PDA

View Full Version : Tech Question AMD vs Pentium


OldTownChief
12-11-2004, 11:32 PM
I've always been a Pentium kind of guy, but as of late I've been wondering why all my friends computers with AMD processors seem to out perform my Pentium as far as speed goes. I'd always thought that the more you spend for a processor the better it is. I've got one computer in my house with a Pentium 4 2.0 GHz in it with 512 ddr and my friend has a AMD 900 MH with 512 SDRAM. We basicly have the same software loaded and his out performs mine in a landslide as far as the speed goes. What am I missing?

Valiant
12-11-2004, 11:39 PM
I've always been a Pentium kind of guy, but as of late I've been wondering why all my friends computers with AMD processors seem to out perform my Pentium as far as speed goes. I'd always thought that the more you spend for a processor the better it is. I've got one computer in my house with a Pentium 4 2.0 GHz in it with 512 ddr and my friend has a AMD 900 MH with 512 SDRAM. We basicly have the same software loaded and his out performs mine in a landslide as far as the speed goes. What am I missing?


honestly with those two old computers you should be toasting his... You either have a full harddrive or something else is wrong with your rig..

Now for new computers AMD has a small edge, but for every AMD made Intel makes one quicker, then AMD does it.. All of the new computers are fast nowadays..

but your problem is something else.. He has a AMD that was before their new benchmarking scheme... I suggest reformat/reinstall, but really buy a new effing machine...You cant go wrong with either chipset, and if anybody tells you one way or another nowadays is a donk fan..

Count Zarth
12-11-2004, 11:41 PM
Um...there's no way his PC should be outperforming yours.

If you are talking games, it could be, but only because you had a shitty video card and he has a great one.

Make sure your P4 is RUNNING at it's appropriate speed.

As for P vs AMD...basically clock speed is overrated. The latest P's have higher clock speeds but AMD has superior architecture. P is starting to change though.

The biggest difference is price. I have never and will never buy anything but AMD because of price.

OldTownChief
12-11-2004, 11:49 PM
It's probably time for me to save my sh!t and reformat. Compared to his, mine is wicked slow. He does have a better video card and mine is intergrated because I don't do a lot of gaming on this one.

Miles
12-11-2004, 11:56 PM
Yeah if your not running a graphics intensive program yours should definitly be faster/more responsive. Are you just talking about general windows performace lagging?

OldTownChief
12-12-2004, 12:01 AM
Yeah if your not running a graphics intensive program yours should definitly be faster/more responsive. Are you just talking about general windows performace lagging?

Yes, Just clicking basic Windows functions mine is slow. Like just clicking the start button or "rename" or "delete" kind of things. I click it and wait a few seconds, he clicks it and it's right there. He was saying it's because I have a Pentium and he has a AMD. I've ran all the spyware stuff and reg cleaner stuff but mine is still slow compared to his. Could it be the vid card.?

OldTownChief
12-12-2004, 12:05 AM
The only difference I've seen so far is that I've upgraded to SP2 and he hasn't.

cookster50
12-12-2004, 12:06 AM
, but as of late I've been wondering why all my friends computers with AMD processors seem to out perform my Pentium as far as speed goes.

Because they do. AMD has been the better chip for years now. Don't pay for that little symbol that is Intel, get an AMD!

OldTownChief
12-12-2004, 12:11 AM
Because they do. AMD has been the better chip for years now. Don't pay for that little symbol that is Intel, get an AMD!

I deal with a lot of business machines and I don't want to just jump to that decision without knowing for sure. I've herd a lot about AMD's overheating and most of these machines are running 24/7.

Miles
12-12-2004, 12:13 AM
Yes, Just clicking basic Windows functions mine is slow. Like just clicking the start button or "rename" or "delete" kind of things. I click it and wait a few seconds, he clicks it and it's right there. He was saying it's because I have a Pentium and he has a AMD. I've ran all the spyware stuff and reg cleaner stuff but mine is still slow compared to his. Could it be the vid card.?

As far as i know core processor speed and ram sould be all you need for basic windows speed. Something is holding you back. Its definitly not the AMD v. Intel thing he is suggesting. Your CPU is a full generation ahead of the AMD his is running. His AMD should be compaired to a P3-933 or so.

Im not really sure on the integrated graphics since i havent ever run a PC with one. I dont play game but my last 2 PC's have still had adequate video cards. One of the other poster could better answer this.

