For many years, AMD and Intel have had competition, what we all want to know is that, which is better AMD or Intel?

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1194
vs
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html

PcStats states that intel is faster when multi-tasking because of HyperThreading Technology.

[quote]I know AMD loyalists will scream this "Ya, Intel has the performance crown, but their CPU's run 700-800 MHz higher then AMD's! That's not fair, also you can overclock an Athlon to beat a P4." First, life's not fai r- that should be pretty obvious and so what if Intel CPU's need to run 700-800 MHz higher in order to beat an AthlonXP 2200+ (1.8 GHz)? Faster performance is faster performance and Intel's wearing the crown at the moment. AMD CPU's do overclock well and they're more fun to play with thanks to the ability to unlock the multiplier but you can also overclock P4's. Almost all 1.6A's out there can hit 2.4 GHz without even breaking a sweat, and many even can do 2.7 GHz![/quote]


From ZDnews

[quote]Overall, the test results tended to favor AMD's chips for mainstream applications. That's a potential challenge for Intel, given that the AMD parts are cheaper and cooler. The 3800+ chip consumes 91 watts of power at idle, rising to 172 watts under a full load. That compares with 155 watts at idle and 258 watts under a full load for the Pentium 4 560.[/quote

[quote]benchmarks from ZDNet Germany's labs.

In a test, Intel's Pentium 4 560 running at 3.6GHz and the 3.4GHz Pentium 4 550 failed to outperform alternatives from AMD. The Pentiums, both with the new Prescott core and 1MB of onboard Level 2 cache, were pitted against the Athlon 64 3800+ running at 2.4GHz and the 2.2GHz 3500+.

The benchmarks indicated that the Athlon 64 has an advantage in office and Internet applications, and with 3D games, said Kai Schmerer, the senior editor who conducted the tests for ZDNet Germany, which is part of CNET Networks. [/quote]

[quote] The lower power consumption of the AMD parts arises from their lower clock frequency, as well as from AMD's use of silicon-on-insulator technology.

AMD's 64-bit chips also support the NX (No Execute) feature, which safeguards them from certain virus attacks. Intel has announced that the Pentium 4 is to support the NX feature later this year. [/quote]


Discuss.[/quote]

I would use Intel on buisness machines, or people who use multiple programs at once, and AMD on Gaming machines.

I agree, thats what i thought. though im talking Overall. My brother is a dumbass he didn't listen to me when i explained him that, anywhom the other day he came from the computer store, stating that the computer worker said " Intel and AMD are the same, only difference is Intel is better" god knows what else, i forgot what he said.


Also someone who worked for dell told me that AMD sempron is better than AMD athlon xp.
Also he told me Amd Athlon CPU's, are garbage, and they burn automatically after 6months, also they have no warranties. He also told me that they failed some sort of test. Is any of this true?

look at the x2 and pentiumd. The x2 outclasses the pentium d quite obviously, but the pentium d is much cheaper. Looks to me like amd and intel are switching places. AMD was always the cheap one, that was always the big argument against intel, intel is expencive, but with amd64 and x2 AMD is the one doing the rheeming.

[quote author=NocBrute link=topic=12658.msg126083#msg126083 date=1125389276]
Also someone who worked for dell told me that AMD sempron is better than AMD athlon xp.
Also he told me Amd Athlon CPU's, are garbage, and they burn automatically after 6months, also they have no warranties. He also told me that they failed some sort of test. Is any of this true?
[/quote]

No. As evidence I need only enter my own system, which is running an Athlon XP 2200+ that's now running into it's fourth year of life.

It seems silly to be timing anything on how fast it can run an "Internet application," since most network-related programs will spend the bulk of their life waiting for the network to do something useful.  I'm also somewhat dubious about using "office applications," since they too will be limited by factors other than CPU speed.  Now, if the win on gaming isn't rigged, that's somewhat more impressive, since games are notorious for finding inefficient ways to do things.

As for the NX feature - that claim reflects typical non-technical reporting.  Virii spread via user intervention (usually stupid user intervention, but sometimes just uninformed or unaware).  Worms spread through buffer overflow (among other means), which NX can prevent if you configure it and if you only use software which doesn't run afoul of it in normal operation.  The spread of both worms and virii is much better curbed by use of something like GRSecurity, which lets you define very specific roles for each application.

X2 is the fastest processor for PC's on the market right now, of course it's going to cost you.

Duh.