Intel versus AMD

Ik weet het, het is een gevaarlijk onderwerp maar GamePC heeft wel een leuk textje geschreven over Intel versus AMD. Ze kiezen geen winnaar maar vergelijken de producten van AMD en Intel op verschillende fronten en ik moet zeggen dat Intel vaker wint dan AMD :

[Todd]
Chris, I can't believe you're going to do this after I soundly beat you at the 3dfx/NVIDIA Smackdown. You must be a glutton for punishment. With the recent confusion over all the various Intel Pentium III formats (FC-PGA, P3E, P3EB, CelerMines), Intel's just waiting to shoot themselves in the retail foot. AMD has really risen to the challenge with their latest Athlon processors as well as being the first ones to market with a true 1 GHz processor. (Yes, they do exist. I saw them in Tokyo last week.) AMD has solved their weak point from the K6 family (floating point calculations), and really surpassed Intel as far as pure technology goes. With their redesigned FPU architecture, they have made the first imposing threat to Intel's dominance of the high-end PC market.

[Chris]
Jeez, I must be a glutton for punishment by taking Intel's side, especially after the hell they've been going through recently. But hey, as of right now, they do have the clock-for-clock fastest processors on the market with their Coppermine series of chips. Intel's had full-speed on-die cache for months now, and AMD's just finally getting on track. AMD's constant bump-downs in the speeds of L2 cache has literally killed them in all the performance benchmarks out there, especially now that they're hitting 900, 950, and 1000 MHz with 300-350 MHz cache, whereas the Coppermine chips at the same clock speed have cache 3x as fast as the Athlons. Compare 800 and 900 MHz Athlons and Coppermines, and every time, you'll see the Coppermine is faster in gaming applications (we don't give a crap about business applications, after all, we ARE GamePC).