AMD or the P4

[SHAWN]

Thats a great way to put it

 

[GrimReaper23]

doesn't matter, amd's are still very for the value

$190 amd's can beat $1000+ intels in many games

if i were you, i'd get the amd64 venice 3200+ retail box, cheap and great

I'm getting that ^

 

[GrimReaper23]

AMD also use less power and dont run as hot, which saves you some $$$ on an electrical bill

Intel have an edge in multitasking on the consumer line as well as video editing.

Comparing a 3200+ to a 3.2GHZ Intel, the 3200+ will outpeform.

And even if you are into multitasking, AMD simply gives more bang for the buck due to their much lower prices.

about a few dollars only here.

 

[contry]

those were great explanations apokalipse and shawn

 

[ShoobieRat]

Jesus christ in cans....Not ANOTHER amd-vs-intel thread!

TF SEARCH

 

[Counter-Strike]

If you took a poll, I bet 80% of gamers would choose AMD, all the way. My dads business computer has AMD with Venice core, clocked at 2.4 Ghz speeds. It blows the prescott 3.73 P4 out of the water. AMD is advancing faster than Intel, especially with 64-bit.

If you want to game, get AMD or your a moron.

If you want to do stupid crap, like surf the internet and listen to music, just get a P4 then.

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

If you want to do stupid crap w/e value processor is fine.

AMD are still probolyl better due to the lower cost and lower power usage for stupid crap people

 

[MrBebop26]

AMD does more work but at a slower pace.
Intel does less work faster.

I think you mean that the other way around....

-Ryan

 

[Tenken]

lets say a game requires 3.0ghz(or better) and amd64 3200+ chip would be able to handle that definetly?

 

[DJ-CHRIS]

Yeah if a game requires an AMD 3200+ will be able to handle the game as well as an 3.4 \ 3.6ghz Intel (Non EE)