Pentium vs. AMD

[tardboy21]

Which processor is better?

[Uhlix]

the poll should be broken down into classes...because a P3 and a P4 cant really compete agisnt each other and ofcourse the AMDs cant really compete agisnt themselfs...in most cases the newer technology will win.

anyways, i voted P4...i have it...i use it...it runs fine...nuff said =)

[spizzak]

AMD all the way, in general faster, more stable, and not to mention, cheaper. I use AMD and so do all my friends, runs great.

[MrMichaelWill]

Opteron should be on the list, and would be my clear favourite.

[tajidinabd]

yea i have to throw my hat in the ring for AMD 64 great running on my laptop. a good counter to intel's monopoly.

[Uhlix]

lol, i think it is funny how everyone calls the top company in a specific catagory a monopoly...just because they out sell/market everyone else.

I do have a AMD T-Bird 1ghz PC i use as a small file server/ web server. It is a very stable computer but it did run a little warm with the factory heatsink, so i bought a better one and havnt had any problems since.

I am in the process of getting a new PC set up, i have looked all around and i looked into AMD because everyone boast about how much cheaper they are. But i found them to be more then the P4s were bang for buck, perhaps i was just looking at the wrong places (mostly newegg.com). Would love to see some prices that you guys have (not meaning that in a negative way) because i cant find anything cheap when it comes to processors i want.

[Woad_Warrior]

i don't have one yet, but i'd have to go with the amd 64. as far as the various cpu's available on the market, the amd chips always deliver the best bang for your $. the only wintel chips i have are in older boxes i got for free. if i'm shelling out the $, then i go for the best amd i can afford. (this may change in the future if someone puts out a chip with a better price/performance ratio.)

[Uhlix]

for example AMD (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-486&depa=0) that cost $150 and has 1ghz less then this INTEL (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-184&depa=0) so for 30 more $$$ i get 1ghz more a higher FSB and more l2 catch.


do the AMDs run diffrently? Like there chip with less ghz will perform better then an intel chicp with the same amount?

[tajidinabd]

well its fine im just stating my opinion about intel alright trying to take a snipe at what i had to say AMD all the way !!!!!!!!!!

[Uhlix]

well its fine im just stating my opinion about intel alright trying to take a snipe at what i had to say AMD all the way !!!!!!!!!!

no not really...as i am not some die hard intel fan or anything...i have both AMD and intel based PCs. So i wasnt taking a shot about you saying you liked AMD....just about your unsupported monoply comment.

[tajidinabd]

eh whatever just my opinion. peace

[Quantum Skyline]

for example AMD (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-486&depa=0) that cost $150 and has 1ghz less then this INTEL (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-184&depa=0) so for 30 more $$$ i get 1ghz more a higher FSB and more l2 catch.


do the AMDs run diffrently? Like there chip with less ghz will perform better then an intel chicp with the same amount?

The cores are significantly different. The days where you could compare AMD to Intel based on clock speed are long gone. Check the benchmarks for that.

[jimispier]

I only voted intel cause most progs are writen for it..
However, I've have used both for years and it really depends on what the machine will be used for...

Office and Business - Intel
Home - AMD

[Uhlix]

i was checking out this site (http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3370921__1) and it seems they were all neck in neck in most test cept one where amd blew intel away, imma have to check out some more AMD chips. =) i knew not to really compare them by clock speed, but i just thought a whole gigahert more was alot. :)

[james_in_denver]

Um....

AMD,???

1) It's my experience that at the same clock speed, they blow the doors off of Intel's processors.

2) Bang for the buck?, again, my experience is that at the middle tier of processors, AMD again wins hands down.

3) Customer service. I had a problem with a system last year, called AMD, (expired warranty ;( ). They said they would still honor it anyway with a slight slower processor {). I sent in a couple of barcodes from other system's I'd purchased in the previous couple of months, and lo and behold, they upped my replacement quite a bit!!! :) :) :)!!! I was VERY impressed.

[Uhlix]

Um....

AMD,???

