lol who established the relationship? intel?
every benchmark test that was somewhat unbiased (lol as unbiased as they can be) suggests that stock 6300 is behind x2 4600 in all but a couple of fps tests, i think doom and FEAR. ie, behind in cinebench, bandwidth tests (of the memory), 3d rendering, etc.
so, until i have both a 6300 and a 4600 side by side running the same components (except mobo of course, but they would need to be rough equivalent) and the same test programs, i will not buy that a stock 6300 will "mop the floor" with a stock 4600.
now, my standpoint on that issue remains the same...urban myth.
or, you can find me a reputable set of benchmarks or two that directly compare them and i will decide from there...
now, darknesslurkz...a 6600 would beat the crap out of any amd. and with the right skills and components a 6400 would give it a run for the money. so if it is important for you to be ahead of the pack, save 130 dollars more, or try for the 6400, you will get extremely good results out of any of them. and i mean a 4600, a 6400, a 6600, or yes, even a 6300.
good luck!
p.s. bennyv about the math...
i would appreciate not being spoken to condescendingly. if you look through my posts you will see that i am one of the only ones that offer real advice and help on ram timings (nitestick and meithan are really the only two who have ever offered me concrete, useful info) and how to get the most out of overclocking an amd dual core. and one of the few that help other posters on this forum figure out what their (amd users) numerous (and often very simple) problems that are holding them back from pressing their cpus to the limit.
so, no i am not a math major at cal tech or anything, but i have a fairly well-rounded and coherent knowledge of how computers...and stuff...work.