Arterion said:
Bit of a contradiction. I find it unlikely that AMD's next chips will be inferior to Intel's current chips...
i was talking clock-for-clock comparison, as well as scaling and overclocking.
A64s keep up with Core2Duos at stock by having higher clock speeds, and the advantage is lost when overclocking as the A64s have very little headroom in the higher models (compared to E6600s and E6800s that can clock 1Ghz higher at times).
In order to compete with the enthusiast attraction to C2d, Agena has to idealy be at least 2 of the following:
Faster clock-for-clock than Core2Quad (hopefuly true)
Cooler than C2Q
Have higher stock freqs that C2Q (which isnt going to happen)
Overclock better than C2Q
and idealy by a margin enough to be a threat to the new Penryn chips out in Dec/Jan (which appear to be faster than C2D by a small margni, should be cooler, and may clock better)
So its a bit of a tight race at the moment.
Thing is, in the end although the performance crown is a good goal, at the moment C2Ds and C2Qs are very good processors, and Agena looks to be good too. An overclocked C2D will probably not bottleneck a top of the range GFX for a while yet, so you are virtualy comparing two sports cars that both go faster than you need to (at the moment at least, and prob for the next while) unless you specificaly do word with very heavy processor usage (encoding ect).
Compared to that, A64 vs Netburst was a case of a sports car vs a muscle car, though the latter had a lot of torque, it couldnt turn corners very well, so unless you wanted flat out speed it was a bit of an easy decision (A64 was leaps better with games, Netburst better with things that utilised the long pipeline).
My personal oppinion? Agena/C2q/Penryn either are, or are going to be, sufficiently decent processors that you will not be ashamed to use them, and the performance difference in games will be not great (which is what a lot of us use them for)
But despite that, i'm still looking foward to seeing how they compare!