This battle has been fought since AMD first introduced their line of chips
some odd years back.  The fact is that the chips are built on the same
principles...only small design features that have to be taken to avoid
patent infringement really separate the two lines.  I can run benchmark X on
an Intel box and an AMD box with the same cpu clock and the AMD wins hands
down.  However, running benchmark Y on the same two systems produces the
opposite.  IF you can narrow a system's function down to one "job,"
rendering 3D models for example, then you could get into a legitimate debate
about which cpu does a better job, as cache speeds and amounts (the most
prominent difference in the two lines) affect rendering greatly.  But as the
vast majority of systems do a wide margin of tasks, this point is really
moot.  Price is another issue, but with what AMD wants for their high-end
Athlons, they are shooting themselves in the only foot they had ahead of
Intel if you ask me :)  (I consider them quite equal)

BTW, I would like to read the material about AMD running WIN2K better than
Intel also.  We have been running WIN2K on both platforms for quite some
time and I have never noticed a considerable difference in the
two...although this may inspire me to break out benchmark X and Y :)

Comments welcomed,

Brad in Tulsa

_______________________________
I don't mean to directly disagree, but from everything I have heard, Windows
2000 runs MUCH BETTER on an AMD than an Intel chip.  Personally, I would
prefer an AMD Win2k server.

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html