VICTOR GODINEZ In battle of the CPU makers, gamers win

Consoles have been hogging the gaming spotlight lately, but there's some cool new technology trickling out for the PC that could bring that platform back to center stage.
Along with the graphics card wars between Nvidia and ATI, there's an interesting battle brewing between CPU makers Intel and AMD.
I recently got the chance to test AMD's newest chip, the Athlon 64 FX-53.
The 64 FX-53 is a 64-bit chip, unlike the 32-bit consumer chips from Intel.
Essentially, this means that the AMD chip, in theory, can process twice as much data at once as a 32-bit chip. Which is great, if you have the software to take advantage of it.
So far, 64-bit games and other consumer software are few and far between.
Still, I put a review system through its paces against some current titles and compared the numbers to my Intel-based system.
Benchmark favorite
"FarCry" is gamers' current benchmark favorite, so I tested it on the AMD system and my Intel machine.
The AMD machine came with 1 gigabyte of memory and an Nvidia GeForce 5950 Ultra video card.
My Alienware machine has a Pentium 4, 3.2-gigahertz chip, 1GB of RAM and an ATI 9800XT video card.
I used the free Fraps benchmarking software and ran "FarCry" at "very high" video settings, with water effects at "ultra high."
On the AMD machine, I did several test runs. I dropped the highest and lowest frame rate scores and averaged the rest, for an average frames per second, or FPS, rate of 37.7.
The higher the rate, the smoother the picture.
On my Intel PC, I did the same thing and got an average frame rate of 43.5.
I also used a benchmark program called 3DMark03, which tests your PC's overall gaming power.
With the AMD machine, I got a more-than-respectable score of 6,555. Again, the higher the better.
On my Alienware system, I got a score of 6,665.
As before, a slight advantage for my Pentium system.
Really, though, the differences were so small that the video cards were probably the difference, even though the 5950 Ultra and 9800XT are of the same generation.
You'll get even better performance with Nvidia's just-released 6800 Ultra and ATI's new X800 XT card.
What's coming up
But what I'm really excited about are the upcoming 64-bit versions of "FarCry" (www.amd.com/farcry) and "Unreal Tournament 2004."
These games, optimized to run on AMD's 64-bit chips, should really shine.
Also, Microsoft is working on a 64-bit version of Windows XP that should be interesting.
For now, the 64 FX-53 is the equal of almost anything Intel can throw at it.
But when 64-bit games and software start to emerge, AMD could end up the chip of choice for computer gamers.
To test the AMD system, I plugged in LG Electronics' new 17-inch LCD monitor, the L1710SK ($519).
LG is promoting the monitor as an LCD that can finally meet the demands of hard-core gamers, and it's easy to see why.
Many LCD monitors can't refresh the image on the screen quickly enough to keep up with first-person shooters and other fast-paced titles.
But the L1710SK has a speedy 16-millisecond response time, which refers to how fast the individual pixels can change colors.
That's not quite as zippy as more expensive LCDs with 12-millisecond responses, but I didn't notice the blurriness that often plagues games on LCDs.
On a price-performance scale, you're probably better off with a standard CRT monitor for gaming because they're less expensive and you never have to worry about pixel response rates.
But if space is at a premium on your desk and you really want a monitor that can handle your favorite games, the L1710SK is great.
XVictor Godinez writes for the Dallas Morning News.