[Dragoon412]

AMD started using that naming scheme to show their performance relative to the clock-speed-crazed populace. Yes, AMDs are faster than Intel chips at the same clock speed, but AMD's architecture isn't capable of the same type of clock speeds the Pentium is. The Athlon really is a more efficient design than the P4, but the P4 still has more balls, now.

Think of it this way: AMD is to Intel what Porsche is to Jaguar -- both make excellent products, but while Porsche favors a smaller, more efficient turbo-charged design (Athlon), Jag tends towards big, gutsy engines (Intel). It's just that right now, AMD's kinda dropped the ball - they aren't even trying to compete with Intel for the high-performance desktop market anymore. And with the P4 reaching higher and higher clock speeds, plus the inclusion of hyperthreading :drool: Intel really is the leader right now.

I don't mean to bash AMD -- they make an excellent product, and I *do* like their chips a lot, and I'm very sad to see them taking leave of the high-performance market, but I feel that what you save in money on the processor itself, you loose in extra cooling, a larger power supply, and the increased power bills said power supply contributes to. That's to say nothing of the loudness of most cooling systems sufficient for an Athlon XP.

As for the FX vs. 9700P, it's doubtful the 9700P will be equal to the FX, but it looks like it's going to be very close, and once ATi releases the revised R300 on a .13u process, it's back to obsolescense for nVidia.