I personally have always preferred Intel and have used similar spec systems with either processor. this is a preference and based on my opinions. I suppose both are very good, but it really depends on a number of other factors, like RAM and Hard Disk speed, and most importantly the graphics card used. Stick a Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB DDRAM in it and your flying
1. ATi is no longer the speed champ (although this comment is likely to start a little hardware war, hehe, bring it ) 2. After a certain point, (i.e., $300), damn near every video card/system-config is decent enough. Like seriously, when they alpha'd Doom3 last year they were running on DX8 cards and it was still sweet. Granted it was without all the fancy DX9 special effected but the important thing is - it is playable. 3. If you have the budget for it, consider upping to either a XP3200 (which uses the 400Mhz bus). 4. If i am not mistaken, the P42.8 you speak of is a Northwood-B (which features an outdated and ultimately abandoned 533 bus - of course i could be wrong). Consider upgrading to a Springdale-Canterwood. The performance jolt is quite noticeable. 5. Yay Doom3... booo HL2 (again, another troublestarter hehe)
This is pretty much a same question I've had in my mind for some time now, as I'm planning to upgrade my comp. Conclusion for me was to wait for Athlon64 to come out @ end of september, it will not only show how AMD can compete Intel in future, but also will propably lower AthlonXP prices. Same with Prescot for intel, but last I heard it will be out next year. So, my advice would be to wait for sometime, if you don't have any urgent need to upgrade. If you want a new system NOW, I would suggest to think on what purpose do you need it. Those are both good, and although HT processors are better in multitasking than without, they are not as good at it as dual processor sytem, and there is only a few, mostly high-end, softwares that actually supposrt multi/hyper threadning. Sometimes, especially with no support, HT can actually slow down it's performance. So if your constantly running multiple applications, HT might be a good solution, if not... I would say AthlonXP is better. True that altest Intel is faster than latest AMD, but who really will se difference with few %, in the end it is the performance/cost factor that will decide. Go to see some review in net if you want help with you decision. hope that helps =) EDIT: typos her nad there... 01:11 isn't best time to write a good reply ^_^
Would you care to elaborate? Doesnt seem to make sense that the CPU/MOBO would affect system stability or something. I've done both Intel and AMD systems (as an active occupation and hobby) and Intel does have the performance lead however for the cost of the system, AMD still wins performance/dollar. Unless you have a huge-budget or something, the average user will benifit much more from an AMD system (since you will have plenty of money left over to spend on other parts) I used to be an Intel fan... then they released the P4 and it costed a goddamn fortune for the performance... and i switched ot AMD and found out i could afford stuff again hehe (not to mention i've had better luck OCing AMD systems rather than Intel systems).
No. Athlon64 is to be out @ september 23rd, you might be confused between Athlon64, Opteron or AMD64 brands. True, I've seen some resellers already selling Athlon64 comps, but you wont get those systems before it's official launch day (23rd)... or was it 22nd... can't remember but it dosen't matter =)
My bad... yet another case of stupid marketing labels.... AthlonFX vs P4 NorthwoodC: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11339
I asked that same question to a friend of mine (an engineer/project manager for AMD). Without consideration he replied Intel.
