AMD again
There's plenty of logic to it, you just have to know what your talking about. Also, to the person that said they were "named" or "dubbed" or whatever by their performance comparison to the intel processor's, you are wrong. Their rated performance Hz were decided by running different benchmarks, and using a ratio between the older AMD processors, and the newer ones. I'd also like to point out, that even tho the P4 has a larger L2 cache, it doesn't really matter due to the fact that it has to also load all the data from the L1 cache before it can load the rest, making it slightly slower...but if your not into computer's, don't worry about it, AMD has always been better than Intel for gaming and mp3 encoding and such, Intel's main market is in retail computer's (Dell, Hewlett Packard, (formerly) Compaq, and other "P4 System for 799 that has no balls), server machines (why else did not ALL Pentium Processors support MMX and 3DNow, and of course, Macintoshes. For anyone out there that needs to come up with a reason why there PC is better than a Mac (only thing macs are good at anyway is Desktop Publishing), the mac, runs SOME filters faster in Photoshop, than in a PC, on a COMPARIBLE processor, and since macs...these test were run on 1.0Ghz machines...at the time, the highest processor released for the mac was 1.0Ghz, while AMD was at 1.2Ghz (Which was proven to be faster than the Intel P4 1.4Ghz).
Anyway, I think I'm done.
The Lesson Here:
AMD is better than Intel
And stuy_b, you are correct, a P4 1.6 gives you 1.6Ghz, and the XP 1600+ is rated at 1.4Ghz, BUT, that's only what the AMD chip is rated at, it performs well above a P4 1.6Ghz.