I am looking at upgrading my computer.
I can't decide whether to go for an Athlon XP2500(barton) at 333FSB or an Intel P4 2400 at 800FSB. I will use the machine for some games and quite a bit of graphics/video editing. Can anyone suggest? I am told that Intel's are more stable and cooler to run. Then I am told that I won't get much of a speed difference with either. Help!!!!

I'n not sure but i think the 2.4 800mhz would beat the 2500+.With AMD if it says 2500+ it doesn't mean it's equal to a intel 2.5ghz. It USED to be like that but just recently amd started falling behind. Now a 2500+ is only equal to about a 2.3ghz intel.

Now people might post after me saying i'm wrong but where's the proof in writing. I've read many reviews where they state the same thing. It just seems A LOT of people that are amd fans are in denial and don't want to admit that intel is faster. And their hoping when amd 64 comes everything will be better and intel will be second. But intel has some stuff planned for that too we'll see what happens.

AMD IS THE BETTER PATH!

Advanced Micro Devices is the path to go cause it is the most scalable, upgradable, and supported platform. Intel platforms constantly change every aspect about them. AMD platforms are loyal to their form factor for longer and are much more effecient chips. AMD chips for every cpu cycle do more then Intel chips period. Intel can be faster all day but they don't get much done being faster. IT IS ALL ABOUT EFFICIENCY!! Any way if you need help choosing parts or places to get the best prices let me know!

-Brandon Davis
1-866-GeekForce
GeekForce.biz

LOL.. i told you. Intel's are faster and get more done compared to their amd counterpart.

Tell me why my 3.06ghz owns a 3200+.

Personnaly i always go for the best for the bucks, and AMD is by far better at this. The XP2500 is half the price of the P4 2,4ghz, so with the money you save, u can spend it on good memory, 3D card or whatever. When you buy Intel, you pay for the name.

Were not talking about price, were talking about speed. I don't give a sh*t about price i want extreme speed and when i went looking for that i found intel to be the fastest PERIOD.

Kevn is right in concept but I disagree about the particulars concerning amd's recent stumble with overrating cpus.

A 2400+ is equal to a 2.4g at 533mhz, a 2500+ is not quite equal to a 2.5g at 533mhz, a 2800+ is equal to about a 2.6g, and the 3000+ and 3200+ are not worth talking about. The 3200+ is about like a 2.8g or best case a 2.9g at 800mhz. So for your decision I would say the 2500+ is more or less equal to a 2.4g at 800fsb.

Amd cpus were hotter than intel cpus from their origin up until the tbred b cpu, which is the 2200+ and above. The 2500+ is about the same temp as a 2.4g or 2.5g p4.

Neither is more stable than the other. 99.99% of amd and intel cpus run perfectly forever. Instability differences are due to the differences in motherboard quality.

Sure, don't forget you get what you paid for. AMD processors are alot more cheaper than Intel, but do you think they will last for a long time. I personally have never heard any Intel processor failed before, but I do seen alot people with AMD CPU complained about burning out and shorting out due to high temperature. Newer Pentium 4 with 800Mhz FSB and HT left the Athlon XP far behind. I'm not sure why people even bother to buy an Athlon 3200+ when there is an Intel Pentium 4 3.2C 800FSB HT avialable. You can overclock as much as you want with Intel CPU, but not AMD. I never seen any AMD CPU reach beyond 3Ghz, but I do see Pentium 4 CPU reach 4.5Ghz.

I'm not going to argue about it. Here's a very nice review of a 2.4ghz amd(2600+) and a intel 2.4ghz both the same speed.

Now the amd wins in most of the tests BUT that is against a intel 2.4ghz not a 3.2ghz.

AMD chips are faster at the same ghz as intel but intel's fastest chip is 3.2ghz and amd is only 2.2ghz i think. And there's no way their going to beat intel unless they have a chip that's the same ghz or atleast 200mhz less.

http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/cpu/2.4_showdown/

I knew johnoh wouldn't miss out on leaving a post on this thread ;)

You'll probably have 20 posts in a couple days in this thread lol.

Very popular subject.

My primary machine for day-to-day use (gaming, video editing, regular productivity apps) has a 2500+ CPU in it and I am very happy with its performance, and even happier with the price (must be like 85 bucks now or something). That being said, I also have a couple Intel machines, a Pentium 3 and a older Pentium 4 and they are both great machines also. I believe that the 2.4 Ghz is about 170 bucks now, so while is is twice as expensive and even more so once you include an Intel based motherboard, it is not that expensive like the top of the line models of either side.

