Originally posted by i_krayzie_i
n00b's ... its alot more complicated then Intel's better then AMD or vice verca. Both companies have there weak and strong points (Intel high frequency thats good for encoding etc.) (AMD preforms more tasks per clock cycle which ultimatley slows down the frequency but high performance is seen during some applications). Now I believe the 64bit technology is useless as of now and is more or less a marketing ploy because the average user is going to think "hey more bits its gotta be better" which in case is not exactly true. No programs designed today are in need or are designed to take advantage of the 64bit processor and I've seen benchmarks that show significantly lower results vs a 32bit processor. People that decide to have a biased view of the world are at a significant disadvantage as being able to understand both sides would be to your advantage in understanding.
Finally someone pointed it out ... What Deadguy n' other's who are pro P4 ,need to understand is that .. the GHz of a processor is not all that matters ...
The point is that an AMD handles many more instructions in one clock cycle than the p4... This is what differentiates the 2 processors..
So basically if a P4 needs 4 clock cyles to finish an instruction ..the AMD can fininsh the same in 2.
This is why they are compared on different scales like AthlonXP2800+ runs at 2.1GHz ..yet it is comparable to the P4 2.8GHz
As for the heat issue that guys have been pointing out to .. it's not alwayz bad .. i'm running my processor with a stock HS n' have no problems at all .. The typical die temps for anAMD are much higher for an AMD than for a P4 .. infact a p4 would melt out at temps like 60°C ..where as an AMD can handle temps like 80°C too
But then .. the arguement continues ..........