@Esqy, who said:

---

Vis - It depends upon what you are running. AMD CAN be faster with games, but the P4s are mainly designed for the desktop/business market. Remember that Intel are aiming at the corporate sector, while AMD are aiming more at the general budget-conscious public. For this reason, Intel's chips are not optimised for games as much as AMD's CPUs are.

I've said all of this before. No-one listens to me .

---

Don't feel too bad. Most reviews have been saying this like, forever.

I like the comparisons I've seen of the two as a choice between sheer horsepower (Intel) versus selectively designed tweaks for entertainment and gaming (AMD). Sometimes, horsepower will beat selective design, like when the P4s broke through 2gHz. It took AMD a production cycle to come back to overtake it. Again, when Intel broke through 3gHz, AMD didn't really push past (or try to) until the AMD 64s came out.

PS: Is the note I've seen about an XP port to 64-bit for next Spring old news or new?

Thanks, Indy. Unlike Taw, who is so sick of telling people the same thing that he doesn't bother anymore, I don't mind repeating myself, repeating myself .

I assume that you are referring to the Windows XP 64-Bit Edition. That's old news as they say, and there is already an Alpha version out. There's not much point in having one yet, despite the presence of the AMD64. They should have released a 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003 (maybe they already have), because the 64-bit CPU is mainly present in servers at this stage.