AMD has been on the downhill for a while now with the Athlon processors as far as ultimate performance and even overclocking, both things that it would beat any Intel chip at a year or so ago. AMD has fallen behind with the times so right now Intel is undoubtably your best choice as a performance CPU. However, for your money, the Athlons will give you much more performance so if you are on a budget then go AMD.

As far as stability, every chip that is made by AMD and Intel right now will lost a very long time and in my experience those that won't will show their weaknesses in the time covered by the warranty.

One last thing. When I saw the header to this thread I knew that it could escalate to a shouting match but please, people are trying to get good information without childish yelling and flaming et cetera so let's try and keep this to a minimum, ok?

Zroc's post (link below) on hardforum.com is the mother of all amd vs p4 vs varying fsb benchmarks. Many review sites have cut & pasted from his post because his work is more thorough than they way they normally benchmark.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611788

If you analyze the first and 10th chart (out of 14 charts) you come up with 4:3 as the rule of thumb for intel vs amd ghz. That is, a 3.2g p4 is about equal to a 2.4g amd (which does not exist). It is important to always use equal system bus speeds when comparing. Meaning take a 2.4g p4 @ 800mhz and compare it to a 1.8g xp @ 400mhz amd and they come out the same. (note: I exclude sandra because it is simply a raw ghz test). Since tbreds are unlocked there is no reason all amd owners should not just lower their multi and increase their system bus to 200 even if they do not want to overclock.

I've read every post above and would like to make a blanket statement. ALL anti-amd comments on this thread are correct when discussing the 2800+ and up, which are just plain overrated. But ALL anti-amd comments here are incorrect when discussing the 2400+ or below.

amd cpus can fry if you forget to put on the heatsink. A p4 will survive. But other than that, amd cpus never fry. However, overclocked p4s have the possibility of SNDS (sudden northwood death syndrome). No one has ever figured out why this happens but it happens to maybe 1 out of every 20 or 30 p4s with a vcore increase of 15%-25% over stock. amd cpus do not suffer from this.

amd has not gone downhill in any way other than the fact that the fastest p4 is now faster than the fastest amd. This is a catastrophe for their business since most of the profits come from the top end and intel is killing them on the top end, but for buyers who do not want to pad the profits of amd or intel by buying the overpriced top-end, it is irrelevant. As for overclocking, the majority of $45 1700+'s you can buy will overclock to 2.4g to 2.5g with an sk7 (now $15) cooler, which makes them faster than any stock cpu made by amd OR intel (assuming you get a good mobo and run it at 12x210 or 11x220). In terms of percentage oc that makes the 1700+ the 2nd best oc'r in history after the early 66mhz celerons that routinely went to 100 or 120 fsb with no change to the cooler.

I have excluded exclamation marks from this post to avoid being called a yeller.

I have used both AMD and Intel and I like both of them. As consumers, we need both of them.

I only wish AMD makes the profit they need to do more R/D and in Chipset development which Intel owns and manufactures.

AMD platform will be revised soon enough. It is not AMD does not want to change, it's the share holders they must face every quarter. Intel has over $3 billion in R&D and plant retooling every year. AMD has little to operate. If you own AMD stock you know what I am talking about. Although Intel's performance is not great, it's earning ratio is far better than AMD.

Depends on your computing needs, we have the choice as consumers. For gaming and Office work, go for AMD. For video editing, engineering work involve 3D, and Manufacturing (MRP, DRP, ERP, BOM) go Intel.

Yes, P4 Northwood when juiced up over 1.8V will suffer "sudden death". And, you won't know when it gets it's "heart attack".

Not that I sided with johnoh, but he sounds more logical than emotional.

For an Intel 800mhz system:
P4 2.4D1 CPU $ 170
MB $120
Memory $140

Total $430, and not many people can afford.

XP1700 $45
MB $ 75
memory $ 70

Total $190, and more people can afford.

Overclocking
2.4 might reach 3.2
XP1700 might reach 2.4

Bottom line performance difference? Not many people would notice in daily computing.

It's nice to have products that meet our different needs.

I personally would go with the 2500+, because DDR Ram can handle more bandwidth. Just do a search on DDR Vs. Rambus Ram and you will find out that the DDR does way more processing that the Rambus. Also the 2500+ can be overclock to a 3200+, thats fast for only about 90$.