Valiant
12-12-2004, 12:17 AM
Because they do. AMD has been the better chip for years now. Don't pay for that little symbol that is Intel, get an AMD!


Umm AMD has been raising their prices for a year now...They are getting close to Intel's cost...






-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Just clicking basic Windows functions mine is slow. Like just clicking the start button or "rename" or "delete" kind of things. I click it and wait a few seconds, he clicks it and it's right there. He was saying it's because I have a Pentium and he has a AMD. I've ran all the spyware stuff and reg cleaner stuff but mine is still slow compared to his. Could it be the vid card.?


More then likely you have a spyware/virus that is not being detected or

full harddrive or

to many programs running at once...

how many icons to you see at the bottom on your blue bar???


When you reformat/reinstall, the first thing you do before you get online and go browsing sites is install

norton secuity
AVG antivirus cnet/download.com
pop up blocker cnet/download.com
spyware cnet/download.com
update all files including windows...

OldTownChief
12-12-2004, 12:21 AM
Umm AMD has been raising their prices for a year now...They are getting close to Intel's cost...






-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Just clicking basic Windows functions mine is slow. Like just clicking the start button or "rename" or "delete" kind of things. I click it and wait a few seconds, he clicks it and it's right there. He was saying it's because I have a Pentium and he has a AMD. I've ran all the spyware stuff and reg cleaner stuff but mine is still slow compared to his. Could it be the vid card.?


More then likely you have a spyware/virus that is not being detected or

full harddrive or

to many programs running at once...

how many icons to you see at the bottom on your blue bar???


When you reformat/reinstall, the first thing you do before you get online and go browsing sites is install

norton secuity
AVG antivirus cnet/download.com
pop up blocker cnet/download.com
spyware cnet/download.com
update all files including windows...


Whenever I do a new install of Win XP Pro I install all the above metioned software and I go into the services and disable all the un-necessary running processes. But the AMD's seem to run faster even before fine tuning.

OldTownChief
12-12-2004, 12:24 AM
More then likely you have a spyware/virus that is not being detected or




You must be right about this, but I've used Ad-aware, spybot S&D, Spywareblaster, AVG, and Reg Cleaner. I think I'll save everthing and format the drive.

Valiant
12-12-2004, 12:34 AM
You must be right about this, but I've used Ad-aware, spybot S&D, Spywareblaster, AVG, and Reg Cleaner. I think I'll save everthing and format the drive.


when you do the reinstall use the harddrive disk or download one to completly wipe the harddrive unless you have a full version of xp pro..

There should be no way in hell that his basic system outruns yours... his computer is easily a year or two older then yours... Something is wrong with your computer, i am hoping hidden spyware or virus... If not it might be a defect on the board or chips slowing your system down...

If he had maybe a AMD 2200+ I can see his computer out performing yours but a 900mhz should be no where in contention with a 2ghz computer...

Miles
12-12-2004, 12:40 AM
when you do the reinstall use the harddrive disk or download one to completly wipe the harddrive unless you have a full version of xp pro..

There should be no way in hell that his basic system outruns yours... his computer is easily a year or two older then yours... Something is wrong with your computer, i am hoping hidden spyware or virus... If not it might be a defect on the board or chips slowing your system down...

If he had maybe a AMD 2200+ I can see his computer out performing yours but a 900mhz should be no where in contention with a 2ghz computer...

If its not spyware or a virus could a crappy/cheap MB be holding him back. I figure thats not the case with a p4-2000 since the MB chipsets with DDR were developed enough by then.

unlurking
12-12-2004, 12:41 AM
For the same price as an Intel, you can get an Athlon 64.

I have NEVER met anyone dissatisfied with an AMD. If someone overheated one, most likely the guy was moron and doesn't understand cooling to begin with. I have yet to meet someone who over heated an AMD and I have personally been overclocking them for years. The first AMD I purchased was a K-5 75.

WinXP will natively support Athlon64 in a month. *nix already does. Intel won't have an x86 64 bit architecture on the market until 06.

AMD has been faster than Intel for over a year now in performance testing and is STILL cheaper.

BS on the Intel being faster first. AMD has LED performace benchmarks for over a year.

At newegg:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ w/512 L2
$148

Intel P4 2.4 GHz w/512 L2
$142

If anyone thinks that an Athlon 64 compares to a P4 equally, you are smoking some good stuff.

