digg

im not really an "intel guy", but its good to see intel make a strong comeback...good for them

WE GET THE POINT.

It doesn't take 5 articles a day to prove the same point, we get it.

And to think I was gonna give up on Intel. Great news.

Same story again. Finally some competition though. Maybe I'll finally switch back to Intel........maybe.

I think Digg should be renamed Fanboiswars.

Headline: New Processors are faster than old ones!

Whens the release date?

Ah it beats the FX-62? But is it CHEAPER than the FX-62? Lemme know when these performance CPU are in the $200 range, and maybe some of us will actually care. Otherwise hi-end performance parts are not for me.

Competition like this is *very* good for consumers. AMD hasn't had a good reason to push itself really hard for a while, and now they do, even if some reviews out there are partial and not making the best comparisons. The best counter to FUD or FUD-like tactics is not to call the other party out, but to beat them on features and/or performance hands down.

That said, cheers to Intel for turning out a truly great processor for the first time in years. More proof that threats to market share sometimes promote innovation. One of the few instances where the market really *does* manage to work.

k then, I am revoking my AMD fanboy license, my next CPU will be an intel.

Yes we love competition.. I just wish BOTH companies high-end CPUs didn't frigging cost over $900.

AMD FX-64 comes out Q4, overclock that and add 2 GB DDR2 RAM and thats fast enough for any gamer

For a fairly non-fanboy based review, look at HardOCP's benchmarks. They have focused on more real world rather than artifiical. When comparing real world performance in things that actually matter and things that are actually useful. Static benchmark programs are not a true test of performance. Come on people, we all know that. That being said, I agree with everyone here. The competition certainly cant hurt either side. If Intel can edge out AMD on this generation of processors for performance vs cost, I'll choose an Intel chip for my next upgrade. If they cant, then I'll stick with AMD. Fanboyism is dumb.

still not an intel fan yet. competition is good however.

Looks like the Intel of old is back and in a big way. I think AMD got caught with their pants down and are about to be spanked for the foreseeable future. I'd better start saving up my pennies for the parts to build my next rig.

Guys, this really isn't news anymore.

Can someone provide a price breakdown for the other "Core 2" chips. Right now all I've seen reported is:

$530 - Core 2 Duo E6700
$1000 - Core 2 Extreme X6800

Aren't there other models? What are thier prices?

thanks.

Look, it's basically a Ford or a Chevy on this one. Whomever can show me they've got the best deal going and the best quality / performance, I'm happy to give them my business. Look for hellacious deals on notebooks and desktops in the next 90 days as dealers try to clear out what will be "old" inventory!

Remember when everyone was wondering why Apple went with Intel for their switch to x86 instead of AMD?

Apple definitely plans ahead, another good example, I needed to open an old Appleworks document so I used the Appleworks from my old System 8 CD. I was waiting for classic to open and it didn't, Appleworks just opened. That's right, The un-updated version of Appleworks that shipped with OS 8 was already compatible with OS 10, naively long before anyone outside the company even knew about thier radical switch to BSD. It was a little buggy, but it ran.

In yet more news AMD's next line of processors (insert name here) 'kicks Intel's butt.'

Stupid fanboys.

Does it really matter which company you support? If you think about it, if you go with Intel you're always going to be up for a while before AMD's new chips come out, and down right after AMD's new chips come out. If you go with AMD, it's going to be the exact same deal.

As has been said before, new processors are usually better than old ones. There's really no point to arguing over which is better, because each company is going to be better at some point in the future.

The exact same arguement is going to come out next year when AMD comes out with its new chip, and then the following time when Intel comes out with its new chip. To be honest, I'd be more excited about the:
-price drops for AMD in the coming month after an Intel release
-price drops for Intel in the coming month after an AMD release

And I just built a new gaming rig with a AMD Athlon 64 3700! This will be great for consumers with the price wars about to go down. Just too bad I didn't wait a few more months.

I'll take one affordable Core Duo Extreme. Wait a second. They're all extremely unaffordable! Not cool!

Im just glad to see it runs cooler , i think they did a good job on that this time around , amd will come back and kick their ass even more though, watch, either price drops, or new chip *guesses price drops*

This is nice. Unfortunately I wont be upgrading for a while yet. Just recently upgraded to an AMD64 3500. I'm always way behind anyway. I just wish more software would catch up with the hardware and actually utilize 64 bit and multiple processors etc.

Can't wait for the Core 2 Duo Macbooks :D

Another review of the new CPUs is available at http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/1.html

I love the Conroe.. Better performance, less heat, and less power consumption - awesome! :D

I can admit I was an AMD fanboy, but mostly for performance for price reason. I'm not any kind of hardcore gamer. That being said, the Core 2 is definitely good news because it only stimulates competition. That's the best news because ultimately, while they're trying to Russian Leg Sweep each other, we're the ones who are benefitting. That being said, I'll probably get one of the cheaper Core 2 Duos, even if I got to wait til the end of the year. The way I figure it, it should still be better than any comparable X2 and since it'll be cheaper and use less power, it seems like the overall best choice. My one problem that people don't seem to be discussing, is that Intel seems to be going back down the same exact road they paved by stuffing two Conroe chips and making a quad-core, just to beat AMD to the market. I would rather they take time and come up with something that could compete and even beat whatever AMD is planning to quadcore. It seems like, every so often Intel feels the need to be the hare instead of being the tortoise. Just because you're the fastest to put it out, doesn't mean the quality will be the same. So it rubs me the wrong way that they're trying to shove quadcores down our throats, just for the sake of beating AMD. Whatever though, point is, the better the processor, the more and more likely its seeming like I won't be shelling out 6 C-Notes for a PS3. And they're the ultimate losers. Just kidding, no Sony fanboy flames.