TypeRice
You have missed the Dual Channel DDR400 800mhz P4 that leads the memory bandwidth.

i have a home network and i have both on it. and i game on both. i prefer the amd. they run a little hotter but they are fast. i built the pc im on now a few weeks ago. on suprise a amd xp 2600 333 $109 but now they are cheaper and a asus motherboard i love it A7V333-X $79 O get a different heatsink i got a volcano 10 and it works great

bottom line how much do you wasnt to spend and which do you prefer

Hi All

What a hot topic.

Consider this.

The Intel runs at a clock speed of 133mhz, the AMD runs at 166mhz. What is faster ?

The intel requires 4 cycles at 133mhz to achieve the fsb speed of 533, the Amd would require 3.2 cycles at 166mhz to achieve the same fsb of 533. What is more efficient ?

So if you were to add 4 cycles to an amd at 166mhz what would you get ?

If I was playing games, what would I go for?

Regards

Janos

Well to be honest for the best buy and i would think performance go with the amd and the fastest dual channel mem. and this pc will rock. get some corsair twinx low latency ram and this machine will be perfect for video editing, gaming, and well pretty much anything. ohh and don't skimp on the video card. ati 9700 or the 9800.. good luck with your decision . AMD. and would recommend the asus a7n8x deluxe motherboard. just a recommendation..

I just don't know why so many people like AMD. I used an Athlon 2800+ machine in windows xp, everything seems to be so slow. When I click on start menu, loading stuff, open/save. On the other hand, a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz just left AMD 2800+ far behind on loading times. Everything is fast. Sure that AMD has higher floating point unit than the Pentium 4, but when it comes down to loading time, AMD attends to lag behind due to slower raw Mhz. The Pentium 4 with HT is even better, so fast at loading.

"I just don't know why so many people like AMD. I used an Athlon 2800+ machine in windows xp, everything seems to be so slow. When I click on start menu, loading stuff, open/save. On the other hand, a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz just left AMD 2800+ far behind on loading times. Everything is fast."

That difference is entirely due to things other than the cpu, and is probably the OS config itself. A user cannot perceive a difference between a 2.8g p4 and a 2800+ outside of reading benchmark scores.

Johnoh

You have my vote, I couldnt agree with you more.

A general end user will not see the diff between the 2.

And as far as making things appear on screen faster, wel 30 second in the directory change 3 numbers and things will jump to screen at a speed of light, regardles of processor or ram.

Regards

Janos

Skipping the Intel vs. AMD chat for now...

Playing games and doing video editing. I would buy the cheaper option of the processors and concentrate on the videocard Radeon 9700PRO 9800PRO or the new geforce and having LOTS of ram 2Gb or more.

And IMO to the INTEL vs. AMD
If you can't affort the very fastest INTEL CPU go for the AMD.

At the end of the day its about performance So i'd buy the Athlon XP2500 and jam as much DDR RAM in there as possible :)
Or if your loaded go for the 3.06 intel and jam that with ram...its all about the ram ram ram ram ddr

I totally totally agree with johnoh,
An average user cannot perceive the difference in response time with CPUs running at such high speeds.

The difference is certainly due to other factors like mobo, ram, OS settings, background programs, etc etc.

A real difference might be observed with video / audio editing and compression. There again we may find other limiting factors, so where is a true test to say which is best?

At the end of the day, do you all seriously think the would be a difference to the average user?
for games, get laods and loads of RAM and a good video card, then the clock speed becomes secondary.

Besides, the computer will be just as fast as the slowest link within it - the hard disk. (CD ROM and Floppy apart)....

-Kailas

Sorry I did not see ole's post, I second him too, its more about ram ram and ram.

Going from top end procesors, down to their ancestors:

My machine : P3 550 Mhz with 192 MB ram
Friend's : P3 1 Ghz with 64 MB ram

(I am about just half as fast as my friend)

With the extra 128MB ram, in almost every aspect, my machine beats his by huge margin, one of the few expeption being the time required to compress a 600MB + .dat file from a VCD. There the 1 Ghz was faster. Other than that, it was my comp all the way...

I think you can notice the difference. When i overclock my cpu i get 10 fps more on average which i notice. Also pc boots up faster about 3 sec when overclocked. Games load faster etc..ect. And i agree about the ram thing BUT that's not all that matters. Maybe helps loading times cause it's already loaded into memory. But it doesn't do wonders for every little thing you do on your pc.

I think people are missing the point!

