Basically the best you can afford. AMD doesn't have hyper-threading as far as I know. A consideration may be the types of programs that you will be running most - some types run faster on Athalons while others run faster on P4s. I wouldn't kick either one out of bed, I like them both.
Intel vs AMD..... how big's your budget? If it's excessive go A64, if its large go P4HT or P4EE and anything else go Barton. -- Just remember to get a good mobo.
I like them both. I have noticed that the AMD chips seem to run 10-15 degrees F hotter than a similar P4. My biggest complaint with the AMD chips is how you have to install a heatsink/cpu fan. You really have to put a lot of pressure on the clips to get them installed where the P4s you just put the heatsink on and flip a couple levers to tighten. Of course if you buy a prebuilt system you don't have to worry about that unless you have to replace it. AMD does not have hyperthreading. As far as speed goes, games seem to run a little better on the AMDs, but not by a really noticeable margin. Divx encoding seems to run better on the Pentiums, but again just a slight difference. That said, I usually go with P4s when I build a system. I had some overheating troubles with the earlier Athlons so heat is a concern of mine. The ease of heatsink installation is a factor too since I build my own.
Well, from my experience, Intel and AMd are just as fast, but Intle's P4 chips are great with compatibily, whereas some AMD's have tiny little glitches or slowdowns that my intel's never had. P4 goes up to 3.4 ghz now I think and I believe AMD is at speed 3400 too. but they're very costly and useless for the moment. Best of luck!
Costly yes but useless???? Xian: the problem about heat was with the older Palomino chips (not the Tbred/Barton ones). With my XP2100 I have it grooves at 45°C-50°C but has bee known to hit 60°C when doing several hourse of video encoding in the summer. None of those temps are especially dangerous. With my Barton procs, they chill in the 40°C range.
Intel Vs AMD in short: Intel build for the present and future applications. AMD build for the now applications Both are good, do you need a processor that will work for the future applications or the ones that are out at the moment?
My best friend is a project engineer for AMD. I asked him the same question one night. Without hesitation he replied Intel Pentium. Enough said.
I dont know where some of you get your information, but as I do agree that both chips are good it just comes down to what you want to run. Contrary to Intel Hype, AMD is 100% compatible with software. They did have some glitches in the K6 line, but none that I have ever seen in the Athlon line. As far as power for future apps. Someone said intel. C'mon people AMD has built an affordable 64bit solution to appeal to everyone. Intel may have one in the works, but AMD is here now. Microsoft already said that it will write the code for AMD64 and if intel wants to release a similar chip it will have to be compatible with that. I have built hundreds of computers and I usually choose AMD. The only innovative thing Intel has done in the last years is Hyperthreading which does give an advantage on some apps. Megahert for Megahert AMD whips Intel's but. That is why an AMD chip at 2.2 GHz can compete with an Intel one that is almost a 1000 mhz faster. AMD would be more of a competitor if companies would see the truth and not let Intel buy their way into making apps run better on their chips. Also Intel has to pay OEMs to keep from selling AMD (AKA DELL) I know it may be like a Ford vs Chevy thing, but hey I gotta give AMD credit. They have come a long way since Intel shut the door on them.
Praetor hands bobiroc a beer.... wait no... Praetor runs off..... Praetor drives the beer truck toe bobiroc's house. VERY WELL SAID.
Well I just think that for the average user, right now, a pentium 3.4 ghz is completely useless. But if you're running very heavy applications, then that's something different. It all depends on what you need one for. For the average user, I can't think of any reason why I'd need to pay an extra 800 dollars for a chip I dont' need. but I'm sure a lot of you have purposes for it.
Useless? I wouldn't say anything is useless. I have a lot of papers on my desk and that always is a good use. But seriously, what every one and I mean everyone should do is sit down. Grap a piece of paper and a pen and write down what you will want to use the Computer for. Most people only need a Pentium 233. If you do gaming, video editing, ete then you need more speed or lots of coffee. For data anaysis, the faster the chip the beter. But for AMD versus Intel, I would say which ever is cheaper on the day that you go buy your system is better. Why pay more money for two things that you really can't find too many differences with. Also heat is a good thing, it gets cold in Canada, like now and heating is expensive. I would rather rest my feet on my tower to warm them up then pay extra on heating.
Ya well, I live in Montreal and I bought an AMd for really cheap and it overheats all teh time, the fans start spinning wildly sometimes, but it's good for me during the winter. I guess I'll have to get a better fan for the summer, that's all! heheh
