Most customer don’t see the facts they only see the name. Think of it this way you see Intel all over the TV adds when do you see AMD. It’s all down to publicity but I must admit with the latest chips specs from Intel there is a close running with AMD but only time will tell on that race.

Using processor names isn't really a fair comparison for AMD vs. Intel. It's more accurate to compare price because AMD processors are actually using less Hz than Intel's, although the names would tell you otherwise...

AMD markets their processors against Intel's naming convention because it makes more business sense. AMD processors are actually expensive, but they perform better, so... Look at a 2GHz AMD vs. an Intel 2GHz processor. The AMD will win in performance, but lose in price.

That's the real secret to comparing the two different chips... as long as they meet your requirements.

Some applications are "optimized" for specific chips, and when they are, and you need those applications everyday. Conversely, certain operations are performed better by AMD and others by Intel. So, if you are using applications that rely on certain operations more than others, then you side with the best chip for that type of operation.

AMD typically performs better for games - hence the push there and the buyer preference for AMD.

I've found that AMD works better with XP/2003 than 2000 as an OS. They tend to run hot when you run a heavy processor load, and give you wierd display results. I've never seen that on an Intel box.

tru abt amd heat prob with the newer chips r coming with overheat protection i belive.. beside we all opreate computer at under 25C room temprature hence i dont think they will become hot to a damagind point..

ppl who live in colder areas usually have room temps lower than 25c

amd had a very crappy past with few good only but the bad was soo much they diminished the good.. secondly they always hace finance problem and dont stay up in competion with technology releases, likewise intel..they r constantly inventing something new..

i would consider amd a strong performer in the desktop market but i really admire their opteron when compared to intel xeon or itanium

amd with an opteron chip has provided a better solution to all kind of business i terms of fiance saving wether it is the 32 bit to 64 migration or straight use of 64bit

having a look the company budget i work for currently..it was completely impossible for them to roll out all servers in their office and replace then with xeon ones due to budget constrains..but with opteron we have got something more higher performing, more features and future upgreadeabilty with hardware change or additional cost and all that in less than the budget they were able to to afford..

if opterons support DEP also then there is another additional benifit we got at lower price still

since data centers opreate at low temp.. therefore no worry abt heat..

also i read abt xeon that they all share the same bandwidth bus so the performance drops as u increase number of processors but in case of amd hypertransport it is not the case

hyper transport is one more area which makes opteron kicks ass of xeon

i read abt some engneering software which was running on itanium but since they have added support for amd64 they have saved their customer around $13,000 on purchase of each 64bit computer system.. simply bcuz the ia64 cost is way high than amd64

and intel is soon to mirror the amd64 technology in their upcoming xeon processor

http://news.com.com/Intel%27s+Nocona+to+bust+out+in+June/2100-1006_3-5233500.html?tag=nl - http://news.com.com/Intel%27s+Nocona+to+bust+out+in+June/210 0-1006_3-5233500.html?tag=nl

intel made a fuss out of 64bit computing.. then in coventure with HP made the crappy itanium and sold it at extremely high prices and held is as some extremely complicated alien invented techonoly beyoed the IQ limits of humans to understand

what AMD did was they designed a dual core cpu like cpu which has dual 32 bit cores..they function indepent in parallel when in 32 bit mode giving a good performance boast over similar 32bit machine.. and two 32bit cores add up in series to give 64bit computing..then they broke the pot secret of intel and proved to market that 64bit transformation can be easy, affordable and a parallel upgrade process unlike itanium bcuz it would not be a good idea to be direct at 64bit since a lot of good tools and OS r not available for 64bit yet

http://news.com.com/AMD+advances+its+dual-core+plans/2100-1006_3-5233470.html?tag=st.rc.targ_mb - http://news.com.com/AMD+advances+its+dual-core+plans/2100-10 06_3-5233470.html?tag=st.rc.targ_mb

dual core is obviously better than HT which not only require the support to be hardcoded in the program to take advantage of HT but also is the HT heat barrier thats why they r better to be called High Temp

server manufacturers and software giants had been adressing the need of 64bit for a long time due to 32bit 4GB memory limitations but if 64bit comes at the cost of arm, leg and head.. who did be intrested.. the sale of IA64 is soo bad that microsoft for example doesnt seem to be really serious in releasing a full version of 64bit OS.. simply bcuz they know there are NOT too many people out there to bring a massive demans.. 

i dont trust amd in the desktops yet but i think that opnion is got to change after i get my hands on athalon 64 based pc...

http://news.com.com/A+year+old%2C+Opteron+serves+notice/2100 -1006_3-5197394.html?tag=st.rn - http://news.com.com/A+year+old%2C+Opteron+serves+notice/2100 -1006_3-5197394.html?tag=st.rn

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824087 - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;8240 87

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;826447 - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;8264 47

3 out of four larget server manufacturers r offer opteron based servers where as rumors are that the fourth larget server manufacturer aka dell is in process of negotiations with amd

http://news.com.com/A+year+old%2C+Opteron+serves+notice/2100-1006_3-5197394.html?tag=st.rn - http://news.com.com/A+year+old%2C+Opteron+serves+notice/2100 -1006_3-5197394.html?tag=st.rn

zMaestro wrote: so.. why do most ppl gets Intel's? why are most popular Brands use intel's?

thats the human mentality..the MHZ hype..ppl always look at higher numbers at a base of better performance and compensate to pay more thinking it is faster so their expensditure is justified.. how many ppl are really technical enough to understand those bench marks.. not intel is realizing their MHZ hype is no more goin to work they r interducing a processor naming scheme smilar to that of amd..

Your correct about the MHZ hype, In the past it was so simple the bigger the number the faster the chip, now thats all gone and performance cannot be related to the MHZ. So how do you know you are getting performance for your buck? The only way is research and look for comparison reports on the CPUs.

something not confirmed but i think the flop rate of cpu can provide fair comparision of cpu performance coupled with cache size and other things but processrs have grown complex and only speed along will not prove the capability..

like p4 mobile get its ass kicked by centrio at almost half clock rates

best thing is to search on the internet or the reptuable manufacturers should attach the bench mark results of some industry proven testing methods but the truth is day by day it getting harder to evaluate cpu and system for performance. well u can evaluate a cpu alone but then again the system performance depends on other factors like hard disk and ram and stuff.. a fast processor can be flushed down to toilet if u have a slow ram or hard disk