If you want the best performance, Intel currently rules things with its Core 2 Duo processors; AMD is just not up to par. With that said, if you want a bargain, you may have to buy a laptop with an older Intel chip or an AMD chip. For laptop users performance usually isn’t the top concern. The CPU choice, however confusing (and it will be, certainly if you are looking to save some cash) may not really matter all that much unless you will be using your laptop as your primary machine and you are doing some multimedia or gaming on it. If so, stick with Intel’s Core 2 Due and go for the T7xxx series.
If you are looking to cheap out, or, to put it nicely, are more fiscally conservative, you will be faced with the prospect of going with AMD processors and/or outdated Intel chips that are not on Intel’s roadmap anymore. All of them will work fine, but you may not get the top-end performance that a Geek craves.
Get as much technical information as you can on AMD versus Intel chips before you settle for any one. Neither can be declared the clear winner as each has some features which are better than those of the other. However, judging by speculations, Intel's Ivy Bridge seems to have an edge over AMD's Piledriver. That means, 2012 could very well belong to Intel! However, the facts can be laid down for certain only when both processor ranges are launched in the retail market. Till then, prioritize your computing requirements and take your call - make sure your decision is based on technical facts rather than price and marketing campaigns.
User Requirement | AMD | Intel |
Power Consumption | Less efficient than Intel, though AMD claims that the energy consumption figures of the Piledriver processors have been brought down to Intel processors' levels | More efficient than AMD; energy efficiency has always been one of Intel processors' biggest competitive strengths |
Price Range | Lower | Higher |
Cooling Factor | Till now, AMD processors were notorious for getting heated up very fast under intense and heavy-duty computing conditions. However, it is being speculated that the generation-2 Bulldozers will take care of the overheating issues | Runs cooler for a longer duration |
Performance Speed | The second generation FX series of processors are expected to give 25% faster performance than its predecessor even under heavy-duty multimedia overload situations. The first generation Bulldozer processors claimed much but delivered little but if Piledriver processors live up to their claims, then the latest AMD microarchitecture can at least be at par with Intel's Ivy Bridge, if not more, as far as performance speed is concerned. | It is being speculated that Ivy Bridge would excel Sandy Bridge by at least 20% overall, including processing speed. Considering Intel's previous record of being the leader in processor performance speed, this should give AMD's Piledriver processors some seriously tough competition. |
Gaming and Multimedia | Better multimedia output due to faster clocking | Upgraded graphics core of Ivy Bridge promises better graphics and multimedia output than previous microarchitecture types. |
Performance:Price | High:Low | High:High |
Get as much technical information as you can on AMD versus Intel chips before you settle for any one. Neither can be declared the clear winner as each has some features which are better than those of the other. However, judging by speculations, Intel's Ivy Bridge seems to have an edge over AMD's Piledriver. That means, 2012 could very well belong to Intel! However, the facts can be laid down for certain only when both processor ranges are launched in the retail market. Till then, prioritize your computing requirements and take your call - make sure your decision is based on technical facts rather than price and marketing campaigns.