[Bloody Eye]

Which processors do you prefer and why?

[mothered]

I've always been partial to Intel.

I had one bad experience with AMD when trying to run a virtual environment, namely Hyper-V. The CPU did support SLAT (Second Level Address Translation) but failed to load the VM. There was no reason why It shouldn't run the VM (virtualization enabled In the BIOS, OS supported etc). It wasted enough of my time, so I continued as per usual with Intel with no Issues whatsoever.

[phyrrus9]

AMD all the way. Faster cores, better quality, cheaper chips, better OC performance, tuner oriented.

[Blink]

Intel, I'd prefer not to have to buy a separate (enormous) cooler.

Here's @phyrrus9's cooler for context:

Spoiler:

[phyrrus9]

Intel, I'd prefer not to have to buy a separate (enormous) cooler.

Here's @phyrrus9's cooler for context:

Spoiler:

Then don't push the chip to its limits?

[Blink]

Intel, I'd prefer not to have to buy a separate (enormous) cooler.

Here's @phyrrus9's cooler for context:

Spoiler:

Then don't push the chip to its limits?

You'd still have issues with regular (cheap) air coolers, and there's none included

[phyrrus9]

Intel, I'd prefer not to have to buy a separate (enormous) cooler.

Here's @phyrrus9's cooler for context:

Spoiler:

Then don't push the chip to its limits?

You'd still have issues with regular (cheap) air coolers, and there's none included

Interestingly enough, I've ONLY had this problem with the FX series. Then again, I didn't need liquid cooling in michigan.

[TheReaper]

Intel, I'd prefer not to have to buy a separate (enormous) cooler.

Here's @phyrrus9's cooler for context:

Spoiler:

Then don't push the chip to its limits?

You'd still have issues with regular (cheap) air coolers, and there's none included

Ryzen provides stock coolers better than Intels

[Bloody Eye]

I vastly prefer Intel, as they've retained a reputation for being cutting edge. Wasn't until Ryzen that AMD started receiving more of a following, and even then Intel managed to screw them by doing price-cuts. I'd recommend AMD to friends if they were doing budget builds, but I'd never use AMD on my own rig.

[phyrrus9]

I vastly prefer Intel, as they've retained a reputation for being cutting edge. Wasn't until Ryzen that AMD started receiving more of a following, and even then Intel managed to screw them by doing price-cuts. I'd recommend AMD to friends if they were doing budget builds, but I'd never use AMD on my own rig.

That's simply not true. AMD has been on the bleeding edge of tech since the mid 1990s. Their only rival in terms of pure performance was the Apple+IBM+Motorola PowerPC chips.
You are right though, Intel did try to catch up to AMD after Ryzen came out, but AMD still has more (and faster) cores, more cache, a better pipeline, and all at a cheaper price.
As for building a PC, there are many more factors to consider when choosing a CPU. The way I usually put it is:

If you want a gaming PC that will work out of the box and handle everything OK, AND PRICE IS NOT A PROBLEM, then go with Intel.
If you want a powerful PC that will work out of the box, buy a Sparc
If you want a MASSIVELY powerful PC that will take you 6 months to tune, go with AMD.

The simple fact is, Intel makes good chips ONLY for gaming performance. Intel CPUs are very good at scheduling and handing work off to co processing boards (like graphics and DMA controllers). AMD makes chips that excel in everything else. But remember that at some point, general performance creates good gaming performance. You'll never see me buy an Intel chip for a desktop build. I use them for servers and for MacOS.