Intel Vs. AMD

Do you think Intel is waiting to pounce on AMD with its "64-bit chip" Prescott, after AMD releases the Athlon 64? After reading the article, it makes you think what other things Intel are keeping secret.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668

Personally I'm a AMD fan. Intel dumped a ton of money into their Itanium line and aren't getting the results they wanted out of it. So far all the articles I've read on people running the Dual Opteron boards have been very positive. Along with some of the benchmarks that I've seen of the Athlon 64. One thing to keep in mind is that Intel is gonna drop the 2 MB L2 cache Pentium 4 chips on the market before they do anything. And the bonus is that you don't have to but a new motherboard to take advantage of the extra cache. Kinda cool.

Today, I just read two big test result in french. One was a new Athlon 64 vs Athlon 64 FX vs Pentium 4 vs Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. The Pentium 4 Extreme Edition won allmost every thing and allmost all of Intel Processor had better overall score that Athlon 64 and Athon 64 FX. The fact is Athon 64 FX is good but it's gonna take a while for drivers to work on Windows XP 64 Bits and for programs to start using the 64 bits architectures.

But mid-range Athlon are the best for their prices.

One thing to is that even though a AMD processor says 3000+ its not gonna run at that. I believe that a AMD 3000 runs at 2.2ghz or somewhere in that range. So the clock speeds are faster on pentiums.

Pentiums are more expensive, but If I'm building a computer for speed, I will probably go witht the new P5 with the 2mb cache.

I'm not a fan of either Intel or AMD but I will tell you this; Intel has never done me wrong yet but I keep having hells keeping my AMD chip cool. A liquid cooling system can solve that problem but they are kind of pricey.

I would go with Intel for that one fact.

Guidance...