What is the expansion of AMD (Processor)?
90561
Advanced Micro Devices is the expansion or full form of AMD
195683
yeah it is possible to increase it. most old motherboards supporting P3 let u upgrade to 512 mb or 1 gb at the most any more than that ur mobo or ur cpu won't handle
22503
I know for a fact that AMD is much better than Intel! AMD's processors run a lot faster and cooler. A cooler running processor is important. Not only does it mean that AMD processors have a faster clock speed than comparable Intel products but AMDs also have a longer life expectancy as well. Plus AMD costs quite a bit less than their Intel counterparts. \nAMD is also ahead on the technology curve as well. They were the first company to introduce the 64-bit PC processor many months ahead of Intel’s 64-bit processor.  This is why I believe that AMD will possibly out live Intel.\nI've had both brands and nobody can even come close AMD’s speed and power! I am running a newer AMD Sempron 3000+ with 512 MB of memory and Windows 2000 Professional SP4 for my operating system and this combination works great.\nFrom now on AMD, is the only processor for me. This is just my honest opinion. And no, I do not work for or get any gratuity from AMD for saying this.
405101
Surely...AMD for game based, n Intel for Other work
639758
the amd and Intel are like Nike and Reebok, they just are the two major processors that everyone knows, basics are that amd did surpass Intel for a time but Intel is now making a comeback, the Pentium4 is better but that will depend on the processor speed, at this time you would want something 2.5 GHz and up.  if you want a better amd i would go with the amd 64 (x)2 which is two processors that work together as one.  it is usually 2.0 to 2.4 and they work as fast and a 4.0 GHz.
13617
AMD not just for the value but for superior performance as well.  The latest generation of AMD Athlons completely shredded Intels offerings.  The fastest AMD chip currently is the Athlon 64 FX-57 series followed by the FX-55 series.  Just behind those are the AMD 64 4000+ and the AMD 64x2 4800+.  See the link for a benchmark comparisons of 77 processors, notice how all the ones at the top are AMD processors.  Intel chips are, lacking to say the least.\n\nI'm into gaming so for gamers there is no better choice than AMD.\n\nI'll let the benchmark speak for itself.
1067104
The AMD X2 processor is great for games, the X2 4200+ is a good one thats not too costly but great, 2.2Ghz and good size cache.
410382
The past 16 months or so have seen an unprecedented number of genuine breakthroughs in the field of processor design, especially from AMD. Not only did that company introduce a truly compatible 64-bit processor design which has since dominated the high-end desktop PC market, but it also pioneered the on-die memory controller which has given the Athlon 64 and Opteron chips a leg-up in performance over Intel's offerings. Intel has since adopted 64-bit compatibility also, and now both companies are releasing processors with another brand new feature, dual-cores.\n\nDual-core processors work pretty much as you'd expect them to. At their most basic, both Intel and AMD have taken two mostly (or in the case of Intel, fully) functional processor cores and joined them together in a single processor die. Each core functions and processes data independently, and the two are co-coordinated by the operating system software. \n\nIn this article, PCSTATS is going to focus on both company's versions of this technology, how it works, and the kind of performance boost you can expect from it. Currently only certain of AMD's Opteron server-class processors are available with dual cores, but very shortly AMD will release the Athlon 64 X2 line of dual-core desktop processors. Intel has taken the opposite approach, already releasing the 'Pentium Extreme Edition 840' desktop dual-core chip, while its 'Pentium D' and dual-Xeons lines are not far behind.   \n\n\nSince dual-core processors are essentially a multi-processor system in a convenient package, let's start by looking at some of the multi-processor technologies which have contributed to AMD and Intel's newest products.\n\nSMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) \n\nSMP is the most common approach to creating a multi-processor system, in which two or more separate processors work together on the same motherboard. The processors co-ordinate and share information through the system bus, and the processors arbitrate the workload amongst themselves with the help of the motherboard chipset and the operating system. \n\nThe OS treats both processors more or less equally, assigning work as needed. Both AMD and Intel's new dual-core chips can be considered SMP capable (internally). AMD's dual-core Opteron server processors can be linked to other dual-core chips externally also, but this capability is not present in either company's desktop dual-core lines. \n\nThe major limitations of SMP have to do with software and operating system support. Many operating systems (such as Windows XP Home) are not SMP capable and will not make use of the second physical processor. Also, most modern programs are single-threaded, meaning that there is only ever one current set of linked instructions and data for them. This means that only one processor can effectively work on them at a time. Multi-threaded programs do exist, and can take better advantage of the potential power of dual- or multi-CPU configurations, but are not as common as we might like. \n\nNo other current mainstream desktop processors are SMP capable, as Intel and AMD tend to restrict cutting edge technologies to the higher-end server processors such as the Opteron and Xeon. In the past though, mainstream processors have been SMP capable, most notably the later Intel Pentium 3 processors.
