AMD is a better choice for home PC's and laptops than intel
Debate Rounds (4)
I accept. I will be arguing on the grounds that neither is better.
Have at it, Pro.
AMD has the factor needed.
What I would like to say here is that, all that is needed in a home CPU is what AMD tries to give best. The question is, why does one generally buy a PC or a Laptop which is meant to be used at home? ENTERTAINMENT. i.e Games, Videos, Online surfing, Listening to songs etc... and not things like C++ or high processing required activities. When it comes to gaming, the first thing that comes to the mind is the power of one's GPU. Now, AMD has better integrated GPU's than Intel.Checkout http://www.tomshardware.com.... for proof. If Intel is not able to give us the needed GPU power to play our favourite games, then of course AMD is a better choice and checkout reviews of tomshardware to know that multitasking is awesome in AMD too.
Intel is too costly.
The very known fact that Intel is expensive makes it lose against the race against AMD. AMD on the other hand makes value for money products. For a comparison, The high end i3 with a meagre processing and GPU power is of RS 14,000. Well, in US $ it is 240 $ but the high end XII Phenom with 8 cores and world class GPU is of Rs 12000 which is 195 $. What is the use of spending all that money on a meagre Intel processor instead of a high end AMD?
Thank you. Now let's discuss hardware.
AMD has the factor needed.
I agree that AMD has a good deal of factors, and is in fact a suitable product line... But not for every Home Computer...
AMD works great for games and music... But not everyone goes for that. My mother, for example, looks for a good work computer. Now don't get confused by that... It's not a computer for at work, it's a home computer used for non-game related things. It doesn't have to be related to work either. She just needs something to write papers, and do research, and basically keep her life organised.
Not everyone is looking for Gaming PCs. This means AMD is mostly good for Gaming Computers, but not all Home PC as a whole.
Intel is too costly.
Yes, but for a reason... The companies do not price the same for each GHz, but an Intel GHz is not the same as an AMD GHz.
Your argument is comparing processors using the same units... Those units of measurement are actually different. You see, it works like moving a bucket of water... They need to fill up a 120 gallon lake. One is using 5 buckets that hold 2 gallons each, and the other is using 7 buckets that hold 1. It'll take the first one less trips, but he's working harder each trip.
AMD and Intel work the same way. At 2.5 GHz, they are moving the same amount of information, but one is moving more at a slower speed, while the other one is moving less at a faster speed. This gives us different end results and differences in performance.
AMD is the one that moves a lot more at once. This means it can handle data-heavy games. It mores slower through. That's okay, because both processors meet the game's speed requirements... But AMD meets the game's workload requirement.
Intel, however, works a faster workload. This doesn't mean it can't handle games. It can handle them well, but ultimately the Data piles up on the games side because not enough is being moved per cycle. That's okay, because Intel isn't as much for games... You see, when on the Internet, Intel is better because it can handle the quicker speed internet. The internet is moving so fast, that the slower AMD processor can't get it moved in time (trust me, I know. I have one...) This is because the Internet must be constinuously downloaded, a speed-heavy way to move data from one computer to another across the country.
So what is Intel best at?
Intel can process the quicker speeds (again remembering, Video Games don't actually need quicker speed, as both are fast enough, it just needs larger piles of data moved.) You see, if AMD can carry four 2 gallon buckets every 6 seconds, and Intel can carry four 1 gallon buckets every 3 seconds, and the internet piles 5 gallons of information every 3 seconds, it goes like this...
AMD fills up 5 out of 8 gallons worth (leaving 0 gallons left over), and leaves. It comes back in 6 seconds to 10 gallons of information (10 gallons every 6 seconds + 0 left over). Next delivery, and it's returning to 12 gallons. It starts running behind.
Intel fills up 4 out of 4 gallons worth (leaving 1 gallon left over), and leaves. It comes back in 2 seconds to only 4.5 gallons of information (3.5 gallons every 2 seconds + 1 gallon left over). Next delivery, and it's returning to 4 gallons of information. It's running on track.
Video Games don't require as much speed for one reason... It's not downloading all of it's new information. The information's already there, it just needs moving. Internet has to download all new data to Temporary Memory continuously, which is why they recommend downloading cookies.
Many need Intel for internet speed and other things that require more speed than workload..
Both can reach up to the same amount of work, but only under different cicumstances.
