Today Officialy Intel releases the new series of CPU's - the Core Duo 2. There are several tests at which u can look at :
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/  (don mention Zidane as Athlon 64 :D )
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

Both tests show that Conroe is much faster then the Athlon FX-62

While I'm not too fond of Intel, the Conroe appears to be a very solid design - something they've been lacking for a long time.

Intel did things right this time, an excellent CPU...

I have to agree. Every since AMD got away from the K6 and launched the Athlon line, they have been the gamer's choice.

I have always found Intel to be too expensive and since AMD is/was faster, Why buy Intel? We'll see how long it takes for Intel to win back customer loyalty.

intel isn't my types for games never was either, they always got PWNed by AMD CPU's,  thier HT failed most of the time in all games never was such a great success in the first place anyways, it mostly made them slower, anyways Intel pro's would say the oppisite anyways hehe.

though there were a few games that did make a 40% proffit in useage of HT like FS 2004 and Jet Fighter III but then again it depends what you do most.

Then agian AMD isn't sitting still that Conroe thing isn't fully available yet either and I personally think that AMD might have something sweet up thier sleeves, like they allways did. ;D

I still went for the X2 4400+ Toledo S939 with Dual DDR 400 2x 1GB PC3200 C2PT from Corsair XMS Platinum TwinX series, since that DDR2 667 is slower in most cases than dual DDR400 and you will need the very expensive DDR2 800 to beat the dual DDR 400 just by a thin margin of 4%.

so I think the whole Conroe thing is too expensive there are much cheaper and better designs which can provide the same type of sollution.

Do the same with less money go for AMD! ;)

p.s. didn't put this AMD Arrow logo in my floor for nothing ;)
http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/7674-2/DSC00801.jpg

About Conroe - Anandtech told that until the end of 2007 only!! 25% of selling CPU's will be Core Duo 2, the other 75% will be P4 and Celerond D, if that is true, that Intel , has a bad situation, because AMD lowered the prices of Dual-Core CPU's which are much faster than P4 or Celeron D DC, so that means Conroe will be for a bunch of people who want to spend there money just to get high-end stuff.

yeps exactly Intel has a nice design but if there are none of them on the market AMD still has the lead in speed :)

in the price performance sector AMD is still on top :)

Update:

Good news for AMD people the AMD's still have the best price performance  ;D

Intels Best CPU :
Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 Extreme (S775, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB, Boxed) € 946,30
http://tweakers.net/ext/lt.dsp?ref=p&LeverancierID=6728&ID=216224492&dest=http%3A//www.hardwaretotaal.nl/catalog/go_product.php%3Fproducts_model%3D80154799

AMD's Best CPU:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (AM2, 2.8GHz, 2x1MB, Boxed) €807,04
http://tweakers.net/ext/lt.dsp?ref=p&LeverancierID=6728&ID=216220148&dest=http%3A//www.hardwaretotaal.nl/catalog/go_product.php%3Fproducts_model%3D80022827

AMD PWNzz Ballzz in price/performance, as they always did   ;D

I'm an Intel fan, always have been. I don't care if the Conroe is faster. I prefer upfront simplicity over manual technical calculations, such as AMD's cpu speed isn't the title like 4800. I like it kept simple like Intel, where a 3.0Ghz pc is 3Ghz, not 4 or 2 or what ever number you have to calculate.

I've got a hyper threading pc, Motherboard Intel D865PERL, 3.0Ghz E 478 socket Prescott cpu. There used to be a lot of problems with ATI TV Tuner and Hyper Threading, but it appears that was fixed in either ATI's drivers or Microsoft's updates.

wrote on 03.09.06 at 14:43:26:

where a 3.0Ghz pc is 3Ghz, not 4 or 2 or what ever number you have to calculate.

Still you have to consider that the frequency is *very* far from the only performance indicator. And I'm not saying this as an amd fan or form an amd/intel point of view.

I have both, 2.4 Intel (Wife's Machine) and 2400+ AMD (Mine). Can you guess which one is faster ;D

Oh and my daughter has a 2.0 Celeron  :'(

well my laptop has an Intel P4 HT 3400 Prescott CPU, but the performance of an AMD Athlon64 3400+ in 32 Bit beats the that Prescott allround, the Northwoods were much better  than the crappy prescotts heh, it is known that the P4 CPU's have a very bad FPU/ALU and especially the Willamette CPU's and Prescott CPU's, a 3400 Mhz Prescott with Hyper Threading, 800 Mhz FSB and an L2 of 1MB performs like an Athlon64 3000+ @ 1800 Mhz, 800 Mhz FSB and a mere 512KB L2 in most cases in 32Bit apps that is since it lacks 64 Bit.

might upgrade my Laptop with a Northwood P4 HT Extreme 3400 Mhz S478 CPU, okay no SSE3 but that isn't such of great importance the P4E HT 3400 has the performance of a real A64 3400 @ least ;)
But my main Priority for CPU's has always been AMD better Price Performance and always rock solid systems :)


@ Gamma742

Your AthlonXP 2400+ crushes that P4 Northwood 2400 with ease even if that P4 would have HyperThreading which in most cases makes the CPU slower, HyperThreading decreases performance in some cases, while it really shouldn't