*buying new PC* Intel or AMD Processors?

I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.*buying new PC* Intel or AMD Processors?
Actually Intel's E6600 at 2.4ghz is slightly ahead of AMD's at 3ghz.
Also Intel's C2D can overclock like crazy, 3.4-3.6ghz is very common. *buying new PC* Intel or AMD Processors?
This is REALLY odd.An AMD fan who hasn't learned their lesson from Intel's NetBurst mishaps? :lol:In short: Core 2 Duo is king.
Question is, do you want to or plan to overclock your system? If you don't, you're fine with either an Intel or AMD system.Intel is only better if you can overclock.
I thought at its current state that the 3.0ghz is better than a c2d 2.6 ghz
[QUOTE=''PhantasmCipherX'']I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]E6600 is faster and cheeper than X2 6000+
[QUOTE=''dayaccus007''][QUOTE=''PhantasmCipherX'']I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]E6600 is faster and cheeper than X2 6000+ [/QUOTE]True. Unless AMD drops prices even further (bankruptcy), the most bang for the buck (or pound, or drachma...) goes to Intel and the C2 line.8)Edit - Unless you get down below the E4300 price of just over $100...at which point AMD might be giving the low-end Intels a bloody nose... :)
[QUOTE=''DrakeNOwns'']I thought at its current state that the 3.0ghz is better than a c2d 2.6 ghz[/QUOTE]So is THAT why a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 got its but handed to it by an 2.6GHz?Intel has got all bases covered, whether you're an overclocker or not:Budget: Pentium E Series, Celeron L Series
Entry Level: Core 2 Duo E4X00 Series
Mainstream: Core 2 Duo E6XX0 Series
Performance: Core 2 Quad Series, Core 2 Duo E6X50 Series
Extreme: Core 2 Extreme Quad All eyes are on AMD to bring K10 to the market.
[QUOTE=''dayaccus007''][QUOTE=''PhantasmCipherX''] I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]E6600 is faster and cheeper than X2 6000+ [/QUOTE]From what I've seen, the X2 6000 is somewhere in between the e6600 and e6700 in performance. It's definitely a tad faster than the e6600 in most benchmarks.
[QUOTE=''Wesker776''] [QUOTE=''DrakeNOwns'']I thought at its current state that the 3.0ghz is better than a c2d 2.6 ghz[/QUOTE]So is THAT why a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 got its but handed to it by an 2.6GHz?Intel has got all bases covered, whether you're an overclocker or not:Budget: Pentium E Series, Celeron L Series
Entry Level: Core 2 Duo E4X00 Series
Mainstream: Core 2 Duo E6XX0 Series
Performance: Core 2 Quad Series, Core 2 Duo E6X50 Series
Extreme: Core 2 Extreme Quad All eyes are on AMD to bring K10 to the market. [/QUOTE] Thanks! Big help for me. :)
[QUOTE=''My_name_a_Borat''][QUOTE=''dayaccus007''][QUOTE=''PhantasmCipherX''] I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]E6600 is faster and cheeper than X2 6000+ [/QUOTE]From what I've seen, the X2 6000 is somewhere in between the e6600 and e6700 in performance. It's definitely a tad faster than the e6600 in most benchmarks.[/QUOTE]In most benchmarks E6600 faster than X2 6000+
[QUOTE=''LahiruD''][QUOTE=''My_name_a_Borat''][QUOTE=''dayaccus007''][QUOTE=''PhantasmCipherX''] I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]E6600 is faster and cheeper than X2 6000+ [/QUOTE]From what I've seen, the X2 6000 is somewhere in between the e6600 and e6700 in performance. It's definitely a tad faster than the e6600 in most benchmarks.[/QUOTE]In most benchmarks E6600 faster than X2 6000+[/QUOTE]Read the conclusion of this article on the 6000+''It stands to reason that a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 could nearly pull even with a Core 2 Duo at 2.66GHz.''The e6600 is only 2.4GHz. Therefore, e6700>X2-6000>e6600.http://techreport.com/reviews//2007q1/athlon64-x2-6000/index.x?pg=13
[QUOTE=''My_name_a_Borat'']Read the conclusion of this article on the 6000+''It stands to reason that a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 could nearly pull even with a Core 2 Duo at 2.66GHz.''The e6600 is only 2.4GHz. Therefore, e6700>X2-6000>e6600.http://techreport.com/reviews//2007q1/athlon64-x2-6000/index.x?pg=13[/QUOTE]It depends soley on the benchmark...
Gaming-wise the E6600 has the lead.
The X2 6000+ performs much better in benchmarks than it does in games. I learned this choosing parts for my new rig.
[QUOTE=''My_name_a_Borat''][QUOTE=''LahiruD''][QUOTE=''My_name_a_Borat''][QUOTE=''dayaccus007''][QUOTE=''PhantasmCipherX''] I'm sure I'll be fine either way, but it seems AMD gives you more performance for a cheaper price. I was looking at Alienware PCS and an AMD processor with 3.0ghz dual core is cheaper than an intel 2.6ghz dual core. So I figure I mind as well go with the AMD? Or is there a reason for Intel's slightly higher price but slower CPU? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]E6600 is faster and cheeper than X2 6000+ [/QUOTE]From what I've seen, the X2 6000 is somewhere in between the e6600 and e6700 in performance. It's definitely a tad faster than the e6600 in most benchmarks.[/QUOTE]In most benchmarks E6600 faster than X2 6000+[/QUOTE]Read the conclusion of this article on the 6000+''It stands to reason that a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 could nearly pull even with a Core 2 Duo at 2.66GHz.''The e6600 is only 2.4GHz. Therefore, e6700>X2-6000>e6600.http://techreport.com/reviews//2007q1/athlon64-x2-6000/index.x?pg=13[/QUOTE]Agreed.But for gaming E6600 is faster than X2 6000+