I conclude that AMD is great for Gaming PCs, but not for every home PC. It depends on what the computer's is used for, and whether it'll need speed or workload to operate best.
" She just needs something to write papers, and do research, and basically keep her life organised."
Well, If that's the work she has to do...Why choose an expensive Intel instead of a cheap AMD which can do the work just as well? Human ignorance has worked too well for Intel...Just go to any household and ask " What's the name of your processor?" and they will either frown or reply with a blank expression "What's a processor?" Another instance, when one has an AMD processor, He/She is most likely to know a lot about processing power, GPU's, threads,cores etc...and that is why he has an AMD...because he knows that AMD is the right choice. Check out Hexus.net for good reviews.
" The Internet is moving so fast, that the slower AMD processor can't get it moved in time (trust me, I know. I have one...)"
Dear Con, I too have an AMD and I have been using it for years at a stretch and so have my friends and we have never experienced that interesting phenomenon which you mention above. Let me explain, 2.5 GHz is a very, very and very high speed when we compare it with numbers. 2500 MHz is literally taking up 2500000000 (10^9 * 2.5) number of instructions and that too by just 1 core and we all know that nowadays the CPU's have multi cores...So, the way you mention the gallons of water is not very appropriate at relating the speeds of the CPU's. Yes, I do submit to the point that Intel processors are faster at workload due to the multi threads but please understand that the quickness of these processors are not required for Processing of Documents or surfing the net. Does the internet have to download that huge amount of instructions? Obviously not! even if someone is surfing with 10+ tabs in the internet explorer.
And as for the link shared, the exact words given there are "AMD chip operating at 2.8GHz processes data faster than an Intel chip running at 4.0GHz. Even though the Intel chip is going faster in MHz, it is doing less work per clock cycle."
"Many need Intel for internet speed and other things that require more speed than workload.."
As for the first part in the statement, I have argued and said that internet speed is something that AMD processors even if being comparatively slower can easily handle. Other things that require more speed than workload...?? Name of one "thing" please? Autocad? Maya 2013? Graphic edit?Even if these are not generally used at homes...Still, The AMD processor having better GPU's can easily beat the Intel processors at these tasks...Checkout www.legitreviews.com for the stats.
As my worthy opponent says, that the AMD-MHz doesn't equal to the Intel-MHz , for instance, AMD 1 GHZ < Intel 1 GHZ...Then, why don't we overclock the AMD? Well, AMD has a record in the Guinness book in overclocking! "overclocking" means that if a processor is designated to run at 2.5 GHz and if we mingle with the bios or the motherboard and increase the speed to 3 Ghz, then we say that we are overclocking it. Yes, Intel processors can be overclocked too, but it's not safe to mingle with them but when we have an AMD, we so-called "have the freedom" to mingle. Of course it will be dangerous to overclock the processor to insane speeds but it still is comparatively safer by a large margin to mingle with an AMD than an Intel.
My worthy opponent has given very good and simple way of explaining how cores and threads work but by no means does that suggest that AMD is not better than an Intel at home.(as con as agreed to debate that neither brand is better)
So, the question still remains...Why choose an costly Intel over a cheap AMD when the work done at home gives AMD the chance to excel ?
Thank you Pro.
"Well, If that's the work she has to do...Why choose an expensive Intel instead of a cheap AMD which can do the work just as well?"
Because an AMD chip doesn't work as well. The Pro fails to acknowledge that an Intel chip and an AMD chip running the same speeds, only do so in different situations. While one can operate at full speed in one task, the other operates full speed in another.
"Dear Con, I too have an AMD and I have been using it for years at a stretch and so have my friends and we have never experienced that interesting phenomenon which you mention above."
Different people and different situations. Here, we often have 7 Internet connections. The Pro also fails to acknowledge locations.
The US has a different internet speed than the rest of the world. What kind of difference? Well first, the US Internet Speed is lower than the average modernized/developed nation. This is likely due to the number of Americans accessing US servers, but the reason isn't relevant.(a)
Here, running so many connections, we require a processor that can manage a faster connection, lest lag crashes that connection.
"So, the way you mention the gallons of water is not very appropriate at relating the speeds of the CPU's."
It's relevant for it's only purpose... To demonstrate how faster but smaller workloads produce a different performance than slower but larger workloads.
