:lolham:
ok so then what happens when AMD comes out with its new chip?, same thing visious cycle.
More than 6 months out… Q1-Q2 2007.
You buy it.
And then Intel comes out with their next one, and I buy that.
And then AMD beats it, and the AMD people upgrade to that. Hence the reason I don’t really argue these things.
yeah, ill stick with my AMD tho, its still fast as shit.
yeah, because ill EVER spend 1G on a processor :roll:
I can’t wait until the price drops on the 24th occur and I builds me a Dual Core AMD.
AMD > Intel 30-0.
GG.
As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.
If you have a higher-end AMD Athlon 64 system platform right now though, there really isn’t any need to go scrambling to Intel Core 2 at this particular time for gaming. I’d wait it out and see what the future brings.
blah blah blah intel, still not a huge difference so ill stick with my AMD
ohh yeah real world gaming > synthetic benchmarks
The true winner in the battle of AMD vs. Intel is US… because the competition between the two companies drives them to develop newer, faster processors almost as fast as Microsoft can bog them down with bloatware…
I really wish I could have wated to buy a core 2 duo 
Oh well. Dual cores really are a terrific idea. 