1) It's my experience that at the same clock speed, they blow the doors off of Intel's processors.

2) Bang for the buck?, again, my experience is that at the middle tier of processors, AMD again wins hands down.

3) Customer service. I had a problem with a system last year, called AMD, (expired warranty ;( ). They said they would still honor it anyway with a slight slower processor {). I sent in a couple of barcodes from other system's I'd purchased in the previous couple of months, and lo and behold, they upped my replacement quite a bit!!! :) :) :)!!! I was VERY impressed.


sounds good, im thinking of getting an athlon 64 3200+ after seeing what it was able to do on that review i linked to earlyer.


jimispier-might want to shorten up your location some befire you ruin it for me :mad:

[backroger]

Since 1999...we have already converted our server class unit to AMD Processor.

SCO Unix Openserver 5.06a - Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) hosting Unify Dataserver Accell/SQL 52 user based/8 Database Simultaneously running.

SCO Unix System V 3.2v4.2 - Athlon 64 3200 (Clawhammer) hosting Unify Accell/SQL U2000 16 user based/8 Database Simultanesouly running.

RHLE AS 3.0 U3 - Athlon FX 53 - (Developer/Webserver/Gateway for SCO Servers).

Microsoft Windows XP/98 - Athlon XP Variant and old Athlon Slot-1 used to be SCO Servers.

[harlequin]

The main difference between AMD and Intel is the clock speeds. Having said that, AMD chips manage to execute more instructions per clock cycle than the intel. To compare intel and AMD you need to look at the PR ratings of the AMD and the frequency of the intel. So a 3200+AMD (@2.8GHz) is equivalent to a P4 3.2GHz. There are two ways to increase performance of a CPU, the first is to increase the frequency, the second is to increase the number of instructions executed -- guess who chose which. This is why you get an actual FSB frequency of 200MHz will give you up to an insane 800MHz on a P4, and only a 400MHz on an AMD (the memory is running in quad and dual channel respectivly).

I voted for the AMD64, cause it blows away *all* the competition (for single CPUs).

[imdeemvp]

AMD with AMD 64 was name product of the year in 2004. So for overclockers and for people who demand better product at good prices AMD is the choice.

[Puggs]

Opteron should be on the list, and would be my clear favourite.

Even better when you have 2 of them :D :D :D

[dnar]

Which processor is better?
For what application? Power Desktop? Budget Desktop? Laptop? Server?

[Hiltonizer]

if you go for benchmark score per $$... AMD is untouchable. A $96 Athlon XP is much faster than a $155 P4.

64bit Athlons arent quite worth it yet... mabye when costs come down. AMD Barton Based chips with a little over clock are the only way to go :)

My chip = $85 AthlonXP Barton 2800+, OC'd just a tad, and kills P4 3.4ghz... stable and cool at that.

[ewdi]

hard to decide, i have both :) i like my P4 extreme edition for video encoding but i like my A64 for redhat EL 64 :p so i like both :p haha

[Puggs]

hard to decide, i have both :) i like my P4 extreme edition for video encoding but i like my A64 for redhat EL 64 :p so i like both :p haha

I use a Duel AMD Opteron 246 (2Ghz) with 1gig Ram and 3 x 120gig drives raided, it flies though the the video rendering, so far it will do an hours of video rendering in about 45 minutes on just 1 CPU and i can still do plenty of other stuff while i wait. :o ;) :o

[dickinsd]

AMD for me

Started out with the Intel processors. (complete purchased system)

As I started to build my own systems I became aware of the cost of the processor, and I went the AMD route, at the time, the cash I had meant I had to go for a celeron if I wanted an Intel - and they outright suck

I have not looked back really - all of my upgrades and system builds in the last 4 years have been AMD.

I ticked the A64 option, as of right now this is a slight lie, I get mine tomorrow!

I read a couple of computing magazines every now and then, and one of my friends is into benchmarking in a big way (I don't know why - he's a numbers person) the AMD processors always perform well.

