Not sure what to choose: AMD or Intel

[Nukem]

there will ALWAYS be a war between these 2 companies... one will out do the other, and vice-versa... depending on what you want to do with your system, and your budget I would say go with whats cheaper over-all. yes, RIGHT NOW, intel is better... (I now have both AMD and INTEL) but I still like both companies for what they provide me... cheaper parts, due to the competition.

So unless your going to go for the gaming FPS, no lag, beat everything online, and the "I have the best OC system right this very second" (of course until someone beats me) then I will say do what's best for your wallet. I think you will still get the performance you wish by going either way.

 

[theor]

Go with Intel for now. In terms of the competition between the two companies, cherish it. The competition is what continuously brings us these wonderful products at such an accelerated and dynamic rate. If intel or AMD were sole processor makers, we'd see the same technology and chips selling for longer durations of time. Either that or chips would be much more expensive, I go with the flow and choose what's best at that point in time. That way when I look back at my systems I see a large diversity in parts and in time I feel appreciation for the way times have changed.

 

[COD2_fanatic]

question......

If the "cheaper parts due to the competition" is true, why is the E6300 still $180, if they'd drop them to like $140 or something in that area i might consider one (since i'm a measly 16 year old with little income at the moment)

and if someone says "but its not a Conroe", yes it is, the only reason they have a different core name is because the other 2mb of cache is cut off, thus they couldnt truely call it a Conroe but, it is still the same Core design

 

[TriEclipse]

Its because Intel doesn't need to drop the price. When you have a $180 processor that is faster than the competition's $203 processor, why in the world would you drop your price? But a perfect example of price-cuts in competition is what AMD has done in recent months. A X2 4800+ used to cost $450 before the C2Ds came out, and now they're $235, half as much. Also, the FX-55 is available as OEM at $140 right now. Not bad at all for a single-core processor.

 

[COD2_fanatic]

Its because Intel doesn't need to drop the price. When you have a $180 processor that is faster than the competition's $203 processor, why in the world would you drop your price? But a perfect example of price-cuts in competition is what AMD has done in recent months. A X2 4800+ used to cost $450 before the C2Ds came out, and now they're $235, half as much. Also, the FX-55 is available as OEM at $140 right now. Not bad at all for a single-core processor.

because if the price is lower more people might consider getting one, thus they may make more money in the long run (not that Intel doesnt have enough)

 

[TriEclipse]

Dropping the price $50 to make 5% more people buy the processor isn't exactly a good business move. So where do you stop then anyway? There will always be room to drop the price even more to make even more people happy. That's just not how a business works. What you're suggesting would have absolutely nothing to do with competition either. Intel isn't in the business of helping people with lower incomes buy processors, there are other products out there for those people to buy. Its pretty simple; you buy what you can afford and don't whine when something is too expensive.

 

[Nagasama]

there will ALWAYS be a war between these 2 companies... one will out do the other, and vice-versa... depending on what you want to do with your system, and your budget I would say go with whats cheaper over-all. yes, RIGHT NOW, intel is better... (I now have both AMD and INTEL) but I still like both companies for what they provide me... cheaper parts, due to the competition.

So unless your going to go for the gaming FPS, no lag, beat everything online, and the "I have the best OC system right this very second" (of course until someone beats me) then I will say do what's best for your wallet. I think you will still get the performance you wish by going either way.

thats right nukem. gaming performance, you will not notice a tremendous (if any) difference (but you will in benchmarks, snort). if you are doing any kind of 3D/video rendering or editing, the c2d will destroy the amd, no doubt. and i'm an amd-lover.
if you're going to go try serious overclocking, the c2d trounces (in most cases) the x2...it certainly seems "easier" from what i've heard.

 

[Nagasama]

and if someone says "but its not a Conroe", yes it is, the only reason they have a different core name is because the other 2mb of cache is cut off, thus they couldnt truely call it a Conroe but, it is still the same Core design

if someone says, "it's not a conroe", slap them in the face with this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2_Duo

and tell them to read down until they come to "allendale".
then laugh. repeat.

 

[TriEclipse]

IMO, the Core 2 Duo is harder to overclock. I've overclocked both A64s and C2Ds, and learning how to overclock Core 2 Duos was like learning a new language. I literally had to read that crap like fifty times and get over concepts I didn't even think were possible before trying my hand at it. You feel comfortable with it easily enough, but its still slightly more complicated than the A64s. I wait for the day Intel starts using HyperTransport and an IMC to make things much simpler. Its a small price to pay though, for the performance that C2Ds bring.

 

[Nagasama]

really?
lol different language indeed...!
wow, i thought the c2d were way easier the things you read about them...here and really everywhere...
dude, i had to tweak and tweak and tweak and tweak my 4200 to get a good o.c. i guess that's the name of the game...and
really the fun part as well! except bsod. doh!
seriously, tho...i was under the impression you just jacked up the fsb (not literally lol, but with kind patience) and PRESTO...uber-komputer!
need to find some material on overclocking c2d...