Originally Posted by nagasama
overclocked c2d all the way.
exactly. At stock, the 6000+ actually does beat the E6600 in a lot of benchmarks. Overall, the E6600 is faster, but not by a lot.
When you overclock, the E6600 will usually take a significant lead.
Although, I have made some real progress with my 6000+, managing over 10,200 in 3dmark06 at 3.5GHZ, with a single 8800 GTS 320MB. Not very far off people with 3.3GHZ+ C2D's with the same card.
In the areas where C2D excels, I really don't use much if at all, anyway.
Originally Posted by BennyV04988
Hense the $750+ comment. AMD will not be on top. You're only on top when people actually buy your **** products. If AMD comes out with a killer true 4-core cpu, and it totally omg ubber ownz intel, it will still run SOOO hot, be a total power hog, and cost WAAAAAAAY too much.
Actually, K10 is supposed to be very low on power usage, heat output, and overall very efficient.
If I remember correctly, they're supposed to have a 120W envelope for their top model quad core, when all four cores are running at 100% load.
How much have you read about AMD's power management in K10? They are making some interesting progress.
Now, to get something out of the way:
Yes, I am an AMD fan.
No, I don't care if your C2D is faster than my 6000+.
In fact, I am going to recommend he should get the E6600, over the 6000+
But I am going to say that the difference is not nearly as big as people often make it out to be.