From my personal experience, and I have proven this to my computer teacher, oftentimes, an AMD based CPUs have booted way faster than Intel based CPUs. It's just a mere fact. Facts doesn't always equate to truth. Before attorneys, there is but so much one is allowed to say. Facts + Evidence = Truth. It all depends on configurations of macines, BIOS, and hardware. Think about it. AMD brought us into the modern computing era. Multi core CPUs are courtesy of AMD. Coreboot would not be possible without an AMD programmer. That's right, Intel have 10x more money, yet AMD have better programmers. I invite anyone before contesting these facts, to do their research, first. If you are into marketing hype, you are more than welcome. Recall the days of Sparc and RISC was trending predominantly for servers? The AMD 2900 and family was the apex of CPUs. Too bad, most developers been misled into supporting the more inefficent and poorly coded x86 platform. That is how AMD followed the path into reinventing a wheel in a world where Intel were masters. x86 with the strong arm of money and politics, ended up with more support. The same case with Microsoft Windows, the higher maintenance operating system (NTFS vs PFS or UFS2) , and file system ended up with more support. Developers have targeted the Windows Desktop and the x86 platform, because it has the market share rather than because of any intrinsic qualities. Make no mistake, these two companies have single handedly held back the progress of computers and computing. Money, power and influence, does not equate to what it takes, nor the handle or abilty to carry the mantle. It is even known by Debian's developers (same responsible for KFreeBSD) that their AMD binaries offers a superior quality code to their Intel offererings. That is unanimous among developers. AMD always been enthusiastic of optimized boot times. If in disbelief, try an AMD A12 or FX9830P APU.
Last edited by Prince
on Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:15 pm, edited 7 times in total.