There seem to be two major popular processors. Which do you like?
First, let's add some actual context: I'm basically trying to decide on a new laptop. I don't know how quickly this falls into the "then it doesn't really matter" category, but the laptops I'm most interested in either have AMD Ryzen or Intel Core processors. In addition, a general Internet search yields results that basically come down to "well, they're similar but also very different depending on xyz factors."
So this si where I turn to y'all. I know things in egneral about computers and laptops, but getting into the guts is not an area I know too much about. Also, I live outside the US, and the two main brands I'm looking into are Asus and Lenovo. Also, and this is the part where I know a bunch of you are going to groan or otherwise be disgusted, I'm intending to just run the default Windows OS that will come with it... and then try to uninstall a bunch of stuff. Something like Linux is far too complicated for my meager understanding.
As for what I intend to use it for? Just general purpose- lots of internet browsing, watching a bunch of video files I have (I already have a preferred video player), and playing the occasional game or two... but it's definitely not any sort of gaming laptop usage.
Also, with what I'm going for, it's going to be Ryzen 5 vs core i5. Which of these is better to go with, based on the above information?
everything else being equal, with the current generation of CPUs, AMD will be better "bang for your buck" than Intel.
but they'll both work perfectly fine for your use case, so if there's an Intel laptop you prefer over an AMD laptop for other reasons (such as price, weight, screen size, etc etc) go with the Intel one.
I'll mention the one major player outside of the two x86 vendors, in Apple and their M-series chips. You might have already decided that they're not the right choice for you, and that's completely fair. In case you haven't considered them, here are some pros and cons.
Pros:
Cons:
This changes year by year and generation by generation so my perspective is time sensitive but: at the moment the current mobile AMD processors have the best power efficiency, as well as the best integrated graphics. This is comparing the current gen AMD 7th gen (7x40 series) to the 13th gen Intel processors. As a testament to my claims, pretty much every hypermobile or handheld gaming machine based on x86 processors (AMD/Intel) are using the 7840U processors from AMD because they are power efficient enough to be put into the form factor of a Nintendo Switch, and their integrated graphics are powerful enough to run modern games at roughly 1080p low to medium settings depending on the game.
Intel's design is a bit different going with separate "power" and "efficiency" cores but in real world usage their battery efficiency is not great. And their integrated GPU hasn't evolved much in the past few generations so it's more for 720p gaming or somewhere around there.
However! The new generation is supposed to come out soon, this year I think, and it might actually give AMD some real competition in terms of performance so we'll just have to wait to see. If I find a laptop with a 7x40 series AMD CPU though right now I would get one pretty much right away.
I am currently due for a laptop upgrade (still have a 7th gen! Intel) and am waiting for more ultra portable laptops with the 7840U to be released but it's taking a long time.
If you do decide to go with a 7000 series CPU from AMD, please be aware that the numbering scheme is very confusing as per usual.
7000 series is this year's model but...
7x20 series is actually a Zen 2 processor refreshed and...
7x30 series is actually a Zen 3 processor refreshed so...
7x40 series is the actual new Zen 4 processor that has all the upgrades with efficient and GPU performance.
Zen2/3 are perfectly fine chips, but they won't perform as well as the new architecture chips.
The second number indicated by my "x" just shows the processor performance tier within this generation such as a Ryzen 3, 5, 7, or 9.
It doesn't matter. For a while AMD were vastly far behind, but after Ryzen 2 or so they've been ahead of Intel architecture-wise. That being said, Intel is not as far behind as AMD was back then, and they've adjusted prices so the performance still lines up roughly. It's not like in the bulldozer days where you'd be insane to buy an AMD processor. Intel perf for a given price point is equivalent.
Especially in a pre-built machine in a laptop it doesn't really matter whether it's from Intel or AMD. That being said, you still want to look at benchmarks to see how the performance stacks up to what you want to do with it. But whether it's intel or amd doesn't matter.
I don't keep up with laptop processors, not something I'm in the least bit interested in, but I thought AMD was way ahead of Intel on integrated graphics with their APU processors, both for laptops and desktop computers.
AMD has come out with some new APU's for laptops this year. From a quick search, they seem to be the Ryzen 7040 series.
Quality of the graphics may not be important to the OP, but it is an area where the two companies have some major differences.
For what you're aiming to do, I don't think you need to worry about this. The differences between processors matter in specific contexts and nothing you've laid out falls into them. Even if you were gaming, it wouldn't matter much outside some specific games or emulation (and that might be less true than I'm thinking).
For what it's worth, I've bought Asus' gaming laptops since 2008 or so, and so far I have no complaints. They've each been good for that purpose - good airflow, a mostly minimal suite of bloatware, and usually some actually-kinda-helpful software for stuff like power profiles and performance monitoring. I've had a few hardware faults here and there, and Asus has always been very fast and reasonable with their RMA process, even for hardware that was outside its warranty. I opened them up and found they were pretty easy to work with when I replaced/upgraded parts myself.
I've never owned a Lenovo machine but I've repaired plenty. Imo, their build quality is ok (not great, not terrible), and pricing tends to be a little high for what you get. Over time I didn't see much in the way of design trends that made me apprehensive about using their products, but they do have a reputation for doing sketchy shit with software. If your concern is eliminating bloatware, I would probably avoid this brand.
If it were me I'd be focusing on the screen. If the goal is light productivity and watching stuff, I'd want a screen with a high refresh rate (more than 90, 120 or 144hz would be best), and I'd want it to be OLED/AMOLED/etc for better colors. You wouldn't really need to worry about the specific hardware, other than making sure you're not paying too much for what you're getting. It is easy to "overpay" because there are brands/machines targeting a more affluent crowd.
EDIT: I need to revise this a bit, because come to find Asus is not behaving in a way I find very comfortable. From what I can tell it's a pretty recent situation (this year, within the past several months), but there are examples of regions where Asus models are not as advertised. Here is one guy providing such an example. He lays out his example/experience well enough. In looking at it though, appears it's consistent across other review channels. I'd probably avoid their most recent stuff. I have a 2022 model that's exactly what it said it was and performs great, and my purchases prior to that have always been good too. But I'd be doing you a disservice not to point you toward that.
As long as it is able to run windows and good enough for some game you plan to play I don't think you you will notice a difference to be honest. I'd suggest focusing on other features of the laptops you are looking at, e.g. battery life (if you're on the move a lot). I recently got a Microsoft Surface Go 3, which isn't a powerhouse by any means, but it has a nice build quality, can double as a tablet. I won't be playing any heavy games on it (unless I end up using some cloud service graphics card or something), but I can play some light games on it just fine.
The only times that it has really made a difference for me is when emulating more modern systems. I have always opted for the less expensive AMD but always struggled to get similar systemnl performance for things like RPCS3.
I would pick AMD over Intel for a laptop. AMD has better performance per $ and better thermal and power efficiency which translates into better battery life.
Both are perfectly fine for your use case. AMD are the better option in terms of value, but that may be a moot point if you're buying a prebuilt laptop.
I would avoid anything weaker than an i5/Ryzen 5 though. Pentium processors are really bad while Celerons are dogshit and can't even run Chrome OS decently well.
All things being equal I tend to favor AMD for historical reasons - Intel has had a long history of corporate monopolistic misbehavior, some of which hasn't even been that long ago, such as the nonsense they pulled making the software compiler detect non-Intel hardware and intentionally generate worse performing software so that their processors looked better.
Intel had way worse bang per buck for a few years now, and the very few exclusive features like Quick Sync Video don't do much. I bought a Ryzen the last time, and I'm probably going to buy a Ryzen in the near future.