traditional laptops and netbooks, with traditional desktop operating systems built on traditional x86 hardware, Intel and AMD were backing the wrong horse. In fact, Intel, Microsoft and HP tried to market the tablet long before the iPad, but the combination of Windows (an OS designed for a keyboard and mouse), short battery life and heavy hardware meant that no one wanted to buy them.

The problem for Intel and AMD wasn't that the iPad and subsequent tablets from Sony, Samsung, etc. didn't need processors. They were still needed, but in new types of processors. And the kingdom of SoC (system on a chip) - in which all the functions of a computer are built into a single chip - was already ruled by British giant ARM.

ARM processors have a completely different architecture from traditional Intel and AMD chips. The ARM reduced instruction set (RISC) architecture is physically simpler than an x86 processor, which means they are cheaper and consume less power. The rapid rise of the iPad and the sharp decline of Windows tablets showed that AMD and Intel were late to this boat. Fast forward to 2015 and the netbook has proven to be stillborn, killed in the bud by high-quality tablets that perform well, offer long battery life, and cost much less than a standard laptop.

New form factors

Even Microsoft, a longtime ally of x86-bit hardware, has added to the misery for Intel and AMD. RT Windows, released in late 2012, was the first version of Windows to run on ARM devices, theoretically giving Microsoft access to low-cost tablets. However, the RT Windows platform has taken a hit: Microsoft lost $900 million in 2013 on its unsold RT Windows devices, and the company's CFO Amy Hood said, "We know we have to do better, especially on mobile devices."

While we were all impressed with the Surface Pro 3, it turned out to be the best of a relatively poor selection of so-called two-in-one devices that supposedly offer the best of both worlds: a full Windows laptop one minute, a tablet the next. The problem is that Windows 8's touch interface isn't that great, and few developers are writing apps for it. Now, Microsoft's immediate future depends on the success of Windows 10.

However, Intel did not place all its hopes only on Microsoft. In 2015, the Curie module appeared, a miniature module the size of a button. It uses Quark SE SoC, which can be powered by a coin-sized battery. And although its spread in the world of tablets and ultra-thin computers cannot yet be called triumphant, Intel still has a lot in store.

Intel or AMD, which is better for games?

Targeting games is a completely different story. Intel is betting on graphics processing, but its interests lie in integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are ideal for small laptops. The integrated GPU doesn't add much to the price of the laptop, doesn't use up too much power, and - contrary to popular belief - actually provides decent enough 3-D processing for not very resource-intensive games.

For anyone who plays, trying to run the latest games at high detail settings has shown the inconsistency of the latest consoles. But nevertheless, discrete video cards have always been a worthy alternative, and here AMD has a significant advantage. There's a whole range of AMD graphics cards available today, from low-profile passively cooled cards to the R9 390X, which retails for $500. However, discrete graphics are not AMD's only strength. As a supplier of its chips for the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, AMD did not ignore Nintendo's Wii U. And although today they are not able to announce their new platform developments, for example, tablets or hybrids, avid gamers have something to thank them for.

What to buy AMD or Intel

If you're building a desktop PC, the choice between AMD and Intel is as clear as ever. But on the other hand, it is complicated, since in any well-known store you will be faced with a huge selection of 600 CPUs. If you're on a budget, AMD has a good selection of decent processors at lower standard prices. But choosing AMD doesn't mean giving up on high-performance computing; the upper limit of Athlon processors is comparable to the leading Intel Core i7 processor.

And yet Intel dominates both the mid-range CPU and high-end processors, where there are a huge number of them. For powerful, everyday computing, the Core i5 is great. You can buy it for about 250-300 dollars. More advanced users - those who do video editing, 3-D animation, or those who participate in leaderboards - can choose the Intel Core i7 chip.

So, when buying a desktop PC or laptop, Intel is preferable to AMD. True, if you are not strictly limited by budget.

Every user, even one who is not particularly versed in the technical side of things, sooner or later inevitably comes to the realization that the performance of his computer is beginning to be insufficient to solve everyday problems, which are becoming more and more demanding on computing power day by day. Laptop owners will most likely solve this issue by purchasing a new one. laptop.

Users of desktop PCs, especially those who assembled it themselves from components, will probably not make such radical decisions and will turn their attention to upgrade.

Installing additional memory sticks, using faster ones SSD -disks - all this, of course, is wonderful, but still it is customary to give the main role in increasing PC performance to the processor. There is no need to guess what a computer user with an outdated processor will do; he will simply go to the store and buy a newer and faster chip. At the same time, owners of PCs based on Intel will purchase an Intel chip, the same ones who had it installed AMD , will give preference to AMD.

