Intel the clear winner

Who cares what happened 10 years ago?
Let's talk about *NOW*, the A64 kicks Intel's A$$.

Suma.

Theres no ONE CPU that is right for everyone, for example, i buy intel because I do so much video / dvd encoding its untrue, and those minutes would really mount up, plus the HT is a nice touch, i don't have to leave my rig while its encoding, which is most of the time. Whereas if someone just wants a gaming rig amd it is, I almost always recommend amd 64's now. You cant really define the best cpu or brand, but you can say which is best for you, like i did above.

larva said:

You will likely be dissapointed then. A64s have a host of advantages, multitasking is not one of them.

Click to expand...

Larva, please elaborate upon what you are saying here. You do not even know what applications this person is mutlitasking within, so I find it difficult to see how you can come to that prediction that his performance will be bad enough that it will disappoint him.

I am currently running on a 1.5ghz pally, and I can tell you that my multitasking is not "dissappointing", so I think a general statement like I just quoted is probably misdirected more often than its accurate. If my old pally does well with photoshop, websurfing, folding, and multimedia all at the same time, I harshly doubt that the multitasking experience on an A64 is going to be disappointing.

Now, clearly benchmarks have repeatedly shown that intel is superior in this area, however for many users I doubt they even use their PC the majority of the time in the sort of way where the Intel multitasking advantage would be readily evident... The advantage would be there, but i believe both sides have high end processors which would keep 99% of people from being disappointed. And surely, no matter which side anyone chooses, unless they have the oppurtunity to make atleast a somewhat direct comparison, no one will end up disappointed.

Consider this - would you be willing to take a double blind test on a series of Intel and AMD machines, while multitasking, and you had to guess which was which? I know I wouldn't be comfortable with my choices, and I use both platforms on a daily basis.

Suma said:

Who cares what happened 10 years ago?
Let's talk about *NOW*, the A64 kicks Intel's A$$.

Suma.

Click to expand...

well no it doesnt becosue intel won 20 of 30 benchmarks with there processors and AMD only 10, so you are wrong

how is he wrong??

have got a A64 ??

AND yes ive used a P4 and i hated it also Toms hardware isnt really the place to look for AMD Vs Intel Reviews is it ??

I.M.O.G. said:

Now, clearly benchmarks have repeatedly shown that intel is superior in this area

Click to expand...

Given this, if you were to choose an A64 on the basis of this multitasking strength, you would be dissapointed with your choice (should you realize the truth). I'm not saying you can't use a A64, only that they are inferior with respect to multitasking. Make one of the tasks cpu-intensive, and the A64 gets cranky and unresponsive in comparsion.

I don't care if Intel won 20/30 benchmarks from a biased site.

Intel's been around longer. Intel was the first to build them. So, theoretically, Intel should have the advantage at designing them... yet... A64's still whip their *** on a lot of things--even in 32-bit applications. We don't even need to mention 64-bit...

In this industry, we care about now and at most 2-3 years (future-proofing) in the future when we design our systems. So, when I see AMD beating Intel AND staying cheaper, I know who wins in my book regardless of what "Tom" says.