I hope you can clear this up, its a really stupid question and something I really should know having used computers for years, but don't. I'm building a PC and shopping around for a CPU. Everywhere I read always recommends AMD since you get more for your money, and I want to go with AMD as well since I don't like monopolies. Now I've always assumed that the model names like 3100+, etc, always referred to the clock speed in MHz, but looking at the specs of different ones this isn't the case. I've always used Intel and never realised this about AMD. For instance, a Semperon 3100+, for instance, has a clock speed of 1.8GHz. Firstly, what does the xx00+ number actually refer to? Secondly, it appears that you can get an Intel processor with a higher clock speed than AMD for the same price. Now, this goes against everything that I've read and known, that you get more for your money with AMD; so surely there must be other aspects of the CPU that give it an advantage? (I know PPC's don't need such high speed, for instance). Thirdly, if this is the case, then what about hardware requirements for software? Most software's requirements list the minimum Intel CPU speed and say "or equivelent", so, for instance, is a 1.8GHz clock speed AMD equivelent to a faster Intel perhaps? I know theres more to CPU's than clock speed, but its a consideration; I need a certain specification PC and don't want to go under that; and I don't want to have to over-spend if I don't need to. Thanks for your time. :)

As i understand it the xx00 refers to how fast in MHz it is compared to an Intel chip for instance. The advantage to most Intel processors is that they are usually better for video editing and processor heavy tasks as they are better at multitasking. Open a lot of programs on an AMD processor and do the same on an Intel one. I have always found that the AMD processor keels over faster. Matt www.bbcomputing.co.uk matt@bbcomputing.co.uk

http://www.thedigerati.us/info/amdcpuchart.html

OK, thanks a lot, thats what I wanted to know. That makes AMD a much cheaper option. So if a peice of software recommends, say, a 2.5GHz Pentium 4, then that'll run fine on a Sempron 2500+ despite having an actual clock speed of 1.75GHz? It gets more confusing as well, looking at hiho's link the Sempron 3100+ has 1.8GHz clock speed and the 3000+ has 2.0GHz (but of course they both have very different specifications if you look beyond the clock speed). I guess you've got to take AMD's word for it that it balances out.

Yeh this has always been somewhat of a foggy area. As a rule of thumb if you only want to play games and do light tasks (not like vid editing and huge amounts of multitasking) then a cheap sempron will do fine and its much cheaper. Matt www.bbcomputing.co.uk matt@bbcomputing.co.uk

The socket A Sempron is just an Athlon XP that's been reclocked to run at 166MHz (333FSB) & has been given a different model number (aka "performance rating"). The socket 754 Sempron is the 32-bit version of the Athlon 64...it also has less L2 cache. You cannot fairly compare Intel & AMD CPUs in terms of MHz...they use totally different technologies. AMD can squeeze out more work per MHz than Intel, but since most people don't understand that & just shop by numbers, the AMD CPUs are performance rated to make them more attractive when compared to an Intel CPU Asus A7N8X-X 1800+ @ 8.5 x 200MHz 768MB PC3200 2.5-3-3-7 Asus A9550GE/TD 128MB WinME/WinXP Pro

As was said, it depends on what you want to do. AMD is usually cheaper, and if you do your research you can get a better deal. A Sempron 2800 2 GHz, like mine, is comparable to a Celeron 2.8 GHz, but is behind the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz. Compare AMD's ratings to speeds of Intel processors int he same category, i.e. budget, gaming, etc. Good luck! AMD Sempron 2800+ 2GHz, BioStar M7VIG-400 Pro, 2x512 MB Pc3200 DDR RAM, Seagate Barracuda 80GB IDE, 400W Power Supply