Quoted from
Tomshardware.com...Summary: The P4 3.2 EE wins 32 times, the Athlon 64 FX-51 15 times - an uncertain 64-bit future for AMD...
...It's not yet possible to judge the performance capability of the Athlon 64 in pure 64-bit operation, since the alpha version of "Windows XP 64" we used and the dearth of available programs don't allow a clear evaluation. And the 64-bit Linux isn't really practical for daily desktop tasks. AMD delivers its GZIP Packer optimized for 64 bits with the standard package, which is a whole lot speedier compared with 32-bit operation. But a closer look at this fact reveals a marketing trap: if the code is optimized for the P4, too - as it was in our test - then the Intel CPU turns out to be faster under conventional 32-bit operation. So there's no compelling argument for 64 bits there. AMD makes its case using the chicken/egg scenario: Only once a sufficient number of Athlon 64 CPUs are available on the market will the software industry respond accordingly. Besides for solid performance in the 32-bit realm, users should consider x86-64 compatibility as something of a bonus option, even if there's no software for it at the moment...
My opinion: The AMD is indeed faster than the Intel, but only at
64bit optimized apps, the Intel still beats anything at 32bit. Just wait until Intel brings out a desktop 64bit CPU (forget the Itaniums, those are Server cpu´s, not desktop like the FX), then run a benchmark.
