Phenom II 920 goodness thread

[TL1000S]

AMD created one processor that was good for multataskers. People that work with different applications and wants good flow. If they do one lengthy operation in one application they switch to other applications and works with that. This is a much more productive way to work if you compare with those who just sit an stare at the monitor while the application is processing the lengthy command.
The problem is that there are a lot of users that don't use the processor as a working tool or that they want the fastest, they just look at how fast one processor can process one command without running other applications.

There are also a lot of people that has many running instances for one application. Working with one project could mean that you need to work with three different documents. You constantly switch between those documents, this need to be fast.

What AMD did was to create a good processor for actual work.
Intel has focused to create a processor that performs good on CPU tests.

Gosh, your avatar is like "throwing stones in a house of glass".

What you describe is nothing special for AMD CPU's.
It is a product of hardware and software regardless of CPU.
Which means:
If the OS/drivers do not utilize cores/threads (yes - HT do work) you can have a single core/thread unresponsive system.
Since I use 50/50 (always have) rigs from both "camps" there are no big difference regarding multitasking given same amount of cores/threads available/used by the OS. That is *my* view anyhow.
"Smoothness"/responsiveness do vary between platform/rigs, but my experience do not favour any of rigs from Intel/AMD.
As other have discovered, sometimes a "crappy" Sempron/Celeron based rig may feel quicker to boot/use/switch task than a "high end" C2D/K8/K10 rig.
This is mainly due to other hardware/drivers/OS.

[gosh]

Gosh, your avatar is like "throwing stones in a house of glass".

What you describe is nothing special for AMD CPU's.

All intel computers that I have tested has not been that good to work with compared to amd. I have friends that has noticed the same pattern so I don't think it is ghosts in my head.
I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

[Sparky]

I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

Well here is one. My intel q6600 is much more responsive than my AMD 3200+

OK guys lighten up a little and let's not clutter the OPs thread with yet another AMD vs Intel faster/smoother/snappier/etc stuff

[Olivon]

All intel computers that I have tested has not been that good to work with compared to amd. I have friends that has noticed the same pattern so I don't think it is ghosts in my head.
I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

Drugs 'R Bad !!!

[gosh]

Drugs'r Bad !!!

why do you write that to me?

[Hornet331]

All intel computers that I have tested has not been that good to work with compared to amd. I have friends that has noticed the same pattern so I don't think it is ghosts in my head.
I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

Your best comparison was a C2 dualcore (a mobile version in a notebook)... good reference to compare a dualcore notebook with a quadcore desktop workstation and then complain its not smooth enough...