uzi9mm said:
And the AMD fanboyism here is unbelievable.
You're wrong, I'm far from being an AMD fanboy. Heck, look at my sig and tell me what processor I have!
It's just that Conroes are a bit overrated when you leave overclocking out of the picture. The E6300 at stock speeds is not much more powerful than an AthlonX2 4400+, and both CPUs cost around $180. It really depends on the benchmark you're looking at. Sometimes the E6300 will outperform a 4600+; other times you'll see it struggling with the 4200+.
The bottom line is that
at stock speeds, Conroes are only slightly more powerful than their equivalently-priced AMD counterparts.
If you disagree, show me the benchmarks. You'll probably find one where the E6300 crushes the opposition, and I'll immediately reply with another benchmark where it barely sticks its head out in the crowd. And don't get me wrong: I love my E6300. It's just that I'm realistic concerning its performance level.
Here's a CPU list based on current Newegg prices, with increasing order. I included the Athlon X2s, the Athlon FXs and the Core 2 Duo / Extreme.
X2 3800+ Windsor ($135)
E6300 Conroe ($187)
X2 4200+ Windsor ($169)
X2 4400+ Toledo ($186; $205 for 65nm Brisbane)
X2 4600+ Windsor ($216)
E6400 Conroe ($222)
FX-55 San Diego ($239)
X2 4800+ Brisbane ($248)
X2 5000+ Windsor ($279)
X2 5200+ Windsor ($310)
E6600 Conroe ($316)
FX-57 San Diego ($319)
FX-62 San Diego ($495)
E6700 Conroe ($519)
X2 5600+ Windsor ($535)
X6800 Conroe ($970)
If that list was ordered by performance instead of price, very few modifications would have to be made. The processors would rank more or less as I've listed them here. You get what you pay for.