If you seen the video from this website, you'll understand what I'm talking about. The Pentium 4 with HT is just FAST!!!! REALLY FAST!!!! AMD Will NEVER EVER reach such fast loading speed.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-22.html

Here, download the video yourself and watch it closely as a Pentium 4 3.0Ghz with HT beat Pentium 4 3.6Ghz w/o HT.

This subject just refuses to die doesnt it.

Well, I am a Intel Man through and through, but when it comes to recomending good fast systems to friends, I point them in the direction of AMD. Sorry TMP-MAN as fast the p4 HT processor is, still falls behind in full flight against the AMD XP.

I have been to the sight you quoted, NO THANKS, I would recommend a few others to you instead.

If you read the last head to head of the XP 3200 and the intels latest and fastets beast, the XP3200+ looses out by 0.03% first time ever, you think we could see that difference ? I dont think so !

For an individual who may be looking a fast and good system on a budget, AMD is the way to go. If you dont have a $ restriction and can spend the extra mega dollars for a super dooper video card to compensate for the lesser graphics ability of the intels inner graphics core than go Intel.

But over all its great to see such a hot debate over the 2 brands. It is true that AMD has heat issues sometimes, but a good and carefull choice on the case and a strategiclly placed fan fixes the problem. AMD has a link that will point you to their recommended after market coooler, guess where the link goes, THERMALTAKE ring a bell !

Great debate guys,most enjoyable.

Regards

Janos

Good for you, AMD is now falling behind Intel. I don't understand why people will even bother to buy an Athlon 3200+ when its not even faster than the Pentium 4 3.2Ghz with HT. Anyways, it's your choice whether to go with AMD or Intel, don't forget that you get what you paid for, this is never wrong.

Time for my two cents, firstly, I agree that AMD has kinda lost the plot when it comes to the 3200+ (mainly because it costs more than the P4 3.0C) but when all said and done up until the Barton, AMD was spanking Intel. What people have to realise is that Intel's raw MHz have finally surpassed AMD's superior instuction per cycle ratio.

In reality, the 3200+ would have to run at around 2.4GHz with a 200FSB, in order to truely out-perform the P4 3.2C. I believe that Intels main advantage is Hyper Threading and as soon as applications/games begin to take advantage of it, AMD will be in a lot of trouble.

You could spend thousands on a new system, and in less than six months time, it will be worth around a 1/3 of what you paid. In my opinion technology changes so fast that its not worth getting the best of the best (unless your filthy rich). I prefer to spend less and get something that will give me decent performance and allow me to have some fun tweaking it.

I have owned both Intel and AMD processors, currently I have an AMD, and I can honestly say that I have been happy with them all, each has their advantages and disadvantages. It is up to you, the consumer, to decide what you want out of the system, how much you want to spend of the system, do your research and then make a purchase based on the outcome.

Very true TMP

AMD is starting to fall behind Intels HT chips, but can we be also honest and say that Intel had to go the very high fsb chips and incorporate HT technology to try and beat the AMD speed demon XP chip sets.

There is a tradeoff in one way or another between the two, we all know that. And the real speed deifferental is only minor.

And what forced Intel to go these extreme lengths ? wasent beacuase they realy wanted to spend mega millions on the new technology but they had no choice. Not to mention the appropriate price tag to go with them. You will agree that the huge price difference between the two is not justified.

And the HT technology hasent been without its troubles eather, there hs been quiet a number of reports when HT is engaged that it slows down windows performance, this is not a secret as a result MS had to develop a fix for it in mega short time, and it is available to all of us if the perfomance drops considerably.

And yes I agree it is always the decision of the end user which way he or she want's to go.

Regards

Janos

Well this is still going on .. but i would like to bring out that the new amd's did outperform the intels. The latest benchmarks i have read in.. Maximum PC the amd beat the p4 3.4 or the 3.6 can't remember i will get the article but the fastest intel anyway. Oh and if Jason the guy who started this post did you make a decision yet. lol

second post:
"Now people might post after me saying i'm wrong but where's the proof in writing. I've read many reviews where they state the same thing. It just seems A LOT of people that are amd fans are in denial and don't want to admit that intel is faster"

I think your in denial that amd is as good as intel. blah blah blah. The thing is, even if you are right about the 2500 being equal to a 2.3 p4, you can get a 2700 or 2800 for cheaper than the p4 2.4, and those are at equal if not better power.

Nope not in denial, like i said i don't even care what company makes the cpu just the speed of it, and how much performance i will get from it, for what i'm doing with it.