Why is this so? Because it is a tradition, a habit, and for some a sacred belief that a processor from one manufacturer is certainly superior to another in all respects. This last opinion is largely subjective and can be challenged, although it is unlikely that discussion on this topic will be productive. Fierce disputes between supporters Intel And AMD They have been going on for more than a year now and will probably continue to do so. And the point here is not so much the stubbornness of opponents, but the fact that to give an unambiguous answer to the question of what is better, Intel or AMD, impossible.

Someone will say, processors Intel are more widespread, therefore they are better, otherwise the first place would have gone to AMD. This is not true. It just happened historically that marketers Intel turned out to be faster, but everything could have been different and most programs today would not have been written under Intel, and under AMD. Moreover, with AMD There are several unsubstantiated myths associated with it, in particular the myth that processors from this company "burning", it is worth giving a slightly increased load. Yes, there were precedents, just remember the Athlon 1400, but they are not related to the processors themselves, but to the failure of the fan.

Today, with few exceptions, all this is a thing of the past and is considered an argument against AMD can not. Both Intel and Amdisch processors have their own advantages and disadvantages, which manifest themselves under certain circumstances, so one can only judge whether a particular processor is good or bad within the framework of the task it performs. Below you can familiarize yourself with the main advantages and disadvantages of processors Intel And AMD, look and decide for yourself what is better based on your goals.

Pros of Intel Processes

Most of the software is optimized for Intel chips.
Better gaming performance than similar AMD chips.
When allocating resources, most of them are allocated to active applications, which makes the latter work faster.
Lower power consumption.
Good overlocking potential for indexed chips K .
High-quality interaction with RAM.

Cons of Intel processors

Limitations in terms of multitasking. Can only work with two resource-intensive applications.
Processors i7-i5 with index K require better cooling.
Forced complete PC upgrade when installing a new line of chips (except for chips with LGA 115 socket) .
High price.

Pros of AMD processes

Affordable price, good cost-performance ratio.
Multitasking. More flexible distribution of computing power between running applications.
Multiplatform support.
Good overclocking potential of some models, but in general, any chip can be overclocked by 10-20 percent AMD.

Cons of AMD processors

AMD chips are worse at processing data from applications written under Intel.
Insufficient cooling of series chips FX And Phenom II X4-X6 needing the installation of additional coolers.
Higher power consumption.
Interaction with RAM is not at such a high level as in Intel.
Reduced performance in games when compared with Intel analogues.

What general conclusions can be drawn based on all of the above? If you intend to use the computer only for office work, then you can give preference AMD, because why pay more? On the other hand, have Intel there are more than enough budget processors that, like AMD, can easily cope with the tasks assigned to them. So, by and large, there is no difference, except for the price, based on which processor you will build an office computer.

In the case of a multimedia PC, everything is a little more interesting, although here too there are special advantages from choosing AMD or Intel you won't get it. If the assembly does not require a discrete video card, then you should pay attention to APU Trinity from AMD, if you can’t do without a discrete card, then it’s better to give preference to Intel processors. As for gaming computers, everything again depends on what games you are going to play and, accordingly, on what card is installed on the computer.

Suitable for games and mid-range graphics cards AMD, For example, Phenom II X4 955 BE, if there are several video cards or the graphics card is very powerful, then it is still better to choose processors Intel i5-i7 with index TO. Not because Intel is faster in principle, but because allocating resources to a specific application is its specialty. In any case, count on a particularly noticeable performance increase when switching from AMD on Intel or with Intel on AMD It's not worth it, it will be obvious in benchmarks, but may be almost unnoticeable during real work.

  • 1. A little history
  • 2. Pricing policy
  • 3. Overclocking options
  • 4. Processor for computer games
  • 5. Final instructions

Every computer, no matter how it is used, is made up of identical basic components. The main element in any PC is the processor, which performs all computing operations, and the performance of this small part determines the performance of the system as a whole. Only two companies are fighting for leadership in the processor market, which we will talk about today and try to answer the age-old question - AMD or Intel, which is better?

A little history

Both companies began their journey in an era when computers occupied entire rooms, and the concept of a personal computer was just beginning to come into fashion. The first in this field was Intel, created in 1968 and becoming practically the only developer and manufacturer of processes. The brand's initial products were integrated circuits, but pretty soon the manufacturer focused only on processors. AMD was founded in 1969 and was initially aimed at the process market.

