[htkm1]

I was 100% AMD. But recently I tried Intel and even set-up my first Pelt Gpu. All along I had the notion that AMD was better in games and Intel was good in Office, 3D rendering and other softwares. But after I test both I was surprise to see the results.

Intel Rig:
P4 2.4C@ 3.4Ghz
Asus P4P800 Vdimm Mod
Memory Ratio: 5:4
Memory@ CL2-3-3-6

AMD Rig:
Xp2500 Barton@ 230 x 10.5= 2.4Ghz
Abit NF7 Ver2.0 Vdd & Vdimm Mod
Memory Ratio: 1:1
Memory@ CL2-2-2-5

Common Set-up:
Corsair XMS256C2-PC3500 V1.1
Seagate Cuda IV 40GB HDD
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro 128Mb
Core/Memory@ 480/400
Antec TP 480W
WinXp Pro SP1
Ati CAT4.1
3DMark2003 wtih P340

Intel 3DMark SCORE: 6940
AMD 3DMark SCORE: 6793
So it is because of the Different W/C results as in Intel 3.4Ghz is higher/faster then AMD 2.4Ghz? or is Intel just faster?

[RiStaR]

Hmm... 03 ain't exactly the best test for CPU power... maybe try testing with 01SE instead?

[Shamino]

I thought it was clear that the P4s bench 3D significantly higher than the XPs/Bartons?

htkm1,

When the Thunderbirds and Thoroughbreds were launched, they were faster than the P4's then in games (equivalent priced CPUs).

However, with the P4 C's (800MHz quad piped memory bus, and HT), the P4 'C's are noticebly faster than the equivalently rated (not priced) AthlonXPs/Bartons (the Bartons are still cheaper).

However, with the launch of the Athlon64 series, AMD seems to have moved back to the top in terms of gaming.

So really, it depends on which you are comparing.