And when i began looking for parts for my system i currently have i checked out EVERY review comparing the 3.06ghz to the top amd chips at the time. And the answer was VERY clear INTEL.

I did this because i wanted the best speed i can get.

And also most amd cpu's cannot overclock enough to perform as good as the best overclocked p4's so even more reason to go INTEL.

If the AMD 64 is faster than the current Intel cpu i'll buy an amd.

No difference to me..

Now is that fair enough or what? Especially from a die hard Intel fan who makes 'em work, die hard AMD fans who make them work, and folks who make everything work.

I suggest to anyone who adds a reply to this post that you read the above 35 responses carefully before you open your mouth. There some really good stuff up there.

This is fun stuff. I'd turn in my 1300 for any of the equipment refrenced above.

Now; intermission over...back to the fight.

Skip

"And also most amd cpu's cannot overclock enough to perform as good as the best overclocked p4's so even more reason to go INTEL."

yup - You can get many 2.4g/533 cpus to 3.6g/800 using the stock cooler. The best xp on air cooling will go to 2.6g and that's with an aftermarket cooler.

I wonder if Jason is sorry he ever posted the question.

HEHEHEHE

Can someone pls call time out I cant get nay work done as a result of this debate.

Skip is right there is some good info here take note all those who read it.

Jason ! let us all know what you decide to do. We all have a need to know now.

Regards

Janos

Jason's likely wondering what the hell happened to his original post.

Wonder if he got an answer yet?

Skip

Nothing further to say, just wanted to see the post counter hit 40...hehe!

LOL Skip

Im having trouble following! the man's probably wondering what he has created.

HEHEHHEHEHE

But let's face it we all learn something we didnt know as a result of such open discussion.

I just hope he doesnt take to long to make up his mind. The suspense is killing me.

Janos

I think the poor dude has given up on computers all together.

"I am looking at upgrading my computer.
I can't decide whether to go for an Athlon XP2500(barton) at 333FSB or an Intel P4 2400 at 800FSB. I will use the machine for some games and quite a bit of graphics/video editing. Can anyone suggest? I am told that Intel's are more stable and cooler to run. Then I am told that I won't get much of a speed difference with either. Help!!!!"

You were told wrong. However any P4 with HT is a good way to go because the slowest things your pc does (load programs and files) become faster.

"You were told wrong. However any P4 with HT is a good way to go because the slowest things your pc does (load programs and files) become faster."

You know the thread has gotten out of hand when people are quoting themselves.

I meant you were told wrong about heat and stability. You are correct in that there will not be a noticeable speed difference.

Man this is crazy, i knew this subject was popular but i wasn't thinking 45 posts!!

It'll probably reach 55 in a couple days..lol.

Lucky the thread doesn't get bumped up to the top everytime someone leaves a new post...like some forums, this thread would never end.

Going from Pentium 4 2.8Ghz w/o HT to Pentium 4 3.06Ghz with HT, that's one small step in Mhz, one giant leap for performance.

one small question:

If you are buying the supposedly better inetl in lieu of the AMD, for an higher price, in what applications would you really notice the speed difference?

If all that one is running is text editiors, music / video players and some games, does processor technology matter?
Unless applications are writen to make use of special features of a processor, they just wont , right?

Now applications will be written to use a feature only when it is widely used. Good publicity (gimmiks) makes the product well settled in the market and then applications/games will use them. Then people will say that that particular processor is good.

This reminds me of the quote:
It is managers not engineers who make the product work

Again, is is just the male urge for more power that has made this debate this hot?
does the difference in the performance parameters of the best of either company matter ??
As some one said, the technology will be old in too short a time to try and buy the latest available today unless you are stinking rich with more money and less grey cells.
How many of us are extracting full power out of our present CPUs expect for games?

If all one is looking at is to play better games, then I guess this debate is worth it.
Can someone please tell me where else the prefromance difference/s matters???

this does not seem to end, does it

-Kailas Shastry

"And when i began looking for parts for my system i currently have i checked out EVERY review comparing the 3.06ghz to the top amd chips at the time. And the answer was VERY clear INTEL.

I did this because i wanted the best speed i can get.

And also most amd cpu's cannot overclock enough to perform as good as the best overclocked p4's so even more reason to go INTEL.

If the AMD 64 is faster than the current Intel cpu i'll buy an amd.

No difference to me.."

ok, i have a freakin 3.6 GHz machine, dual athlon XP's. I still saved money than what would haVE COSTED ME WITH AN INTEL. iM NOT SAYING THAT intel is bad or anything, but they are a bit more expensive. AMD has more bang for the buck. oh and kailas...

true dat

oh and kailas...

true dat

eh???

