Quote Originally Posted by Lestat View Post
that used to be true NN
but not anymore.
there is no trade off even comparing dual core amd to dual core intel
the intel just goes and goes and goes, while the AMD struggles.

the intel does everything better.

pound for pound 2.4ghz intel vs 2.4ghz AMD.... there is no comparison.. only 1 cpu pulls ahead all the way

i am no way shape or form complaining about AMD, i love the amd cpu's i had and still have.
but when it comes to getting the job done,, Intel wins everytime.
WRONG, it is still true. Yes I agree that Intel's Quads perform better than AMD's dual cores in many respects but not in all respects. For Example, Virtualization. AMD has hardware support for many(all) used virtualization instructions, Intel does not. Thus AMD can do in 6 clock cycles what takes Intel a hundred regular instructions with latencies ranging from 1 clock cycle to hundreds of clock cycles. So that even in a best case scenario, AMD's 6 clock cycles still owns Intel's 100 clock cycles. Thus even with Quadruple the numbers of Cores, double the clock speed it doesn't make up for the 16 fold superior performance that AMD has for the given task.
I'm not suggesting it is a common situation, nor will it even matter in a desktop but it is an area that AMD's tradeoffs give them superior performance.