Originally Posted by maroon1
But I don't trust AMD, because they claim in their website that AMD 3600+ is faster than E6300 which not true.
well, yeah, it is true of you look at the overall picture, which is what this link shows. look how many benchmarks they used to calculate "overall" performance. it is kind of a rather biased benchmark, to be sure...a lot of the tests are those which amd is known to outperform intel. notice that super pi is not present.
i am sure that intel's benchmark overall performance will show different tests...those at which c2d excels.
notice they are not overclocked. in a real-world everyday user situation, the amd x2's will stand toe-to-toe with intel's c2d everytime. EXCEPT in certain areas, overclocking, power consumption (in the 90nm windsor anyway) and super pi being the most obvious.
also, i have read several times that amd has a significant advantage in 64 bit applications, which many of these bencmarks could be (i dont know all of them).
so, yes...it is true. we all tend to base our "which is better" on overclocks and such. in the real (boring lol) world, there is really no distinct advantage to either cpu unless the usage is application sensitive.