i think intel just couldn't have their P4's OC as much as AMD, that's hwy it wasn't really done.

But even at the $224 price tag, that's an amazing price. But since I'd need a brand new system to run it I'll just end up getting the bet AMD 939 CPU I can get instead. Heck, all those are now sub-$500 (except maybe the FX line).

I am just now about to upgrade my desktop PC from it's lowly AMD XP2100 chip to what used to be a fire-breathing dual-core, an AMD 3800x2. Now it looks like the AMD chip will be left in the dust by the new Intel chips. Sigh... It never ends...

Seriously, I am debating throwing a lot of money at Intel stock right now. Even though the tech community is awestruck by the Conroe, the stock is still stuck at near-record lows. The only question is what AMD has up its sleeve, and from what I'm hearing, it ain't much. I've always been an AMD bigot, but I really think Intel is going to really clobber them for the next year at least.

The only question is what AMD has up its sleeve, and from what I'm hearing, it ain't much.

Huh? How about real quad core CPUs in early spring that Intel won't have for a looong time?

How about a far more advanced CPU architecture with memory management on-chip instead of in "user mode" software?

How about additional very powerful instructions that we may finally see supported in major performance-critical applications?

Intel had to make their 64-bit CPUs AMD-compatible to be able to sell them, i.e. they had to copy AMD's 64-bit instruction set. Copying the rest won't be easy for Intel, probably even impossible, because they still have a less functional architecture with major bottlenecks.

And AMD X2 4800+ are down to not much over $300 now.

That's very good for a PROVEN CPU with mature motherboards to run it on.

And AMD X2 4800+ are down to not much over $300 now.

Well as the overclocking article points out, you can get much better performance than the AMD X2 4800 by overclocking a $224 chip. Your point about a proven system are valid, but I think it's nuts not to take a good long look at the Intel chips.

I think if you are just upgrading a few parts, AMD, makes sense if you you have a motherboard and memory that support the X2s. If you are buying a lot of stuff or essentially getting a new system, Intel is far in the lead. It is prudent to wait a bit to see if any issues arise with first gen systems.

Sean, that is good to see. That will be a lot of bang for the buck and possibly even more with an E6400 with 4mb L2.

intel has always been conservative with their clock ratings where AMD always rated theirs on the ragged edge. When intel realized people were buying their lower cost chips and overclocking them (beginning of Toms Hardware) is when intel began locking down their clocks. They wanted people to buy the extra performance and eliminate issues with overzealous unknowlegeable people overclocking their chips and then expecting a warranty replacement.

At least now they will allow overclocking again. It looks like the chips will be great overclocked but they will likely have a strict warranty policy.

I see AMD having many troubles in their future. Considering them moving to a 65nm architecture (which intel has had for a while now) and then trying to cram 4 cores together, I think they will have QC issues and not be able to ship them reliably - at least for some months. 4 cores on one piece of silicon will increase the odds of a bad core. One bad core will render that silicon useless.

I think intel, while being a bit more conservative, it will pay off for them as they will be able to ship more units and have less loss from manufacturing flaws. This will also allow intel time to finish up their CSI architecture. Plus, allow the blood letting at AMD to take effect after the intel price war really starts hitting home. Oh yeah, ATI buyout... $5.4B less in the AMD war chest.

That will be a lot of bang for the buck and possibly even more with an E6400 with 4mb L2.

are they making one with 4mb cache?

Also I think in the encoding benchmarks the cache didn't add that much.

amd will catch up, nodoubt about it. It may take ~ a year or so, like Intel, but AMD has already cut a lot of "corners" to speed things up that intel hasn't done yet, the biggest is the memory controller on the CPU.

I highly doubt intels NEXT batch of chips will be so cheap eigther. They decided to take a hit to hurt AMD, who they KNOW can't afford the hit.

But like said above, the AMD 64 line is proven on the battle front, the Core 2 is not. Now the argument switches from "Intel is more reliable then AMD" to "AMD is more reliable then Intel." All new tech does that. :)

Oops, my bad, it is the E6600 that has the 4MB L2. The E6400 has 2MB.

"I think intel, while being a bit more conservative," I have to disagree with that statement. Intel has always push the G clock for their design. Intel produced a large number of p3/p4s with serious floating point errors when used any long length of time, not what an electrical engineer would call a conservative approach.

The new design, like the mobile Intel, is a good step in the right direction. But AMD is far from dead, AMD last month introduce the 4x4 gaming MB, currently using x2s but designed for x4s with each x with its own memory access.

I hope all the press and early reports on the Intel dual core product remains accurate once the product is in the field. Many claims by Intel have failed to be reached once the product was actually shipped.

Heck Intel can't be that bad, Jobs signed off with them. I'd always thought Apple would have kept more prestige by going with AMD than Intel but the word from Mac land is that Apple thought AMD too close to the edge financially to take a risk.

I really don't care much who's on top at the moment, so long as they both keep slugging it out. If either was ever to vanquish the other you can be certain we'd all be the loosers.

Bob.