If you DO want to spend Intel like money, buy an Opteron (server grade) chip. In 6 months you'll be able to replace it with a dual core (two processors on a single chip) and NOT have to replace your motherboard. Intel dual cores are not expected until 06.

Otter
12-12-2004, 12:46 AM
AMD vs. Pentium = Toyota vs. Nissan

There are so many variables in why his computer is out performing yours itís tough to call without getting full specs from each system.

Hard drive buffer or read rate?
Graphics card speed?
Mother board chipset?
Services and apps running in background?
RAM type, speed?
Condition of registry...

The list could go on and on but Iím sure you get the point. Lotís of things go on in the background that effect performance.

A good analogy would be putting a 5.0 engine from a mustang in a 3 speed Fiero. The processor is only as good as its supportive components.

OldTownChief
12-12-2004, 12:48 AM
when you do the reinstall use the harddrive disk or download one to completly wipe the harddrive unless you have a full version of xp pro..

There should be no way in hell that his basic system outruns yours... his computer is easily a year or two older then yours... Something is wrong with your computer, i am hoping hidden spyware or virus... If not it might be a defect on the board or chips slowing your system down...

If he had maybe a AMD 2200+ I can see his computer out performing yours but a 900mhz should be no where in contention with a 2ghz computer...


Thanks Valiant, I do have a full version to re-install, his system is at least 3 years old and mine is around 1. After hearing you, I'll bet I do have a problem with the board or the processor, I'm going to try the format and see where it goes. His system is a Compaq Presario 5000. Mine is a hinez 57 built at the time to be the best at 2 gig without the best video and the fastest ram.

Miles
12-12-2004, 12:50 AM
For the same price as an Intel, you can get an Athlon 64.

I have NEVER met anyone dissatisfied with an AMD.

I have had a pretty bad experience with my 1ghz AMD Athlon laptop. It has horrible problems with the processor overheating an locking up. But like you said if AMD chips are properly cooled there should be no problems.

elvomito
12-12-2004, 03:45 AM
...Mine is a hinez 57 built at the time to be the best at 2 gig without the best video and the fastest ram.

the first thing you need to do is make sure you have a 7200rpm hard drive, with the correct 80conductor cable. if you went the cheap route, you might have a 5400rpm... no good.

after that, a fresh xp reinstall is all you should need (make sure you have your drivers)

I have had a pretty bad experience with my 1ghz AMD Athlon laptop. It has horrible problems with the processor overheating an locking up. But like you said if AMD chips are properly cooled there should be no problems.

blocked air vents?

Pants
12-12-2004, 05:42 AM
Right now AMD pwns Intel on all accounts. Valiant, I could see your point before 64's came out. But as of now, you are dead wrong. AMD makes superior processors.

Saulbadguy
12-12-2004, 08:07 AM
Intel all the way.

Count Zarth
12-12-2004, 08:08 AM
Intel all the way.

Fag.

crossbow
12-12-2004, 09:03 AM
Yes, Just clicking basic Windows functions mine is slow. Like just clicking the start button or "rename" or "delete" kind of things. I click it and wait a few seconds, he clicks it and it's right there. He was saying it's because I have a Pentium and he has a AMD. I've ran all the spyware stuff and reg cleaner stuff but mine is still slow compared to his. Could it be the vid card.?

Onboard video systems are allways slower then option card video systems. You wouldn't think so because the video card has to transfer data through the system bus but bench marks prove it to be so.

Your Windows settings could be forcing delays or fade effects that give the appearance of a slow machine. Your computer may be bogged down with a registry that has tons of old junk in it. Best solution is to format the drive and start over. Your drivers could be old. You could have a slower hard drive or it could be too full. Your hard drive could be fragmented.

As you can tell, there are too many variables involved to accurately decide which processor is faster by simply using Windows and observing its response. I have had both the AMD and the Intel. The Intel runs much cooler, draws less power, and therefore puts less heat into the case for the box to try to expell. As far as speed goes I believe the Intel has a better internal design which makes graphics faster, given the same clock speed. Don't worry about the numbers, though. Fast is fast and a difference of a few houndred clock cycles isn't going to be noticed. The main thing is lots of RAM and fast hard drive/video card. Spend your money on those things and you will have a computer with plenty of snap.