Ok last post on this thread..this is getting pathetic.

idowackus- I didn't say otherwise.

EVERYONE knows intel has the fastest processor and AMD has the second fastest.

AND the 3200+ cost MORE than a 3.2ghz. Atleast were i get it.

AND the 3.2ghz will oc further and out perform the 3200+..how many times do people have to repeat the same thing???

Those people loved AMD so much that they just forget about what they getting for what they paid. Athlon 3200+, pathetic CPU, it doesn't perform that well compared to the Pentium 4 3.2C. Right now the fastest processor in AMD is clocked at 2.4Ghz, they will never catch up with intel this way. By the time Intel release it's new prescott processor, the Athlon64 will be left far behind. 3.6+ Pentium 4 Ghz vs 2.4Ghz Athlon64, clock speed does matter.

TMP-Man

From what I have seen, the majority of AMD fans admit the the 3200+ is a rort, and for your information, the fastest AMD (the 3200+) is only clocked at 2.2GHz. And I doubt that you can call the 3200+ a pathetic cpu anyway, overrated, yes, pathetic, no. Do you personally own one for comparison?

Correction, the theoretical fastest AMD processor is the 3200+ @ 2.2GHz, whereas the 2800+ actually runs at 2.25GHz, sorry.

Wow... 54 posts already. Anyways, I'm not stupid enough to buy myself an Athlon 3200+, but I did use Athlon 2800+ @ 2.25Ghz in my friends house face to face with my 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 laptop.

yes intels have faster clocks and amds have slower clocks. but if you can sleep at night after spending over 300 quid on a processor then as kialas said you must have more money then grey matter.
im pretty sure that the majority of us computer users that post on this forum would rather spend 300 quid on a 2500+ processor,mobo and ram and still have some left over to go towards a radeon 9800.

He he i just read all 55 posts and i made my thoughts so i suggest you to go with INTEL. more stable and very hard to burn (i burned 2 mobo's but still have same procesor celeron 733) ))))))

"Again, is it just the male urge for more power that has made this debate this hot?"

yes

"yes"

No. Its about company policies and emotions about brands. Its not the power, its the principle.

"Again, is it just the male urge for more power that has made this debate this hot?"

yes

women do not have these debates.

I dont Know if this thread is still followed, but anyway...

johnoh, its good to see someone agreeing with me, stepping out of the typical instincts of the male we just cant seem to get off.
I guess we are on a higher plan in evolution, 1000 years ahead of our rightful times ? :) LOL

No. Its about company policies and emotions about brands. Its not the power, its the principle.

Then why dont we have debate on Pepsi vs. Coca Cola ?
Or Akai televisons vs. Samsung televisions?
or do we have them?

Cool Guy : about your celeron overclocking: I think (correct me if am wrong, the celerons are underclocked P2 and P3.) No wonder they are overclockable.
A friend of mine (this is true, he is crazy enough to do that) overclocked his 333Mhz Celeron to a whopping 633Mhz and the damn thing survived !
Tales of celeron such as this are commonplace. But when we are discussing top end processors of two companies, celeron comes no where near the list !

-Kailas Shastry

Kailas: I was saying that for instance INTELS's Celeron can survive extreme overclocking and highest temperetures and AMD's processors have less chances to do so. That was my point.

"Then why dont we have debate on Pepsi vs. Coca Cola ?
Or Akai televisons vs. Samsung televisions?
or do we have them?"

Well sometimes I do have debates of that sort. Say BMW against Mercedes. Just not on this thread because this place has nothing to do with that. BTW: Coca cola is much better than pepsi... :) And I would rather buy a samsung.

""Again, is it just the male urge for more power that has made this debate this hot?"
yes

women do not have these debates."

What do you mean by that? Are you sure that there are no women writing here? This is a anonym type a thing so you never know :)

In most of things to dabate about the stronger facts over run the emotions. In this case however the facts IMO are even so theres really nothing to talk about than the personal preference.

Things that are based on full facts are undebatable.

I don't want to start an argument but this is why i think so many people responded to this thread.

It is because when someone here says something and another person thinks it's wrong but they think there right..so they have to post a reply stating what they know because they think the other person is wrong.

Then of course the other person will often think the same way and it's never ending.

2 people think there right but they both think that the other is wrong.

If everyone agreed there would be no debate!