AMD equivalent of Intel

[connchri]

Well, you see, There is one major flaw with all those banchmarks my Friend. Lac3y, pay attention.

Now look at all your memory benchmarks. They all top of at around the 3.2GB/s - the theoretical maximum for the Skt745 Athlon 64's. Guess what, that means they are the older, single channel memory AMD Athlons 64's.

Now, I did mention the Venice core 3200+, i.e SEE3 Intruction set, dual channel Memory controller amongest a few other updates. What the use on comparing Extreme Edition P4 with 1.066GHz FSB (Aka, 8.4GB/s theoretical maxium Memory throughput) with the older compitition. Silly boy. Here, I'll post some links to some latest benchmarks.

Oh, funnily enough, every competent PC enthusiest should know that synthetic benchmarks can sometimes mean nothing to real life usage. Why not get some program benchmarks up there too. Never mind, I'll do it for you......

In each case, I've selected the Venice 3200+ compared to a 3.2GHz P4 600 Series (630). These are both in red in the comparison chart. Oh, notice how the AMD Athlon X2 is top of most of those benchmarks. They weren't even availible at the time they benchmarks you posted were made.... tut tut..
Another point, comare the old Clawhammer 3200+ benchmarks (the one in your comparison) to the new Venice ones that I was talking about. (You know, the ones you actually buy in shops now) and you'll see a difference there too.

P4 10% faster at encoding, Hmm - Exactly as I said
Athlon 7.6% faster, in 3D studio Max 7
8 FPS faster here too
My My? Whats this?
A Encoding benchmark with lame MP3 encoder, Looks like the Athlons on a Ball here
Another encoding Benchmark, Kudos to P4, they win by 5 second
Another Victory for P4, but not much in it again
Multi-tasking, as I said in my previos thread, the P4 excels
Another one...

Now, Look. I said that the 630 and the Athlon 64 3200+ are probably the clossest performance wise. I said also Intel is better at the Miltitasking. I also said the P4 630 is the most future proof. Where Am I wrong?

Now, do those benchmark comparisons again with your P4 2.8GHz. To say that the Athlon 3200+ is like a 2.8GHz P4 is laughable.

[EDIT]

I made a mistake of comparing the 630 instead of the 640. This probably brings the P4 inline with the Athlon even more so. Only a 200MHz difference.

A Athlon 3200+ is bassically the same as a 640 performance wise, except from what I previously said. Still nothing like a 2.8GHz.

 

[mammikoura]

Now I went to tomshardware (throught the links u gave me) and kept the same 3200+ that u had selected, and changed the second one to P4 3.0Ghz.

Then I looked at all of the benchmarks.
The P4 3.0Ghz performed better in 16 of the non game benchmarks, amd was better in 5.
So there a 3.0Ghz intel P4 was better than the 3200+ u made the comparison with.

Now I don't want to check through all of the gaming benchmarks, but there is 6 of them, and we can assume that amd was better in all of them.
So that would mean that a 3.0Ghz won 16 of the benchmarks, when the 3200+ Venice core won 11.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=247&model2=226&chart=74
that is the link to the 1st benchmark, and as most of u should notice u can change the benchmark from the box just ontop of the picture of the current benchmark.

edit: u can also check how it ends with a P4 2.8Ghz and the 3200+ Venice core. Im guessing that the 3200+ performs better in most of the benchmarks.
And that would just mean that in these particular benchmarks the 3200+ was better than a 2.8Ghz P4, and worse than a 3.0Ghz P4. Which is quite much what I said in my 1st post.