well, I have a dual amd motherboard with 2 athlon mp 2000+ and 2 gb of memory, built it myself 3 years ago, still till today it's an overkill, and I could not find an excuse to upgrade anyhing till I ran out of space on hd's.

So now with new hd's with 16mb cache instead of 8mb on the old ones, system is even faster.

I can watch a dvd from one hd, copy a dvd disc to another hd on firewire and move one dvd from hd on ide to the same one on firewire all at the same time and the playback never ever skips or stalls.

You can't do that with a single processor or on intel...

I think that a dual core amd chip will simply provide this same kind of smooth experience I have only a bit faster than with 2 seperate chips.

Also, for the money I spent 3 years ago on this setup, right now we are looking at the same setup done with opteron's, and if someone is looking for a stutter/stall free system, this would be it.

To be honest, I upgraded my hd's, replaced the fan's and the system is even faster now with these new hd's.

In my case I develop websites, so for my work this system is still overkill, even if I do a lot of photoshop work.

I don't have the time to play games on this setup, I don't think it would be up to par in that area, but for what I do, this is too much.

just my .02 cents.

amd and intel ! dual core must be great,
with amd and intel . intel make you feel like,,
INTELL INSIDE IDIOT OUT SIDE,,

As if Intel could ever touch AMD anyway.

I'll just assume you meant that the other way around.

Intel has always been slower than AMD. They use to be the same company many years back and the smart people went one way and the stupid ones made Intel.

Dual-core should help AMD catch-up in the office productivity type applications. But as already said, AMD own Intel when it comes to gaming. Their FX chip is clearly superior.

For lucky AMD uses like me who bought a socket 939 Athlon 64 we'll be able to upgrade to a true dual core cpu... no need for artificial hypertheading.

AMD has always lead Intel in socket support with the exception of slot "A" all AMD platform have/will be supported for years.

Here is a quote from AMD, "AMD plans to bring client dual-core AMD64 processors, based on the existing 939-pin socket, to the market in the second half of 2005."

AMD is better for gaming but INTEL is better for any video, audio or encoding out there. check out these benchmarks, 30 benchmarks and 30 some benchmarks and what I said previous holds true:
http://www.tomshardware....1221/cpu_charts-13.html

my 2.8ghz p4 beats out the fx55 on some apps, what kind of crap is that for amd

Yes AMD flies in gaming but just try runing with Multipla apps in the background as I do like Teamspeak and Media player running music while I game. My god im glad i got rid of mine. Of course this is my own opinion

Actually from a business standpoint Intel HAS been smarter, now they're just killing themselves trying to keep up with AMD rather than sticking to their supposed "business reliability" method. Heck, look at Tomshardware.com, Intel's business system was down longer than AMD's, so now EVEN AMD MAKES RELIABLE PROCESSORS FOR CONTINUOUS USAGE IN BUSINESSES. The big reason Intel will soon possibly crumble--notice that Dell and some other huge Coorps don't use AMD? There are reasons, and what I refer to as "legal bribing" is the only DA?N thing keeping Intel alive. I'm pretty sure the exclusive use of Intel "contract" is about to run out for most coorps, and then we'll see how Intel does with Dell and other companies selling products with AMD processors.

Hahaa.. was going to say the same thing. Intel is the UN disputed leader. Ask AMD, they will say the same thing. AMD is in no way a real threat to Intel. Intel has 80% of the WORLD market. They do servers, and have been doing desktops/laptops since late '70s. how long has AMD been around..

Intel still gets installed on every major computer vendor. AMD is not even an option. Intel is keeping ahead of AMD, but its good AMD is keeping Intel on their toes.

Second half? Intel is making theirs available, Second QUARTER.

And how many multimedia apps are **optimized** for Intel chips? Quite a few. Now that AMD has added SSE3 to its newest chips, we are beginning to see that some of these applications have been **hardcoded** to look for "INTEL" in the processor ID string when enabling optimizations. What we need to see are apps that truly and properly recognize and use SSE3 (or whatever scheme that is properly supported by chips from both camps)? Only then can we get a more balanced, more objective comparison.

