May I ask who is better AMD or Intel, I hope that the master will answer comprehensively

1. The dual-core with the same main frequency is definitely an iwin. Just like the previous Athlon-K8 architecture, the 2G main frequency can beat the 3G of the Ben 4 architecture, and the architecture determines the execution efficiency. It's an indisputable fact that the Core architecture is superior to the K8.

For example, the main frequency of E2160 is equivalent to that of 4400+, and the main frequency of E2180 is equivalent to that of 4800+, and the same main frequency ratio should be changed to the same performance ratio**. However, i's ** is slightly higher, especially in the low-end market below 500 yuan.

2. The potential value or added value of the CPU is overclocking performance. This AMD is now fully defeated, and the low-frequency ones are better, such as the previous 3600+ can be exceeded, the amplitude is 40%, and it is difficult to exceed 5000+ to 3G, 20% of the amplitude, and I is generally at 50%, and some are 100%, which is a good thing for players.

3. Power consumption and calorific value. Both the Athlon and the Phenom are very high and cannot be lowered, and the resulting instability of the machine is something that everyone does not want to encounter. The Athlon dual-core has advantages in image construction, such as simple decoding at boot and opening web pages, AMD is faster, causing general users to think that Athlon is faster, and the performance is really better than that of large games and programs.

4. Integrate the advantages of the motherboard. This Intel can't be compared with the AMD platform, AMD's 780G series and NVIDIA's GF8200 series (MCP78) integrated graphics cards are much stronger than those of the Intel platform, Intel can't get a decent integrated motherboard, and NV doesn't provide him with it, so low-end machines will choose AMD platforms if they integrate graphics cards, which is the real advantage of AMD to expand the low-end market. And what are the advantages of not CPUs.

German Chip's new computer hot CPU performance ranking! (You can compare it with the same performance**).

Of course, the low-end computer chooses AMD, and AMD is a big difference in high-end manufacturing, so with a high-end computer, it is definitely I's U

Regardless of the budget, it is obvious to choose IU, whether it is overclocking stability or not, it is IU that beats AU.

But we're not testers, we're consumers, and in the low-to-mid-end market, AU is definitely great value.

Saying that AMD's game performance is better than Intel's, you are an ancient person.

If you travel back to the last century, when there was no large number of 3D graphics in the game, and the graphics card was actually just a decoration, then the graphics processing power of the CPU determined the game performance, obviously AMD's 3DNOW! Instructions are more suitable for processing graphics operations, Intel is inferior, and now the board is developing rapidly, not to mention independent graphics cards, even if the onboard integrated graphics card can complete the graphics processing task excellently, AMD's 3D graphics processing advantages are gone, ignoring the floating point operation of the processor, so AMD** is stronger than Intel?

In terms of processing performance, IN is definitely better (maybe temporarily, ==am3), but IN's motherboard is expensive and there is no good integrated graphics card yet. And AMD has 780G, CPU is also very cheap, so low-end AMD is better at it, high-end AMD is not as good as the performance of the cost performance, Intel's performance is high, can meet the needs of enthusiasts, if you are an ordinary user, AMD can meet you better!

The first choice for playing games is AMD and the first choice for office work.