>>1200
First off, Intel and AMD are not processors, they are companies.
best in what sense?

Intel makes more money, both in terms of profit margin on their products and gross sales volume.

intel's business practices are also disgusting. They sell the same product in several variants, each with different levels of intentionally placed shortcomings and "locks", and the "unlocked" version at an extra 15%-25% mark up.

AMD's business practices are much more ethical, and their profit margins are also quite slimmer. Their engineering staff have been in a bit of a slump for the past few generations, but I want to have faith in them.
It may not be the year of Bulldozer, and Piledriver will hopefully not be such a loss that AMD pulls out of the desktop processor market, but there will be a time when they pull ahead.

>>1203
who makes the best ones

>>1203
>First off, Intel and AMD are not processors, they are companies.

You know damn well what he meant. Don't be that guy.

Intel of course
>>1203
Fucking sperg

>>1206

For all I know, he could have been talking APUs, CPUs, or GPUs.

they all fall under the generic term "processors" and have 70% overlap in functionality.

>>1204
>>1205

AMDs CPUs are faster.
but faster does not mean better.
For now, and probably the next 3-5 years, Intel makes better CPUs, though AMD makes better APUs.

For the laymen, if you plan on building a high end desktop, go with an Intel CPU (and plan on forking out $300+ for a decent video card to compliment it). If you are planing on commandeering a laptop/tablet or lower performance budget desktop computer, you will want an AMD APU.

>>1210
I've never once in my life heard someone refer to a GPU or APU as just a "processor". Moreover, OP brought up Intel and AMD specifically, the two leading CPU brands- even someone illiterate in technology would be able to infer that he was talking about CPUs.

I'll say it again: You knew damn well what he was talking about. You were just playing devil's advocate for a purpose I'm not entirely clear of. To appear "knowledgeable" by making the distinction, maybe?

>>1211
>I've never once in my life heard someone refer to a GPU or APU as just a "processor".

which clearly means nobody elsewhere in the world has or ever will, as you've been everywhere in the world, all the same time, and are the authoritative expert on the subject.

>You knew damn well what he was talking about.

I never said I didn't.

>You were just playing devil's advocate for a purpose I'm not entirely clear of. To appear "knowledgeable" by making the distinction, maybe?
Perhaps I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. On the internet. Because I have absolutely nothing more productive to do at this very moment.
And arguments are the only type of conversation I am capable of doing with another person.

>>1215
I'll give you credit for the honesty.

Honestly I wouldn't notice the difference if everything worked right but subjectively speaking I choose Intel forever, just because I always had issues/subpar performance with AMD/ATI back in the day.
Also their hurr durr epyk gayming branding is fucking embarrassing. I'd never put something called Bulldozer or Ryzen in my computer.

>>1855
Interesting how quickly things change. Intel has been sleeping at the wheel for the past two years with their "tick-tock" being more of a "tick-tick-tick". Of course Apple has hit it out of the park with their arm-based processor. One might optimistically hope this could lead to the resurgence of different isas (maybe riscv?) but we're probably more realistically going to see arm-based processors start shaving off marketshare from x64 ones. Amazon already has graviton as part of their ec2 lineup, and hopefully the momentum from apple's processor transition will lead to better tooling for cross compilations and platform agnostic primitives.