I wish I was a Fanboy with flowers in my hair

[Jleo]

But I'm not.................You have to give it to Intel though, this fairly in depth article on Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance which features benchmark graphs visualising the cpu and memory capabilities of the 2 rivals along with a fairly easy to understand breakdown of the technology involved.

Feel free to add your thoughts but remember I posted this as a serious discussion thread so no playground antics

Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance
Date: July 25th, 2006
Topic: Memory
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Wesley Fink

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=1

 

[joeyjojo]

Very nice article. A lot of people have said that "core 2 is just more efficient". This explains that well, saying about "intelligent look-aheads". Still a bit cryptic, but enough for the layman.

Would have prefered a comparison of less stupidly high end stuff though. Few people have an FX 62 or X6800.

Good read.

Edit: just noticed that the X6800 are £780 including vat...I thought the fx 60 was mental...

 

[Gashman]

yeah intel EE have always been astronimcally priced compaired to there FX counterparts, but yeah thats good to read nice one

 

[fenderbass86]

The FX62 was originally priced about £730.

 

[stoofa]

The FX62 was originally priced about £730.

Exactly - it is the price you pay for the latest and greatest.
The X6800 maybe £700+ but there isn't a processor out there (available on general release) that can touch it.
Then throw in it's overclocking capabilities and you've got a very silly fast machine which you'd have no "need" to upgrade for ages.

 

[Gashman]

the thing stopping me from ever buying top of the line, fastest performance hardware, is the speed its obseleted by newer technology, computer world is the single worse for that happening