"but please understand that the quickness of these processors are not required for Processing of Documents or surfing the net. Does the internet have to download that huge amount of instructions? Obviously not! even if someone is surfing with 10+ tabs in the internet explorer."
It does in the US, most houses have many different connections. Every Iphone and even most TVs now-a-days drain on that connection. As for documents, many are written on Google Docs and/or require internet access. Many DDO members write their stuff on Microsoft Word, and need internet for research. A lot of people's offline stuff still require things from online.
As for the workload... No it doesn't have to download a large amount of data, which is why a processor with smaller workload can work. What it needs is speed.
You see, the issue with processing the Internet isn't the workload, but that the workload must be downloaded. Anyone can tell you that the first time you open a most programs, it takes a long time to load because it has to download the information. Afterwards, it's merely bringing the information up from the Hard drive.
The Internet goes on Temp Memory, so it doesn't usually stay downloaded, especially after you clean the Temp Memory. The Internet has to download every new page and advertisement and update and etc... Facebook is bad about that.
For this reason, Intel is better for computers really meant more for the Internet and for simply organizing your life.
"And as for the link shared, the exact words given there are "AMD chip operating at 2.8GHz processes data faster than an Intel chip running at 4.0GHz. Even though the Intel chip is going faster in MHz, it is doing less work per clock cycle."
What it means is that the Intel Chip is faster, but the AMD chip can tear away at larger piles faster. This doesn't work so well when the piles aren't all there, and are coming in faster than the chip can process.
So while a large pile will disappear faster under an AMD chip (what the site was saying), only Intel can keep up with a continuously growing pile.
This means an AMD chip can download a game off a DVD faster because the whole game is there, but can't keep up with continuous loading from sources that do not directly connect to the computer.
"I have argued and said that internet speed is something that AMD processors even if being comparatively slower can easily handle."
In your country, and without 7 other computers and half (exaggeration) the things in the house requiring Internet.(b)
"Other things that require more speed than workload...?? Name of one "thing" please? Autocad? Maya 2013? Graphic edit?Even if these are not generally used at homes...Still, The AMD processor having better GPU's can easily beat the Intel processors at these tasks."
Google Doc, Bios Updates, Streaming movies, Anything that requires downloading from another source that isn't directly hooked up to the computer. Every Google Gadget on the side of your screen, MMO's even.
You know what it's really needed for? Facebook and, you know, Skype. Now you're talking about download-heavy programs. Intel is better for download-heavy programs. Also, when connecting to your Xbox, Smart Phone, TV, and any other wifi-capable objects in your house.
"overclocking" means that if a processor is designated to run at 2.5 GHz and if we mingle with the bios or the motherboard and increase the speed to 3 Ghz, then we say that we are overclocking it. Yes, Intel processors can be overclocked too, but it's not safe to mingle with them but when we have an AMD, we so-called "have the freedom" to mingle."
Most people do not Overclock, and never intend to. This is a side feature for a select few, and is not relevant to the majority of people, and is really only important, or even remotely relevant, to people wanting to max their Gaming Experience, and even then, not many will Overclock to do so. For any other PC, overclocking is irrelevant.
If AMD has to overclock, a dangerous process, to be better than Intel, than is it really better? The best way to avoid the biggest risks of Overclocking is expansive installments (like extra cooling systems) which can still cause damage over time.(c)
The Pro fails to consider different countries, situations, and the multiple variables that come with.
For a Gamer who wants to overclock, and doesn't need fast internet, AMD is the best choice.
For anyone who needs to be able to make a fast connection or download things smoothly, and have no concerns about Gaming or Overclocking, Intel is the way to go.
Because internet connections, especially in the US, and especially in families where almost everyone has a computer connecting to the internet, is constantly downloading small amounts of data, the heavy workload of an AMD is not needed, while the speed of an Intel is.
Since the two are used best for different things, and everyone has a different reason for needing a home computer and have different variables added into their situation and where they live, it's only logical to conclude that AMD is not a perfect overall choice for every computer.
"Because an AMD chip doesn't work as well."
