Originally Posted by CoMpUtaFrEek
I'm going to take a new angle on things and I think it's quite an important one.
Value for money...
Lets look at things from a price view. (Prices exact taken from overclockers.com inc. VAT)
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 2.8GHz = £135.13
AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3200+ = £135.07
Intel Pentium 4 "Prescott" 3.6GHz = £468.82
AMD Athlon 64 3800 (Socket 939) = £467.06
Which is best value for money?
Is that an important angle? When you're buying a PC - seriously you should have saved up for it and get only what you want - what you want is power and if you've saved up you should have the money to choose Power over Price.
The Prescott (3.6) has a Meg Cache! The Athlon 64 has 0.5? maybe less even. Not only that but the Prescott 3.6 is faster than the Athlon 3800 in most Application Tests anyway. AMD stress that Ghz aren't everything - then people backing them try and take that same attack on Intel? Bit weird eh?
The Prescott (2.8) is a powerful Prcoessor - the Athlon Barton is a dead processor - the line is dead. There are no more. The Prescott is newer will have twice the cache again and will be more powerful - the same argument applies as before - except saying the Athlon XP 3200 is better than the Intel Prescott 2.8 is completely stupid
because the Prescott is a base-3.2 Processor - the technology started at 3.2 and the 2.8 is merely a back down of it for cheaper users. It is years newer than the technology the Athlon XP is based on.