Which processors are you talking about? CPU's aren't as clear cut as they were during the Pent 4 / Athlon (Palomino/Thoroughbred/ Barton etc) period. So internal speeds aren't a good indication of performance anymore
I readed about that in Ukrainian PC magazine called "HPC" (Home Personal Computer)... there was a test of 44 processors, both Intel and AMD... so you can pick a 2.6GHz AMD (forgot it's number... 5000+ I guess) and Intel's E4500 (2.2GHz) and see the results, like I did... by the way, HPC (or something like that in english) is a very good and respected journal here in Ukraine. Peace... Edite: It's my 70th post... lucky number, lol... I'm a "geek" now... Edite: Sorry 5000+ is almost equal to E4500...
Clock speed isnt really everything. It wasnt so long ago 1.6ghz amds were quicker than 2ghz pentiums. Pentiums still sold in the lorry loads. I bought a few!
if we consider rendering or general performance e4500 is better but generally x2 5000+ or 5200+ (2.6ghz) are better for multimedia and gaming intel's side makes tests proving intel is best, amd's side makes tests proving amd is best, the only trustable way is too see it on your own from users
You have a nice PC, Dracos! You can check my configuration 8 of my new PC 2008 if you want (it's located in "new built" section). ...or to get both Intel and AMD onto 3D Mark06, PC Mark05 and Company of Heroes (stabilized resolotion), like our main PC journal did. They've showed everyone, that Intel is far ahead of AMD and AMD only survives because of price (not too big thought... 5~10 dollars).
well not that easy because strategy games and fps games consume different amounts of system resources company of heroes requires rendering performance and intel's best there i agree
[ot] Why so pro Intel? Nobody can doubt their influence but given the sizable advantage they had for fifteen or so years is it any wonder!! [/ot]
