I want to make a computer and this is the most important part of the decision becasue I dnt know the real diference between an AMD and INTEL processor. I want to know why there is a cpu with 3.4 GHz (INTEL) and one with 4.0GHz (AMD) AND the cost of the two processor is the same. As a normal buyer I will really take the one who has more GHz. So plz help me to take the best option here. 

@Logan I would apreciate to do a video with these idea ty


And the people who will answer this, dont be fanboys and give real information. thank you very much

More GHz doesnt naturally make a CPU better than the other, ya know. You need to choose which will better suit your needs. Intel (as far as my knowledge is) has better single core performance which makes it better for games (correct me if Im wrong). AMD is usually better as far as the price to performance ratio, especially in video editing and redner rigs :D not to say AMD doesnt make it in a gaming rig, but there is no WHICH IS BETTER, it all depends on how you plan to use it 

Honestly, a quad core Intel @ 3.4Ghz and a quad core AMD @ 4.0Ghz will probably have close to the same performance.  My buddy just replaced his Intel processor with an AMD that has a much higher clock speed, and he said he notices no difference at all.

But like CosmosusMagnus said, it really depends on what you're doing.  For editing, the newer AMD processors will kick ass, but for gaming I'd still stick with Intel.

>the newer AMD processors will kick ass

Specifically the 8320 and 8350  :D

Yeah lol, was too lazy to look them up :P

I mean, they are SUCH a good value. lol

CosmosusMagnus has it right. Intel are more efficent than amd so a slower clock intel can do the same work as a faster clock amd. Aditonaly amds tend to have more cores than intels at the same price point and thus are better at multithreaded stuff like rendering.

For the most part they are priced on real world performance rather than box numbers ie an amd 4 core 4ghz the same price as a dual core 3 ghz intel will be fairly similar in price and performance.

Here, this will save you a lot of pain. Stop thinking in AMD vs Intel, its a fairly big waste of time. Compare chip for chip, even family to family, ignore who makes the chip. Use this:

With it you can compare two of any chip on the list and see the area's the chips are strong in and the areas they are weak in. Find the chips in your price range and start to compare, figure out what benchmarks are relevant to you and use them to aid in your decision making. Don't forget to check the stat polarity (lower is better vs higher is better). The only benchmark they tend to use which I find fairly meaningless is Sysmark, but you can draw your own conclusions.

After you use that site to narrow down your options, start looking up reviews from other sites as well to help you make a refined decision. You'll additionally want to do some research into the chip's OC abilities as well. For example, the i5 3570k, FX 6300 (well any FX chip actually), A10-5800k, i7 3770k are all very OC capable chips which you could potentially unlock up for 25% more performance. On the other hand, the i3 2330 (or any non-K sandy/ivy bridge chips), Athlon II & Phenom II (non BE editions) are not very OC capable, you may only get a tiny OC if any out of those chips.

While yes, there are trends between the two chip makers, basing any decisions off that is generally a bad idea, just as basing it off sheer GHz is also a bad idea.

yeah, different chips are better at different tasks, and different budgets....

as far as deciding between the 8350 or i7 3770k, i'm waiting to see Logan's review on it....

thank you all for the responses
love from Puerto Rico 

responseslove? you might want to get your self checked out.

I'm going to make this simple. Intel will always beat AMD. The intel architecture is light years ahead of AMD's. Even the i3 beats some of the AMD quads. GHZ, cache and cores don't matter. Intel will almost always beat intel. The only thing AMD is better at is overclocking. 

Someone here loves reviving old posts.

Your opinion is heavily biased. It was only recently that Intel pulled ahead. AMD was king back in the day. Even more back it was Intel. Do you see the trend? They will switch in dominance every few years. To say all those things makes you look like a fanboy. AMD is good for people on a budget, overclockers, editing and gaming. Intel is good for people with more money, overclockers, editing and gaming. Cache matters a lot of times. Cores matter sometimes. And Ghz does not matter between different architectures. It will only matter if they are practically the same chip(i.e. a 955 at 3.2Ghz will be slower than a 965 at 3.4Ghz).

Not to mention they never really said what the computer would be for and what price bracket the rig would be in. They say a normal buyer but thats not very detailed, whats a "normal buyer" and more importantly what kind of user. I mean is this person going to need a gaming rig / all perpose work station or they just need to check email and play some Robot Unicorn Attack Revolution.

Intel beats AMD: Intel got a better architecture on their processors, even if the amd got 8 cores and so on...

LOL, would love to play Robot Unicorn Attack Revolution.

I would say, a normal buyer can be generally anyone, but usually someone who uses the internet mostly, games every now and then, and the occassional edit

The FX-6300 AMD CPU is nice for gaming

Same old Ford vs Chevy argument going on here. 

It really depends on what you're trying to do with the processor. If you're going for rendering/recording/editing in general just about anything that isn't dedicated gaming and general use, Intel will be best for you. If you're going for just gaming its only a few frames below intel and a lot cheaper for the price you're still very much able to play games. 

This issue is somewhat relative. It involves essencially price/performance ratio, pure architecture and the disired use. Generally, Intel has a superior architecture over AMD. Price aside, an i3770 has half the cores a FX 8350 less cache, and runs at a lower clock and performs better then a 8350 in almost every benchmark. That is pure structural superiority of Intel's architecture. Evidently, this superior quality costs money. Unless you're going to have on your PC some monstrous GPU solution since an amd cpu will probably bottleneck the GPUs, you can't go wrong with either CPU Brand compared at aprox the same price range. If you'll be doing a lot of multitasking, multi-core processing, AMD's 8 cores tend to have a little edge over Intel(depending on the software and drivers). However, if you be essencially gaming, Intel is far superior to AMD. I have had an AMD Phenom II x6 1090t for almost 3 years now and i had a great time with it while gaming and other general use. At the time i bought it i compared both an AMD and a Intel solution and their price/performance ratio. Even though the Intel was faster, the extra money didn't justified it for me. I got the inferior solution but saved a substancial amount of money. Today i think a high end Intel solution (i7 3770k) is, even though it is around $150 more expencive than a high end AMD solution (FX 8350), worth the money. If you don't have this extra money, the AMD solution is still an excelent CPU. I just sold old AMD Phenom PC and ordered a New PC. This time i went with an intel 3770K. My overall advice is: 1st determine a budget, 2nd determine your primary uses for the PC (gaming, editing, OCing), 3rd look up at benchmarks results keeping in mind the disired use( make sure to check diferent sources with diferent testing rigs) and finally compare the benchmark results with the prices and decide if that extra $ are worth choosing the more expensive solution. Good luck on your new rig! :)