Which one is it (this is comparing the S939 Athlon 64s [AMD] and LGA775 Pentium 4s [Intel] and no other series).

I think AMD is better - they're cooler, faster, more efficient, cheaper and generally better in every way. Thi is reflected in the Dual cores - as AMD put 2 4000+s (their 3rd best, after FX55 and FX57, single core) on one chip, whereas Intel could only manage 2 2.8GHz (bottom of the range) chips on their CPU, and it costs 50%+ more!

Intel are quickly falling behind. The only way they make their money is in PC's sold at PC world, same with Nvidia too.

Don't forget Dell, that's because to the "I want a fast PC but know nothing group" MHz are everything.

Also, I think you'll find ATI are more commonly found in the Dell/PCWorld machines - bigger numbers *must* be better. Anyway, this is nothing to do with nVidia and ATI.

But while we're on the topic, I don't see many ATI cards in PC World machines.

I see lots of ATIs in Dell machines, and lots of celotape in PCWorld machines (seriously!). But that's a different matter...

Anyway, back to processors, when do you reckon we'll se the first 3GHz Athlon? (Not overclocked)

I'd expect to see single cored 3GHz Athlon 64's in Q2 2006. I reckon that when they do that, they'll manage to put the FX-55 and FX-57 in to dual core models with varying L2 cache's (ooh, probably not that last one!)

The 4000+ is essentially a FX53, so the FX 55 will be their next dual core challenge. It will be 2 2.6GHz cores, with the 5000+ (ooh, nice number) have 512KB L2 cache and 5200+ with 1MB L2 cache (per core). That's how they've numbered them so far.

FX 53, Sledgehammer, LOL !!!!

What? I know Sledgehammer is the name of one of the core types. If you're saying they're not the same (FX53 and 4000+), they have the same clock speed and L2 cache, I think the only difference is something to do with locked multiplyers, but I'm not sure. And don't say that just cos their clock speeds are the same, doesn't mean they're the same, it does because they are the same technology (Athlon 64 S939).

No, I'm just laughing because Sledgehammer was the 130nm version. I don't know why it's funny.

AMDs are much better! No doubt about it, just ignore the fact that my pc and the pc that im posting with are both P4s.

LOL, to both of those. Maybe it's because it effectively sledgehammers the Intels? Damn, that's a bad joke!

LOL that's awesome.