Originally posted by 4W4K3
i hardly call that hard facts AMD is better. most gamers run AMD because they can't afford Intel rig's and want the best performing rig they can have that fits there budgets.
I would have to disagree with this statement. These prices were taken from Newegg on 6/21/05. Prices are based on the cheapest processors.
Athlon64 3000 (newcastle) - $146
Intel P4 3.0ghz (prescott) - $172 $26 more than AMD
Athlon64 3200 (venice) - $190
Intel P4 3.2ghz (prescott) - $209 $19 more than AMD
Athlon64 2800 (newcastle) - $121
Intel P4 2.8ghz (prescott) - $164 $43 more than AMD
Athlon64 3400 (newcastle) - $228
Intel P4 3.4ghz (prescott) - $274 $46 more than AMD
I would hardly say that the differences in these prices would deter someone from going one way or the other, but that's just me. Especially if building a $1500 or more system. Also, if you look at the gaming benchmarks that were done using these processors, the differences in performance are always very small. Based on processor alone, one would not be able to notice a significant performance increase in gaming.
And yes, AMD is almost always ahead of Intel in the gaming benchmarks when using their latest processors.