[bigben2k]

This has to be the most sensitive subject for a thread...

What it really comes down to, is the chips, and what they're used for.

It's no surprise to anyone, becauseof AMD's chip design, that the Athlon XP will outrun a Pentium 4 in FPU (Floating point). As a result, the Athlon XP, even though a little more restricted in memory bandwith than the Pentium 4, is a smarter choice for most office applications.

Office applications constitutes most of PCs purchased, and as it happens, the Athlon XP is cheaper than the Pentium. A double hit. (Look out the window boys and girls, there's a world out there!)

On the other hand, if you're looking for memory intensive applications or anything that isn't too mathematical (like games), then the Pentium 4 might be a better choice.

Now let's go in some more details...

If you ask me, I'd tell you that AMD would be better off marketing their chips at the real speed, and let their product be compared with Intel's as they are. Honesty is always the best policy. AMD went ahead with this (now querky) naming scheme for a couple of reasons:
1- There are still some people out there who will compare Intel and AMD CPUs on a MegaHertz level. (they should know better, but apparently they don't)
2-Intel's marketing machine is far, far bigger than AMD's, simply because Intel is a very large corporation with a multitude of products and hence, a very large budget. Intel is actually marketing itself through its processor, which is a very smart move. (Do you remember the last time that you bought an Intel product that was NOT a CPU?). So you see, instead of having a small marketing budget for each Intel product line, Intel has re-appropriated the budget from most divisions into their CPU products.

AMD is nowhere near being able to compete with Intel's marketing budget. Not now, not in fifty years from now. So AMD is doing the best it can: marketing themselves directly to the PC manufacturers, (wherever Intel hasn't interfered) who in turn will turn in a giant profit because their PCs are now cheaper than their "Intel inside" counterpart, and for general purposes, WILL ACTUALLY OUTPERFORM IT.

The key struggle that AMD has just surpassed is this:

Intel owns its own chip manufacturing plants, and has many of them. AMD never owned anything, except the design of their CPUs.

This year (2002), AMD entered into an agreement with a Japanese chip manufacturer, where AMD would share some of their technology, and the manufacturing plant would produce Athlon's at .13um, AND EVEN SMALLER in very large quantities.

As a result of this AMD has secured a supply source for it's design. In the past, AMD has always had difficulties meeting the demand with its product. PC manufacturers don't look at delays very kindly, in fact, they don't like them at all.

No more.

New facility, greater production, the latest technology.

AMD's Athlon will also use a smaller die (the actual chip itself, you know, that square thingy that sticks out from the top). This reduces the production cost of a chip.

Intel is actually going to use a larger die, increasing their production cost. But then, when you own your own facilities, why should you care?

Keep an eye on AMD for the next 2 years. You'll be shocked.