[Stryker412]

http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?new...xobmV3cywsLDE=

"Both the AMD FX and Intel processors were clocked at 2.6GHz. The AMD machine scored 138 frames per second while the Intel Core 2 Duo machine returned a whopping 177 frames per second. A full 39 fps better comes out to over a 25% increase in gaming performance clock per clock."

[Horsepower]

ah hell, i just bought all these AMD parts for a new system lol.

[-=TANK=-]

are the prices comparable between the two.. as far as setting up a whole system.. I have been considering setting up a new system.. but its been two years since I have actually did so.. 2 years alot has changed.. and i dont keep up with technology no more.. I havent a clue on what to build anymore..

[11 Bravo 3]

Same here, I'm ready to do a new system too. Just not sure what's the best way to go.

[T3Kmitch]

Wouldn't this be a bad time to go for a new system? With DirectX 10 coming out soon, you'll have to upgrade your video card in the next year or two to keep up with new games. Even if you don't have Vista, having a Dx10 compatible card will help because eventually you will get Vista, even if you don't right away.

[Bonez]

hmmm, gen 2 dual core vs gen 1 dual core.

[Horsepower]

Originally Posted by Bonez

hmmm, gen 2 dual core vs gen 1 dual core.

AMD has nothing on the near horizon to compare with this chip. you think AMD doesn't bench their new cpu's with current Intel processors?

there's hardly any applications that properly utilize the current dual cores on the market now. to my knowledge, no video game uses the second core. most everyone here is a gamer and will not see much benefit from a dual core, not right now anyways unless you're into heavy graphics, CAD or video editing.

for you guys thinking about building a new system. if your current box is doing the job, hold out for Intel's Conroe chip. it shows a lot of promise and is not far from release. and yeah, if you're going to be buying Vista, i wouldn't spend a load of cash on a video card right now if you need one. on the otherhand, you have to figure it will be a few months before a lot of games start coming out with DX10 after Vista hits the streets.

i haven't been happy with my graphics card for a long time now and have been wanting a new one. problem is, it's AGP and in my opinion, it made no sense to upgrade an old platform. i had an AMD SLI board fall into my lap for free a few weeks ago and am building a system off of that. if it weren't for that video card, i would have at least waited to see how Conroe does on the review circuit before deciding on either AMD or Intel.

[Dvshadow]

Well, ill comment more on this in 2 days...at which point i will say a whole lot more.

(going off this link: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2771&p=1 - more recent benchmarks and results)
I do see the amd 25% difference, and im guessing intel may have the upper hand for now.

But, remember this, AMD has always innovated and has ideas that are very stable and they future-proof their hardware very well meaning once you get the new hardware you can guess you wont need to upgrade that $220 mobo for a new proc.
When people bash the new AM-2 design, they are not realizing that amd has already stated that they will be overhauling the production process from 90nm to 65nm by the end of this year and then by mid2008 to a 45nm process, increasing performance and reducing cost significatly.
Your still going to get better performance-per-watt with amd and your not going to need to get a different motherboard every f-ing processor upgrade.

Sorry guys, but if the BESTthat they have is that the very top of the line flagship processors go head-to-head and it's at an intel press symposium on their own testbeds, I dont buy it.

Intel is NOTORIOUS for modifying their processors to give better synthetic benchmark results.

I will say that Intel's dual core offerings are very good looking, but I can't cut on the service i get with amd.
They send you free case badges! AND free posters..come on, thats customer service .
And that the price cuts that are coming out will be very nice for the important ones

[Banana Commando]

This tends to get me bashed by the AMD fans, but I simply just stick to Intel. You can give me all the numbers in the world. Simply put, I've never had an Intel processor (even at their higher temps) burn out on me. But, I've had two AMD processors do it... back to back.

You will have to exclude my topic in the Help Me! forums because it was due to a power surge in a rain storm.

Not to mention, Intels generally run cheaper than AMDs on CPUs that run much faster than AMDs. Stability is a nice thing to offer, but I've never had "un-stability" with Intel chips.

This is just my personal preference, and I'm rather happy to hear about this new chip! Seeing as I'll be upgrading my computer pretty much the second Vista hits the market. I may wait a month or so to see what fancy new git-ups come out after/with the launch (and because I'm familiar with Gate's "success rate" when it comes to OS launches), but it won't take me long to upgade.

I hope AMD can compete though. I always like seeing them one-up each other.

[Horsepower]

Originally Posted by Banana Commando

Not to mention, Intels generally run cheaper than AMDs on CPUs that run much faster than AMDs.

yeah, that statement might get the AMD boys going.