I am reading a Tom's Hardware article on AMD's X2 CPUs, and they did a comparison between the 4800+ and 840D. AMD smokes the pentium in almost every test
. The only difference I saw between the 4600+ and the 4800+ was the cache (512k x2 vs 1mb x2, respectively), and when I did a chart compare from Tom's between the two AMD CPUs the difference between the two was, for the most part, almost indistinguishable (like < 10 frames on games, and between 0 and 20 seconds for applications like winrar and divx).
I originally was going to build an Intel box because of a deal at a local computer store, intel mobo with 805D for less than $200, but when I got wind of the AMD price drop I said f*** that! I am glad I decided to go AMD, after seeing the benchmarks
EDIT: At the end of the article, Tom's recommended steering clear of Intel, based on benchmarks and power-consumption.
I think that wraps up the CPU issue quite nicely!
I originally was going to build an Intel box because of a deal at a local computer store, intel mobo with 805D for less than $200, but when I got wind of the AMD price drop I said f*** that! I am glad I decided to go AMD, after seeing the benchmarks
EDIT: At the end of the article, Tom's recommended steering clear of Intel, based on benchmarks and power-consumption.
Tom's Hardware said:http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/09/amd/index.html
The Pentium D system manages to burn over 200 watts as soon as it's turned on, even when it isn't doing anything. It even exceeds 310 W when working and 350+ W with the graphics card employed! AMD proves that this is not necessary at all: a range of 125 to 190 Watts is much more acceptable (235 counting the graphics card). And that is without Cool & Quiet even enabled.
I think that wraps up the CPU issue quite nicely!