AMD vs. INTEL.again.

physicsX chip you mean? does all the physics for games. Takes strain off the CPU and should increase performance.

Thats exactly what I was on about, just couldn't for the life of me remeber the name of the thing.

Hoping they will adopt this because it should be better all round having dedicated maths & physics calculations done this way.

Hopefully though they make it accessible by two ways: One way would be completely transparent so the processor would automatically forward most pertaining calculations directly to that chip. So even games/programs not directly written for systems with that chip could benefit, not as much as say if they wrote in the direct API's but still a benefit. Second would be direct access to the chip from games/programs with an API.

Two problems is making a pathway to the chip from the processor without making it a bottleneck. Second would be cooling that chip down. Since on AMD systems the northbridge is directly on the chip, the previous northbridge location and bus could be used for the PhysicX chip. Then with bus speeds hitting high marks, this sucker is going to run at least at 800Mhz. Might even do 1Ghz. That would throw off some real heat.

PhysicX chips are first comming in ad in cards in PCI or PCIE. Your right they could eventually intergrate the chips into the northbridge for P4 systems or put it on the hypertransport bus for AMD64s.

AMD.

the clock speed(ie 2.8Ghz) is a measure of POWER not speed its in the FSB and intel uses(to my knowladge) a max FSB of 800MHz on both their unicore and multicore CPUs whereas AMDs Max FSB is 1.0GHz on their unicoreCPUs and their duel cores are true duel cores with a doubled FSB

Hows that?

and X Spiffy i like it when people do a head to head comparison to proove a point

AMD is better for Games and Intel is better for Office Programs.

Simple question. Which one is better for pure gaming ?

Most will say AMD but either one will do fine.

Put it this way, I had an old Celeron 2.4ghz prescott core and it sucked like turd when compared to my new Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0ghz Venice core. I know this comparison isnt a valid one as the Anthlon 64 cost more and is a newer modle, but heck even on Tom's hardware, dolar for dolar wise, AMD offers better performance than it's Intel counterparts. But this was for gaming benchmarks, I dont think you would get the same results for applications as Intel has more raw power to harness upon (I am stabbing in the dark here). Many high end computers choose AMDs, could be a preference or more likely to be reliabilty and stability.

Bottom line; if you have a choice choose AMD [lol sounds like an ad]

Unless you want to install OS X. =]

[Edit] Well gee, apparently not: http://www.ozzu.com/hardware/info-osx-amd-t65570.html
I had no idea. I thought OS X could only be installed on Intel.

yes after some looking in to it even more you can use AMD for OSX..
my 2500 dont use sse2 but my dell does(intel).. but my new computer will have a AMD with sse2 so it will all be good...

apple should make their compatibility known to the computing world and then try to sell their os as microsoft does. i'd pay $130 for an os with the core functionality of vista...

i have a feeeling that within the next few months...intel will dominate....jm2c

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3161
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/14/core_2_duo_benchmark_results/

intel is doing damage...

AMD is better TIME INFINITY!