There is "No depends" or questions about this subject, it's been beaten like a dead horse. AMD'S processors are sorely outdated. Intel is the clear winner, which is bad for us because they can charge high prices. I don't know why people would stick up for AMD?
In 2009 when AMD came out with the Phenom II x4 CPUs, yes, they were the most cost effective chips because they were cheaper and the gaming performance was just a hair shy of Intel. If you were on a budget it was AMD all the way. Intel was only for people with deep pockets who wanted the absolute best. AMD has not kept up.
AMD really dropped the ball with it's Bulldozer based CPUs in 2011 and has suffered ever since. Everything they have out up to this point is an evolution of Bulldozer. The good part is the CPU have up to 8 cores. The horrible part is the single core performance is very weak, which is bad for gaming. Sadly, an AMD Phenom II X6 1100T is as fast as a FX-6300.
A Core i5-6600k is faster than any 8 core CPU AMD has to offer.
If you want AMD then wait for Zen to come out. Which will be released next January.
If you're going to build now then get a 6600k and a Z170 motherboard. Otherwise you can until January when Intel release Kaby Lake and AMD releases Zen.
If you're on a budget, get a Core i3. In gaming benchmarks the Core i3 beats the 8 core AMD FX processors.
Go to pcpartpicker.com
Like I said there's "No Depends", unless you're a Fanboy who likes wasting money. The reason I say "No Depends" is because you could go the Core i3 and Socket 1151 motherboard route and upgrade the CPU in the future. Intel has yet to release it's Kaby lake 7th Generation and Cannon Lake 8th Generation that will be on the 1151 platform. This would be way cheaper and way less hassle in the long run because you have to buy a new OS when you replace the motherboard. There's no way around this with Windows 10.
Back in the old single and dual core days, CPU performance maybe accounted for 25% of your gaming performance. Those numbers are changing as games take advantage of more cores. So what's important to look at is single core performance and how many cores a CPU has. A typical Intel CPU has 100% the single core performance of an AMD Processor.
Check these links, I see some people who lack control over their own emotions need to read these links.
Gaming relies more on your GPU rather than CPU, although having a good CPU will help a lot. Neither company is just better than the other, they both have pros and cons depending on the model of CPU you are interested in buying. If I were you, I would look for a good CPU and ignore the brand. In my opinion, AMD has a better price to performance ratio, but right now, Intel has the fastest CPU, which shouldn't effect your choice unless you plan on buying that. I have used both AMD and Intel processors for gaming and both perform great. It all just depends on the model of CPU, not the brand (as long as its AMD or Intel).
Intel's i5 and i7 CPUs can take significantly better advantage of a high-end graphics card if you're working with a higher budget. The difference between an AMD processor and a similarly priced Intel Core i3 or i5 can be as high as 30 or 40 frames per second if you have a very high-end graphics card.
Intel is generally better than AMD in most aspects. However, Intel CPUs are generally more expensive than their AMD counterparts. AMD CPUs still provide pretty good performance for their price.
Supposedly AMD is going to be launching their Zen CPUs which are rumored to rival Intel's performance, but we won't know yet until they come out.
Rather than brand, you need to look at the actual chips.
An AMD FX 8 core is WAY better than an Intel Celeron…
Same as an i7 is WAY better than an AMD Sempron.
The top of the Intel range has the better performance at the moment, but that's not to say you can't find a good bargain with a cheaper AMD if total cost of the system is an issue.
Of course it depends. Claiming "There is "No depends" or questions about this subject" is simply not based in the real world and such ill-qualified opinion is worth nothing outside the world of techno masturbation.
In the real world you presumably have a budget for your machine and except at the highest end AMD will generally give you a faster CPU for the money, or alternatively the same performance for less. If that saving allows you to spend the money elsewhere where it could make more of a difference, such as a better GPU or an SSD over an HDD, the end system could be a lot better for gaming based on AMD instead of Intel. For most games the CPU is not the most important factor so this is far more than a theoretical consideration.
This is like asking dell or hp. It makes no sense! In general if you are on a budget you would chose amd, and if you got no budget you would go with intel. But it all depends on the cpu, you can't compare 2 companies as a cpu. Each cpu has to compare with another cpu. Just look for cpu's in your budget, and compare the performance between what amd has to offer and what intel has to offer
Generally Intel, they have higher single core speeds generally, where as AMD just has many cores, hyper threading etc. However as long as you get a higher performance CPU, coupled with a good GPU, the brand doesn't matter that much.
It depends on your budget.
For a given amount of money, you can build a more powerful machine using an AMD FX-8 series CPU.
The top Intel CPUs are far more powerful than the FX-8 – but cost far, far more.
(I worked out a while ago that for the price of the single fastest Intel CPU, you could buy a quad socket motherboard and four 16-core AMD CPUs to fit in it… Probably why such as Cray use AMD in their supercomputers)
It's up to you; have you just won the lottery or do you want value for money.
I use an FX-8350 and a GTX980ti in a Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 motherboard.
It runs every game I've ever tried, with excellent performance.
The FX-9590 is somewhat faster & not much more expensive.
See the relative performance & value-for-money figurese here: