AMD FX 60 VS INTEL PENTIUM 4 HT EMT64 EXTEREME edition?
481956
that's the test report Pentium Extreme Edition 955 versus Athlon 64 FX-60\nThe conclusion in one phrase: the test results make it clear, however, that Intel probably won't be able to catch up with AMD using processors based on the Netburst microarchitecture.\n\nhttp://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe/index.x?pg=1
292470
AMD is better overall, lower power usage, price/performance, and better for multitasking. The benchmarks prove it, just Google AMD vs Intel. Even better, most AMD systems are cheaper than Intel systems. I agree with the poster below, go for Athlon 64 for the best performance.
332067
Chipset as in the motherboard Chipset like Intels 975x or do you mean the processors?  \n\nIf you're talking processors AMD is kind of spanking Intel the last year.  They're chips are running quicker at slower Speeds and in the last couple large benchmark tests done by Cnet and a few other sites like anandtech.com AMD seems to be the better processor in almost all benchmarks and not to mention they also win the Price war with Intel. \n\nMy last PC that i bought, a $3000 Alienware, i got the 3.0Ghz Intel Dual core,  Now i'm kinda jealous of the new AMD chips that seem to run all over the Intel chip that i have. \n\nIf money is no object get the new AMD Athlon 64 FX-60+.  You won't be disappointed.
1067104
The AMD X2 processor is great for games, the X2 4200+ is a good one thats not too costly but great, 2.2Ghz and good size cache.
154363
In a head to head comparison, AMD soundly defeated Intel in the gaming category playing Half-Life 2 (and costs less).  The AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ finished first in ALL categories.  Most of the games on the market now don’t take advantage of the multiple processing threads of the dual-core CPU’s, but newer games coming out will perform better with these by taking full advantage.  Good luck in whatever you choose…and happy gaming.
555421
Both are made by Intel - I don't personally see any real difference in performance from the type of chip (either Celeron or Pentium).\n\nWhat you really need to know is the clockspeed, not the chip name.\n\nThe PC you buy should reflect what purpose it will be used for. If it's just word documents etc, you only need an entry level PC, but for high powered graphics editing, serious gaming etc, you'll want a higher spec one.\n\nPCs on the market today are getting to the 4GHz mark (that's 4 GigaHertz) for the really high spec models.\n\nDepending on what you want to buy, you need to understand that the higher the clockspeed, the faster the PC will be.\n\nAdditionally, you should check out how much RAM it has. For docs, you can go for 128/256 MB RAM, but higher spec PCs are getting produced with upwards of 1024 MB\n\nHard disk size is merely to do with the amount of data you will store on it. Standard is 80GB last time I checked, but there are PCs out there with 250GB etc. As with the above, it's all to do with requirement and bigger is better. Remember with this though that text takes up less space than graphics.\n\nHope this helps.
221377
go to this web site and you can read there all the stuff about Intel and AMD CPUs and a lot of comparisons.\nhttp://techreport.com/reviews/page.x?pg=processors
267344
CPU Requirements\n\nMinimum: Pentium-class — Fedora Core 4 the latest version of Linux  is optimized for Pentium 4 CPUs, but also supports earlier CPUs (such as Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, and including AMD and VIA variants). This approach has been taken because Pentium-class optimizations actually result in reduced performance for non-Pentium-class processors, and Pentium 4 scheduling is sufficiently different (while making up the bulk of today's processors) to warrant this change. \n\nAMD64 processors (both Athlon64 and Opteron)\n\nIntel processors with Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology (Intel® EM64T)\n\nHard Disk Space Requirements\n\nfor 32-bit x86 systems: \nCustom Installation (Minimal): 620MB\nServer: 1.1GB\nPersonal Desktop: 2.3GB\nWorkstation: 3.0GB\nCustom Installation (Everything): 6.9GB\n\nfor 64-bit x86_64 systems: \nCustom Installation (Minimal): 900MB\nServer: 1.5GB\nPersonal Desktop: 2.7GB\nWorkstation: 3.4GB\nCustom Installation: (Everything) 7.5GB\n\nMemory Requirements\n\nfor 32-bit x86 systems: \nMinimum for text-mode: 64MB\nMinimum for graphical: 192MB\nRecommended for graphical: 256MB\n\nfor 64-bit x86_64 systems: \nMinimum for text-mode: 128MB\nMinimum for graphical: 256MB\nRecommended for graphical: 512MB\n\n\nHowever the best configuration would be \nMotherboard: P4 - Intel chipset (version: whatever available latest). Always go for an Intel Orignal Chipset to get the maximum performance. WITH TWO IDE and possibly 4 SATA ports.\n\nCPU: 3ghz or more.\n\nRAM: Atleast 1GB. If possible get 2 strips of 512MB each (Again to improve performance on P4 M-Boards)\n\nHarddisk: Atleast 120 GB or more (SATA for faster access)\n\nMonitor: Atleast 17" Samsung recommended\n\nRest all is fancy and depends on your choice. Such as Keyboard, Mouse (Optical Recommended), Cabinet (Black with atleast 2 fans)
974900
Hello Friend , I will suggest AMD for you for two reasons \n1 - Performance in two intel and amd are close and in some models amd is great . \n2 - AMD is cheaper and do the same tasks Intel does . \n\nIf You dont care about money then buy Intel Pentium 4 \n\nIt deserver every cent you will pay . . . . \nI hope this help you . . .  Good Luck  .