By which point of view does an AMD "doesn't work as well" when processing word documents and using the internet maybe even if with 7 internet connections? My worthy opponent argues that I fail and ignore to acknowledge locations which I don't. Con has done a serious misinterpretation of my argument. At home, having 7 internet connections...how does that concern with individual computers having individual processors? Client/Server network is not a concern of this debate, Con. AMD processors are not for that purpose(of being a server)...and Intel processors which are made for that purpose (Xeon) cost $ 1500 at the lowest which is definitely not an amount one would like to spend on a processor itself and (Xeon) was designed for work at workstations which have more than 100 to 1000 clients in a floor of an office. Our concern is Peer-peer networking or Client/host networking(some machine/internet). Coming back to the argument that I have failed to acknowledge locations, Yes, IGN.com has given us a very good insight on the US network but here, I would like to share that I live in a metro which has complex network systems with so large a population accessing the net.
Here, I access all at one go, high speed LAN, WI-FI, Broadband...moreover, I have Windows 8 because of which I have am able to and play a lot of Xbox live....take on that con, A heavy network usage + a gaming usage of the processor and I have NEVER experienced a single Lag.
"It does in the US, most houses have many different connections."
Does it? Dear con, please elaborate the meaning of the above sentence. Many different connections....In a metro of our country, we too have many different connections and it does not hamper the smooth performance of an AMD. Just take it in,
does a tablet have awesome processors like Intel or AMD? Nope. Then why doesn't it lag very heavily as it is suppose to according to your definition of the usage of net? Google Doc? bios updates? FACEBOOK??? Let me refresh your database by giving you my own story. My friend having a new i5 used to boast... one day I went to his house...and opened my FB account, guess what I saw when I opened the Task manager? 85-95 % of CPU usage. In my machine, I open facebook, which I am doing right now and keep a game such as GTA 4 in the background...when my father comes, I switch to Debate.org and FB while all the time I play GTA 4 and change frequently by Alt+Tab. I tried this on my friends i5 rigged machine and the speed and durability which he boasted on, vanished..The machine started lagging and the screen went black. The processor side of the machine became hot like hell. Finally, we had to plug it out. Both of us have almost the same specs...same GPU, Ram amount etc... except the processor.
Go to the above link and read the reviews. "wow is the word" named review will give you the insight of the kind of multitasking and AMD is capable of over an Intel.
And that laptop, Con, is rigged with a low end Richland CPU...If that can do such things, Even I am not sure about the limits of my High end Phenom. Have you noticed the price? Its Rs. 32000 and a processor of such power by intel itself costs Rs 20 to 30000 whereas you get a whole Laptop By HP at that price with awesome specs when the machine is rigged with an AMD.
"Most people do not Overclock, and never intend to"
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Many people do not intend to overclock their processors. I do not. Moreover, as I have already mentioned about human ignorance, most of us do not even know what is Overclocking.
"If AMD has to overclock, a dangerous process, to be better than Intel, than(this should be 'then' instead of 'than' ,con) is it really better?"
Now, this too is a misinterpretation of my argument, CON. I am sorry if I couldn't express myself well. What I meant to say is that when People like to mingle with the specs, they will choose AMD cause it gives them the freedom. The clock rate at which a CPU runs is the rate set by the makers. The high rate of overclocking capacity in an AMD shows us the High power, Durability and the trusts of the makers as well as the users on AMD, over an Intel! AMD doesn't need to overclock to be better than Intel. The example in my argument was based upon your theories only"As my worthy opponent says, that the AMD-MHz doesn't equal to the Intel-MHz" .
The MHz is all equal only the case of the cycles. AMD tears huge piles, sure. Intel is faster bit by bit, is also right but please agree on the fact that bit by bit quickness is never required in the tasks that an average person does at home. Neither in the usage of internet nor in the use of various application softwares.
"In your country, and without 7 other computers and half (exaggeration) the things in the house requiring Internet."
Ad Hominem. have you visited our country or do you research on our country? We too keep on accessing the net with various sources Wifi,LAN,broadband etc...24*7. As I have mentioned earlier...XBox live,Skype,FB all of these are as common as Staple diet and an AMD does better at these jobs than an Intel when you have background processes running. Con, while doing FB...do you always keep your desktop clean and no background processes keep on running?Never play any games? Multi-task? Only depend upon the high-speed of an Intel to do tasks like document processing?
And my argument,
Money for job, a scale not followed by Intel.