I was tepted to go for a Pentium 4 a little while back when I was building my sisters new computer; I found when going down that route, even the motherboards are a little more expensive, especially if you want a motherboard that gets a lot of recommendations from the PC mags.
ALSO what the hell are Intel currently on? with their new numbering system? Intels numbering system is even more confusing than AMD's - Perhaps Intel believe that confusion sells?

Maybe its a ploy that Intel and some of the larger PC manufacturers are going for, a few more numbers thrown in at the sales point, and the poor "newbie" PC buyer will loose total control of their cheque writing hand?

Dave

[s_reynisson]

I just went A64 based on this comparison at Tom's (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-20.html) for my home pc.
When looking at the power these cpu's use it's a no brainer. My AMD 64 Winchester 3200+ also runs at 3500+ using stock fan and voltage and I can't even see any increase in heat!

[Dog-One]

When the IBM POWER5 (http://www-03.ibm.com/technology/power/) (which is now open development (http://power.org/)) goes mainstream and Fedora Core has a stable port for it, I'm certainly going to try it. It's quite possible that AMD and Intel will both have their work cut out for them by the competition. Here's an article for those interested:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/12/10/50FEpower5_1.html

For the moment, I'm very happy with the Athlon 64 chip I'm running. :)

[Varkk]

I am of the opinion that the actual CPU is far less important than the motherboard chipset. In recent years AMD has really been held back by their reliance on 3rd party chipset providers, especially the VIA KT266/333/400 chips. Where as intel have mainly been producing their own chipsets for the P4s. Sure AMD cost less but to get a decent perfoming system you generally had to buy a more expensive motherboard and often even specific brands of RAM. This has changed quie a bit with the introduction of the NF2 and KT600 hips for the Athlon and then the Athlon64 introduced a whole new dimension(Sadly once again chipsets let them down in the initial stages but things are looking much better now with the availability of NF4).

If I was building a new machine now I think I would almost definatly be getting an Athlon64 based system, depending on what the linux driver support was like for the motherboards peripherals like sound and LAN etc.

[v8s10blazer]

Well guys heres what i think:

Intel kicks AMDs ass on laptops.. Im a current owner of a amd 2200+ in my laptop and its fan is loud as hell and its one hot so of a gun!!
My buddy has a centerino powered laptop with some P4... Its quiet, and not as hot...

however in the desktop/server world,
I like amds better. They are slightly cheaper, and amd has cool names!!!!

Right now i love the AMD semprons.. My brothers 1900+ went bad, we got a 2600+ sempron.. VERY nice cpu... Runs cool for an amd!!!

[micha]

Intel Pentium M is the best :)

[Psquared]

lol, i think it is funny how everyone calls the top company in a specific catagory a monopoly...just because they out sell/market everyone else.

I do have a AMD T-Bird 1ghz PC i use as a small file server/ web server. It is a very stable computer but it did run a little warm with the factory heatsink, so i bought a better one and havnt had any problems since.

I am in the process of getting a new PC set up, i have looked all around and i looked into AMD because everyone boast about how much cheaper they are. But i found them to be more then the P4s were bang for buck, perhaps i was just looking at the wrong places (mostly newegg.com). Would love to see some prices that you guys have (not meaning that in a negative way) because i cant find anything cheap when it comes to processors i want.

Check out www.tigerdirect.com. They have the best prices I have seen. If you want to really compare cpus, go to: http://www.tomshardware.com/ and look around.

[AJB2K3]

if your an xp user it has to be intel cpus else sp2 causes havok.

[s_reynisson]

(a flamebait is a flamebait is a flamebait - I know)
Is this a joke? Running sp2 on my dualboot with no problems. Perhaps you know something I don't know?
if your an xp user it has to be intel cpus else sp2 causes havok.
Also, for those who missed my link to Toms Hardware, here (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-20.html) it is again, just compare the power/watts these CPU's use. Also just came across this (http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050117_225242.html), Intel just keeps stepping into it...

