Links Sports.NET

I am looking into buying a new computer. I know Intel is good for Links golf and I remember hearing horror stories about the AMD processor but that was years ago. In all you Linksters opinions, which processor should I get or stay away from. Or, are they both good these days. Thank you. Rick

have always owned AMD and never had problems with any of them. but i am sure intel would probably serve me just as well. AMD was usually less expensive so I went them and stayed with them. to each his own however.

So-Cal person ehh? Thanks for the response. I'm in the foothills outside of Hemet

My preference has always been Asus and Intel.

You can be sure of a debate when you pit AMD fans against Intel fans. In the end, it is probably a saw-off.

I have an Intel and an AMD. Both seem to run at the same speed for me in Links. The techo who built the AMD, said that they run cooler.

I'm with Warren. Intel, Asus, and Leadtek/Nvidia have never disappointed me. Want some very geeky reviews? Go to http://www.majorgeeks.com/. (AMDs test well also, but i have no personal experience with 'em). I think the key to a good, reliable 'puter is more in the marriage between the MoBoard/CPU/Video card, as well as the OS. (No way would I go with Vista until they're on at least SP2.... ). A lot depends on what you want from your new PC.....

Rick, here is a conclusion you might find interesting. Personally I don't think you can go wrong with either.

So, after performing many tests, which is the fastest CPU -- AMD's Athlon 64 or Intel's Pentium 4? The answer depends on which software you use: there is no clear winner here.

The Athlon 64 has an advantage with mainstream office and Internet applications, and 3D games. Meanwhile, the Pentium 4 can always score with optimised software -- particularly 3D and video rendering. The multitasking tests also show an advantage for Intel's Pentium 4.

The Athlon 64 has a clear advantage in terms of cost. Although AMD's and Intel's fastest chips are comparably priced, system costs are higher for Pentium 4-based PCs with DDR2 memory. The price difference between Athlon 3500+ and Pentium 4 550 systems is even larger, because the AMD chip costs $71 less than its Intel counterpart.

Post-purchase costs should not be ignored, either. A Pentium 4-based system uses 60 to 70 Watts more power when idling and up to 89 per cent more power relative to an Athlon 64 PC. For a household with a few computers, this may not add up to a significant cost saving, but for larger enterprises with several thousand PCs the sums will look completely different.

The Athlon also supports the NX feature, which offers protection from certain viruses in conjunction with Windows XP Service Pack 2. Intel has announced that the Pentium 4 is to support the NX feature later this year. The Athlon chips' 64-bit capability is currently no advantage, as 64-bit Windows XP isn't due to ship until 2005.

wow, dave. i've always thought of you as a sharp guy. but that post just blows me away.

dr_dave +1

Thing is, Intel has gone beyond the p4 with the Core 2 Duo cpu.

[/quote]The Athlon chips' 64-bit capability is currently no advantage, as 64-bit Windows XP isn't due to ship until 2005.[/quote]

Interesting stuff Dave, but woefully old. If you're going to copy and paste stuff A.) Make it relative to the time at hand, or B.) Change the date in your paste to make it look like it's relative to the time at hand

copy and paste!!! dave, dave, dave. that's ok, even though it's a little dated, i still thought it was pretty impressive for a doc.

Where's the delete button when you need it??? What do you want from a proctologist?

terrell wrote:wow, dave. i've always thought of you as a sharp guy. but that post just blows me away.

dr_dave +1

Hey T, TABJBOMA

Dr_Dave wrote:Where's the delete button when you need it??? What do you want from a proctologist?

A safe, painless ride?