Replying to AMD And INTEL major diffrence

AMD has faster outright performance a good deal of the time, provided you are doing just one thing. The difference however, is usually rather small. On the other hand, Intel's hyperthreading tech allows running multiple programs and multitasking to work significantly better than AMD. Things get more complicated when you look at the 64 bit arena. AMD64 is the clear winner in this arena, with the intel Itanium quickly headed for the trashcan. However, Intel recently, and quietly, added support for the AMD x86-64 command set to its lastest set of chips, so they will run the same stuff the AMD chips will. So, now the question is, for the next set of chips, who will be better? AMD has more experience with their command set, but Intel's hyperthreading and long pipeline may somehow give them a large boost in performance(or a terrible cut, I don't know which).
Anyway, after all that, the question of which is better depends on what you are doing. For gaming, AMD is the way to go. For multitasking and similar, go Intel.

I've used both. I don't think there is much of a difference, except maybe the cost. Generally AMD computers are far less expensive then the equivilant Intel.

AMD is costs less i agree on that. But its crap, even by mass. If you compare 1 AMD 64 processor to P4 processor you will see that P4 weights alot more. It is also build with much better quality thats y it can handle more overcloacking. Therefore its better, but the cost rises.

im pro AMD's .

cause if you dont want 'em, dont buy em, and i want the best, barely any matter what it costs

First of all my hl2 runs at max graphics on my p4 3.2 with invidia 6800.
even though Linux suports 64 bit processors its kinda useless cause u cant play alot of games on it. and if u wanna overclock p4 nowadays you just hafta go to ur bios and change the speed to w/e speed u like(if u got the new bios).

well well:
1. linux does support 64bit processors, so they aren't useless.
2. i have an am 2500+ and hl2 runs very smoothly with good graphs. it's all in your videocard kiddo. half life doesn't require all that much power. besides, in this other topic you said half life does only require half as much power as doom3. i'm wondering what you need to play d3 in your opinion...
3. overclockers have always preferred amd because it's easier to overclock.

amd rocks but you just don't want to understand that.

Amd sucks. Intel would be a much better choice if you plan to overclock it, because new HT technology is great for doin that. Plus new games such as Half Life 2 requires fast processors as hell(3.2ghz is good to run it on high grahics), but you cant get any amd to be that high yet. AND windows duznt support 64 edition yet so basically they're useless

for me the only diff is how you use the hardware, for a hardcore pc maniac without planning to restart his pc for years. i prefer intel for that coz intel is tested to last longer than amd

AMDs aren't that expensive yet, but they will go up more as they are more common, and evntually Intels will be obsolete in any and all gaming computers. I had a barebone system made with a 64-bit AMD 2.7(I believe) and it wasnt that expensive for it. As for pushing to the limit, what do you want? I mean...a pc can be pushed to the limit as with overclocking as long as you know what you are doing, but there isnt much of a point after AMD's 2.5+ and Intels 3.0+ honestly. I mean, ya you get to multi-task a little more, but why do you need to multi-task that much, especially if it is for gaming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AMD will continue to give you more for your money. Things will pretty much, stay
the way they are because Intel has so many big manufacturers in their pocket!
Dell for instance, builds only with Pentium and they are pretty big.
As for my expression "pushed to the limit" that's in a factorymade system where
the manufacturer has to think about costs,heat and noise! We will soon have
a totally new architecture on CPU's because the only way to go now, is to make
it smaller.
I think the latest change was the last one, just because it's getting impossible
to shrink it more!

AMDs aren't that expensive yet, but they will go up more as they are more common, and evntually Intels will be obsolete in any and all gaming computers. I had a barebone system made with a 64-bit AMD 2.7(I believe) and it wasnt that expensive for it. As for pushing to the limit, what do you want? I mean...a pc can be pushed to the limit as with overclocking as long as you know what you are doing, but there isnt much of a point after AMD's 2.5+ and Intels 3.0+ honestly. I mean, ya you get to multi-task a little more, but why do you need to multi-task that much, especially if it is for gaming.