[QUOTE=getit29;2155595]Even though I’m an AMD man all the way I’ve never owned or probably never will own a Intel
CPU I’ll have to say that from all of the evidence I’ve seen is that the Intel CPU’s do have a
slight advantage over AMD when it comes to gaming and video encoding. I’m running a AMD
64 X2 5000+ Black Edition in my system and it does every thing I could want or ask for a CPU
to do. I’d have to say if the price is lower for the 64 X2 5000+ then go for it as in real life the
Intel advantage won’t make that big of a difference but it will make quite a big difference in the
synthetic benchmarks area for the Intel CPU though. [/QUOTE]
Right on getit29, most people just get glossy eye when Intel uses it high marketing approach but in the end most will never see those high test marks cause most of us never use it to the extreme. It just about marketing and making money. Do you think they really are taking about the rest of us, most likely not in the case of Intel. AMD is for the mass I think even if it has a lower CPU speed you will never really notice it and for those dual and quad cores. Forget it people unless your software game or productivity uses it you won’t see much change in everyday uses which I think a vast majority uses it for. It’s all eye candy until the software and other hardware catches up to the CPU dual and quad cores and even then they would have quad quad cores or more. So think realistically, when you do decide to buy one how are you really benefiting and can you really tell the difference in everyday computing. Don’t forget to factor price as well and how the company competes with it’s competitors. I know Intel most likely has heavy handed AMD by forcing companies to go with Intel and that to me shows lack of competitions and shouldn’t get any support. If your product are better then you competitors-would either bow out or make their product better IMO.