Currently, 64 bit processors are nto a bit faster then the old 32 bit processors because there is no software (for windows anyway) that can run on them. On top of that, i have talked to this guy who made a 64 bit version of UT 2004 and he said that there were minimal proformance differences. Currently 64 bit technology has no use at all. you take a AMD 3200 64 and a AMD 3200 XP+ and they run at similar speeds. (the 64 is actually worse, becuase you cant overclock it as much, i know form first hand expeirence).
anyway, AMD is much better then Pentium for a number of reasons. for one, the top of the line AMD is faster then the top of the line pentium (according to the current issue of Maximum PC). For 2 becuase you get a shittload more band for your buck with AMD.
and for the record, all of you are wrong about how AMD classifies their chips. for example: I have a AMD 2600 XP+. It cirtanly does NOT run at 2.6 ghz. It runs at 2.08 (well until i overclocked it anyways), and that is standard. It is called a 2600 XP+ becuase eventhough it runs at 2.08 ghz, it is comperable to a pentium 4 that runs at 2.6 ghz. it is how they market them becuase pentuim is the industry standard, people wouldnt band to buy AMDs if they said they ran at 2.2 ghz, becuase that sounds slow.
Another thing that is better about AMDs is that they are much easier to overclock and you can overclock them further. my 2600 is overclocked to 2.2 ghz and running smoothly.
Democrats are sexy: since when have you seen a good looking peice of elephant?
''When they attacked us
'' - Rudolph Giuliani former republican mayor of NYC referring to Iraq
in an interview on NBC news after the presidential debate