Originally Posted by Conpain
If you only care how the CPUs score, yes the Athlon64 3200+ would beat the P4 3.2 HT in most benchmarks, except encoding.
But what you say to the chipsets?
Intel OWNZ VIA/SiS/NVIDIA chipsets and particularly if you compared the whole system perfomance with
This isn't due a technical better CPU, no it's cause Intel make better chipsets for the P4.
For all you may say, I think the real benefit from a CPU (CPU + chipset) does count more, than a higher CPU only score.
Don't take it amiss!
You're quite right. No disagreement at all. For the P4, the best chipsets come from Intel. I do not know for a fact, but believe the same is true for Pentium-M CPU's.
But the chipsets for the AMD processors get their best chipsets from ALI, SIS, NVidia, ATI and VIA. I do not know why a similar (nearly identical) chipset preforms well on a AMD and badly on an INTEL.
I further agree that you are right that the best cpu in the world is worthless (or at least very limited) by a bad chipset. After all (to steal a line from the drag racers) it's not the horsepower under the hood that matters, but what you can put on the road.
The big difference is that these chipsets work very well for the AMD chips. The AMD64 chipsets are still a little immature, but pretty good. If I were to guess, it seems that they "Might" be designed for AMD and ported to Intel. I know I have an XBOX, and there is a significant difference in quality between games designed for it (which blow the PS2 away) and game which are ported from the PS2 (in which case the PS2 version of the same game is almost always better).
But since we weren't looking at chipsets specifically, it was still a fair question of the original poster to ask. I think (as you suggest) that the P4 is helped by use the Intel chipsets. But, as long as you look at the best current chipset for the AMD counter part, it's still a fair (or as fair as you can make it) comparison.
Here is a real world example of what you talked about:
I have a P4 and a AMD-XP (64bit part on order). The P4 went from a VIA chipset to a 875. Performance was noticably better at almost everything (same 2.8 CPU).
My AMD rig I went from a 2400+ to a 2700+, not too much difference to be honest. (with the upgrade to the Intel, it went from being slower then the 2400+ to faster then the 2700+). Then I upgrade the motherboard in the AMD from a VIA based KT333 to an NVidia based Nforce2. Night and day. The 2700+ was suddenly much faster (faster then the Intel at most tasks). I sold this to a buddy and replaced it with an Nforce2-400. Suddenly the AMD is faster still. So smooth, and now easy to overclock, etc...
All that said, I still think the difference between the p4 and AMD64 (both using their best chipset and on a 32bit os) is too close for the typical user to be able to tell a difference in anything. 2-3 seconds faster encoding (for the p4) or 2-3 frames per second for the AMD64.
In a laptop, the only real advantage I see for either is the longer battery life of the AMD64. Of course the Centrino/Pentium-M remains king in this area.