"Gojira" wrote in message
newsf1%c.880$9P4.868@trndny02...

"Quaoar" wrote in message
...

"Gojira" wrote in message
news:JPQ_c.4361$dC4.1031@trndny06...
I'm looking for a new system,and considering switching from Intel
to
the new
Athlon64.I'm not into building a system,and from what I've
found,having one
built at one of the local shops cost just as much if not more than
the
name
brands.Since Dell doesn't use AMD's,and every Gateway owner I've
know
had
major problems,that leaves Compaq/HP.Though I didn't like the lack
of
upgrade options,my Presario has been trouble free for over 2 years
now.Anyone had experience with their new AMD systems?



AMD is every bit as capable and reliable as Intel, and at
substantially
reduced cost. The AMD 64, while not *fully* supported by Windows
quite
yet (MS appears to me to be favoring Intel's position by delaying the
completion of the 64 bit XP), does run 32 bit applications
significantly
faster than a 32 bit CPU. AMD is poised to eat Intel's lunch since
Intel is behind the price/performance curve currently being dictated
by
AMD. See www.tomshardware.com and Google AMD 64 Intel for additional
information (much of which is mindless hype).

Q

One of the things that has swayed me towards AMD are the reviews at
Toms and
other sites.While the new technologies being pushed by Intel(the new
Prescotts,PC Express,ect.)seem to offer no real performance boost,and
won't
perhaps for quite some time(at the cost of future hardware
upgrades}AMDs 64
processors appear much superior in performance right now,with the 64
bit XP
said to be coming before the end of the year.And game companies are
already
working on 64 bit titles.



MS has announced a delay in XP64 until February of 2005. Intel isn't
ready, too busy with the problems of the new Prescott core.

Q