Originally posted by muisejt:

Did you actually read the reviews, or just looked at the score? The reason the P4 came on top (by half a point) was because of innovation, benchmarks are not everything. This P4 is the Northwood which is the first P4 to use the 0.13 micron core, which means less voltage is needed and it runs cooler, and bumped the L2 cache to 512K, this is innovation. AMD just bumped up the CPU speed 66MHz on the same old 0.18 micron core, where's the innovation in that?
Yes, I read the article.

If you want to base the "goodness" of a product on its innovation, thats cool. I'm assuming that is why the new P4s got a 9 for innovation, and the Athlon got an 8.

Why do they both get an 8 for value though? Would you not agree that if the Athlon is extremely comparable to the new 2Ghz P4 in speed, but is cheaper -- it is a better value? Apparently not.

In fact, one of the "pros" for the Athlon is "excellent price/performance". One of the cons for the P4 is that it is expensive. But both are equal in terms of value?

All I'm saying, is that I've seen it before, and I'm seeing it again. Sharky tends to reach for reasons to say that the Intel chips are better, and downplays the reasons that the Athlons are better.

No mention of the fact that a 2000XP Athlon is about 533 Mhz slower than a 2.2 GHz Intel, but still keeps up in many benchmarks.

Check out the comparison at Toms Hardware. I found it to be considerably more objective.