AMD wins in Performence, Intel wins in Marketing

Well, strong arm tactics and and back room deals have also helped put Intel on top. Which is why AMD is takeing Intel to court. This will be interesting to watch.
Intels dual processor isn't as fast as as it's singles core processors and falls behind AMD64 bit.
The last Intel processor I bought was a PIII 1.2ghz. I now have 3 AMD64s. John

alright, i know amd beats intel at everything duh thats common sense.

"So is Intel, they are spending hefty amount of money advertsing their proseesor."

what advertising are you seeing? all i see are those stupid centrino commercials, i never saw a pentium 4 or dual core commercial.

"After being hypnotized by advertising I bought HP P4 in 03, which certainly does not live up to its hype."

um, again, what advertising? blaiming intel for hypnotizing you is the stupidest thing ive heard. YOU bought that even though YOU KNEW that AMD was BETTER than INTEL. so blaiming intel for hypnotizing you is just YOUR own FAULT. doesnt live up to its hype? what hype do you expect with a pentium 4? NONE! so you CANT blame INTEL for yourself CHOOSING at YOUR OWN WILL to GO WITH ITNEL.

-Tomshardware

Think about this...I had an emachines with AMD AthlonXp 2000+ running at 1.67 gigs 128 mb DDR Ram, now I have an HP Intel processor running at 2.93 gigs and 256 DDR Ram. Theres no difference in speed that I can tell. That tells me something.

For adveritsing, all I see is Centrino and Celeron.

In order for AMD to gain market share, they must advertise. I know quite a few people who didn't even know there was a company called AMD.

As for being hypnotized, that was your fault. Although if you listen carefully, the P4 is meant for multimedia, never said anything about gaming. Which kinda makes sense, because a lot of multimedia programs are written for HT, but games aren't. Centrino is for battery life, which is also true.

With that being said, the K8 Athlon seems to close the gap in multimedia against Intel. I certainly am not saying that if you run strictly multimedia that you should grab an Intel chip. I would only recommend that you do if you run a business and time is money. I'm also not defending Intel ads either because they overhype them.But AMD is king in the semiconductor market.

A problem with benchmarks, you never see the price the chip costs. If an AMD and Intel chip costs almost the same, you would see that AMD would kill it.(Think A64 3000+ and P4 2.8 GHZ)
There's my 111 cents.

I useto have an AMD powerd compaq 5 years ago and it was pure crap with terible performance but now my unchle and I have great systems he has an amd athlon 64 powered system at 1.9 ghz and I have a intel p4 powered system at 3.2 ghz and theres very little difference we both have a gb of ram but I have more powerfull features in all areas but our processers basicly match up pretty close and with a clock speed gap that big its pretty surprising but what rlly wins me over is amd run a hell of alot cool than intels and now have 64 bit technolagy and its cheaper to switch to and even buy an amd prosesser with witch now multi task very well and are good for basic use and gameing where as the intel processors fit all catagories they don`t fit them all well and are defiatly worse for gaming my opinion is if u can get a top of the line 64 bit amd processer over a good intel processer witch in price they probly match up as top preformance for amd and mainstream for intel go with AMD.

Come on, you have faster chips!!! Tell the world!!! Shouldn't you be proud of your product!?!?