A picture is beginning to emerge that shows AMD dominating Intel, in performance, across their whole processor line up.Intel had high hopes for their Dual Core, and today, with the NDA expiring on the X2, it looks like the X2 beats Intel dual-cores in practically all applications.What does Intel have to do to make their chips run faster and cooler than they currently do?Its a silly question, I know, but are we seeing the beginning of the end of the Intel days?

Im not going to say that I am an expert or anything but I think that Intel is deff not doing well. Amd is becoming much more mainstream, seeing them in normal comps that normal people buy, as opposed to their old market of high gamers. I remember that when I was in staples I saw many AMD computers now. I think one thing that helped them was their large line of 64 bit. They really jumped Intel on that one, 64 bit is the future!

Yeah, I still vividly remember the days when AMDs were unstable and offered no performance benefit. I remember them being quite a bit cheaper than Intel.But wow, have they ever come a long way since. I say good for them.I think I will make it a point to get AMD in my next PC.One thing that strikes as bizarre right now is why Dell still offers Intel only. My guess is that they are getting quite the kick-back from Intel for that loyalty.

it even seems that MS are holding of on releasing the 64bit operating system so that DELL and a few others can offload all there 32bit intel powered PCs, mind you that helps all of us out here with old 32bit AMD aswell so i gues we have something to be thankfull to intel for. BTW i have nothing against intel, my P100 used to run windows 95 fine :)

It

Found this on the web:"AMD has lifted the press ban on its new dual-core desktop processors, and the results look promising. Most sites are reporting that the high end X2 chips from AMD are significantly faster then comparable Intel Extreme Edition offerings. Most new Socket 939 motherboards are compatible with X2 chips right out of the box. Slightly older models will require a flash BIOS update to enable support for the new dual-core CPUs.The X2 4800+ beats out the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 virtually across the board, even in tests that use four threads to take best advantage of the Extreme Edition 840's Hyper-Threading capabilities. The difference becomes even more pronounced in single-threaded applications, including games, where the Pentium XE 840 is near the bottom of the pack and the X2 4800+ is constantly near the top. The X2 4800+ also consumes considerably less power, both at idle and under load.The initial lineup for the Athlon 64 X2 is as follows:AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ $1,001 (2.4GHz 1MB L2 Cache Per Core)AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ $803 (2.4GHz 512KB L2 Cache Per Core)AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $581 (2.2GHz 1MB L2 Cache Per Core)AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ $537 (2.2GHz 512KB L2 Cache Per Core)"http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=28288&category=mainMore info:http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.htmlhttp://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2LDE=Looks like my new motherboard will support these chips :-)

With these new dual core chips, will we be able to dedicate one of the cores specifically for flight sim programs while the computer runs all of the background stuff on the other? You know kind of what the hyper threading gimmick was suppose to do for use?Here is another link talking about the new dual cores.http://www.cnet.com/4520-6022_1-6217968-1.html?tag=cnetfd.sdTerry

Really good news that the AMD dual-core processors will should work with existing Socket 939 mobos. I just ordered parts for my new system yesterday, including an Asus A8N-E motherboard. Hopefully I can just limp along (:-lol) with the Winnie 3500+ that I just bought, then pop in a dual-core processor later. That's another advantage of AMD -- they seem to be more stable in their infrastructure design. I was able to milk about 4 years out of the Socket A/Athlon infrastructure. At the same time, Intel seemed to be changing sockets and motherboard infrastructure about as often as I change my shorts. :-lol

As of note 95 % of the games will still run better on single core CPU:s. Keep in mind that these score well for being a multi core CPU. You will probably see that the fastest CPU for gaming will be single Core ones for very long time.However it

"You will probably see that the fastest CPU for gaming will be single Core ones for very long time."I'm not so sure about that Par.The next Quake engine (or was that Unreal?) being developed right now is said to be multi-threaded, hence taking advantage of a dual-core CPU. And many FPS-type games are based on that engine (Quake or Unreal? :-hmmm )So I think we will be seeing games running faster on dual-core pretty soon, or at least sooner than we think.Of course, current games do run faster on single core, but its only a matter of time till we see a dual-core running faster than single across the board.

Well I think the clock disadvantage kind of say say no to that. You can