I concurr especially since applications like VirtualDUB support AMD64 -- however i did qualify that with common video apps (vegas, pinnacle, premier). Generally speaking, Intel owns the video and multimedia benchmarks -- especially for the not-top-of-the-line chips. The Sempron/A64 architecture favors single-access-time (due to the ondie memory controller) and this is why they dominate games handsdown however video applications often are dependent on throughput (rather than random access) ... and as such the on-die memory controller does not offer as much of an advantage.
Furthermore, to take advantage of the 64bit extensions requires a 64Bit OS and granted it does exist but i'd say that most people running A64s platforms dont have 64bit OSes installed so the advantage there is effectively nullified.
Lastly, within a 32bit environment, it's been long recognized that Intel owns the multimedia sector ... now with the FXs series maybe not anymore but certainly so if we compare the much lesser processors. In either case, CeleronD vs Semperon (non-3100), I would suggest the advantage goes to the Celeron mostly because the Semperon is limited by a 333Bus while the CeleronD plays at 533
Furthermore, to take advantage of the 64bit extensions requires a 64Bit OS and granted it does exist but i'd say that most people running A64s platforms dont have 64bit OSes installed so the advantage there is effectively nullified.
Lastly, within a 32bit environment, it's been long recognized that Intel owns the multimedia sector ... now with the FXs series maybe not anymore but certainly so if we compare the much lesser processors. In either case, CeleronD vs Semperon (non-3100), I would suggest the advantage goes to the Celeron mostly because the Semperon is limited by a 333Bus while the CeleronD plays at 533
