There in lies the problem.  Intel is faster, how much depends on processor and usage.  For some economics makes AMD a consideration, but you're hard pressed to run a business based purely on that.  That's why Hyundai and Kia are trying to break into the luxury car market.  More money up there.  In addition, the gap is getting bigger which is going to make more problems in the future.  Right now I can get a 6 Core 5600 series Xeon that walks all over most of AMD's current offerings for $100 on eBay.  That level of disparity only hurts AMD more.  When you reach a point that your competitors 4 generation old equipment off eBay matches your current offerings, that's bad.  Fortunately for AMD, those system's chipsets (X58) were right before SATA 6Gb and USB 3 so there's still a reason to go new.  But that's not the case with the next generation.  Those will match the feature set of AMD's current systems.  AMD needs to figure out their strategy.  If they want to compete with Intel in the enthusiast segment they need to seriously rethink their game plan.  Or they can stick with what they are good at and pray Intel doesn't really try to start fighting them there.

Personally, I just replaced the last of my AMD boards with Intel and don't see myself going back any time soon.

How could we not know you'd have an opinion... on everything from barnyard politics to whether a one should warm their hands before milking the goat.

As for AMD vs Intel, many people opt for AMD because higher Intel pricing does not equate to whatever performance gains there may be.  In fact, I currently have an AMD FX8350 @4.2Ghz that's faster than my Intel i7 4970K... though that may change some once I've upgraded the 4970K.s from a Z87 chip Mobo to a Z97 one.

In any event, AMD's multi-core CPU's have not only been great value for money, they have been strong and reliable performers with more than enough speed for the average user.  So what if Intel's offerings are slightly faster for a somewhat heftier price, who's really going to notice the difference when doing average, day to day things?  Maybe some professionals like graphic artists and software developers would notice a difference here and there, but not so much home users, if they even had the need.  Besides, both my AMD 8-cores, 8150 and 8350, are quite quick and are up for anything I throw at them.

It's all well and good for Intel's fanbois to mock and ridicule AMD's offerings while lauding the efforts of Intel, but AMD had consistently produced quality processors and certainly has a place in the CPU marketplace.  My last CPU may have been an Intel i7, and the build in the works is an i7, but my next could very well be an AMD Zen.

Never had anything other than Intel....ever since the 8086 and a post that sounded identical to my first mobile...a Motorola 8200 .....oh wait....same chip....

If it ain't broke I don't fix it....

In a quarter century of PC use...I've had one machine keel over and die...from a suspected spike.  Not a fault of Intel...

How can you be so confident when neither company has released their Zen or Skylake offerings?  Both are based on 14nm and AMD has a complete new architecture we have not yet been able to test, so saying the gap is getting bigger is somewhat premature.

Have you not been reading the news lately?  AMD has done exactly that, with a whole new leadership team and engineering department.   Also, as stated before, the AMD chipset has had a complete overhaul and now has a new architecture that will open up performance potential.  And even if what you say is true, that Intel pips AMD the post, but only just, what real difference would that make to the average home user?  Would the slightly faster chip deliver real value for money?  I doubt it, though many would opt for Intel's offering because it will supposedly be better.

However, I am a fanboi of neither company.  I like my AMD FX 8150 and FX 8350 machines, and I like my Intel i7 4970K machine, so I'll remain out with the jury on which has the better processor range until each has been thoroughly appraised by the experts, etc.  And then it will not depend purely on performance alone, but also bang for the buck.

So, if something's better. more efficient than that which ain't broke, you don't go for it?

Like wouldn't that defeat the purpose/idea of upgrading?  Building a new machine?

Hmmm, yer showing yer age again, Paul.    Being a late bloomer myself, computer-wise, that is, I've only been messing with PCs since about 2003 - 2004, and I've not had a PC keel over and die, either, but because Intel equivelants were more expensive at the time, the switch AMD was more a budget, value for money decision than anything.  In fact, I still have my P4 2.6, with mobo and RAM to suit, and I've had thoughts about rebuilding it for a media server/games box to hook up with my man cave TV, all I need is a spare case to house it.

Not at all.  Previous satisfaction with a chosen manufacturer simply directs the replacement/upgrade.  EG... ALL of my generations of 'home-build' have used ASUS Motherboards.  ALL [until the Level 10] have used Lian Li cases. ALL have used Nvidia graphics....again ASUS.  All have used the Microsoft Explorer mouse....[1007]....and I still haven't changed from the Logitech Dinovo Edge Keyboard....

I reward good product experiences with brand loyalty...

Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with loyalty, not at all.  All my mobos were Gigabyte, up until an ASRock board with better/more features was recommended to me at a lower price than its Gigabyte counterpart.  That was for my AMD FX 8150 and it's still going strong.  My next departure from Gigabyte was with an ASUS board for my AMD FX 8350, which also is still going strong.... and my next mobo [still awaiting delivery due to a stock shortage] is an ASRock Z97 Extreme6 for my current Intel machine.  