See, A Low end i3 cost Rs 10000, and a high end phenom with multi cores cost Rs 10000 too. The i3 lags at games, Multitasking is not good. Try Skype and it lags, FB shows high processor usage while, The Phenom can do all of these tasks together without any lag. See Reviews at Legit.com. By this we can say that Intel is not Value for money. Think about it. Why that cost if it is not up to the mark. The intel processor that can match the performance cost more than Rs 35000 in Ebay as well as Flipkart. Intel for many "useless for the user" reasons have added to the costs of their processors to impossible rates! While, AMD has developed towards giving the user an awesome performance and quality but has not been able to impress the market for stereotypes and Human ignorance at such a delicate yet an uninteresting matter such as "what is a processor" or " Is there a variety of processors except intel?". This is the actual truth .even the dealers know little about AMD. I once asked a dealer what he knew about processors. He knew about AMD alright but very little. He explained me that AMD makes processors for Cell Phones!!and he also told me that AMD processors are only dual core! this shows us that even the dealers are filled up with half,not reliable knowledge. So, what reaches to the ears of the public is not surprising.
Think about it, Does one buy a Pc or a Laptop to process worksheets? Download? or does one need some entertainment?
Yes, every computer does have its own necessity...but when the necessity is fulfilled by a cheap AMD, why not install it instead of a Costly Intel?
Take some common sense, does internet require High class processing power? If so, why do cheap phones easily play you-tube videos and stream through FB? If high speed is not actually required for any of the tasks that one does at home and if Intel can't handle high end games and Applications such as AutoCAD and Maya or even Facebook, How can we say that neither is better?
Of course, AMD is a better choice than Intel in home PC's and Laptops.
"By which point of view does an AMD "doesn't work as well" when processing word documents and using the internet maybe even if with 7 internet connections?"
Word Documents are an example, not the whole case. With 7 internet connections, at US average (which we are below,) we'd be each getting only 1.05 MBps. This doesn't include other connections.
Remember that not everyone can afford to pay for a strong connection every month.
"At home, having 7 internet connections...how does that concern with individual computers having individual processors? Client/Server network is not a concern of this debate, Con."
Everything is relevant when discussing which Processor is better.
The Pro wants to focus only on the Processor, but when deciding which chip to use, many things become relevant to the decision.
"Intel processors which are made for that purpose (Xeon) cost $ 1500 at the lowest..."
The Pro assumes everyone buys their processors separately from the Computer. All processing is done through the Computers chip-set.
There are three parts to a connection, and all three require fast processing. If the Computer (IGA_012-HP here) can't process fast enough, it'll drag the computers overall connection speed down.
We don't need an expansive Intel chip for this, but we do need a fast chip.
"I would like to share that I live in a metro which has complex network systems with so large a population accessing the net. Here, I access all at one go, high speed LAN, WI-FI, Broadband"
The US population using the internet is nearly twice India's. With 81% of Americans using the Internet, only 12.6% of Indian's using the Internet. The Pro never mentions what AMD chip he uses or how many MBps he's using. He himself may very well be Overclocking a $1000 chip with a massive Internet Connection.
The Pro only had one chance to list these off. Without all the details, we must assume the Pro might be nitpicking the details, talking about how good his computer is, but without providing the information we need to fully compare his with the average person, and concluding whether or not his own Home Computer is a true reflection of the average computer in India, or in the World.
"Does it? Dear con, please elaborate the meaning of the above sentence. Many different connections..."
Again listing off his own experience as that of the rest of India. Let me explain in more detail...
List of Internet Connecting Devices:
2 Game Systems
Does that reflect the Average American? No, which is okay, because my emphases is on the fact that everyone's situation is different, and what Chip works best for one Home Computer, doesn't work as well for another.
I have AMD, and experience lag a lot. Earlier, I spent half an hour trying to fix the lag on my Internet Browsers.
"Just take it in, does a tablet have awesome processors like Intel or AMD? Nope..."
If a tablet doesn't use either the Chips in question, it's irrelevant.
"My friend having a new i5 used to boast... one day I went to his house...and opened my FB account, guess what I saw when I opened the Task manager? 85-95 % of CPU usage."
Again failing to represent the whole case. What else was on the computer? Virus's, background programs, a computer that hasn't been cleaned in over a year? The Pro only nitpicks the details he wants, and leaves out the rest. This proves that his MBps situation is different than his friends.
Even a $1500 Intel Chip would be ran down by a badly kept computer.
Do you have the same programs and upkeep? one computer with 2.5 GHz on a cleaned up new computer runs better than a 3.5 GHz processor on a dirty computer with virus's and a year's worth of programs in the background.