As for who will get chips out earlier, well Intel has become known for its paper releases while AMD tries to have chips available at the time of the official announcement. Given that AMD is probably one-tenth the size of Intel in terms of material resources and manpower, it should be no surprise that Intel can trump AMD in terms of shear production capability. At this point, everything is speculation, if not FUD, until chips (are properly configured and capable systems) are in hand.

probably your wimp was showing pr0n (aka visualizations) during gameplay :P

I missed it--I deleted my post so not to look like a complete moron...

No one processor can truly be proven better than another, and that's how it will continue to be. Take the above posts example--some apps require the hard-coded intel signature to work properly. Intel, as I stated before, is legally bribing themselves into the market. As long as they pay companies to make apps that are specifically designed to be slower with AMD processors, the benchmark numbers will never favor AMD completely, and as long as they pay companies to not use any other brand, they'll thrive. Intel is the company everyone needs to sue if you ask me, not microsoft. I mean, how do they get away with this legally? They're paying companies to not use AMD, and that's somehow legal. ARRGGH!!!

--I'll stop typing now and try to cool off...

UPDATED: In reply to the comment below, yes and no--I'm calling it a bribe, it's not really a bribe. It's some sort of legal contract Intel makes with companies, called an "exclusivity contract" I believe--perfectly legal, just seems like a legal loophole to prevent vendors from selling any other processor brands with their computers. Yes, money is definately involved, because I've seen several news articles even from CEO Mike Dell himself that Dell definately would sell AMD if they could--but that would break the contract with Intel...

I run a barton 2500+ OCed to 3200+ speeds, with a Radeon 9600 XT, 1gig of ram, and I can play HL2 at max settings with resolution 1024x768 at 60fps, WITH winamp and firefox running in the backround. Not to mention AIM and STEAM.

Imagine if i had an Athlon64.

Now imagine if i had a dual core athlon 64.

Point made.

Hey, I love AMD too but I'm not biased. Anyway, is there any real proof that Intel is bribing someone to not use AMD?

Are you sure that the dual core will work on 939? Cause I've read somewhere it will be 940. I NEED it to be 939!

Rhandi said:
"my 2.8ghz p4 beats out the fx55 on some apps, what kind of crap is that for amd"

Where???? All that I can see is the FX55 kicking the P4 2800's a** in every test.
Here the video encoding tests where intel seems to be a little faster. I dont't see the P4 2800 near from FX55 performance. If you say that for synthetic benchies like sandra or wstream, they are absolutely meaningless(at least that you use your PC only to run Synthetic benchmarks)they don't reflect in any case REAL LIFE performance, As shown in rest of the tests which are real life ones.

http://www6.tomshardware...1221/cpu_charts-19.html

Also the A64 3400+ that costs $190, is faster than the 560 (US$400!!), 570 ($US600!!), 660 (US$600!!) and EE(US$1000!!! chips not in some, but in a LOT of APPS(Real life ones). WHAT KIND OF ULTRA CRAP IS THAT FOR INTEL.

AMD exists since early 80's making CPUs and other integrated chips. Having nearly the same experience than intel making CPUS. Besides intel is just following the path traced by AMD with his DUAL CORE strategy (They have working in it for a long time), and for your information AMD is releasind their dual cores CPUs also this year.
Intel has 80% of the market because of their ston marketing strategy, brainwashing non-advanced users (You are a perfect example of that), making them believe they have the best CPUs, and that the competition is not even near from them, which is obviously no true.

AMD is really an option since actually they have the best overall CPUs in the market, The A64. And for your information Computer manufacturers like HP-COMPAQ have been using AMD cpu's for a long time.

Maybe you were using a K6. JA JA JA

"my 2.8ghz p4 beats out the fx55 on some apps, what kind of crap is that for amd"

Where???? All that I can see is the FX55 kicking the P4 2800's a** in every test.
Here the video encoding tests where intel seems to be a little faster. I dont't see the P4 2800 near from FX55 performance. If you say that for synthetic benchies like sandra or wstream, they are absolutely meaningless(at least that you use your PC only to run Synthetic benchmarks)they don't reflect in any case REAL LIFE performance, As shown in rest of the tests which are real life ones.

http://www6.tomshardware...1221/cpu_charts-19.html

Also the A64 3400+ that costs $190, is faster than the 560 (US$400!!), 570 ($US600!!), 660 (US$600!!) and EE(US$1000!!! chips not in some, but in a LOT of APPS(Real life ones). WHAT KIND OF ULTRA CRAP IS THAT FOR INTEL.