Jim Roseberry

cclarry
Seriously, the performance "increase" compared to price
is negligent....AMD is far more "bang for the buck".  

Obviously Intel guys will always chant "Intel"!  But I've
used both and, to me, Intel is far overpriced.  

I don't consider myself an "Intel guy"
In the past, I've used many Athon CPUs for both myself and clients
Right now, Intel is making the faster CPU (DSP processing power)... so that's what I'm using.
The i7-4790k is a <$300 CPU that can be locked at 4.4GHz.
With a quality air-cooler, it's both extremely fast... and extremely quiet.
Add to this you have Intel USB3 and Intel SATA-III integrated into the motherboard chipset.
Better compatibility on the USB3 side... and better performance with SSDs
The 4790k offers great bang-for-the-buck.
As a point of reference, the 4790k costs half of what I paid for PII and original Athlon CPUs.
 
If/when AMD leap-frogs Intel, I will happily run AMD.
 

The price on those tend to increase slightly than decrease.  The sad thing is AMD has decided not to compete in the desktop market.  Intel prices don't drop like they use to.
 

I just built a computer for a friend of mine, and used an AMD 8350 and it runs faster than my i7 2600K (just from eyeballing it, nothing scientific or that I looked up).
 
But the AMD 8350 CPU was bundled with a motherboard at Micro Center that was either free or maybe only $20, and the CPU was less than $150, so this was SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper for still really really great performance.
 
I DO agree that Intel makes faster CPU's, however for bang for the buck, I would choose AMD most of the time - the difference in cost between an AMD 8350 and a $300 i7 AND the difference between a bundled free of maybe $20 motherboard versus a couple hundred for an Intel motherboard for an i7, means that if I go the AMD 8350 (or whatever model), you can get 16 GB of memory and a 240 GB SSD with what is saved by going AMD.
 
Bob Bone