At that time, AMD processors became a product that appeared through active cooperation between two manufacturers. Intel's technical department supported the young competitor in every possible way and shared technologies and patents. After the company firmly found its feet, the manufacturers' paths diverged in different directions, and today the two global manufacturers collide with each other in every generation of processors.

Price policy

There are many solutions on the market, both from one manufacturer and from another. Taking the side of one company and completely abandoning the other is not so easy, because when choosing a processor you need to take into account many factors. To begin with, it is worth noting that both companies produce processors for all applications and for any budget:

  • Office. Such processors have minimal technical characteristics and low cost, are designed to run office applications and are not designed for programs with high computing needs.
  • Homemade. This type of process is usually more powerful than the office version, since it provides a performance reserve for casual gaming, but the cost of such an element is much higher.
  • Gaming or professional. Computer games place certain demands on CPU power, and such a processor will cost a pretty penny.

If you are selecting a processor for work, then AMD offers inexpensive options for “stones” with good technical performance. The budget line from the manufacturer is characterized by low cost, excellent performance and reasonable energy consumption. However, Intel products, according to all experts, have a much higher power reserve. Thus, an AMD processor is excellent for a budget computer, but for work in resource-intensive applications, gaming and stable system operation in general, it is better to opt for Intel.


Overclocking options

Overclocking is a fairly popular way to increase the performance of a computer without the need to purchase additional hardware. However, for full overclocking, the processor must have a certain architecture and meet specific requirements.

If an Intel processor is better for gaming, then it is recommended to purchase an AMD processor for overclocking. Unlike its competitor, AMD has created processors that can operate at different clock speeds, which provides ample overclocking options. At the same time, you can overclock any processor from the line, but Intel allows you to experiment only with some models with the K index in the name. Other processors simply do not support overclocking and cannot change the clock speed.

For those who plan to overclock a PC platform, it is better to purchase AMD, which operates stably at any frequency. At the same time, this effect is supported by both expensive eight-core processors and budget options.

Processor for computer games

Fans of clear graphics definitely choose Intel Core i5 and i7. The latest models from this manufacturer have shown high performance in the most “heavy” games and do an excellent job of visualizing any picture. Such processors belong to the gaming category.

However, AMD is not giving up its position so easily. Not long ago, a solution appeared that is perfect for a budget gaming computer - six-core Ryzen 5 chipsets. The result is an inexpensive and quite productive working platform. Although the verdict still adheres to Intel products, which are recognized as the best solution for a gaming computer.

One of the main factors when choosing a processor for gaming is its energy efficiency. Traditionally, Intel processors are better optimized both in terms of power consumption and operating temperatures. Therefore, if you do not want your computer to “heat like a stove,” it is better to join the blue camp, or save on the processor and take AMD, but additionally buy a powerful cooling system.

Final instructions

In 2019, both companies will introduce a new generation of processors that will have more advanced characteristics. At the moment, the best choice for a home computer in terms of price/quality ratio are two processors - Intel Core i5 and AMD Ryzen 5 1600.

Both stones have approximately the same parameters, but there are several very obvious differences:

  • Both stones have the same number of cores, but in the case of AMD there is the notorious possibility of fairly simple overclocking. Therefore, it will be better suited for the future, and Intel will work more stable.
  • Specific RAM format. An AMD processor reaches its full potential if it has a certain RAM frequency, which can create some difficulties. The Intel processor is much more interesting in this regard, because it does not create such strict restrictions.
  • An Intel processor heats up much less, meaning you don’t have to spend additional money on organizing a cooling system. AMD gets quite hot and you will have to purchase a powerful cooler for it.

In any case, offers from all manufacturers have their own advantages and are tailored to meet specific tasks. If you are forced to stick to a strict budget, AMD offers an excellent line of inexpensive processors. In the case when you want to build a computer that can cope with any task, then Intel products have not yet been developed better for this purpose.

The question of which processor is better than AMD or Intel does not have a clear answer, because each component has a number of specific parameters and the choice of one or another option should be based on the purpose of the PC itself. An effective platform will demonstrate high performance only with the correct selection of all components that will enhance each other's performance.

The processor industry does not stand still, as, in principle, does information technology in general. Over the past fifteen years, humanity has achieved a revolutionary breakthrough in the computer field. As for processors, today developers present us with a huge selection of their products with the latest micro architectures and technologies. We just have to adapt to our financial capabilities. When buying a computer, the question arises: which processor to choose AMD or Intel?

In this article I will try to reveal the answer to a frequently asked question, based not on personal preferences, but only on facts and examples. Anyone can support my opinion or refute it. So, if you're ready, let's go.

