What AMD would out preform an Intel 3.2+ ghz?

[taterknight]

A lot of newer games have recommendatiosn for both such as Pentium 3.0 ghz or AMD 2.2ghz

 

[WolvenASE]

Nice. You're actually making me understand this(that's quite a compliment. xD) So a 4000+ single core would truly rock my world, then?

 

[Apokalipse]

yup. especially in games.

 

[boomstick666]

i think somebody told me this before but its like this..
think like pentium is a "skinny man" and AMD is a "fat dude".
they r trying to carry some bricks to the warehouse..
"skinny man" can work faster but cant carry as much bricks as "fat dude".
but "fat dude" can carry more bricks than "skinny man" but slower..
so the "skinny man" can move faster (more Ghz) but "fat dude" can carry more bricks at a time (more efficiency). thats y the Ghz wont match w one another....
its the structure of the 2 diff processors.

 

[Apokalipse]

Intel's CPU's have longer pipelines. instructions go through the pipelines and come out the other side. the longer the pipelines, the more clock cycles it takes to get through.

 

[CrimsonGX]

I'd get the dual core, especially if you have the money for it, while the 4000+ is a monster running at 2.4 Ghz, the 3800+ X2(at a little less than the price of a 4000+) rocks for multitasking, then again, if you don't multitask, I'd still go for the 3800+ X2 just to be ahead of the game.

A lot of newer games have recommendatiosn for both such as Pentium 3.0 ghz or AMD 2.2ghz 'equivalent'

 

[thayde1]

Go with the AMD 64 Athlon (2.2Ghz) 3700+ San Diego Chipset (L2 1MB Cache). Only $233 on Newegg and it rocks. If you plan on spending more money for a processor, go with a higher level but get the L2 1MB Cache for sure.