Mark is right...so no, its not arguable at all....

What other chip can get 1000+ Mhz OC on air cooling?? a Northwood?? noo...P3 Coppermine??? Noo...Tualitin?? Noo....Celeron?? Nooo....

Prescott?? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA noooo NEVER....

Athlon XP Thoroughbred 'b' could...and bartons...and now the "legend continues" on Socket 939 A64/Opty's...

-Jay

Hahaha... ok. So because you say one person's right, that obviously means I must be wrong

I dunno.. maybe the difference is I'm not looking at the highest end CPU's?

Keep on with your brand loyalty if you like, I'll keep riding the waves and buying the best price/performance CPU every few years whether it be AMD, Intel or another company to crop up.

Oh no dude, i think ur mistaking what im saying...

Price/Performance to me has a lot more meaning than most people...

If i CAN OC my computer..i WILL...EVERY computer ive EVER owned has been OC'd...EVERYONE...

And its been a known fact that AMD has had the upper hand in price/performance AKA bang for buck for YEARS now...YEARS...

I take MUCH pride in that fact when i baught my 2 AMD Athln 64 3000+ Venice core CPU's they were retailign for $185 a piece...i go them for $179 each taxes in...

Stock they run @ 1.8Ghz...i have 1 oc'd to 2.7Ghz and the other one at 2.75GHz...both on stock heatsink and fans and relatively low voltage...both 100% rock-solid stable...

im faster than a stock Athlon FX-57 (The leader in single core CPU performance) because ive got a MUCH higher HTT/FSB bandwidth than it does stock...and that chip goes for almost a $1000...

U gonna argue that?

Theres no Intel CPU that u can buy and OC with similar/better results for same or less money invested as a whole in the system...and EVEN if u could it would REQUIRE a more expensive MB and more expensive DDR2 ram...

-Jay

Right now, sure, I agree with you that AMD has better CPU's.

If you're gonna argue O/C results, go ahead. I don't do it If that's your basis for argument then you win, since I haven't overclocked since my Celeron 300a.

Stock for stock performance, I always read up on both the latest Intel and AMD offerings whenever I'm purchasing a new system. I don't know if they still do it now, but Sharkyextreme had great guides every few months for Budget/Middle end system buildups, and they'd always offer both Intel and AMD solutions. Last system I bought was a P4 2.4B.. it was cheap over two years ago, and at that time AMD CPU's of similar price weren't any better at all. If you talk overclocking that's a different story...

before that, I bought an AMD Thunderbird 800 MHz. At that time certainly better than the PIII's. In fact I'm using it right now as a Linux-based server, with a 1 GHz CPU now. Before that, Celeron 300a since you could overclock it reliably to 450 MHz, for less than half the price of a PII 450.

Using my own experiences I don't really see that ever changing. Technology is technology.. the company only markets it. What if AMD's best engineers got bought out by Intel? Intel makes a next-gen CPU that kicks the crap out of AMD. Or better yet, they go off and form their own company that kicks the crap out of both AMD and Intel in performance. We as the consumers wouldn't see any of this happen, we'd only see a new company emerge. Would you still buy AMD then?

If I were to buy a new system now, sure I'd piece together an AMD system. But do I think it will always stay like that? Definately not.

Think of it when nVidia beat out 3Dfx. They were the king for a while before ATI stepped up to the plate. It's always nice to have competition

And not once did i argue any of that mang...

nVidia never really beat out 3DFX...they BOUGHT them out...lol, there "innovations" were becoming garbage, overly expensive and were going bankrupt...

As for when u got ur P4 2.4B...(which is a Northwood P4 BTW) u could have spent less money and bought an AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton and an ABIT Nf7-S 2.0 and saved money and be faster...at stock speeds aswell...

I too own Intel systems dude...but Intels pricing strategy does NOT sit well or justify itself to buy when ur paying more money for less performance...

Sure sometiem down the rd an Intel Pentium 5 or 6 MIGHT be faster than an AMD of some sort but at what cost ??