[s_reynisson]

Intel's are going to cool down according to this story (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21569). By going "mobile" on the desktop these systems should be very cool and very quiet - finally!
Lot's of interesting issues here, for one this could mean lower prices on the mobile cpu and that should lower the laptop prices. Not sure about the desktop though, guessing they will be less affected. Will AMD follow with a mobile cpu for the destop and will these be made in dual-core versions?

[jayemef]

I prefer AMD for political reasons...

It's also noteworthy to mention though that the gaming world seems to prefer AMD, on average, by about 10%.

[s_reynisson]

I just had one look at this table http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/images/chart_power_load.png
and got the 3200 Winchester, at full blast the 3200 uses 30 watts and the Intel around 100! And then add to that some good performance for a low price :)
If Intel starts to offer more power, more cooler cpu's for similar price I will go Intel again. As it is AMD is in a class of it's own.

[cardinal II]

Uhlix, you have not mentioned one key difference. 64 bit processing. That is the most important difference at the moment, Why would you go 32 when the future is 64?
Pentium 4's are generally slower but run cooler. The only conceivable reason one would go for an Intel is simply ignorance.

[Dr_Strangelove]

I have built both types of systems. It really depends on the applications that you are running. I have not tried Fedora3 on an AMD yet but have heard good things. I run FC3 on my old dual-cpu PIII with great results.

When it come to games, the AMD-A64 kicks some serious butt, hands down. A while back I built a 2.8 ghz A64, 1 gig ram, BFG - FX5600 (Nvidia), system for a friend who plays alot of games and did not have a lot of money. In Doom3 his 2.8 ghz A64 is faster than my P4 with same amount of ram and same display card. Higher frame rates. Web surfing is also great and he is very happy. :)

However.. for serious business app's or number crunching like video editing and encoding I would choose my P4 system. I have tried running app's like Sony Vegas 5.0, DVD Architect 2.0, and Discreet Cleaner on his (and other) AMD systems with mixed unstable results. Intel's P4 seems to be overall more stable and handle serious image manipulation better than AMD (at comparable speeds).


Fedora Core 3 Box:
================
Supermicro P6DGE MB
2 – 750mhz PIII's w/512k L2 cache
1 gig PC-133 SDRAM
BFG - FX5200 (128 meg) Nvidia
80 gig SCSI Seagate Baracuda system drive
120 gig Seagate Data drive
(old) Plextor 16x CD-R


Windoze XP (Home Theater PC – Video Editing) Box:
===========================================
ASUS P4C800E-Deluxe
Intel (Prescott) 3.2Ghz P4 w/1 meg L2 cache (over-clocked @ 3.6 ghz)
SilverStone NT01 ver2 (Nitrogon) CPU Cooler w/2-60mm fans (Very Cool)
1 gig Kingston PC3200 DDR2 SDRAM (with heat spreaders)
BFG FX5600 (Nvidia) 256meg Display card
1-120 gig SATA Seagate Baracuda system/program drive
2-160 gig SATA Seagate Baracuda's (striped RAID 0) data/video drives
PX-716SA Plextor (SATA -dual layer) DVD/CD burner

[oUch]

AMD all the way....any chip

[JayRx1981]

Definitely AMD 64 here. I'm running an Athlon64 3000+ and I'm very happy with it. And since the 3400's have dropped in price recently, I'm sorely tempted to grab it (since I have a socket 754 instead of the newer 939).

And for those interested, http://www.sharkyextreme.com has a weekly updated list for where to find CPU's and memory the cheapest. :)

[dent]

good thing i searched as i'm currently looking at getting a new system. someone mentioned that some programs will not work with the AMD64... wonder what types of programs and why wouldn't it work? (might be stupid question, sorry)
sam

[Puggs]

good thing i searched as i'm currently looking at getting a new system. someone mentioned that some programs will not work with the AMD64... wonder what types of programs and why wouldn't it work? (might be stupid question, sorry)
sam

I have the AMD Opteron 246, and so far i have not had any program under windows and FC3 not work. As a programmer the only real problem i could see is if the program was doing silly things with integers, like using unsigned int for results of some function and then checking for 65535 (or 0xffff or -1 signed) and with a 64 bit integer that just wouldn't work. This is more of a problem with older programs, but novice programers may still fall for this trap.

