Intel does not have 64-bit processors for desktops (Pentium 4) or servers (Xeon). Intel uses software that is named EM64T to convert 64-bit to 32-bit instructions. However, Intel does have a true 64-bit processor named Itanlium for the server world but it perform worst in every server application except engineering applications.

it's actually Itanium.

Also, if you search the benchmarks on sites like TomsHardware or AnandTech, you'll see that the AMD dual cores kick the Intel dual cores' asses. In some cases the low-end AMD X2 3800+ beats out the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition, the high end of Intel's dual core line-up.

here's one comparison

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200508011/index.html

Well, IMHO it's not worth the price of getting a dual core unless you multitask a lot, as long as you can't use both cores on a single porcess. True is taht Linux is more multitasking than Windows, but even with that, I don't think regular desktop users will find much more performance on a dual core than a single core.

Its like this man, when i build computers for people i NEVER tell them no you dont need this part. If they want a expenceive case, they get it, if they want a 200 buck vid card for playing StarCraft (which can run off and 8mb card, Iv done it) they get it. what im trying to say here Its their money let them spend as much as they want =P.................... as long as i get paid in the end its fine

Good point, YellowKnife.
For instance, in professional world one 1 GHz P3 can host a thousand web sites (with PHP and SQL). In amateur world folks buy 3000+ CPU's (instead of ECC RAM) for home servers nobody hardly visits. Since professionals are outnumbered by amateurs - the amount of money wasted worldwide is huge.
Let them pay for development - this is where their money goes.

A lot of people don't realize how much they multitask though. Even though one core can't take more than one process, how many processes do you have running at one time? I've been in the situation where i'm trying to render a huge image in the gimp and playing music and running setiathome at the same time. I find I have to stop the background processes(setiathome, music) just to get a respectable time on the image render. I hate having to do that, because I want to be able to listen to my music and still be functional in my work. BTW, this is on my single-core P4 2.8

When you encode a video file, with a single-core, your computer is pretty much useless until it's done, and depending on the compression you're using, that could be a long time. But with a dual-core, you can still be productive while it's encoding.

Also, if your application is multi-threaded, meaning it splits it's work amongst the available processors, it will take advantage of that second core and improve your performance. These programs are far and few between at this state in time. But as dual-cores and the hyper-threading become more popular, the software will follow. It's not necessarily what they can do now that draws people to them, a part of it is what they will do in the future. Multi-core is the way that conventional computing is going.

I have a AMD 64 and i can multitask desently. Running GIMP, music, Firefox, and Gaim(if on linux). If im on windows i can run Thuderbird, Firefox, Gaim, Winamp, and WarCraft 3. All at once

Not that anyone cares, or will believe me, but my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz can multitask the hell out of anything. Of course, since AMD invented the universe, saved my unborn child's life, rescued an orphan from a burning building, and still has time to make breakfast every morning, I doubt anyone would ever want to use something else. All my Pentium ever does is its job, better than any AMD could. I would challenge anyone, even with a 64bit AMD chip to video encoding, and I guarentee you, my measely 32bit chip will kill your AMD. BTW, anytime anyone has taken me up on that, they have lost. I have beaten a 64bit 3600+ with 2 gigs of ram doing it on a 64bit OS. FYI, no, I do not overclock, overvolt or anything else. My 3.0ghz is stock.

I have really only done this Windows XP, this tower doesn't have linux yet, but I regularly run Pinnacle Studio, a MMORPG(namely Matrix Online), Adobe Photoshop CS2, Firefox, Thunderbird, Konfabulator, Windows Blinds, and Windows Media Player(or Winamp depending). During all this, the processor never peaks over 55c, and I do not have water cooling or anything else, just a copper based heatsink and fan.

Namely, I am not Pro Intel or Anti AMD. I am solidly in the square of usage based processor choice. I just wish more people could see things with the same unclouded judgement and fairness. FYI, when I was a computer tech, we ran all sorts of tests OURSELVES, and could never duplicate Tom's hardware or most of the other "notable" sites results, because every site I ahve been to is heavily biased one way or the other. When you use the closest equivilent parts, and run the tests yourselves, you will notice quite a bit of those sites are doing things to fudge numbers.

I used to have a P4 2.8ghz processor before, and when i ran VMware workstation, my host machine slowed to a stutter. This was with a decent 1Gb of ram.

Now, with my X2 3800, I have no problem having my VMware run in the background while I encoded video files, hashed files, and god knows what else. My system maintained an excellent state of stability when my P4 would have probably crashed, or just slowed to a crawl.

I don't have any actual benchmarks, but I love having this dual core processor, it enables me to do what i want without sacrificing background tasks.

Now i am pro AMD in every way, but comparasin is unfair. Due to the fact your putting a singal core CPU agenset a Dual core CPU

I understand that, I was more touting the advantages of a Dual core CPU than AMD vs Intel.

ahhhhh, y would anyone want to pay that much money for a P4 dual core, when you can get a AMD for cheaper

Pentium D is dual core right? and isn't the low end Pentium D cheaper than the low end Athlon 64 X2?

I may be wrong but I thought it was.

The PD only has 2 32 bit cores the AMD 64X2 has 2 64bit cores. also AMD CPUs dont have FBS so even tho they have less GHZ they still can process more then a Intel cause Intel CPUs waist GHZ with the FBS

first off yellowknife, mind your grammar. you're a sophomore not a 5th grader. second
what makes AMDs faster to some people is the intergrated memory controller and the faster floating poit processing unit, not the lack of a frontside bus. Intels ARE faster than AMDs at photoshop and audio/video conversion but tend to get beaten out at gaming due to the fact that the numerous floating point equations are handled better by the AMD. AMD does not make cheaper dual cores than Intel. This is due to the fact that AMDs are more true dual cores whereas the pentium d and extreme edition are merely 2 prescott cores sandwiched together and joined at the front side bus. AMDs are joined at the on-die memory controller. So stop being AMD fanboys because they're themost annoying thing on the intarweb besides furries.