Trust me here... An i5 Processor won't lag on one internet page. Everyone knows that... Just one page? There is more to the story, much more. Anyone with computer-knowledge can tell that the details have been nitpicked.
"Go to the above link and read the reviews. "wow is the word" named review will give you the insight of the kind of multitasking and AMD is capable of over an Intel."
A link, on the last round? Multitasking is nice, but it doesn't boost speed. If anything, it lowers speed slightly. Overall, you only need a lot of multitasking if you want a high-end computer. Many people aren't looking for that.
Also, your site is a store. They are not going to talk bad about their appliance. The site will talk up the value of their product and make everything sound good.
Besides, the Intel i5 gets better CPU while the AMD APU Quad Core A8 gets better GPU. Again reinforcing my conclusion that which ever chip is better depends on the Computer and it's purpose.
"What I meant to say is that when People like to mingle with the specs, they will choose AMD cause it gives them the freedom."
The word of importance here... "When." They prefer the AMD when they want to overclock. What if they (the majority) don't want to overclock? Again reinforcing my statement that the best Chip depends on the buyer's wants and needs.
"AMD tears huge piles, sure. Intel is faster bit by bit, is also right but please agree on the fact that bit by bit quickness is never required in the tasks that an average person does at home."
I'll agree with everything but the 'average person' part. Believe it or not, but the average person wants an Xbox 360 or PS3 for gaming, not a PC. The average PC buyer is still looking more for Internet Access, Connectivity, and download-heavy programs like Skype.
"Ad Hominem. have you visited our country or do you research on our country?"
Not Ad Hominem. I'm not attacking you rather than your argument. I'm bringing up that in your country, things are different. It's a very logical case. I must ask if you have visited my country to do research? If not, than your argument is unwarranted.
"We too keep on accessing the net with various sources Wifi,LAN,broadband etc..."
Again not being specific. How many MBps do you have? What AMD chip are you using?
The Pro was to prove that in every case, AMD was better, while I was to prove that every case is too different for one Chip-set to be the all around best. Clearly he has only supported that his situation and mine are very different. Therefore supporting that our needs, and overall what Chip we need, is different.
"Money for job, a scale not followed by Intel."
Yes, it does cost $163. The cost may effect whether or not it's more economic, but not whether or not it's best for the buyer's wants. Some people want gaming, so want savings, some want Internet and Connectivity.
The Low-End processor lags? Amazing. It can't do what a High-End processor can? Even more amazing.
The Pro continues to forget that only Computer hobbyist and enthusiasts will buy a Processor separate. The rest of this is irrelevant to the Resolution.
"so, why do cheap phones easily play you-tube videos and stream through FB?"
You mean $199+ phones that don't process the same amount of data as a PC?
I conclude that the Pro never proved that in every situation, an AMD is best. He even admitted in his conclusion that most people, not all though, just want entertainment, which is still false. Most younger people just want entertainment. Many people still want Skype, Connectivity, and Internet Browsing.
As this debate as proven, everybody clearly has different needs, different situations, different MBps and number of objects connecting to the Internet... Neither AMD or Intel is the best choice for every case. The Pro needs AMD, while I need Intel. Not everyone wants to use the PC for Gaming, and many don't want to buy Processors separately.
I conclude that the best chips depends on too many personal factors for AMD to match each. Everyone needs something different. With faster Intel Chips, and AMD chips with larger workloads, Intel with better CPU, and AMD with better GPU, the one that best is dependent on the user's needs and wants. Overall, across all the World, AMD is not always the better choice for PCs and Laptops than Intel.
Thank you. Vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The way a debate of this kind should work is a debater should make a claim, in this case about one processor being faster doing something, and then give a link to some benchmark test that supports the claim. Pro gave two links to support claims, but they were to a top page with no idea of where to find the supporting data -- and I couldn't find it with a few minutes of looking. Con provided one link to support his claim that AMD and Intel were about equal, but the link was to a 2005 article that said the Intel approach had failed. Without supporting data, it's just talk vs. talk, and that's not a good debate on a factual subject. Con seemed to me to concede that AMD was better at games and music, and that AMD costs less. Con argued that Intel was better in the case when a home had many internet connections, and that the internet speed was worth the extra cost. I don't see how the number of internet connections affects the speed of any one computer. (See comments)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.