...that it's a little annoying when the title to your posts have nothing to do with the actual thread.

Now, since that's out of the way, may as well have a topic that actually keeps this from being considered spammy. (Hypocritical? Yes. Necessary? Maybe.)

One thing that I've learned from some computer buff friends of mine is that the only difference between AMD and Intel in terms of processors is the price tag. I don't doubt this, but I have to wonder, therefore, why people will fight to their graves for or against one or the other of these. For instance, a good friend in my CS class absolutely loathes AMD and cringed when I showed him my new laptop has an A6 Vision.

So, even though there doesn't seem to be a difference between Intel and AMD, there are people out there who seem to think there IS...

The Question:...why?

Judging from recent reviews, AMD's CPUs have not been competitive for a while compared to even Core i5s. Although many of their lower-end CPUs do boast multiple cores, single-threaded performance is pretty much... useless compared to even a modern Pentium.

As for the GPUs, Intel HD Graphics couldn't beat AMD's anything, but the 4000 comes dangerously close.

I've noticed that these days, you can't seem to find AMD's CPUs on anything but netbooks and budget laptops. GPUs are fair game, though.

It seems to be more of a compatibility thing on motherboards. Intel CPUs tend to be more compatible on motherboards that are more optimized for gaming than AMD CPUs. Other than that, there isn't much difference between the two.