But at this stage, i would not be buying a 32bit processor, you would be lucky to get 6-12 months usage out of it before needing to go 64bit.

My Office Intel P4 HT 3.2Ghz with SATA, and 1 gig RAM can't keep up with my Dual Opteron 246 (2Ghz) with SATA and 1gig RAM, the only time it has done something better is when i needed to process an image that was 30k x 80k pixel image and that is only because i have a dual screen on mine so less real RAM for it to use.

[jim]

Depends on when coders are going to start porting applications to 64 bit This could take some time. How long do you want to keep this PC before building a new one?

[ieuuk]

ive got an athlon 64 3000+ with 1gb of mem and 2 striped 80gb serial ata drives and it goes like an absouloute rocket... dead pleased with it.

[nilsmo]

AMD has more bang for the buck. There.

[dent]

did abit of research and looked at some different bench marks. it looks like AMD is faster with graphic where as intel is faster on running apps... least that's what i've found so far
take care
sam

[BigJ]

Intel here, though I'm not averse to buying an AMD at some point.

bigJ

[fc_jeff]

I prefer AMD - more speed for the buck. Plus, competition is good. AMD keeps Intel honest and on their toes, and vice-versa.

I'm not adverse to Intel, but prefer AMD for the above reasons.

[sailor]

I use both P4(desktop) and AMD sempron(laptop)...both work well

[s_reynisson]

Sheesh, I have until now used both Intel and AMD, but guess what I'm buying these days? ;)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638
(It looks like Intel has gone the MS way with DRM...)

[Linux The Great]

My family has 8 machines. Duron 900;2X Athlon XP 1800s, 2000, 2400, 2800; Athlon 64 3000 and 3200.

I have purchased 9 AMD processors. A K5 166, A K6 400, K6-2 500, Duron 600, Duron 900, Athlon XP 1800, Athlon 2400, Athlon 64 3000, Athlon 64 3200.

I'm not telling which way my vote goes. :D

[TheWizzard]

For servers I usually use PA-RISC. The newer dual core Intel's are okay, but I've found the dual core opteron's are overall a better performer for both server and workstation. The AMD 64 dual cores are nice, but the new Opteron 880's still perform better by a long shot. They also run cooler and are very stable.

To be direct, I lost faith in Intel when they decided they were the best and didn't need to put as much effort into QA like they used to. Intel's tend to have problems over time, where as I have never had an AMD cpu go bad or be problematic. (I'm still a big PA-RISC user, though!)

[kona0197]

It's nice to see AMD is coming out on top in this poll. :)

[condorito]

Based on a performance/price criteria, I go with AMD. I have only built AMD puters for the last 6 years.

[Firewing1]

Yeah... AMD is taking over with the X2 on desktops...
BTW, I think X2 / FX option needs to be added :)
Firewing1

[thugpoet22]

im an amd fan but my old system was a p3 700 mhz that baby is still running strong. My new system has a athlon xp 3000 thats like a 2.1 ghz. This system is nice. The only reason i didn't go with the amd 64 is i dont want to pay so much money for a graphics card, that pci express had brought up the price of of graphics cards and im not a hard core gamer, but i want something that mid range and no a whole lot of money, so i got this processor and a mother board that upgrades to 4 gigs of memory, i think i will be alright for a few more years lol :)

[JN4OldSchool]

Finally finishing my "big" computer I have been planning and working on for two years now. Needless to say my plans have kept changing as the hardware has. I already have the case, PSU, optical drives, fan controler etc... Am about to order the guts, the mobo, cpu, ram, gpu...Was pleasently suprised to see the AMD Athlon 64 x2 4800+ has dropped considerably in price probably due to the release of the FX60. I'm getting one, I'm getting one, I'm getting one...

