I'm not entirely sure what Doberman was trying to say; but I do doubt he was even reffering to the Itanium.
The point is; in this we are looking forward into a time where we can use the 64-bit to full use. It doesn't matter whether we can or cannot now - but in the time that we are discussing, we theorise that Intel will wallop AMDs arse in the matter.
But by all means, lets move on from that theoretical subject to which we cannot agree until the time when the stats will prove either of us right or wrong.
Point is; this is an ignorant (no offense to Barrett, I quite like him) thread flaming Intel and I think from such a title you can expect the opposite to counter it. Would you prefer or expect 'cheer's and 'yey's and 'down with Intel's? Not even is the main body of the original post correct; "AMD 64 3200 whoops up on it in most benchmarks" is not a correct statement - as in a majority, however close, the Intel beats the AMD. And when Intel is beaten - it is in no way by such a degree to classify as 'whoops up'. The only major stumbling point in the Prescott; which is the reason I did not buy it - is because AMD64s are, well, 64-bit. I needed this for Longhorn-Beta-2 and othersuch 64-bit Applications I may get between now and 2006 when I can get an Intel 64-bit instead.
If you want to battle out over the pros and cons of Intel versus AMD - come with an Army; not a Decain thanks.