Is HT the only thing Intel has got going for them?

[persianxballer]

After reading many forums and tests, I have to come to the conclusion that Intel is getting messed up. I was planning to get a P4 LGA 3.0 GHz after Christmas, but now I am having so many doubts.

Is there any reason to go with Intel? (I need some good ones, because if not I'm going AMD 64 3000+)

 

[persianxballer]

Please respond to this.
I need an answer before soon because I'm building my new computer.

 

[AND_YOU_ARE]

I would suggest AMD over intel. The 64 3000+ will be much better than what intel has to offer. Go for an AMD cpu. Look for a 939 socket cpu and mobo, for better upgrading options in the future. Its as simple as that.

 

[persianxballer]

Does AMD perform with everyday applications?
I usually use my computer for Internet, word processing, and other everyday applications, with the occasional gaming. Does AMD suit my needs?

I think I would benefit from hyper-threading, but how much of a difference is there? Will I still be able to use my applications at a high speed with good performance?

 

[AND_YOU_ARE]

AMD will suit those needs. AMD runs cheaper when considering the mobo and cpu over an intel mobo and cpu. The only plus to the ht technology is the 'ability' to perform as it has two cpu's. AMD will everything just as well.

The ht technology is useful with large video or picture editing.

Go with AMD.

 

[TheMajor]

Go AMD.
HTT, 64bit, more bang for buck

 

[OnlyCurious]

I heard from some guy on this forum that AMD comes with HT.... wtf.... or are the AMD XP's have HT... confused....

 

[TheMajor]

Intel has HT (hyperthreading)
AMD has HTT (hypertransport)

 

[OnlyCurious]

so what's the difference between a ht and a htt?

 

[TheMajor]

HT is like dual CPU.. but its only 1 CPU.. it acts like dual CPU, one CPU is virtual though... so it can run 2 threads at the same time.

HTT is a feature to improve bandwidth between CPU and chipset

google for more info