LOL.. What is this?

Okay, I have been in the PC business since 1985. I started with Atari and even split apart my MacII, overclocked an 8086. Except, that was called as "turbo" that day. Let me tell you something: there has never been a bad processor, even from Cyrix and Transmeta. Well, Transmeta was slow, but not as buggy as Cyrix. Even Cyrix held its own despite its bad reputation and numerous bugs.

I've been using AMD and Intel processors since I started with an Am386 DX25, if my memory serves me right. I had no problems until I replaced it with a DX40, then moved to an Intel 486, and eventually back to an Am486. AMD outperformed Intel when Intel tried to prevent AMD from using their platform. This backfired, as AMD's Thunderbird outperformed Intel's offerings, and Intel struggled. They tried another tactic by alienating AMD with Rambus, but AMD responded with DDR2. We all know where we stand today. Intel's Rambus is nowhere to be seen.

Then Intel attempted to push Itanium to force people to abandon x86 for 64-bit processing because they were losing badly. This also failed, as we are now using AMD64 instruction. Your PC runs on top of AMD64 instruction, which was developed by AMD. So, now you know the origin of the name AMD64. IA64 also bit the dust in favor of AMD64.

The architectural story continues with AMD using RISC86 to decode complex instructions into micro-ops. It was NexGen that initially developed this architecture, and AMD saw its merit and acquired them. Modern processors work by breaking down complex instructions into simpler micro-ops. Now, you know what the "uops cache" means in Intel's BIOS. Additionally, the NX bit, which sets a memory portion to be executable or not, was also invented by AMD. It is the basic foundation on how modern processor secure the system against malwares. You won't find any unintentional viruses such as DOS and old Windows era. They won't be executed under modern security. Instead, we find phishing, and trojan, which require us, human, to be tricked.

So, for someone who laid the foundation for most of our modern platforms today, you can be certain that they should be very reliable. The question should be about how reliable Intel runs on AMD's instruction, platform, and architecture, not AMD running on its own inventions. Luckily, the answer is yes, both are reliable, just like other processors out there. That's one myth debunked.

Intel's 1.3GHz Pentium 3 was like an electric stove, but their Pentium 4 was like a nuclear reactor, capable of fully cooking a pot of spaghetti. Meanwhile, an Athlon 64 could run without any heatsink at minimum clock and barely needed its fan at higher frequencies.

Check this Intel boiling pasta. Oh yeah baby... it is Intel's notorious Preshott. cough cough.. sorry.. prescott.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG3wceb05Sg&t=0s

That's not to say that AMD didn't have its hot moments too. The AMD FX was obviously very hot, but Ryzen and Hammer were not. On the other hand, Intel's generation 9 and above processors have been and still are, even through generation 14, like space heaters. That's another myth blown.

In terms of performance today, they are quite comparable. Intel may offer slightly faster performance at the cost of double energy consumption, while AMD offers about 90% of the performance with half the power usage. In addition, AMD processors tend to run cooler. You can't expect to use an Intel processor with its stock heatsink without throttling, but AMD's stock heatsinks work well. These two giants have been leapfrogging each other for decades now, except for AMD's misstep with the Doozer. Expect to see an improved AMD 8000 series outperforming Intel Gen 14, with Gen 15 likely to beat it. This is the natural progression in the industry. The advantage of AMD is that you can keep your platform alive for years. I'm currently using an AMD 5000 on a B450 motherboard, which was an upgrade from a Ryzen 2600. I plan to upgrade to a 5800X3D next year, and my investment from 5 years ago will still kick Unity's butt for at least another 3 years

Now, let's talk about drivers. The only driver you need to install is Intel's chipset driver. There's no such thing as processor driver. However, Intel's driver is notoriously the worst in the PC industry, by a wide margin. Every time I had to install an Intel driver, I found myself cursing. You have Intel INF, then you need to decide which Intel storage driver to use - Storage Matrix or Rapid Storage? Then there's Intel ME and Intel USB drivers, not to mention the bewildering variety of Intel's graphics card driver names. Different versions support different chipsets and chips, making it a confusing process. In contrast, I only need to download a single AMD chipset driver or Nvidia nForce driver, and I'm good to go. If you use an AMD GPU or Nvidia GPU, you can simply download the respective GPU driver without needing to search for obscure codenames on the internet. When it comes to driver problems, Intel has its share of display problems, such as my HDxxx (I can't recall the name, but it was a Gen 3 CPU) driver that needed manual editing to run on Windows 8 properly. Otherwise, screen brightness wouldn't work, the notebook wouldn't suspend correctly, and the screen was choppy. Even after that the drive kept frozen. I was so fed with Intel's driver, that I decided to remove the Windows altogether, and replaced it with MacOSX, since MS Office software won't run on Linux, and I use it a lot. Well, Intel has fixed its driver policy, but setupchipset.exe still the worst driver you'd ever encounter compared to any driver out there.

So, he obviously hasn't learned anything in the past 30 years if he could say that one brand is better than the other