[Blackspyder]

for example AMD (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-486&depa=0) that cost $150 and has 1ghz less then this INTEL (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-184&depa=0) so for 30 more $$$ i get 1ghz more a higher FSB and more l2 catch.


do the AMDs run diffrently? Like there chip with less ghz will perform better then an intel chicp with the same amount?

The reason behind the lower speeds is that the AMD 64 actually runs at 2x the rated speed when compared to older processor speeds (ie: my AMD 64 runs @ 1.8GHz but due to the usage of the dual channel it actually works faster then my moms P4 @ 3.4 GHz b/c it actually runs like a 3.6GHz)

Also there really is no FSB for AMD 64 being as there isnt really a Northbridge

Read about it on AMD's website www.amd.com

[Coolerthanyou]

I'm about to buy a PC with AMD 64 and I will probably try a 64 linux distro. More bang for the buck with the AMD, supposively. Never really cared on weather AMD or Intel unless it was a lousy budget version like a Celeron, I avoided those. But on all the PC I've worked with, I've noticed the speed difference for sure, but hardly noticed one between Intel and AMD on closely matched speeds *SHRUG* If anyone tells you they do notice, it's all psychological. The benchmarks are also ridiculously irrelevant in terms of perception. It's like saying "space is not technically a vacuum because there are traces of airs (fractions in billionths)" sure but you'd die out there just the same as in an absolulte vacuum.

[LinuxHippy]

I've been using an AMD Athlon 64 for 7 months now with FC4 x86_64 and am very pleased with it. The only time it is slow is with yumex....that might be the program. Everything else is snappy!

The cost was nice-$430 for a tower with DVD burner and 200 gig harddrive! I think the reason it was so cheap is that it came pre-installed with WinXP Home 32 bit addition which is not able to harness the full capacity of a 64 bit CPU. I repartitioned the drive, put WinXP on a small 15 GB partition (I never use it) and use the rest of the drive for FC4 64 bit edition.

The cool & quiet technology is a plus-it powers down to 1 GHz most of the time and ramps up to 2.8 GHz when more power is needed!

[narasim_7]

I am currently using P4 but two of my friends have recently bought Athlon 64 . They are great. Currently I am doing an advanced Computer Architecture course where there is case study of P4 and Itanium on one side and another RISC processor . Would be interesting to see how P4 has lost on instr/watt . AMD is having a cool and quiet technology and thats very important here in INDIA where summers are extermely hot . Just waiting for another year and i will definitely upgrade to an AMD processor.

[0u73rh34v3n]

AMD all the way baby, 1. its faster 2. its cheaper 3. its BETTER 4. it sounds 1337 (not that, thats a reason or anything lol), 5. intel boasts about hyperthreading asif AMD has never heard of that technology and 6... Gaming computers i say probably demands the most out of computer performance... and which processor is RECOMMENDED for gaming...? AMD!
and dont mention the dell xps series, they only use intel processors coz they lick their ass'

i might be wrong, then again i prefer windows over *nix lol

(some of the reasons above are really lame, but im off uni today as im ill... and also bored... am i still talking?)

[psyklops]

Very, very, extremely happy with my AMD 64 :) Seeing what AMD is doing and has done, I have no need to explore other options.

For corporate use, price/performance and bang/for buck are valued and weighted differently between different organizations and we'll certainly still see Intel a fairly dominant player here with AMD gaining strongly. In the meantime, AMD are seriously gaining reputation in the enterprise space and especially with organizations looking at Blade-servers. People are looking to maximise compute density via the best price performance vs. power consumption and heat within data centres charging floor-space.

Power5, Itanium, PA-RISC etc. we'll not see any of these hit consumer main-stream! The price on one of these CPU's (coupled with the server, racking requirements, support and implementation) from the vendors is enough to buy luxury automobile or possibly a small home in the outer-suburbs :) :D

[Omega Blue]

I don't think it makes much difference for most people at this point, except in terms of bang/buck. The fastest CPUs of the current generation have more computational power than most users would need. Even the low end ones are quite sufficient for most uses.

