Not highlighting this particular convo to pick on either contributing member, but I swear we could teleport ourselves back to circa 2005 and the exact same back-and-forth posting argumentation would be found in these forums, only it would be about Prescott versus K8 :|
We have all aged 8 yrs but not a damn thing has changed otherwise when it comes to THE debate. Everyone champions their favored CPU for the niche applications it dominates, and bedevils the other camp with claims of review bias or benchmark cherry picking.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
To what end? The argument wasn't decided in 2005, it sure as hell isn't going to be decisively concluded in 2013.
AMD will suffer the consequences of building a Netburst analog until such time that they build themselves a Conroe analog.
That is all that history has to teach us, the rest is just us finding painful and frustrating ways to grow older year by year wiling away the time by tearing each other a new one in this turn-based RPG
Probably the best post in years.
The reality of the market is that people don't buy processors so much as they buy systems. If they buy a system based purely on CPU performance, they probably are not getting the best system for their intentions.
People in these forums tend to buy components, based on individual component performance. That is where the breakdown between the market and perspectives here occurs.
The average price of a desktop in 2011 was ~$630. I don't have numbers for 2012, but if it follows prior trends it's probably below $600.
If you go to Newegg, Microcenter, etc and look for a complete desktop at that price point ($600) I think you'll find AMD and Intel equally well represented in systems that are nearly equivalent.
I think the case could be made that AMD is inside better 'gaming' systems at that price point, while Intel is inside better 'general purpose' systems.
Case in point, I did an advanced search on Newegg for any type of desktop / tower system, 6-8GB RAM, 1-2 TB HDD, no monitor, between 300 and 600 $$.
The most expensive ($599) choice was clearly the one with the most powerful CPU, an Intel i5-2320, 2 TB HDD, 8GB RAM. But, Intel HD 2000 graphics. Not a gamers machine by any stretch.
At $520 there is a Gateway with an A8-5550, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD.
Obviously anyone who does even light gaming, provided they are not a power user in normal applications (very few are), would be far happier with the A8-5550 than the i5-2320.
Only one system in the list with an Intel CPU had any gaming capability at all - and that was with a GT 610 and an i3-3220.
At that same price point there was an FX-6100 with a GT610 also. A strong argument could be made that these two systems are very close in performance.
Based on that one simple search, the market itself seems to be pricing equivalent AMD and Intel based systems against each other quite well for the bulk of the buying public.
The only AMD analysis you can really get from all of this is that AMD does not have a presence in high-end systems, and if you plan to go out and buy a $300+ GPU, you probably should get an high end Intel i5 or better CPU.
At the mid range and low end, AMD and Intel trade blows quite well at those price points, each having their virtues depending on how you plan to use your system.