1077338
Pentium D is way faster then P4, however alot of software does not suppor the dual core, so its basically same as P4 Unless ur software has support for that.
16901
Right now it's a no brainer, especially when comparing the dual-core offerings.  Intel has really botched this round.  On nearly every benchmark, AMD CPU's stand tall against the Intel chips.  Only the highly expensive Pentium Extreme series (over $1000) are able to beat the reasonably priced Athlon X2's and get beaten by AMD's highly expensive FX chips (also over $1000).\n\nNot only that, but the midrange dual core Athlons (like the 4400 X2) are extremely overclockable, meaning you can get even more bang for your buck without worrying about instability.
986053
AMD 64 bit dual core. The older CPUs are 32 bit so this is twice fast.It runs at higher bus speeds and blows the doors of of anything that Intel makes. Also it allows you to run alot faster RAM Memory sticks and with the board below as long as you run all the same brand of sticks it will run them in the dual channel mode which is twice as fast.With 4 slots for the memory your talking being able to build a kick butt computer. I think I paid maybe 200 buck for the board and CPU. Intel makes a 64 bit but unless all your drivers are made to run with a 64 bit you have nothing but major problems stuff wont work (cd, dvd,video,sound,and so on) get the picture. Amd 64 on the on the other hand is compatiable with either 32 or 64. Also it is verrrry able to be overclocked (speed up the bus speed) I have a AMD 3200+ 64 bit it is a 2 gig CPU. I have it on a GIGABYTE GA-K8NSC-939 motherboard, the 939 is how many pins are on the bottom of the CPU the higher the better and 939 is the highest right now. By pressing the delete button at start up it will take me into the bios settings setup so if you want to I can change them. One of the nice things with this board is the it allows to change the bus speeds and AGP (accelerated graphics port settings) or basicly the port that your video card is plugged into this nice because you can also speed it up to. Nice for gaming or watching videos. I have turned up the bus speed set on mine without having to turn up the voltage (which might cause the CPU to overheat if set to high) the AMD will handle a voltage up to 4.9 volts right now mine is around 3 volts get the picture AMD kicks a+s. I have my CPU overclocked to 2.41 gigs. So basicly my 2 gig CPU is now a 2.41 gig CPU. Ive had it running like this for a year without ever having any problems at all, infact this bad boy boots up in about 20seconds,not bad!!! Any computer tech will tell you to GO WITH THE AMD they out bench mark and totaly out perform any thing Intel makes!!!!!! Intel makes a quad-core but basicly AMD doesnt care because their dual still blows Intels quad away. Check the bench marks for yourself.\n\nTuea - You have it it on the head!!!!!!!!!!\n\nZeus
1035275
well ucan say AMD Athlon™ 64 dual core FX Processor  AMD's deliver Raw power but have a less clock speed than intels i compared a AMD Athlon xp 1700+ 1.5 GHz and a Intel Celeron M 1.5 Ghz the Amd Delivered Much Power and the intel didnt just that intel was a little better  for movies and music the AMD's btter for gaming and PC work the Intels dont heat up fast but the Amds do The good thig is that AMDs HAVE A HIGH temperature usally to 190 F' the intels dont well u than see i would still prefer the AMd cuz the RAW power and performance
1024149
Pentium 4 HT for Software performance \n\nAMD 64 for Games and future coming 64 bit sofwares.\n\nI prefer Pentium 4 for now, and in future (may be after 2 years) I might buy an AMD.
624456
More directly.\n\nhttp://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html\n\nTo save you some time I would say Athlons are for the most part are a better CPU. It is a much more efficent and effective CPU with low energy consumption/heat dissipation, high preformance per watt ratings, nativley desined for dual core and 64bit capacities, hypertransport bus technology. The pentium 4 has been a dog from conception, and the netburst technology from which its based is on its way out. Its in fact intel thats playing catch up with athlon.
212412
x64 is for AMD 64Bit processors (think intel has 64 bit now too). Unless you have that processor AND have Windows XP 64 bit version, use the 32 bit version.
697979
Intel Pentium 4 3.2E 3.2GHz Prescott Core, 800MHz FSB, 1MB Cache, 90nm, Socket 478 CPU Processor w/ Hyper-Threading Technology