955749
Do you mean the Athlon 64 FX-57, a new CPU for game enthusiasts? If so try these or just type 'Athlon 64 FX-57' in a search engine & traul thro the result's, good luck.\nhttp://www.shoeboxcomputers.com/index.php?cPath=54_77_55&osCsid=b303e25c4440dc073a56ea57a4717aaa\nhttp://www.techfever.co.uk/search.asp?searchbox13=AMD&searchtext=athlon&source=ga&gclid=CNbN5JLK0IgCFRtNEgodHhBdZQ
174003
None better because each processor, AMD and Intel Pentium, has each benefits but usualy AMD cheaper than Intel Pentium so if you choose AMD you can get processor with performance as well as Intel Pentium with less cost.
1034991
AMD doesn't make computer they make processors, but no big deal. See the URL below:
489215
I will suggest you Socket 939 for AMD Because it support SSE2 and SSE3 Instructions In witch You Can Run Appple Mac os x Tiger x86 10.4.6 Smoothly. I also Have Amd Athlon 64 3200+ Processor.
557420
Try the links below for specifics.  There are just too many different processors and their variants out there to give you a list here, but these links may help you find what you're looking for.
163766
Simply stated, it is a processor that actually contains two processors on a single die. In effect, you have the equivalent of two processors inside one chip. In practice the performance improvement over a single core processor is less than 2X, especially since software needs to be written to take advantage of the fact that you have two processor cores available.
718913
GAMES. AMD PROCESSOR AND DESIZEND FOR HIGH END GAMES.
625755
There is not, that I am aware of, no. Of course... dual core is where AMD's numbers stop making sense. The numbers they give their processors is supposed to give you an idea of how fast they are compared to intel (ie an Athlon 3500 should be as fast as an intel 3.5ghz, even though the athlon is running at something like 1.8ghz) However... the AMD dual core numbers are still being compared to Intel single core... so an X2 4800 is supposed to be as fast as an intel single core 4.8ghz (which doesn't actually exist, of course) Not an intel dual core 4.8ghz (which also doesn't exist... oh my god, you'd feel the heat from miles away) So now AMD has come out with new crap numbers that apparently don't mean anything except when you compare them to other AMDs, they're just... arbitrary... numbers. And that makes my head hurt. But anyway my point is, there's no intel dual core 64 bit 3.6ghz+ cpu that I'm aware of, however AMD *might* have something that's its equivalent in speed, but your guess is as good as mine, because their numbers don't make sense anymore.
1009461
AMD Processors and Intel Pentium 4's are two popular processors. They are different in internal structure but both function under Windows.\n\nHow are they different?\n\nAMD has shorter pipelines than Intel. In short, this gives a minimal advantage to repetitive tasks, which gives Intel chips a small advantage. But, most tasks like gaming or other processor intensive tasks are not predictive and change frequently. This gives AMD a huge advantage for gaming. Some $300 AMD's outperform $1000 Intels.\n\nAlso, AMD's are generally better bang to the buck (value), which makes them more attractive.\n\nIn short? Either will run Windows, and either processor should serve you well for internet browsing, email and word processing. But if you are a power user or a gamer, AMD is the way to go.