Also, don't call your computer a "hard drive", or the hard drive "memory". A hard drive is a mechanical device that you store the operating system and programs on. Memory refers to the integrated circuits that the programs are loaded into (from the hard drive) when they are run. And remember only rookies call "system boards"..."mother boards" !!!

Apple Computer first used the term "mother board" to describe its main logic unit and IBM (all clones and DOS/Windows) machines use the word "system board". I guess I am nit-picking and that if people abuse the language enough then the words take on new meanings. But Hey! I am gonna hold out because I have been a technician for over 21 years so why should I change when its the rest of the world that is wrong :p

Over-Head
12-12-2004, 09:43 AM
Yes, Just clicking basic Windows functions mine is slow. Like just clicking the start button or "rename" or "delete" kind of things. I click it and wait a few seconds, he clicks it and it's right there. He was saying it's because I have a Pentium and he has a AMD. I've ran all the spyware stuff and reg cleaner stuff but mine is still slow compared to his. Could it be the vid card.?

I've got a Dell OptiPlex GX1
With a mind numbing PII 450mgz, with 128mgs Ram.
You think YOURS is slow?? :cuss:

Valiant
12-12-2004, 03:49 PM
Right now AMD pwns Intel on all accounts. Valiant, I could see your point before 64's came out. But as of now, you are dead wrong. AMD makes superior processors.



I never said anything about intel being better I own both..to to state that AMD are cheaper is bullshit now.. just go to pricewatch.com and check the prices yourself.. they are all about equal... Amd has been raising their prices for over a year steadily... Intel dropped their GHz ranking on all of their computers...

Agian anyone throwing out AMD is better then Intel or vice versa is a moron with a ego problem...

Mr. Laz
12-12-2004, 04:14 PM
I deal with a lot of business machines and I don't want to just jump to that decision without knowing for sure. I've herd a lot about AMD's overheating and most of these machines are running 24/7.


actually new AMD chips run cooler than intel


in fact, Intel has started to pull back some on their latest design because the dang thing runs so hot.


i switched to AMD awhile back and feel no need to return


the performance is comparable and they price is cheaper for AMD

chiefsfan58
12-12-2004, 04:16 PM
AMD all the way... the FX55 destroys the P4.

unlurking
12-12-2004, 04:21 PM
I never said anything about intel being better I own both..to to state that AMD are cheaper is bullshit now.. just go to pricewatch.com and check the prices yourself.. they are all about equal... Amd has been raising their prices for over a year steadily... Intel dropped their GHz ranking on all of their computers...

Agian anyone throwing out AMD is better then Intel or vice versa is a moron with a ego problem...
Sure you weren't comparing Celeron's with A64s on that price matching?

Valiant
12-12-2004, 04:43 PM
Sure you weren't comparing Celeron's with A64s on that price matching?


no, i have built seven computers in the last five months..

you can get a 3.4mhz p4 motherboard chip combo for 340 dollars

or the new 3.6 for 530dollars

that fx55 by chiefsfan58 the cheapest for it is 980 dollars



Both computers serve there purpose i own both a p4 3.4 and a amd 64 athlon... both are great, the athlon required a bigger power supply but it runs fine...

All i am saying is, Amd are no longer the cheap machines they were two years ago to the p4's.... AMD is now price gouging like Intel was, and Intel is taking the back seat and reworking all their chips...

But both products are top notch...

Valiant
12-12-2004, 04:44 PM
I do hate the new ddr2 and pci-E on my pentium though..that shit cost me more then board and chip...

Otter
12-12-2004, 05:06 PM
I do hate the new ddr2 and pci-E on my pentium though..that shit cost me more then board and chip...

Ahhh, my first PCIe contact. What do you think?

Unless you game you probably won't notice the difference but I'm interested in any input.

Valiant
12-12-2004, 05:26 PM
honestly i havent notice any either besides halflife2 looks ****ing sweet... but that has more to do with the card being 256mb not it being 16x slot..

unlurking
12-12-2004, 06:55 PM
no, i have built seven computers in the last five months..

you can get a 3.4mhz p4 motherboard chip combo for 340 dollars

or the new 3.6 for 530dollars

that fx55 by chiefsfan58 the cheapest for it is 980 dollars



Both computers serve there purpose i own both a p4 3.4 and a amd 64 athlon... both are great, the athlon required a bigger power supply but it runs fine...

