you know Intel has its own problems too. But for your concern those buggs have been worked out except for those hyper threaders have some MAJOR problems of there own, where as AMD is a stable baseline prossessor the faults the AMD k6 were recontroled by the introduction of the t-birds giving AMD there stability and over all perfomance over intel now with the introduction of the AMD 64 the question is can intel stand up,in both stability and dependability

I have a variety of pcs. None of which I am willing to give up and I have no real preference of AMD over Intel (although I do have preferences for my setups).
I have a PIII-500 and a PIII 1GHz which I never plan to retire.
Old pcs are the "insert expletive here".
I wish I had a K6 as well..

c'mon you know you like AMD better

I like the current AMD's due to their better architecture but I like older Pentiums.

AMD is hotter tho...but a nice heatsink never hurt anyone![/QUOTE]
Amd 64 is not a hotter processor. The new 90nm run much cooler than intel.

Even if AMD is hot Intel is too have you ever heard of a heatsink or a fan? :cheesy: :twisted:

Even if AMD is hot Intel is too have you ever heard of a heatsink or a fan? :cheesy: :twisted:

W0W DOOD! OMG U R S000000zero RITE!

Come on, man, let's be reasonable here. We've at least gotten past saying that current AMD/Intel systems suck because their 7-8 year old equivalents sucked, let's at least get to outlining why you like a certain chip, rather than ridicule others for not liking your chosen chip.

I happen to be an AMD fan myself, but that's because I'm a broke son of a gun. Personally, I don't really care that one chip will get you 5 more FPS in Doom 3, so long as it's not freezing, and there's not a pile of molten ceramic/silicon at the bottom of my case! :cheesy:

W0W DOOD! OMG U R S000000zero RITE!

And the rest.
Well said, I don't see any problem in having a cpu from either company as long as you can do what you want.

I'd go with both personally...
Recent Pentiums are workhorses, they are like oxes they go at a specific speed not much changes until you get the added advantage of multiplier changes 3.4ghz and onwards, anyway, they are good for computing (making calculations).

Recent high end AMD's seem to appeal to gamers i have no problem with that but it does limit there power somewhat. There like birds they go really quick but cant carry alot of wieght.

I dont like taking sides on this issue they are both very reasonable CPU's an very good in thier fields. In my view they shouldnt be compared at all... they are so different they are built from two different manufacters!!

I run 2 Athlon MP's and a P4 prescott. I'd say I like the Pentium better because I've had less compatibilty issues with it when running games. Also, my room temperature is much lower while running only the pentium. If I wasn't into playing and making games, I'd stick with my Athlons. I overclocked my P4 2.8e to 3.0 and it ran stable for days without any reboots, running on an Asus board. Haven't tried overclocking Athlons because of the high temperature they already run at. My Athlon MP setup would run 20 degrees warmer than the Pentium system, possibly something to consider.

Phaelax, comparing that Prescott to its Athlon64 competitor would be a valid comparison to make about relative thermal efficiency. Comparing it to a dual processor system, where the processors are based on a different core to the Prescott's competitor, is not really a valid comparison to make.

Technically if I have my say, I'd choose AMD, although my uncommon a** always chooses the dumb ones. Pentium has their good ones, but I have yet to see the performance of the P4 3.6GHz Extreme Edition.

One more thing, I was at Staples a month back and was testing the computers, I looked at one that had a P4 3.2GHz processor to a AMD 3300+ processor, and believe it or not, I opened Windows Media Player on both, and I timed it to take AMD 4 seconds to open, while the P4 took around 10-15 seconds.

Basically -- My Choice is CLEAR!

System startup time is not a good basis for comparison. there are far too many variables at play in the process to conclude that the difference is related to the processor. Most slow startups are due to the networking components configuration ;)

I fail to see how someone that has identical software systems with two different processsors could tell the difference. Assuming that speed is comparable, of course.

I fail to see how someone that has identical software systems with two different processsors could tell the difference. Assuming that speed is comparable, of course.

I have to agree with meksikatsi. If all things are equal in two different computers except the comparable processors, memory is comparable in amount and speed, HDs are comparable in speed, etc., etc., it would be impossible for a human being to measure any difference whatsoever.

The rest is just based on conjecture and is opinion and you all know the axiom about opinion...:mrgreen:

If you want to know which is better, in the UK buy and read pc adviser
They show the best 10 pcs each month in three categories.
Power PCs Budget PCs and Superbudget PCs. They use a benchmark tool called worldbench 5. in the Power PC section The Amds regularly score 100+ while intel regularly score 90. the only time an Intel has scored 100 was because it was a 3.6 GHz overclocked to 4.1 GHz. Since my first Amd duron processor pc, I’ve never considered an Intel. My brother prefers Intel but his pc regularly freezes and his games just don’t seem right. Even with his £250 NVIDIA card I find amds to be more stable and better value for what you get. Also Intel are in trouble in Japan for unfair trading against Amd by offering manufactures rebates if they keep there pcs running amds down to 10% of all produced. Buying Intel is just buying a name.

AMD is better. It beats Intel in benchmarks.

p4 is the best and the best p4 Ht extrem edition:1066MHz system bus provides up to 25 percent improved , 1MB to each core u can run nmultiple applications, such as editing video while downloading music.
of do a virus check in the back ground and dont forget 64 bit. it time to show AMD to the door , sure the p4 extrem is expencive but were is AMD's 2 core processer

errmmm.....

AMD64 outperforms P4EE in most tasks, and Athlon FX outeperforms it it most of the remainder of tasks.

AMD64X2 processors have now gone retail, and outperform the dual core Pentium processors by a considerable margin. There is currently no market niche for which Intel has a better performing processor available than AMD.

No questions asked. AMD rules (Is that a cliche'd statement or what?)

As mentioned here, the P4s are extremely overpriced. Case in point. I can get a P4 3.04 GHz with an intel original mobo for Rs 8900 (I stay in India, hence the Rupees. Current exchange rate is Rs 45 to the dollar). However, for Rs 8500, I can getthe AMD 64 2800+ with an MSI K8MM mobo. I call that a steal. I also assembled an AMD 64 2800+ based machine with the following specs for approx $650 (Rs 29200)

AMD Athlon 64 2800+
MSI Via K8MM Chipset based mobo with AGP 8X, 3 PCI, onboard graphics, sound, LAN, 2 SATA ports, VIA RAID built in and 4 USB
Samsung Flatron 17" Monitor
XFX GeForce FX 5200 GFX Card with 128 MB RAM
512 MB System RAM
Pixelview Internal TV Tuner Card with FM
Microsoft Keyboard+Microsoft Optical Mouse (bought as a Keyboard + Mouse Kit)
ATX Cabinet with 350 W Power Supply and 2 extra cooling fans
Internal Intex V92 56 KBPS Modem
Intex 2000W 2.1 Speakers with subwoofer
Sony Internal DVD/CD-RW Combo Drive (52x/32x/52x/16x)
Sony FDD
80 GB Seagate SATA Hard Disk

Oh and the system is black color.

I say AMD gives you the best performance (benchmarks prove it time and again) and the best value for money. Go the AMD way.