Fleesh said:
I think there's a bit of a mistake on my behalf yes. I think that you will find that the older amd's do run hotter than the equivalent intel... correct me if im wrong but i rekon im right. althought the newer 64's do run alot cooler than intel < this i didnt know my aplogies. I also always belived that amd chips were purley more for the gaming market and that intel's where better at multitasking etc.... sorry if im wrong but it's just what i've always thought.... i aint no geek man
The last time AMD cpus were on average hotter than Intel cpus was when the Athlon XP Palomino core was the mainstream. This ended at the
Athlon XP 2100+ Palomino which was several years ago.
Once the thouroughbred-b was released alongside the Northwood Pentium 4, from the AXP 1700+ tbred to the AXP 3200+ Barton, the Athlons were cooler or very comparable to the p4.
Once Intel released the
Prescott core, from 2.8ghz to all the newer and faster P4s (especially 3.2ghz and above), the P4s were VASTLY hotter than the Athlon XPs, and amazingly hotter than the Athlon64s.
The Athlon64 is a wonderful gaming processor, but so is the Pentium4. However, on a whole, the only areas where the P4 can consistently come ahead of the A64, is in memory bandwidth (no longer true with the Athlon FX 57 and Athlon X2), and video editing. However, when it comes to mostly multi-tasking situations, the X2 comes ahead of the P4. In most generic office benchmarks, the A64 comes ahead of the P4 as well.