What do you really need if all you do is Web surfing and some casual writing? Most of us aren't diehard FTS players that must have that one extra frame per second or do serious 3D graphics/visualisation.

[JN4OldSchool]

I don't think it makes much difference for most people at this point, except in terms of bang/buck. The fastest CPUs of the current generation have more computational power than most users would need. Even the low end ones are quite sufficient for most uses.

What do you really need if all you do is Web surfing and some casual writing? Most of us aren't diehard FTS players that must have that one extra frame per second or do serious 3D graphics/visualisation.

I have been saying this a lot. I think we have reached a plateu in computer hardware. What we currently have is more than most people would ever need. You mentioned the CPU's, how much RAM is too much? I dont notice much difference between 1GB and 2GB. How much hard drive space do you really need? I was happy with 30GB though it could become very tight. 80GB seems like more than I would ever use. I have 880GB in my latest PC. Come on now, will I ever use even 1/10th of that? For real. Graphics cards...When you reach the point the the increase in FPS cant even be seen with the naked eye but has to be measured in benchmarking tests then you are just wasteing your money. Computers will keep advancing and I will keep building new ones with the latest stuff. But, I thin k we reached the point a year or two ago where we really dont need more than we already have.

[psyklops]

Bill Gates said those famous words as well :)

For the most part, most people can get away with half the technology that's available for day to day computing needs... but that's today.... What's happening is that there is a trend to start using technology differently. Home Theatre PC and home entertainment systems running Hi-Def all require pretty grunty systems now-days. Broadband into the house will require more storage needs as we start to download (encrypted and digitally signed content - which will require some processing power x2) to our homes. Bigger and faster broadband will define new ways on how we receive and send content.

The other side of it is that Microsoft are helping hardware vendors sell more product. I recall reading some where about the Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology will require some serious CPU grunt to decode video/music etc. on the fly - plus the required storage to store digital content on your pc.

Digital TV + user interaction. i.e. being able to interact with content streaming live to your TV/PC/Home entertainment system and back again in high-def. Kinda like a game is going to require some processing power.

IMHO, the current technology is being shaped to do these sorts of things and into the future...

[JN4OldSchool]

yeah, dont get me wrong. Technology will always increase at a rapid pace. And we will find new ways to do old things. We will always need more power. I agree. What I am saying though is that even 5 years ago the average home computer couldnt easily do the things we needed done. Shoot, I look back on my Win 95 days where you spent more time waiting for things to load than you spen actually doing anything. 32MB RAM and 3.2GB drives just dont cut it. But today the home desktop is more than what is currently needed. Operating systems will grow and have larger footprints requiring more resources, data size will grow requiring more storage space, games will become better requiring more graphics power...I understand all this. All I'm saying is that until now we have been left wanting with our computers. For the first time I am fully satisfied.

[Dan]

Speed is not the only factor to consider. In average usage, side by side, my AMD Athlon XP 3000+ @1.8 Ghz runs applications faster than my P-4@ 2.1Ghz. However, the AMD is highly intolerant of inadequate cooling. The P-4 has more thermal headroom. (Nothing can bring tears to the eyes of a grown man faster than the smell of all the magic smoke escaping from a Barton core AMD Athlon XP.) :eek:

[Scytale]

I don't mean to troll or anything here but has anyone noted any problems with motherboards/chipsets for either processor, For me P4 motherboards tend to be a lot better. I recently bought a motherboard for an Athlon 64 and had all soughts of problems with hardware detection drivers etc, both in Windows and Linux, its running Gentoo at the moment as it was the only OS I could get Raid 5 to work in and it still screws up a lot, I think the kernel patch I got from VIA is buggy. This was my first AMD computer after a long string of Pentiums which have worked flawlessly for me, I was sucked in by the cheaper price and I must admit it has turned me off AMD, I'm really disapointed.

My Mac Book pro has a nice 2.0 ghz core duo in it and I must say I'm very impressed with its performance, it does get awfully hot though, I think Intel are onto a winner with this chip.