All i am saying is, Amd are no longer the cheap machines they were two years ago to the p4's.... AMD is now price gouging like Intel was, and Intel is taking the back seat and reworking all their chips...

But both products are top notch...

Yes, you obviously WERE judging incomparable chips!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want to compare CLOSER products with SIMILAR benchmarks, you should have chosen the P4 Extreme Edition.

You chose the A64 FX edition, but the simple plain old P4.

The CHEAPEST P4 EXTREME EDITION (which is what you should be comparing an A64 FX edition against), on newegg is...

$899.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Intel Pentium 4/ 3.2 GHz

The A64 FX chips start at...

$499.00!!!!!!!!!!!!

AMD Athlon 64 FX-53

So basically, you ARE comparing different demographic lines to support an assumption that Intel is no more costly than AMD.

Here are some competing results from two different review sites:

So, let's sum it all up for Pentium 4 Extreme Edition versus Athlon 64 FX-51 at games.

While at multimedia encoding the Pentium 4 has almost no competitions from powerful desktop AMD processors (especially at vide, where the Hyper-Threading does its excellent job), it's not that straightforward at games.

Judging by the above presented 3D tests, the rivalry of Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and Athlon 64 FX-51 is just at full sway, and for now it's difficult to find the explicit leader - at about half the benchmarks Pentium 4 Extreme Edition won, whereas the other half is evidently after Athlon 64 FX-51. These two products are very different, so it's difficult to say who is the winner. While Athlon 64 added 10 to 30% as compared to Athlon XP due to the more advanced micro architecture, then the greater L3 cache adds 3 to 10% of performance to Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. As compared to the 2-5% of the rise in FSB/DDR speeds, this turned out to be not bad at all and quite promising.

Along with that, the prospects of rising the speeds of both these cores are quite vague: at best, Intel and AMD will succeed in producing mass 0.13 mk versions for 3.4 GHz and 2.4 GHz, respectively. Further rise of clock speeds and performance will be attributed to the migration towards the finer process technology - 90 nm, since other measures have already been exhausted. While Intel's Prescott is expected to be released later this year, then AMD's 90 nm San Diego core is still a distant prospect. So, if there isn't a definite leader at processors for extreme gamers now, then in the near future Intel will win better positions for taking the crown.

Well, it definitely looks superior :), otherwise it didn't make sense for AMD to release such processor. I think that the decision to release it was based on the test results of this couple. But the price is too high: server boards (or at least, workstation boards), registered DDR400 which is hard to find... The victory is not that impressive, and the competitor turned out to be different - they were going to fight against the plain Pentium 4, but Intel quickly baked the extreme edition.

Users might get such extreme processors either if they are mad about one or the other company, or if they need a PC for definite applications where these processors look advantageous. The rest would do with the ordinary Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Thankfully, none of them can unconditionally be considered a winner.

As you can see, both reviewers seem to think the chips COMPARABLE. Now look at the prices and tell me where the comparison is?

unlurking
12-12-2004, 06:58 PM
Too bad I gave up gaming (not enough time), but those dual PCIe video cards looking phenomenal.

Oh to be back in the day when I had a water block on my GeForce 2 so I could overclock to extremes. I really miss those days.

Valiant
12-12-2004, 07:20 PM
Yes, you obviously WERE judging incomparable chips!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want to compare CLOSER products with SIMILAR benchmarks, you should have chosen the P4 Extreme Edition.

You chose the A64 FX edition, but the simple plain old P4.

The CHEAPEST P4 EXTREME EDITION (which is what you should be comparing an A64 FX edition against), on newegg is...

$899.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Intel Pentium 4/ 3.2 GHz

The A64 FX chips start at...

$499.00!!!!!!!!!!!!

AMD Athlon 64 FX-53

So basically, you ARE comparing different demographic lines to support an assumption that Intel is no more costly than AMD.

Here are some competing results from two different review sites:





As you can see, both reviewers seem to think the chips COMPARABLE. Now look at the prices and tell me where the comparison is?


Agian go check pricewatch... You are the one saying AMD is super cheap.. They are not... Even if you look at the most expensive of both systems it varies by 100$ or less depending on the day when prices are updated...

unlurking
12-12-2004, 08:12 PM
I'm not saying they are super cheap. I am saying that you are not comparing COMPARABLE components.

The P4 Extreme matches VERY favorable to the A64 FX series.