Let's go back in time a little. Two companies, Advanced Micro Devices and Intel Corporation, were created in 1969 and 1968. Just imagine, both megacorporations have almost half a century of experience in creating central processors. These two sides have been competing with each other since their founding and this is not surprising. With all this, no matter what, the two companies are on par with each other. However, among ordinary users the name Intel is better known, for some reason, than AMD. At that time, processors were created with a clock frequency of 3 Megahertz and an 8-bit bus. We are interested in modern processors with higher parameters.

Tales of AMD

Friends, many of you have probably heard myths about “hot” and “not overclockable” AMD processors. Today it is stupid to say that AMD overheats or does not overclock, because this statement is based on ordinary rumors. Yes, in the 2000s, processors like the Athlon 1400 got hot, and if the cooler failed, they burned out. But now it’s the beginning of 2016 and modern AMD processors are equipped with good thermal protection.

Do not forget that the thermal regime, in addition to the central processor itself, can be influenced by various factors:
- poor quality of thermal paste application;
- debris in the cooling cooler;
- presence of a large amount of dust;
- faulty power supply, etc.

As for overclocking. Today, some AMD processors set world records for overclocking, so the opinion that they “cannot be overclocked” is no longer relevant. There are also processors of the “Black Edition” series, in which the possibility of overclocking is already provided by the manufacturer.

So, with the fables about AMD processors, I think it's clear. Now a few words about Intel. I personally have not heard any negative reviews for these processors. Even back when the Athlons were getting hot, the Intel Pentium received quite positive reviews. Remember, the phrase “What kind of stump do you have?” was still in circulation, that is, Pentium, and those who had Pentium-4 were generally cool.

Intel vs AMD battle of the titans

To be honest, there is no specific universal answer to the question “which is better than intel or amd”, since each user has his own needs, because a simple “user” needs one thing, and an experienced gamer needs something completely different. Each company releases new generation processors almost every year. Today Intel can lead by releasing processors with a modified architecture, and tomorrow, for example, AMD will release a new generation architecture, taking first place. There have been and will be “fights” between the two corporations, and this is not surprising, because each of them wants to attract the attention of users with its central processors with individual unique features.

In the processor industry, there is such a pattern: the more expensive a product within one manufacturer, the more powerful, better and faster it is. However, AMD processors, as a rule, have always been cheaper than products from Intel. For myself personally, I came to the conclusion: if you don’t have enough money or don’t have enough money, take AMD; if finances are not a problem, then take Intel. For the latter you will pay more money and get a slightly better product. As for reliability, both products cannot break, like, for example, a monitor or a hard drive, and will last for many years, provided that they are not subject to constant overclocking.

Pros and cons of AMD and Intel

AMD processors
Pros:
- ideal performance/price ratio;
- affordable price for all segments of the population;
- the ability to control the voltage in the microprocessor cores;
- almost any AMD processor accelerates up to 20%;
- multitasking (you can easily work in several demanding programs and not notice the strain on your computer);
- AMD's multiplatform makes it possible to replace old processors with new ones without changing the motherboard. Competitors lag significantly behind in this regard.

Minuses:
- significantly high energy consumption;
- applications created for Intel do not work well on AMD computers;
- within the “FX” series, a native cooler (standard) is not enough; a more powerful cooling system is needed;
- performance in computer games is slightly worse than that of Intel, however, there is a significant difference in price.

Intel processors
Pros:
- good performance when working in a resource-intensive program, provided that it is running alone (converters, archivers, photo and video editors, games, etc.);
- gaming performance is higher than that of competitors, but not significantly;
- work with RAM is better than that of AMD processors;
- energy consumption is lower;
- a large number of games and programs are optimized for Intel stones;

Minuses:
- Intel processors perform poorly when running two powerful programs;
- exorbitant price;
- when a new line of processors appears, both the motherboard and other components must be replaced;
- processors with the letter “K” heat up significantly, so you need to install good cooling for them;
- from the previous paragraph it follows that upgrading your computer will lead to significant costs, since you will have to purchase not only a processor.

From the positives and negatives of the two leaders AMD and Intel, it is difficult to say which one ranks 1st. Each processor has its own characteristics and is good in its own way.

Test of Core i7-3770K and FX-8350 processors

To test the two giants in practice, I took two processors for the test:
- from AMD processor on the new FX-8350 architecture (Vishera, 8 MB level 3 cache, AM3+ socket, 4.0 GHz, overclocked to 4.4 GHz);
- Intel processor Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge, 8 MB level 3 cache, 3.5 GHz, overclocked to 4.4 GHz).
To make everything fair, when testing these processors, we used an Asus Sabertooth motherboard. By the way, the product from Intel is more expensive.

