Jagr
R3sistance
Jagr
Yawn, all of these Crap-lon AMD systems. AMD sucks, period.
My system will smoke all of the AMD systems minus the Athlon64 systems only because you cannot compare 64 bit to 32 bit operation CPUs unless you are comparing an Extreme Edition with the Athlon64, in which the Extreme Edition smokes the s**t out of the Athlon64 FX-51, easy.
So wrong... so badly wrong. The P4 EE is comparable too an ordinary AMD Athlon 64 on terms of preformace but not comparable too the Athlon FX 51, it's like the rumors that 64 bit program run slower what was just an opinion taken as fact. No benchmarks support infact they contradicted it. Also an AMD Athlon 3200+ (32-bit) will be on par with your processor on terms of preformance. So don't make stuff up.
Anandtech already ran benchmarks comparing the two and Maximum PC did as well and dubbed the P4 EE a better processor than the FX-51 in performance, as well as Anandtech showing that the EE ran performed better in most categories as well. The 3200+ Barton core AthlonXP runs at a FSB of 400 mhz compared to the 800 on my 2.6, and if you had seen earlier benchmarks when the Barton's were originally released, you could see that a 2700+ non-barton was beating the Barton cores in almost every aspect.
Sorry to continue an age-old argument of which is better in a topic about posting computer specs. Competition is good for forums though
wink
Oh please, Intels only 800 MHz plus processors are the EEs what only come at 3.06 GHz and above if yours is a 2.6 GHz it will be defaulted too 533 MHz. where as later AMDs are 800 MHz.. or more precisely 200MHz with a multiplier of 4.
Second off I have never heard of that benchmark? Probably simular too a certain site I know of that gets paided off by Intel too bais benchmarks.
Lastly Intel haven't upgraded there architecture in 4 years whereas AMD upgrade there architechture every year or so. Now stop the BS or I will really make you look an idiot.
