I need some detailed expert explanation of the difference between AMD and Intel. Also I want to know that why people say AMD is ideal for gaming. Is that truly so? Please help me.

This is quite a wide ranging subject.
Here's a couple of places to start:

• AMD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Intel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another link to try also...

IT Architect | Intel VT vs. AMD Pacifica |

November 1, 2005

AMD vs Intel.. hmm.. its got a very long answer, its sort of like asking what's the difference between ATI and Nvidia.

Anyway in sort this is the difference:

AMD = Smaller Company (use to specialize in cheaper CPUs - although these days they are more expensive than Intel!) = larger processor chip, usually less stable, higher temperatures, slower (and they've also got that model number for speed scam going on). However AMD CPU's are great for overclocking (their FX series allow overclocking).
INTEL = larger company, smaller CPU chip, some processors have lower temperatures and some of them actual go over 100 degrees Celsius (no joke), usually better bang for your buck and has more features. However they are horrible for overclocking (usually you can't at all). But remember that Intel now has dual core processors, etc - so they are faster and better value.

AMD is usually placed with ATI (like AMD they use to specialize in cheap graphics cards, but now are very expensive), and Intel is usually placed with Nvidia. I personally think that Intel and Nvidia are the best, and AMD & Ati are just jokes that went to far.

AMD were also the first to come out with 64bit chips.

And here is my help with some comparison. Graphs - lots of lovely graphs.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1860533,00.asp

Highly opinionated conjecture with incorrect and outdated information.

In the very distant past, many of those things were indeed true. Currently however, almost the very opposite is true for the Desktop PC market. Neither chip maker has stability issues.

I'll give you more background...
The main culprit with stability issues was in the fact that the chipsets that accompanied AMD chips were manufactured by third parties. (not the chips themselves) AMD now integrates their memory controllers, directly into their chips and this, along with improvements in third-party adherence to AMD specs and reference designs, virtually eliminates any of the stability issues that had occurred many years ago.

AMD's chips in fact, do clock lower. Contrary to what spyyder is telling you, CLOCK does *not* in any fashion, equal performance. There would simply be no comparison in performance if you place a 1533MHz AMD next to a 1533MHz Intel. The AMD would always win, very easily, in every test thrown at it, hands down. The AMD chips work "smarter" while Intel's simply work "harder". (and as a result of late, hotter)

The additional logic and the aforementioned fact of an on-die included memory controller, does mean that AMD's cores will be larger than Intel's; but the pricing point for these cores in the past and present, on average remain lower; as well as their temperatures. (google CISC and RISC and also, AMD has the best approach toward chip architecture... Intel after much time, has followed their lead with the Pentium M)

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...Search+Froogle
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...Search+Froogle

Performance/Dollar, AMD is the best option and has been for many years.
My opinion and experience is better with NVidia versus ATI. For one thing, fog and smoke would present a noticeable performance hit on the ATI whereas it had no impact on the much older NVidia card. Better, but not always significant image quality may help to account for that.