On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:31 -0800, pierre wrote:

Now the project manager said: Take a look at these other Intel motherboards using the Celeron-D (341) (because they're cheaper)

Can't help you on the "real 64bit" issue. But I can say this. There isn't an Intel chip that can stand up to an Opteron (except the Itanium maybe, but you're concerned about price, right?). Flip, I've even seen our 1.6ghz Sempron at the office run circles around a dual 3ghz Xeon server in a good number of tasks. There were only ever two half decent Celeron processors: The Tualatin core (because the Tualatin core Celeron was in essence a Coppermine core Pentium III), and the Dothan core (because, similarly, the Dothan core Celeron is in essence a Banias core Pentium-M - with a few extra goodies). The rest, considering what's available for the money, is a poor chip, no matter which way you look at it. Just my 2 cents. Hans

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:31 -0800, pierre wrote:

Now the project manager said: Take a look at these other Intel motherboards using the Celeron-D (341) (because they're cheaper) [snip] Googling around I read claims and counterclaims stating that neither AMD or Intel has "true 64-bit", whatever that means.

Can anyone point me to an unbiased site that would explain the differences clearly?

Hi Pierre, Have you found anything useful on this? I still stick by what I said, forget the Celerons, if you really have to use something cheaper, the socket 754 Semprons are 64bit, and they have really amazed me with how well they perform. Hans