Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Emma Clare]

[jaebea]

Yeah AMD's have always been actually clocked lower than their "XP" ratings since the XP series of CPU's.

I saw some of the links that gord pasted, and it really does seem that those FPU ratings are very high. However, I always like to take my synthetic benchmarks with a big grain of salt.

The only thing that came across as a decent bench in those articles was the Q3test, but Quake3 has always been recognised to perform better on Intel systems, just as Serious Sam will perform better on AMD systems. It's not the neutral benchmark that people play it out to be. However, it is very relevant as many FPS shooters use a Q3 engine derivative to power their games.. (Enemy Territory, Medal of Honour, etc)

I believe that games are one of the best real world benchmarks you can run on a CPU, and hence rely on gaming sites heavily for information on hardware.

Here's a P4-3.2 review from Firingsquad.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_pentium_4_3.2_review/default.asp

Both AMD and the P4's are very competitive overclockers, but even as an AMD user, I think that Intel have dug themselves out of their troubled times and are looking to regain marketshare they lost when the XP was the gaming core of choice.

The architecture of the Intel systems means that memory bandwidth intensive applications will clearly perform better than on their AMD counterparts.

Eventually, your needs and price will become the key factors, as they're the only things separating the two.

2c.

jae.