AMD or INTEL

[sXenoG]

So basicly it is a fake dual core... hmmm I dont kno maybe illd o some research so i can understand how it VIRTUALY does multi tasking better on one core sounds like a conspiracy to me lol . To me it just sounds like an altered proprietary setting. That switches between to programs fast instead of completeing 1 process and then switching to the 2nd task. I kno a small amount about propritary crap cuz of my gf's dad i dont kno EXACTLY what he does but he is a certified linux tech. And he works for a multi billion dollar corp, so he is VERY knowledgeable.. OO and he hates windows and hates GUI for the most part.

EDIT: I just did some research and my hypothesis was correct. I've never had any issues with my processors im not a hardcore multitasking guru. Also something interesting about the description about hyperthreading sounds like a new processor someone in europe is developing for small time technology as it isnt fully stable yet. Currently processors are synchronus meaning that it can perform 1 task per cycle because everything is "synchronized". The new processor is going about using an asynchronus method which allows the entire cpu to be working rather there being gaps. Just as HT does seems like the processor can learn from the HT tech. The only difference is that in HT i believe it distributes the workload equally between the two tasks with asynchronus its not like that at all. It does alternate but rather FILLS everything up.

Sorry if thats confusing all that matters to me is that i understand

[Maynards]

I would say it depends on what you want to do;

AMD seem to be the better all rounder, but if your doing cpu intensive programs like rendering, ripping, folding etc then the raw Ghz of the Intels win hands down. But amd's are cooler, and the 64 bit is way ahead of intel for when things start moving over. Just go check Far Cry's 64 bit patch for the game, the improvements are amazing. Graphically the game looks better, and i hear it's smoother too.

[brianstretch]

Intel's HyperThreading makes GUIs appear to run smoother but as soon as you do anything seriously CPU-intensive (program compiles, etc) it's as likely to hurt you as help you. It also makes the already hot P4 CPU run even hotter. It's a nice marketing gimmick though.

There's no substitute for two real cores, and the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series stomps all over the dualcore Pentiums. Waaaaay less power consumption too, see here:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20.../index.x?pg=13

The X2 3800+ is semi-affordable, see mwave.com and monarchcomputing.com (among others) for some interesting motherboard/CPU bundle deals.

I haven't bought an Intel CPU since the Pentium 3.

[[DGN]Nexus]

I'm waiting for the companies to merge, get a 64 bit processor with HT running at 3.6 ghz with the architechure of an FX-57.

This won't happen due to the rules against monopolies. If AMD and Intel were to merge, that company would be the only one for people like us to buy processors from. Granted Motorola makes processors, but those are only sold to Apple for their computers.

Hyper Threading devides one physical processor into 2 virtual processors, it makes one Intel 3 GHZ act like two, great for multi-tasking.

So basicly it is a fake dual core...

You are right in this. The HT technology is kindof like software vs. hardware. HT makes a virtual version of the processor and computes crazy numbers at and extremely fast pace. With a dual core processor, you basically have two processors in one, so the division isn't necessary. If they did put HT with this processor, the abilities would be endless.