However, I'm still undecided with regard to the mobo for the i7 6970X, but it could well be the ASRock Z99 Extreme 11 for its expansion potential over the ASUS X99 Rampage V Extreme.... but more on that closer to the day.

Oh yeah, all my GPUs have been Gigabyte, and all were Nvidia except the last I purchased, which is an ATI Radeon HD 7970 and quite a decent card.  So it's not so much that I'm disloyal, but rather that another brand's hardware better suited the need at the time. 

The sad thing is that people still believe in the AMD FX 8 core humbug...
DID you see intel do the same thing? No they simply said how it is 4 cores and with hyperthreading can handle 8 threads.

Like they did with 5960X its an 8 core CPU since it only has 8 physical cores but with hyperthreading can handle 16threads still they dont list it as 16 core.
The media claims that AMD ZEn will have 16 cores, meaning 16 physical cores and should handle up to 32 threads hyperthreading.

Guess we will have to wait and see i bet intel will have less consumption what is important for me since my rig runs 24/7.

I'm wishing AMD the best of luck in their new chips. If they can match Intel, they might push Intel to improve further. I can then decide on my next upgrade.

I'm not a brand loyalty kind of guy.  I'll go with whatever the flavor of the day is as long as it's value for money. 

Dafuq? So my precious 980x is worth only 100 bucks these days?  

Anyway, its not just AMD offerings it walks over. For 100 it walks over all current Intel quadcores as well...they are at best equal in performance due to potentially higher frequency and some IPC improvements, but i dont think there is one going just for 100... and what goes the cheapest sixcore for? Still about 500?

I believe in no FX 8 core humbug whatsoever..... both my AMD rigs perform admirably and I've never had power consumption or overheating issues with either of them...

.... but then you must be an Intel fanboi who hates it when people like and opt for AMD instead.

Okay, so you like Intel, we get that, and so do I, but I also like the AMD processors I've used as well.  So what if Intel's CPUs have been faster than AMD's thus far, though for a price, and not everyone is prepared to pay the extra for a little more speed.  At the end of the day, it boils down to peoples needs, what they like best and what they can afford, and yes, you're entitled to your opinion/preferences, but to continually mock/ridicule the opposition benefits no-one and just fans a flame war.

As for Intel vs AMD, I hope humble pie is on the menu when AMD releases a great and truly competitive CPU series at a great pricepoint.

That's pretty much what I've been saying, that AMD is an important cog in the scheme of things... both in pushing Intel to lift its game and by helping to moderate pricing.  Without AMD releasing cost effective CPUs. just try imagine what Intel might charge in a monopoly market?????  And while AMD has struggled to keep pace with Intel, performance-wise, much less rival it, I believe the change in leadership and engineering staff, with the new 14nm architecture will produce better than past results.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

what do you think?

This is probably because the 8 physical cores(yes, there are 8 physical cores, it's not hyper-threading) on the AMD chips have some shared resources that result in lost performance.  It's supposed to be about 20%, hyper-threading on the other hand has a very minor performance gain over just the individual cores.

The problem with calling people fanboi's over not being impressed with the FX 8 core is that it truly is a terrible CPU.  Vishera's perform like 4 year older Intel's with half the cores, running at 75% of the clock speed.

The FX-9590 is as hot as you can get one, the thing burns 220 watts, an i7 4770k gives almost identical performance for multi-threaded applications, and 50% more for single threads, at 84 watts.  The physical reality is that they run extremely hot for their performance.  If you keep your system for more than a couple years, the cost benefit of buying an AMD would be depleted by their power consumption even with only light use, and who needs an 8 core for light use?  If you really work it, you could blow a hundred bucks a year in extra electricity.

In your opinion.  Like I said, I've had no issues with either of mine and the performance meets my needs.  However, the thread is NOT about past efforts or what ran rings around what.  It's already understood that AMD made mistakes in its bid to rival Intel's offerings, so no, this thread was/is to discuss the upcoming CPUs from both companies, what we might expect from AMD since it has moved from the Bulldozer build and has based its new range on 14nm.

As for the fanboi bit, that was merely a bit of tongue-in-cheek/fooling around... hence the >

The humbug is that the first line of AMD FX that were thrown on the market claimed to be a true "8 core CPU" that was just after intel released the first generation of i7. Did it had 8 cores or was it just a clever marketing act…
Google it and you will know.

The power consumption is lower on Intel.
Meaning that it will save you some money over the year... why is that interesting for me? Well as I stated my PC runs 24/7 and not only 2-4 Hours a day
And this means by the end of the year i will be able to buy another middle class GFX card or a new SSD from the saved money only by using an Intel CPU.
Is that worth paying 50 USD more for the brand?

If making smart decisions is making me an Intel Fanboi - I’m gladly accepting the title J