[pa_ajaykumar]

Mate, The Ghz rating of a processor says that the processor is capable of that many clock cycles in a second. this does not mean that a 3 Ghz need to be faster than a 2 Ghz. It depends on how the clock cycles are utilized than the number of clock cycles. A well optimized 2 Ghz can beat a not so well optimized higher clocked one. I do not even refer to the AMD Processors, but to the Apple Macs Processors. A Power Mac Processor clocked at half the clock speed can beat a P4 Flat in any graphics processing task. so what matters first is the optimizations and technology then the Clock Speed. AMD Processors used to suck ( I am talking about hte K2 and the K3 and Athlon XP series) But AMD has done good work with the Athlon 64 and Athlon Fx Processors. They are far better than the P4. Intel itself is realizing this and now they are changing stratagies. Now they are also going the AMD way. Put more Technology and Optimizations than just trying to increase the clock speeds.

I myself was going to get a P4 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz Processor (My previous 3 Rigs had Intel Processors) for my Gaming Rig. But i ultimately choose a AMD Athlon 64 3000+. I ran the SiSoft Sanra 2004 Benchmark. The scores it returned were far better than the 3 Ghz reference platform. In fact it was comparable to the 3.2 Ghz P4 (not the P4 EE). I had not even overclocked the processor. So this surely proves that the Technology and Optimizations matter not just the clock speed. (And Definitely not the Processor Brand). Who ever is able to Put more functionality optimizations on their processor wins the race.