Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64

[alvino]

AMD: For gaming
Intel: For multi-tasking and multimedia stuff (like Media Centers)
Apple: For any special multimedia/design needs.

 

[winterfreshpwnz]

You forgot to mention how AMD is better for office apps, and running applications in general.

 

[jack22]

Yes, AMD is acctusly better at multitasking. Intel wins ina little viedo editing by a little, thats all.

 

[winterfreshpwnz]

Nah, from the benches I've seen Intel holds a really small lead in the multitasking, and an another small lead in video editing, but intel still owns in rendering. Other than that stuff, and maybe along with photo editing or anything related to it, and some encoding, Intel doesn't have the advantage. It just really depends on what you do most on your computer, there isn't really an overall better CPU. They have their pro's and cons.

 

[Giancarlo]

Nah, AMD 64 is definitely the better of the two.

 

[alvino]

Nah, AMD 64 is definitely the better of the two.

Meh...it depends what your needs are, really.

 

[winterfreshpwnz]

Exaclty what I just said, there can't really be an overall better CPU, I mean, I prefer AMD, but that's only cuz it's better at what I do on my computer. Although I must say, the addition of SSE3 instruction is gonna be big and might give AMD the edge, or at least in the future.

 

[Giancarlo]

Exaclty what I just said, there can't really be an overall better CPU, I mean, I prefer AMD, but that's only cuz it's better at what I do on my computer. Although I must say, the addition of SSE3 instruction is gonna be big and might give AMD the edge, or at least in the future.

I can't wait. AMD already has a sizable edge against Intel and that will continue to grow.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I know. This topic has probably been done LOADS of times before, but i need to know; what's the difference? I always hear about how Athlon 64s wipe the floor with P4s, but i've also heard that P4s beat the A64s at video-editing and multitasking (which appeal to me). I'm not a PC-gamer, as i have a PS2 for that, so i was wondering what's better for multitasking and video-editing among other things like time it takes to boot up a computer and loading programs etc.

If you're not a PC Gamer get a 6xx; if you to pay £1,500 for a games console get an AMD

Whatever sizable edge they had 18 months ago has been destroyed already. Intel sold more EM64T processors in the few months than AMD have ever sold 64-bit Processors. I've yet to see 6xx Benchmarks but I think we've all seen the details on CNet; there is nothing between the two except price, and even that is not what AMD would like us to think from its XP days when it was made of polystyrene and little ants carried the numbers around the processor written on leaves.

There will never be an overall best as WinterFresh said but there will always be somebody ahead By however much, AMD fans have been playing the Gamer Card for far too long waving the ties on everything else off. It will be nice to see what the 6xx does for the ties to make them matter again.

 

[acphenom]

I think i'll have to go for the Athlon 64, as it's considerably cheaper and consumes less power. At least that's what i've heard.