I have been looking at two similar priced Compaqs at my local computer store and they are only seperated by their cpus Athlon64 3200+ vs CeleronD 2.93Ghz. Am I correct in thinking that the AMD is a far better cpu than the Intel cpu quoted.

Athlon64 is comparable to Pentium 4 and Sempron is comparable to Celeron D... If both is the same price, then go for Athlon64 3200+...

TMP-Man

Asus A7V classic rev 1.05
Athlon XP 2100+ @ 129x17 = 2195Mhz 1.81v
768MB PC133 RAM @ 129Mhz 2-2-2
10GB 720RPM + 120GB 7200RPM HD
128MB Geforce FX5200 128bit 276/515

"Athlon64 is comparable to Pentium 4"

Not really...the onboard memory controller & 64-bit technology make the A64 superior

"Sempron is comparable to Celeron D"

If you compare the right 2 of them, I guess that's true...lol

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2093

This space for rent

Pentium 4 6xx and 5x1 are all 64bit.

Well it depends. Pentium 4's 6xx 5x1 are better in multimedia apps then Athlon 64's. You look at benchmarks when it comes to that type of stuff and Intels lead the way. AMD Athlon 64's are are better in 3D apps then Pentium 4 6xx, 5x1 series.

So neither one of them are superior overall to the other, it just depends upon what you do on your pc most in the end.

I like both processors and I think both both processors to a respectable job in what they do best.

Celeron's are budget processors, just like Sempron's. Unless you are just going to do basic computing nothing special, then I would stay away from budget processors altogether.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 6800GT
SATA II 250gig 7200rpm 8mb cache
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

yes the AMD by far

celerons hare a cut down verson of the P4 with a smaller L2cash and puilt from not so good materials

as is the semptron its just a cut down verson of Barton just as the DURO was a cut down verson of the athlon tbird

"Kernrel Panic"

thats DURON and i cnaot find the edit button

"Kernrel Panic"

Well The Celerons D and the Pentium 4 gap is getting bigger and bigger.

Celeron D EM64T's are still lack H/T and still have 256kb L2 cache, 533mhz FSB. While The Pentium 4 6xx EM64T's support second generation H/T and have a 2mb L2 cache.

Now if you can hold off until Q2 of next year the "Ceder mill" Celerons D will be improved by getting a boost in the L2 cache to 512kb while the 533FSB stays the same. Plus it will be on 65nm which means you will be able to overclock this processor to prob i'd imagine 800mhz or even higher then what the default speed is set at.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 6800GT
SATA II 250gig 7200rpm 8mb cache
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Getting back to the orignal question...yes, the A64 3200+ is definitely better than the Celeron D 2.93GHz

This space for rent

"Not really...the onboard memory controller & 64-bit technology make the A64 superior"

If A64 is far superior then P4, then it should perform better than P4 in every single benchmark. However, when it comes down to multimedia, Intel pulls ahead... When it comes down to overclocking, Intel always o/c way better than AMD... C300 - 450Mhz+, C566 - 850Mhz+, C2000 - 3000Mhz+, P4 505/506J 2.66 - 4.00Ghz+. C 2.66D - 3.8Ghz+... All these nearly raised the original speed upto 50% or more... All these can be achieve with air cooling.. O/c with AMD, you won't able to achieve 50% without water or vaporchill cooling. It depends on what u look at.

TMP-Man

Asus A7V classic rev 1.05
Athlon XP 2100+ @ 129x17 = 2195Mhz 1.81v
768MB PC133 RAM @ 129Mhz 2-2-2
10GB 720RPM + 120GB 7200RPM HD
128MB Geforce FX5200 128bit 276/515

"When it comes down to overclocking, Intel always o/c way better than AMD".....higher clock means nothing today.

Intel has realized that too.

My sig is on sabbatical.

AMD overclocks just as well as Intel.

I had a (venice) 3000 overclocked to 2.94 ON AIR, and a friend still has his overclcoked to 3.05 (on liquid)

FX-57 @ 3.1ghz
4GB of OCZ PC-4200
500GBx4 drive array
Sapphire X850 XT-PE
Fujitsu 1920x1080 projector

Maybe I didn't word it quite the way I should have, but I was referring to the technology. AMD's CPUs are more efficient than Intel's...that's why an A64 3200+ running at 2.0GHz is comparable to a 3.2GHz P4. Performance rating aside & looking at Mhz vs Mhz, the A64 will spank any P4 running at the same clockspeed

This space for rent