I’m thinking of buying a new laptop, and I’ve noticed that, like for like, laptops with AMD processors seem to be cheaper. I’m interested in listening to and downloading music, editing my photos, web browsing - just standard stuff. Are there any drawbacks - or advantages - in using AMD?
Either brand will work well. Those are the two competitors in CPU manufacturing that have been tops and they have a harsh competition. Just don’t buy lower end CPU’s and you will be happy.
Agreed. To the average user, the difference between AMD and Intel is like the difference between Coke and Pepsi.
I dunno, there’s a pretty significant taste different between the two. If you take a random person, sit them down at a desktop and ask them what brand of processor it is I don’t think you’ll do better than random chance.
When it comes to integrated graphics that come packaged with cheaper laptops, AMD based ones usually have a big advantage there - they come with AMD or Nvidia graphics chips that are much better than the craptastic Intel integrated graphics. Even if you don’t game, I’ve found Intel’s graphics chips to be a tad laggy when using the fancy 3d effects Vista & Windows 7 have, and I have had better luck using Nvidia & AMD graphics to accelerate high definition video playback.
Obviously, this doesn’t apply if you get a laptop with a discrete video card.
The difference is in price and performance. The bits come out the same. Unless you have high performance needs then you will not notice any difference at all. THis is like asking if the GM sold with an american engine is different than one sold with a european or japanese designed engine.
Thanks for all your answers.
At the price range I’m looking at, I don’t think that will be likely. 
I was just about to post that most AMD laptops I’ve seen seem to be in the lower price ranges. Are you saying that at the top end AMD is inferior to Intel?
They go back and forth, but over the past few years, Intel’s fastest processors have consistently been faster than AMD’s.
Generally, AMD’s prices reflect that reality.
I know what this poster means, but saying it this way…LOL
Yeah no one ever argues over Coke -vs- Pepsi… 
That’s true, but IMO for the vast majority of people the difference is insignificant. Even the cheapest, nastiest single-core processor these days is plenty adequate for web browsing, watching video, email, and office tasks. Dual core is noticeably better for multitasking, but the difference isn’t that huge.
From the average consumer’s perspective, it’s really only things like video editing, serious photo editing, or gaming that require more performance than the cheapest computers can provide.
ETA for the OP: For your purposes, there’s nothing wrong with the AMD machine. Unless you’re the sort that uses computationally intensive features (commands that you currently have to wait more than a few seconds to complete) in Photoshop extensively.
The differences are measured in benchmarking tools and at the same price point you may see a difference of maybe 5-10% speed in very specialized calculations.
Unless youre counting the FPS in the games you play, you cannot tell the difference. AMD has always cut intel on price, thus its cheaper. Also, you can get a triple or quad core Phenom for the price of a dual-core Intel. Depending on your application, the AMD could beat the intel, but generally the phenom vs c2d fight is won by intel.
Another benefit of AMD is that they dont change their sockets as often, so you could buy a phenom core today and expect the socket on the motherboard to handle the chip coming out next year.
Remember that AMD didn’t used to have their own sockets. Before the Athlon, AMD chips were compatible with the same motherboards as Intel. AMD fired one hell of a shot across Intel’s bow with the Athlon in the late 1990s, taking them on head-to-head rather than being a maker of compatible chips for budget systems. The fight got very dirty, as Intel sort of got caught with their pants down, but the resulting performance race was good for the industry. If nothing else, AMD keeps Intel from getting too complacent.
Exactly. People will argue about them indefinitely, but at the end of the day, they both do the same thing in almost the same way, and either of them will get the job done.
Processor effiency and power consumption can have a significant effect on battery life, and operating temperature, and fan noise, and so the fastest processor may not be the “best” in a laptop. (though other things like display backlighting have a large effect too) Who made the processor would be my LAST concern when selecting a portable machine.
Ditto on what Kevbo says. For the uses you’re talking about, amount of RAM and the disk speed will be at least as significant to the performance you see as the CPU you choose.