Ok...well I am looking to get a new computer in the few months. I want this computer to last till Longhorn (except for the video card)

I know (or believe) that

The best of AMD has outperformed the best of Intel in raw frames per second,
->but what platform is more relialble?

AMDs used to have serious heat issuse - has that been worked out?

Will an AMD be as stable as an Intel cpu with an Intel chipset,
-> if so what kind of chipset works best with AMD?

Till Longhorn what will be more important - 64-bit processing or Hyperthreading

when will AMD support PCI-Express?

well let me start saying that it's to soon to buy a 64bit processor (there still isn't a proper OS!! and in consecuence there aren't 64bit programs that use this technology). maybe in 3/4 years, think in a future update, and then those processors will be 3/4 times faster.

and now intel or amd?? my guess: amd and i will explain why

intel has the most powerfuls processors that's for sure, specially in multimedia benchmarcking, the problem it's that comparing quality/price they loss for a lot. the processor is expensive and more expensive it's a MoBo with intel chipset.
amd has slower processors but they are very cheap and MoBos are cheaper too. their processors are hot like hell but expend some cash in a good fan or liquid cooling and problem solved, both still cost less than a p4.

in this part i will answer, what chipset??? well another time expend a few $/€ and buy a nforce2 based chipset. why?? because they have the hability to lock some frecuencys, take up some voltages... (talking about overclocking). in conclusion AMD+nForce2 will be cheaper than a P4+Intel but will be less powerful...

for the pci-e, amd is not thinking in it now, as in ddr2 or similar things. for now this is not too important because benchmarcking on pci-e and ddr2 are not giving a critical perfomance increment.

finally, taking up AMD vs P4. i will choose particular hardware: 3000+/3200+ and A7N8X/-E /Deluxe. look for caracteristics of them and choose the one you like. overclock your cpu frecuency 0,2/0,3ghz and it will faster than a new p4. aren't you sure?? check down my hardware and check here the results, my current system it's faster than a 3.2ghz p4 extreme edition.

hope this solve you some of your problems and answer some of your questions. if you think i'm wrong on any point please let me know

I'm an all-intel guy. I've considered an AMD 64 Processor, but the chipset offerings shyed me away as there only seems to be VIA (oh no!) and nForce. I've found intel chipsets to be very solid, as stability is what I look for the most.

The new Intel Prescotts run a bit hotter, but have read that its able to cope at the high temperatures. Although I wish I got a Northwood at the time since the Prescotts are slower (even with its 1MB cache). But the good thing is that Prescotts start to shine when its over 3.6GHz, which is why Intel are trying to phase out the Northwoods as the speed can't be squeezed out any further.

I'm selling my AMD 1.3GHz with its VIA chipset mobo. I had the most problems with this out of all my 4 Intel (and intel chipset mobo) PCs.

That is true and a lot of people know. But unless you are planning on buying the best of AMD (800$) or Intel (1000$ processor) that benchmark isn't worth anything.
I think AMD is just as stable as Intel under Windows XP, but I have doubts about other operating systems, such as Solaris for Intel.

Personally I only buy Intel because of the AMD K6-II 450Mhz (with VIA chipset) that I had many years ago. I was the most unstable system I ever owned and I totally blamed AMD. It crashed 3 or 4 times a day, even after a fresh install. I vowed never to buy another AMD.

HYPErthreading wouldn't work on AMD. AMD is a very efficient processor that keeps all of its execution units busy. Pentium4 is so poor at keeping execution units busy that a second thread can be executed on idle execution units. For the Pentium4 HT is a significant performance boost, for the AMD it would more likely slow it down.

And 64bit is indeed too soon. By the time you have a 64bit os, drivers, applications, you will have faster 64bit processors, both by Intel and AMD, with different memory and everything. Just like the 386 aand 486 never saw a full 32bit operating system.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=17492 No XP64 until next year...

My suggestion (Let's toss another two cents into the giant money bin):

If there were a clear cut winner, everyone would (should?) by it to the exclusion of everything else. Therefore, we can assume that both processor types are generally good, and perform well on most any task.

So....buy whatever happens to be in front of you. If you want something cheap, go AMD. If you don't care about price too much, go Intel and get Aaron's stability...either way, you get your computer. I've never had significantly more problems or performance gains with either one...and I do a lot of different things on my computer (gaming, limited internet usage, word processing, some video editing, etc, etc).

OR: you could buy some stock in one company or the other, and after that, buy only that brand of chip....

AMD will bring out dual-core CPUs next year. meaning two REAL CPUs on one piece of silicon. So you get two separate cpus. That is real multithreading. The same concept exists already with IBM (Power), SUN (SPARC) and HP (PA-RISC) CPUs.

I agree with the previous post (each brand is more or less the same) however, I'd like to give my two cents worth about 64bit.
I run a medium IT shop at a research lab and we support Dual AMD Opteron's (250's). Ported 64bit Red Hat Linux. The computational group runs crash simulations. Under dual Xeon 2.8Ghz..it used to take close to 18hrs to complete a simulation. Under the Dual 250 Opterons..less than 4hrs. Now granted this is on a 64 bit OS and the simulation software was optimized for 64bit instructions. It jsut goes to show you the huge potential for 64bit computing. Thats in the business world.

In the home world, video games are what drives the push towards faster, more powerful computers. That being said....
FarCry (video game) is being recompiled for 64bit instructions and slated for release in <60days. Im betting we are going to see a big boost and that is going to drive software vendors towards 64bit ports.

1st off let me say this.. i am a gamer.

also... buy whatever YOU feel comfortable buying...


/me shakes head at simon.....

the only thing they are kicking a## in right now is stuff that can take advantage of HT (folding) and encoding... if you do a lot of compiling/gaming/pretty much anything else.. buy an A64.




they havent been hot since the palimino days... my A64 3200+ idles about 35-38c and hits about 50c loaded... far from hot considering im running the stock heatsink/TIM...

tried editing the above.. but it was being gay and wouldnt go right...


sorry all

taken from above:

if you were smart you wouldnt even look at a ddr2 setup.. the latencies are so high at the current mem clocks that you are better off staying with ddr till ddr3, much less the price, becomes prevailant..







intel has already said that a 4ghz product will not be released this year.... but would you really want one? christ the 3.4e's are already melting mobo's


lets take games out of the equation... i can do a fresh format on a 20gig c: partition(xp) and be looking at the desktop in 11 minutes(granted i can ghost faster than that... but it takes me longer to find the cd's that to just start fresh). less than 20 minutes w/ ALL my drivers/directx installed...

now if want to get into why else its faster game-wise.. just look at the ORB for futuremark...

the slowest for 2k1se(ohh btw only 4 out of the top 20 are intel, and 3dmark03 is completely gpu bound...) intel is 4403mhz... the slowest amd is 2849mhz... its not always about clock speed its the IPC that counts...

but i do agree w/ the above posts.... buy the cpu that fits your needs the most..