Here are the prices from pricewatch:

Only 2 Intel models
$960 - Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme
$840 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme

Four AMD models
$820 - Athlon 64 FX 55
$499 - Athlon 64 FX 53
$805 - Athlon 64 FX 53 939
$680 - Athlon 64 FX 51

There is NO WAY you can compare a $350 P4 and mobo combo to an A64 FX. You cannot even buy a P4 EE for under $850!!!!!!!!!!

What I am saying is you need to compare LIKE products. When doing so, you will see that there is STILL A SIGNIFICANT difference in price.

15% at the high end
40% at the low end

Whichever end you are at, that is significant savings for COMPARABLE performance.

Valiant
12-12-2004, 09:05 PM
I'm not saying they are super cheap. I am saying that you are not comparing COMPARABLE components.

The P4 Extreme matches VERY favorable to the A64 FX series.

Here are the prices from pricewatch:

Only 2 Intel models
$960 - Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme
$840 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme

Four AMD models
$820 - Athlon 64 FX 55
$499 - Athlon 64 FX 53
$805 - Athlon 64 FX 53 939
$680 - Athlon 64 FX 51

There is NO WAY you can compare a $350 P4 and mobo combo to an A64 FX. You cannot even buy a P4 EE for under $850!!!!!!!!!!

What I am saying is you need to compare LIKE products. When doing so, you will see that there is STILL A SIGNIFICANT difference in price.

15% at the high end
40% at the low end

Whichever end you are at, that is significant savings for COMPARABLE performance.


Agian, you are using opinions to rate these... I can go to a intel homer and shoot down everything you wrote, but it would not matter because you would come right back with something else. If you wanted to get technical you would could not compare any of the 64's since there is nothing that uses them and intel pushed theres back.. Hell you would be lucky to find 5% of the home user market that would use the 64bit core... Lets look at some older ones...

$128 - Athlon XP 3200 with cpu, fan comparable to p4 3.2ghz
$124 - Athlon XP 3000 with cpu, fan

$244 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott with cpu, fan
$208 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz Prescott with cpu, fan

800mhz fsb compared to 400mhz... You get what you pay for...not a big difference in price... Both are great products...

Just quit being a AMD rulez homer.. I own and have sold both...

Lbedrock1
12-12-2004, 09:27 PM
here is my 2 cents. I have been a AMD guy because of price, but I built a p4 2.8 becuase i was given a discount on the processor. This what I have found, AMD's run hotter but with a extra fan you want have a problem. As for the processors you can do the same thing with both. I would suggest AMD over P4 just becuase of price. If they were both the same price I would say close your eyes and pick one you want go wrong.

unlurking
12-12-2004, 10:44 PM
Agian, you are using opinions to rate these... I can go to a intel homer and shoot down everything you wrote, but it would not matter because you would come right back with something else. If you wanted to get technical you would could not compare any of the 64's since there is nothing that uses them and intel pushed theres back.. Hell you would be lucky to find 5% of the home user market that would use the 64bit core... Lets look at some older ones...

$128 - Athlon XP 3200 with cpu, fan comparable to p4 3.2ghz
$124 - Athlon XP 3000 with cpu, fan

$244 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott with cpu, fan
$208 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz Prescott with cpu, fan

800mhz fsb compared to 400mhz... You get what you pay for...not a big difference in price... Both are great products...

Just quit being a AMD rulez homer.. I own and have sold both...
ROFL

What I am getting at, was your assertion comparing the price of an Intel P4 mobo combo @ $350 to an Athlon FX series chip. It's lunacy.

And if you want to talk FSB, let's look at who offers a 1600 FSB?

$170 - Athlon 64 3200

Now tell my why a customer should buy a 32 bit ONLY chip for over $200?

Nothing that uses them?

XP already supprts the Athlon 64!!! Unfortunately it will not be able to take advantage of all the benifts via "native" support for another month or two, but many would consider that a "free" upgrade of performance. Oh, and the 1600 FSB is a nice touch. The "nothing that uses them" line sounds like you are the homer.

And yes, M$ has already stated that native 64 bit support will be FREE to any current XP license holders.

Don't confuse me with being an AMD homer just because I know what I'm talking about. I also have sold and used both as well. The only systems I build now are for personal use, but that doesn't mean I'm an uninformed consumer.

No opinions here.