|
No P4 goes past the FSB that AMD processors are using. They're all still running on the 200 MHz external FSB. If you go into BIOS and check the CPU FSB speed, all new processors on the market are still using 200 MHz, with Intel having a 4x multiplier on their CPUs. Other than that, you're basically correct.
In the past year, processors are now basically impossible to distinguish based on performance. It really is ridiculous. The P4s are now given a model number (640, 840, etc.) that makes it even harder to relate to Athlon 64s. AMD's Athlon 64 dual core and FX series are making it harder to understand the performance relativity against Intel, especially with not one, not two, but THREE sockets introduced in a span of 2-3 years.
The performance difference with processors is not nearly as huge as the performance between videocards, thankfully. The AMD Athlon 64 3200+ is one of the best deals on the market, and is probably just as good as the P4 you mentioned. For what you're doing, I'd go with the P4, however (video, autocad, etc.). I'd never spend a lot on a processor, because in almost all of today's applications (games, programs, multimedia, etc.), the RAM amount and videocard matter waaay more than the CPU. Dual core processors are really powerful, but it's simply overkill for most people, even hardcore gamers.
-Lasereth
__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert
|