http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...ngl_benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-27.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-35.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-40.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-43.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-50.html

all the benchmarks huh? i guess you missed these? the P4E that's slated for release in the 1st quarter owns everything that is AMD in almost all benchamrks and the next gen P4 slated for release in the 3rd quarter of 04 owns it. try doing research before spouting off at the mouth. Intel will be the first to release a processor with a 90nm process in 04 and the next gen P4 will be the only processor on the market with a 1G L2 cache.

 

uh...no.

 

It's not that far away. There's an Athlon-tailored 64-bit beta of Longhorn in the field right now.

The biggest problem is that there aren't enough testers for it.

If Intel doesn't release a real mass-market 64-bit processor within the next few months, the MS Longhorn 64-bit Windows will be tailored specifically for the AMD Athlon chip, and Intel might get caught with a chip that's not quite as useful as they intended.

 

This seems an awful familiar situationn actually....like when Intel announced the breaking of the 1gig processor mark the same day AMD actualy released it.

I use AMD as well as Intel and personally I am more impressed with the AMD chips than I am with Intels products.

 

I use AMD also........I'm very happy with it , and it's way more stable than my past Intel computer. No problems here at all :thumbup:

 

I'd have to disagree. My barton 2500 chip runs rather slow compared to the P4's I've used on other people's systems. My ram is low, but it's DDR400, whereas my last system was 512 of PC133 and PIII 800MHz. My new AMD system is only a little bit faster. Of course my opinion may change after my new RAM comes in.

 

If you're building it this summer, I think the P5 is supposed to come out around then. The P4EE is a joke. It's literaly a Xeon processor with the error correction disabled to help it run faster. Right now, if you have the money, the AMD FX51 is the fastest chip for sale. The P4C chips are the best price vs performance.

I've had both AMD and Pentium chips. I'd say that Pentiums seem to run all programs more evenly balanced. With AMD chips I found that they sometimes run programs faster while running others slower.

 

:blah: for years AMD has been outperforming Intel. Only now are Intel chips pulling ahead. To be quite honest, it's not like you're going to notice your PC running at 3.0 ghz or however many gigaflops persecond as compared to 2.88 ghz. You just wont know the difference without running benchmark software - and when you do ... does it really matter? For the price difference, I'll take an Athlon XP over a P4 anyday.

 

For whatever it's worth, there's a known bug in the NVidia north bridge that made Tom's Athlon 64 tests look worse than what the chip will eventually show in the real world.

Tom's writer actually mentions the NVidia bug in the article.

When used in conjunction with the 64-bit Longhorn OS, there is a very clear advantage to the Athlon 64 over any currently available Intel chip.

It's very likely that Intel will come out ahead in the long run; however, they really do need to hurry along so that they are an influence on the 64-bit operating system design.

It's clear from all the disseminated information that Microsoft is tailoring the operating system for the only processor that will be generally available when the OS is released, and that processor appears to be the Athlon 64 (and Athlon FX 64).

 

not since the k6-2 holmes.. and that was only because the k6-2 was an overclocker's dream. try again