Originally Posted by Ropey
I have not had a processor (AMD or Intel) on stock since the days of the 386 so I can't really speak of the Intel 3.2 @ 3.2.
I can however speak of the Intel 3.0 over clocked to 4.0 and married to an X800Pro flashed to X800 XT PE @ 460/1220. There is not a game that I can't play and play well with that machine. My sig is my gaming machine but sometimes I still get on the server (Intel reboots less often for me on 24/7) and play Quake4/F.E.A.R. and I have no problem with those games. I built my sig machine so that I could lie on my back and play on my 40" LCD rather than sit close to a 19" one and to play these games in 1600 X 1200 or 1280 X 1024 the box needed more GPU oomph than the X800.
Benchmarks on 3D give AMD the lead and it is a fair lead over the P4 but in real life it is quite hard to tell the difference. I say that if I hooked the X800 to the 40" screen and tried to run Quake4 in high res with full eye-candy (or F.E.A.R.) there is a difference but how many people use 40" screens? The final result, if the box plays the games you play with acceptable eye candy (to you) and liquid frame rates then it is fine and numbers don't matter at all.
That being said, if one ran in 1024 X 768 with a X1900XT or 7800GTX I don't think there would be a huge discrepancy between the new AMD or Intel.