AMD is just more popular with gamers. Im not a gamer so I dont use AMD. I would always get an Intel except the celeron.
I don't know exactly, but I do know that Athlon +XXXX is the equivelant of an intel processor running at X.X GHZ/MHZ. AMD's run at lower frequencies because of less power usage. I think the FSB makes AMD's faster though.
i think single card comparison ati x850xtpe was killing nvidia 6800gts for some time, so now nvidia has out their new 7000 series card, not sure how it stacks up
I had an AMD, I don't like it at all. I have an Intel now. I'm not much of a computer gamer, therefore, I never used it to its max. But go with the majority, AMD.
they loose accuracy at around the 3400 makr though just as a warning... one reason why INtel doesn't give as much juice at higher frequencies is because of it's pipeline, it's pipeline is longer making it more prone to error but in having a longer pipeline it can hit higher frequencies. I beleive the P4s have a 24 stage pipeline while the Athlons have a 12. another diference is that AMD processors get a good boost from having high latency in ram increasing yourovereral system performance. in all, if you want to do a lot of work in MS word or very simple and perhaps somewhat repetative things, such as running music or video related works then Intel is better, if you want more complex things such as graphics or gaming go AMD. also AMDs tend to be cheaper, a lot cheaper, intel has huge market share and abuses that. one thing, if at all possibel try to get a processor with a claw core such as hammerclaw ========= also the reason you didn't like your AMD is ebcause you got either an old or crappy one, the athlon XPs are useless now, semprons and bartons aren't to great either. =========
No dont get Claw cores, they are old and outdated. if you get a AMD64 get a Venice or a Sandiago. Also the x850Xt is a great card but the Nvidia 7800 flogs it hands doww. For graphics get the 7800 as it is the same price but it will beat it for performance.
Everyone knows AMD owns...2ghz 64 Bit with say winchester core, will piss all over the all amazing 3.6ghz P4. roffle. AMD 64 have dual core now, pwnage.
I meant get the processors with them not necessarily the core themselves, also not that, keep in mind that the lower end procs never had it developed for themm.. also I was mistaken I should have said hammer insteed of claw, sledge hammer is much better than winchester, newcastle and paris, but yes san diego and venice are best
^yes they do, they perform the same as their equal single processor. ok here we go - X2 3800 = two AMD 64 3200+ cores (2ghz, 512Mb cache) X2 4200 = two AMD 64 3500+ cores (2.2ghz, 512Mb cache) X2 4400 = two AMD 64 3700+ cores (2.2ghz, 1Gb cache) X2 4600 = two AMD 64 3800+ cores (2.4ghz, 512Mb cache) X2 4800 = two AMD 64 4000+ cores (2.4ghz, 1Gb cache) So in the ways of gaming say a X2 4600 performs the same as the AMD 64 3800+. But X2's have the advantage because you can run video encoding at the same time as playing say Doom 3 maxed out. Also the future of gaming is dual core gaming where games will take advantage of both cores instead on just one.
oh thanks for statistics... i guess what i read about it was sort of misleading. because i was looking into duel core and it kept stressing that they're made to handle multitasking, so i guess i got the wrong idea
Im sure this topic is done before becuase i posted in it http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-83-1.htm A more detailed comparison is here http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundu...on-64-3400.html this is enough for my post - Look at the conclusion near the bottom that will sum it up
Your post was dumb its just like saying "Everyone knows my waffles are better than yours". Everyone has his own opinions so your post was useless. AMD is good in its sector and Intel is good in its sector. AMD is for gaming and Intel is for applications. Personally I'm not a hardcore gamer and I like to work in multimedia so I prefer Intel.
its not just the clock speed, thats how fast the information transfer from the cpu to the motherboard, but what intel does is put up high frequnecys on thier cpu's and skimp on stuff like cache's and front side busses, thus their not taking entire use of the transfer, and amd is using a much greater percent of the operating frequancys in their chips, another factor is the motherboard, the motherboards for socket 939 are much better than the ones for the intel equivelant
