Can anyone update me on the new processors released from Intel and which are better by comparison to each other?  Specifically ones from this year, 2005.  For instance, the standard P4 3.2GHz w/ HT vs. Pentium D w/ Dual Core technology, etc.  I'd appreciate it; I'm planning to buy a new computer soon.

Are you set on buying Intel?  Why not consider AMD?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=13315.msg134981#msg134981 date=1132630807]
Are you set on buying Intel?  Why not consider AMD?

[/quote]

Planning to buy from Dell, but I am customizing a gaming PC from their Desktop selections.  I've also never used AMD, and from general reviews have concluded Intel > AMD, but I'd like to hear an argument pro-AMD though, so I can further consider my options.  I have heard though, that AMD is superior to Intel processors for gaming, while Intel is superior for office applications and general PC use.

Anyways, I'd like to hear some of the competing differences, but I'd also like for my question to be answered, so let's not get too far off-topic.  :)

Argument-related: Live Stress Test Rundown: AMD vs. Intel @ THG

Over the last couple years, AMD chips have become far cheaper and also the newer cores run cooler than comparable Intel chips (the reverse of the situation in years past).

There is absolutely no reason to conclude that one is better than the other. I have gone with AMD for the simple reason that I don't see the sense in spending a couple hundred extra dollars for the same performance.

[quote author=Zakath link=topic=13315.msg135051#msg135051 date=1132697372]
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that one is better than the other. I have gone with AMD for the simple reason that I don't see the sense in spending a couple hundred extra dollars for the same performance.
[/quote]
Yes there is. High end AMD processors perform better (not always by much, but sometimes significantly), consuming less power, while giving off less heat, at a lower price than the high end intel processors, and this has been rather consistent for a little while now.

Newer from Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/index.html

If I was going to buy my gaming system now I would have chosen the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition, but I am going to wait probably another year and just fancy up my current system a bit since I don't have the $6,000.00 to pay for a top-of-the-line system.  Also, with Windows Vista coming around the corner for next year, I'm sure there'll be some new hardware updates at the time & promotions.

I have gone with AMD as they are cheaper and manage the memory better than Intel.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=13315.msg135705#msg135705 date=1133278368]
If I was going to buy my gaming system now I would have chosen the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition
[/quote]
???

So you'd pay more for a processor that performs worse than the competition, and acts as a space heater?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=13315.msg135737#msg135737 date=1133298664]
As far as heat goes, I didn't know that Amd chips were running colder, AFAIK both procs have smilar temperatures at the moment, Intel is using higher clocks but they have always used a higher clock speed and have historically run colder so I do not think that is an affective argument. Has anyoneone seen an actual chart comparing temperatures?
[/quote]
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=15
I can't find any of the one's I've seen measuring heat directly, but at least in this universe, power consupmtion and heat correlate directly. All energy consumed by the processor is given off as heat.

And he was talking about the extreme edition, look at that baby burn.

I like how my perfectly relevant post was removed. I think disgussing hte prices of dual cored processor and challenging previous statements is on topic, is it not?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=13315.msg135914#msg135914 date=1133416454]
I like how my perfectly relevant post was removed. I think disgussing hte prices of dual cored processor and challenging previous statements is on topic, is it not?
[/quote]

Who removed it? Looks like an interesting post from the quote...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13315.msg135996#msg135996 date=1133473506]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=13315.msg135914#msg135914 date=1133416454]
I like how my perfectly relevant post was removed. I think disgussing hte prices of dual cored processor and challenging previous statements is on topic, is it not?
[/quote]

Who removed it? Looks like an interesting post from the quote...
[/quote]
I think it got removed because there were links in it that streched the tables.

But the links didn't stretch the tables... atleast not for me, there was a horizontal scroll bar in the post and the whole post was visible without using it. Eh oh well. The point I made in it is pentium d is a whole heck of a lot cheaper than amdx2 and amd x2 is going to remain expencive as crap until the next amd socket comes out... at which point it will still be expencive as crap, but not as expencive as crap as before.

"Expensive as crap" is an over exageration:

Low end Pentium D: $245 at Newegg
Low end Athlon X2: $322 at Newegg

So the low end is $80 more, so what?  The high end is where the fun starts:

High end Athlon X2: $787 at Newegg
High end Pentium D: $1,029 at Newegg

The X2 is actually $242 cheaper here.  Note that when I say low/high end, I'm going by what Newegg is selling at the time of posting.  Not exactly a conclusive study, but being that Newegg is a large, reputable dealer, I think it's a fair comparison.

Also, since your missing post appears to have mentioned thermal properties, I'll include a include an excerpt from a SilentPCReview.com article:

[quote]How does AMD define TDP?
        “Thermal Design Power (TDP) is measured under the conditions of TCASE Max, IDD Max, and VDD=VID_VDD, and include all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT, and VDDA.”

    This means that TDP, as defined by AMD, is measured at the maximum current the CPU can draw, at the default voltage, under the worst-case temperature conditions. This is the maximum power that the CPU can possibly dissipate. Intel, however, has a different definition.

How does Intel define TDP?
    From the Intel Datasheet for Northwood CPUs:

        “The numbers in this column reflect Intel’s recommended design point and are not indicative of the maximum power the processor can dissipate under worst case conditions.”

    And from Intel’s datasheet for Prescott CPUs:

        “Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. The TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate.”

    And the most telling quote of all, contained in both documents:

        “Analysis indicates that real applications are unlikely to cause the processor to consume maximum power dissipation for sustained periods of time. Intel recommends that complete thermal solution designs target the Thermal Design Power (TDP) indicated in Table 26 instead of the maximum processor power consumption. The Thermal Monitor feature is intended to help protect the processor in the unlikely event that an application exceeds the TDP recommendation for a sustained period of time.”

    What this means is that Intel’s TDP is actually lower than the maximum power dissipation of the processor (and as you’ll see later, it can be significantly lower). This is in stark contrast to AMD’s TDP numbers, which are higher than the respective processor’s maximum power dissipation.[/quote]

Source: [url]http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.html[/url]

That high end pentiumd is the extreme edition though, yes it is more expencive... but the top of the line normal pd is 538. The difference between the two is only ht.

But the extreme edition is still slower than the X2 for some tasks? And the power usage is extremely much higher?