AMD vs Intel

[desert_storm]

What are the pros and cons of the AMD and Intel Prossers and motherboards?  I noticed that AMD prossers that run at 2Ghz cost the same as an intel prosser with 3.2Ghz, why is that?  Why do some people prefer AMD over Intel and Vica-versa?

[DukeLeto]

The AMD Athlon64 Processor is, simply put, faster.  The more advanced pipelining, faster bus speeds, and 64-bit architecture allow it to operate at comparatively higher speeds than Intel equivalents.  An AMD Athlon64 4000, when properly set up and cooled, should be considered to run at a slightly faster speed than an Intel P4 4.0 GHz - which, as far as I know, doesn't exist.

[Muad dib]

To add what DukeLeto said, if you wait a couple of months, some motherboards that use AMD will soon be able to use the full potental of the 64 bit processor. In other words, it will be really fast. Intel wont be able to keep up.

Also the AMD processor is cheaper than Intels.

[Andrew]

I thought that the AMD chip is more efficient than the Intel.

[Megashrap]

It all boils down to individual choice.

[desert_storm]

What is better, the AMD XP or the AMD 64?

[DukeLeto]

The AMD Athlon 64 is strictly superior in just about every respect, but it's a lot more expensive.  But the Athlon XP Series ends at about 3000, so if you want high-end processing power, you'll have to go with the 64.

[Megashrap]

I wouldn't say superior to all xp's though..just a next stepping processor and yes better in some ways, but not in every way.

"When looking at raw CPU performance, we see only slight variations between the high-end Athlon XP and the low-end Athlon64 processors. Both tests show the Athlon XP 3200+ besting the Athlon64 2800+ when run at stock speeds, likely due to the higher raw clock speeds of the high-end Athlon XP models. On a clock for clock basis, the Athlon64 appears to be a more powerful CPU core, but when the architectural differences of the Athlon64 aren't fully exploited, the chip performs surprisingly like their last generation Athlon XP."

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[DukeLeto]

Why are they comparing the Athlon XP 3200 to the AMD 64 2800?  Shouldn't they be using, oh, the 64 3200?  I could have told you the architecture, especially on a motherboard ill-equipped to handle it, wouldn't make 400 MHz of difference.  That's like saying the P4 HT tech is useless because a P4 2.8 with Hyper-threading was outperformed by a 3.2 without  (although I am reasonably certain they don't make 3.2 GHz P4s w/o HT).