As someone who isn't into the inner-workings computers like that, this argument honestly seems kinda dumb.
Also I have a question: Why do Linux users constantly feel the need to constantly flaunt the fact that they use a more complicated OS? I know this doesn't apply to all Linux users but it seems like usually I come across them, they always kinda have their heads up their a$$es about it, and very few of them have respect for other OSs.
It inflates their ego as you have to be a nerd to use Linux, and they take pride that they are a nerd or something(?).
So it's kinda like a hipster-type situation? where they feel superior for liking and using something that's not consumed by the general public?
I always quote this when the Linux elitism comes up: There's nothing wrong with using the OS (I use it myself as the VPS I rent and maintain runs Ubuntu), but the elitism of "I do it a harder way therefore I'm better" is really pointless. Imagine bragging that you're a better driver because you drive without tires - kind of like that.
It's legitimately better in some applications, mainly pertaining to server. Gaming on Linux can actually deliver better results than Windows in some games in recent updates to Proton. It's open source, you can get it to do literally anything you want to with a couple simple commands. It's set up how an OS should be set up, imo. BSD-based versions of macOS were as well. It's basically one big terminal with a GUI running over it, kinda how like the Win9x kernel worked on top of MS-Dos... except stable... and better in every way. The Microsoft NT kernel that Windows is built on top of now lacks any ability to run as command line only. There are so many instances where that's nice it's not even funny, again, especially in server. Not to mention that Linux can be compiled to run on literally anything outside of a toothbrush. --- Post updated --- The fact that you have faith in a company that no longer is making their own chips and who's stock price has dropped 15% in 3 days is worrisome, but I suppose I understand the disease. As a stockholder in Intel, though, I'm fucking pissed. The amount of money I've lost the past few days because of those cunts is revolting.
In my experience, Intel has been better in the past. I few years ago I had a laptop with an i3, which I then swapped out for a laptop with an A8 2 years later. Both laptops had similar specs, except for the processors. After I upgraded, my computer didn't run Minecraft as well. No matter what I did, the old laptop with the Intel processor was superior in performance to the one with an AMD processor that was supposedly better. My desktop has an i7, and it works perfectly fine for what I need. If your AMD works for you, then I don't see a problem.
Sure, Intel processors are better-although power hungry- but are they $100 better? Most of their stuff is locked, as opposed to AMD, whose processors have almost always been unlocked for years now. Their power consumption is equally absurd. But they do offer much better single core performance. Just pick what makes sense for your application. If you have the money to burn, buy Intel. If you do workstation work, buy Intel. If you’re value-minded like me, you keep your Piledriver chip that you more or less trash picked for free and look at computer parts every once and a while, decide not to, and promise yourself to buy AMD infinitely far into the future.
Yeah, the word anything is such an extensive word, as it can be used for pretty much anything. Isn’t it such a great word?
