You aint too bright is ya. So I will....talk .....real.....slow for.....you.....O.....K.....

If AMD goes down we will all be in touble and you will see Intell CPU prices go through the roof. Plus you will be stuck with the Core architecture for the next 100 years.

O BTW AMD aint going nowhere..........dude...............

We will only be"stuck"with core architecture until Q4 of this year when Nehalem architecture
is released.I don't want to see AMD disappear but I'm not going to spend my $ on an inferior
product either.I also don't remember AMD cutting us any slack pricewise when their chips
were the best-an FX used to cost $1000+ not so long ago.Brand loyalty is bullshit-I will buy
whatever is the best bang for my buck.

So who do we thank for these low prices? Both Intell and AMD as I remember were cutting no one slack. Even netburst Intell chips were way over priced and people still purchased them. I agree best bang for the buck but the whole amd sucks I hope they go out of business is kinda childish. Plus a lot of AMD cpu's are still going strong. Look at the charts. If you have a high end AMD chip there is no need to even upgrade at this point just drop in a better GPU. In regards to the Intell chips, why would you ever buy the high end Intell chips when you can just over clock the cheap ones.

Intel does'nt need to gouge us when their chips are selling faster than they can make them.They
are'nt charging anymore for Wolfdale than Conroe based cpu's as the article points out.I don't
believe Intel is as evil as a company like microsoft[pray Ballmer never signs on with Intel-then we
will all be paying $300 for a Celeron].Even if AMD folds Intel will still face competition from
VIA down the road in the low to mid range segment[some of their new cpu features are supposedly superior to Intel's designs].At the moment Intel basically has no competition anyway.

If AMD died and was bought out by Intel, that would be better because they would be able to work together to create a better processor.

If AMD died prices would not rise as people are spoiled now and wouldn't shell out the extra money for processors that they don't need.

I don't see why anyone would stop being interested in computers just because there was no competition.

Corrected, thanx

Agreed--great article. The results are definitely of practical use, too.

I'll third that.

Nice chart work on page 9.

I think there is a good justification for not including overclocking--it's too dependent on factors other than the CPU model for sensible evaluation of price vs. performance. For example, it might be that X-bit's E8200 overclocks better than their E8500, but this is not likely to be the case for all samples of those processors. A more serious problem is that performance-per-watt figures are unlikely to fall out in a sensible fashion given overclocking, because the overclocked power dissipation of different samples of the same processor can be wildly different--and the nominal ranking by that metric will also change depending on how far someone chooses to overclock. X-bit always tests overclocking when reviewing new CPUs, but I think overclocking misses the point of this particular article somewhat for these reasons.

wow a complete..... well raising fsb does nothing? what about memory bandwidth? yes i am well known and have plenty of amd enemies - your true green amd colors show!

as we all know if the best amd cpu and the best intel cpu where properly tuned (overclocking too noobies) the intel lead would be proportional to the overclock or about 25% higher.

now that i see some fire on this site i will spend more then 1 min typing my opinion. Again. xbit should have overclocked the chips too - i love this site. I am really disappointed in the fact that you did not overclock and show the real potential of the 8000 series chips.

Warpedsystems is shipping 4.25ghz air cooled E8400 systems for less then $2000, go head and try that with the amd cpu!

Lots of people don't overclock, the article is useful without it.

Why would someone spray a dragon?

99% of the computers purcased out there in world are not over clocked. Do your own over clocking. Again there are too many variables. Yea I have seen a few OC systems being sold paired up with crappy video cards. But that is the exception not the rule. Most people don't over clock. Hell it is probably less than 1% that over clocks.

thank you - I like to add I own warpedsystems, I build a pc a week myself custom. WSZ only sell's overclocked systems, we have since 2003 and we back up every system with a 3 year cpu warranty! Ask our customers - zero failures since 2003!

Back to the debate as "best" says a 1% gain? Ya try 25% plsu! We all know that there is huge difference in responsiveness for nothing there is not cost to oc the system. Why do HP and Dell only oc their flagship systems?

Unlike Dell and Hp who only overclock their $7000 flagships we oc every system. We do it first and we do it better they anyone.

Good luck!

ps: xbit please redo this excellent article with oc! Yes, i am critical but i still gave it a 10!

Dude, stop pimping your business here. X-bit doesn't get any ad revenue from people like you.

Kudos! Very thorough and interesting article.
I was started to get disappointed in Xbits lately because of their very late video card reviews, but their handling in regard to the CPUs as of late has been very impressive indeed.
And no, contraty to what "Dragonslayer" (how old are you, 10?) says, not including overclocking results does not "kill" the article. Most buyers do not overclock and I think most are much more interested in aspects such as power consumption heat and price/performance.

To not o.c. a core2duo is criminal dude-they are MADE for it!If you are worried about damaging
your chip/system just leave the voltages alone.The worst that can happen is that you will have to
clear the CMOS to get going again-oooooooh scary!!!

I think 64 bit is generally over-looked as for many people there are too many issues with XP and Vista 64 bit for mainstream usage to be a sensible option. It would be interesting to see the results but as there are so few 64 bit applications that I wonder what they’d test!

Think that more memory usage is the wave of the future. Even though software programs are tending to get bloated. With the speed of memory there is certainly no way that you would not want to use it. I have read several satisfied persons articles about 64-bit computing.Using Vista.One in Sudhian,and one in a Commentary within ExtremeTech.
If you look,the large PCI 2 machines from Intel are rather long on realistics. As least as far as the desktop I have here. When and If the newer chipset concuring with X38,x48 are m-atx then perhaps I will see them as realistic for me. 600 watts or less for me. And 64 bit.

There is an older article on this site comparing 64bit performance of an A64 FX-62 vs C2E X6800: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html

The Intel bus speeds are 1333 megahertz here,and the caches on the fastest part of the processor are 6x that of the AMD parts. While the CPU of AMDs has an instuctrion set wich is about the same multiple as that of the size of cache (about 6x).This is wuring around at the top center of the CPU in megahertz. Where it would seem that a single cycle of instruction would certainly be accomadated better than the Intel CPU. The output of those parts Intel,and AMD are mathmatically distributive to their quanties. Bus Speed and size,Cache Speeds and size,Memory speeds and size.
Given the 64-bit option,where the single cycle doesn't meet any misses.
AMD will probably have 'somewhere,where that CPU feature shows its strength.Though for the case of its actual overal value,it doesn't necesarily outpase the Intel CPU.
I want an AMD,and an Intel setup...a practical upgrade solution from AMD would as well be good.

‘AMD systems have much better IGP for its platforms.’

For mainstream desktop usage the difference is negligible although for a HTPC AMD have more interesting solutions. HTPC is a very small chunk of the market so in affect it’s not such a big deal. Personally I’d rather go with a discrete VGA card in which case the platform choice becomes mainly irrelevant.

How about a Sampr0n for granny? B-)

wops messed up with the calculation somehow.
(70+3)/0.7(bad psu efficiency)=104W.

Where does the rest (67 watts) go?