Since AMD split form Intel (yes, AMD at one time WAY back in the day was a company Intel contracted to build x86 CPU's for them) They have ALWAYS offered similar/better performance CPU's at a lower cost...They ALWAYS been the underdog...

I remember 6 years ago when NO ONE wanted to give the K7 the night of day. If u dotn know what the K7 is, it is the Original Athlon. Based on the Slot A platform. Looked like a penitum 2, Celeron, Pentium III Katamai Slto style processor....

Than testing went on, and it was found that not only were these K7 Athlon classic's very good reliable cheap fast CPU's, they were doing more work with less Mhz than Intel was.

a Athlon classic 500 was faster than a Pentium III 600 in more than half the benchmarks that were around back in 1999...

People didnt want to give AMD the tiem of day cuz they didnt hear the word "Pentium" or "Intel" on the spec. list. Thinking there was compatability issues, etc etc.

Well let me tell u something, AMD does NOT advetise...How many times have u seen a commerical on TV for AMD?? Theres been ONE ever made by AMD. ONE, and it involved a train and a train-track switching station...a train was coming up to the switch point, and there were 2 systems there, an athlon powered sstem and a pentium III powered system. The guy had to choose a computer to make the calculations and send the signal to the track to switch rails before the traisn crashed...he choose the P III and crashed the train...anyways...regardless...

Theres been a gazillion Intel commericals, advertisng banners all over the roads, TV, magazines, etc etc...and DELL, the ONLY company to exclusively ONLY offer Intel powered systems. Why? I dunno, i guess they dont care to much anymore about money...u know how much MORE money they could make if they offered AMD systems? The day DELL starts buildign AMD systems will be a HUGE day in the tech. savy world.

The Itanium was a joke...The Itanium II is an even BIGGER joke.

EM64 embedded extensions in there "64-bitt" Xeons and Pentium 4's is a CROCK and an even BIGGER joke...EMULATED 64-bitt extensions...r u KIDDING ME????

Intel wanted the world to switch to IA-64...did that happen? noo..

X86-64 SOLEY developed and R&D by AMD is and has been a HUGE success...Intel stopped using logic and looking at $ signs more and more...and now there getting ****ed.

Amd, the underdog, whos only "advertisment" is word of mouth, is now selling MORE units than Intel.

Thumbs up to AMD...

Again..

AMD > Intel.

-Jay
Again...AMD > Intel.

Dude, you constantly argue that AMD has always been some sort of underdog and always had cheaper and faster CPU's. Which just isn't true.

The prices of the Athlon systems similar in performance to the 2.4 I bought were more expensive and performed about the same. I know of course you would say the AMD CPU is better, but I look at every benchmark I can find for the systems I'm ready to purchase. I made my decision based on research and no, the Athlon CPU was not faster, nor was it cheaper.

I dont know where u bought ur parts from than man...Now do i know where or what benchmarks ur looking at.

Wanna see my 2.7Ghz Athlon smoke 3.8Ghz Pentium 4's? or how about my single core 2.7Ghz smoking dual xeons ?

go to www.infonec.com or www.liata.com and tell me where u see a Intel CPU being cheaper than the equivelant/comparable AMD cpu.

I baught a 2500+ Barton 2 years ago. I almost went with a 2.4B Pentium 4, but i could seem to justify the extra $35 THAN for the CPU and the extra $40 for the MB compared to the AMD's.

I bought from Infonec the 2500+ for $125, Abit NF7-S 2.0 motherboard for $120...try and find a good quality comparable enthusiasts motherboard like that for the same/less money...

I benchmarked higher than my buddies P4 2.4b system i built for him a week after i built my system and he spent close to $90 MORE just on the CPU/MB combo than i did...

Even right now a Socket 478 2.4 P4 is selling for $139...whereas an AMD athlon xp 2500+ Mobile (which is even better than the desktop version) is selling for $118

Grab say a good AGP video card and 1GB of ram of unknown brand and a comparable Intel Socket 478 MB and ull see the AMD system not only costs less but benchmarks higher aswell.

Well this isn't going to go anywhere