Test results:











From the tests we can draw a conclusion. The AMD processor has an acceptable cost and fairly good performance, but it consumes more power. The competitor has low power consumption and is superior in performance. But at the same time, the price for Intel is much higher.

As I already said, each processor from both giants has its own characteristics, disadvantages and advantages. Personally, I would choose an AMD processor, and with the remaining money I would buy a solid cooling system or add some more money and replace the video card. But, if money is not a problem, then buy Intel. That's all, friends!

This issue is also covered here

In one of our previous articles, we already wrote about that, now let’s approach this issue a little more carefully, namely, let’s look at: “Which is better AMD or Intel?” The choice of these two companies is not accidental, since they are the main giants in this area, however, even when choosing from two options, users may get lost, since AMD captivates us with its low prices, and Intel with its powerful characteristics and positive reviews. So what then should you give your preference to?! Let's find out!

Each chip has its own architecture, manufacturing process, cache, number of cores and their frequency. Intel and AMD have completely different architectures, which determine the stability and power of the CPU. If you take two processors with the same number of cores and identical clock speeds, you will get completely different performance. The site’s specialists, therefore, hint to you that, for example, 4-core processors: AMD Athlon II X4 740 3.2GHz ($70) and Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz ($200) will differ greatly in power. Therefore, cores and frequency are not an indicator when comparing chips. You need to compare based on performance. For such purposes, there are sites where you can select any processor and see its performance in tests and comparison with the performance of analogues and competitors.

Is it really cheap?AMD is better expensiveIntel?
However, despite the above, AMD chips can be considered an excellent solution for a budget PC, and Intel chips can be considered for the purpose of gaming assembly and other tasks that require high computing power. But Intel also has inexpensive processors. Many people are familiar with the dual-core Pentium and Celeron. In terms of performance, in many tests they are superior to similarly priced AMD ones. But in multitasking with 4-core cheap AMDs they lose a little. If your preference is towards Intel, then we recommend immediately buying the latest generation chip. Currently it is Haswell with socket 1150.

Comparison and selection of processors (between AMD and Intel) by price range

In the segment up to $100- We advise you to choose a processor depending on the tasks. Internet, movies, office programs - Intel would be an excellent solution. For games here it is better to buy a 4-core AMD, since it is designed for multitasking. An example here will be the same AMD Athlon II X4 740/750k/760k for Socket FM2. Also note that some processors with socket FM2 (besides Athlon) are equipped with a good integrated graphics core, which replaces a discrete video card. You can use it only if your plans do not include entertainment in the form of powerful games. For games you only need a discrete video card, and no integrated one will replace it. For the average user (not a gamer), an AMD processor with a built-in graphics processor will be sufficient, while saving on a separate video card and purchasing at least 4 gigabytes of RAM for high-quality operation of the integrated video card, since it, without having its own memory, uses systemic.

As for the price of 100-150 dollars, then the situation here is similar. In this segment, Intel has a Core i3 chip, which has 2 cores with hyper threading technology, making 2 more virtual cores. That is, the PC recognizes 4 threads. This means that in some tests the Core i3 will outperform the 4-core AMD FX with socket AM3+. Therefore, for multitasking, the best solution would be a 6-core AMD. But the fact is that many games are designed only for 4 cores, and operating systems are designed for one core, and only starting with Windows 8 - for two. Conclusion: 6 and 8 cores make no sense, since it is better to choose 4 cores with good architecture and high performance. The Core i5 fits perfectly into these parameters, with a price starting at $190. In the highest category, AMD has only 8-core processors, with differences in frequency and memory Cache.

Intel's Core i7 processor is considered the best (4 cores, 8 threads with hyper threading technology). Compared to its competitor, it is far superior to AMD with 8 cores, which according to some tests is even comparable to Core i5. This suggests that 8 cores is just a marketing ploy. In addition, if you look at the AMD architecture, the cores are arranged in blocks of 2. That is, in a 4-core CPU there are 2 blocks, each containing 2 microprocessors. In a 6-core one there are 3 blocks, etc.

Ultimately, we cannot say accurately and unconditionally that this or that processor is better. We can only give simple but effective advice: always compare test performance of each selected processor. They will show which tasks the desired CPUs are better at. Also proceed from the tasks that you set for the computer. And only then will you be able to answer the main question: Intel or AMD and choose the right option for yourself.

Also, do not forget that each processor has its own specific type, so most likely you will have to replace it too. As for, everything here is extremely simple and no questions should arise.