That's the question.

Upgrade time. Which shows the best promise down the road? This would be on a 775 board for the Intel or a AM2 board for the AMD.

Promise down the road? You mean, upgradability? Well, that's something no one really knows for sure. I mean, Intel said that Kentsfield would be compatible with existing Core 2 mtoherboards, now it seems like it would only work with 975x motherboards. Of course, that's just the hearsay, right now, but there has been Kentsfield ES running on 975x boards.

As for AM2, well, AMD has claimed that AM3 CPUs would work on them. Again, it's all speculation, so no one can really claim that fact for sure.

Mostly, I would suggest you get a setup that will fit your budget and what your computing needs happen to be (video, gaming, folding, etc).

Either setup (775 or AM2) would be fine, but to know what future tech would run on those boards is sketchy, at best.

c2d

Core 2 Duo. Unless you're comparing a 6300/6400 to a FX-62 for the same price, just get the Conroe, it's really no competition.

I would go for the C2D setup also. Upgradeability is anyones guess, AM2 is the newest setup, but the performance goes to the c2d. A Price Range would really help.

Now: C2D provides better performance, at a slightly higher price

Down the Road: Who Knows? An E6300 should play all games coming out in the next 3-4 years, as long as it's paired with a decent graphics card.

IMO, if it (CPU) works for what you need it to do, then why upgrade?

Hmmm I'd go with the C2D setup too.

As for upgradeability, keep in mind that THG's Kentsfield tests were done on a currently available Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6. It's expensive, but it'll probably support a Kenstfield upgrade.

This is a little iffy, but the info we currently have in regards to future quad-core upgrades is looking good for Intel and is simply unknown for AMD (no ESs anywhere).

(In any case, the 12-phase voltage regulation on that Gigabyte board is so wonderfully overengineered that it might be good even for a 200W processor. It's expensive though... and doesn't officially support SLI, if that's your thing)

You're right.

Intel spent way too much time with Netburst. Now we're back to where we should be: exciting product launches, new architectures, ES benchmark "leaks" and so on.

For a looong while, nothing could really touch A64s. Fortunately, and quite excitingly, this has finally changed. Times have changed... again.

People claim it's a bit faster, well I'd say it's MUCH faster. but of course it depends on the testing conditions and what parts you plan to use in your PC as well as what applications/games you intend to use.

As for the P965, Most boards fully support Intel's Core 2 Quadro. All they need is a 6Phase or more Power Regulation. Like Asus' P5B series or Gigabyte's DQ series. Here's a quote from Intel's Website.

Now if that's not convincing enough there are numerous tests (such as THG's) that have run Kentsfield (Core 2 Quadro) on an Intel P965 based board. Also you can check out Asus' website.

Then there's the articles on Xtremesystems showing a P5B running a Kentsfield.
Xtremesystems

He is right, an e6300 will perform like an x2 4200+ mostly! Overall, the AM2 system would be cheaper, mainly because of the MOBO choices. It is really a tuff decision honestly. Either the 4200 or e6300 for sure though

If speed is your concern: Intel
If power consumption is the concern: AMD

Really? Like a 4200+ eh?

Explain these to me? That's right.. for games and synthetic applications as well as Office applications the Core 2 Duo E6300 is on par or faster then an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. It's only slower and comparable to a 4200+ when doing Professional 3D rendering (2 apps).











http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu [...] t/divx.png

Last image here shows the OVERALL avg. As you can see teh Core 2 Duo E6300 falls in between the 4200+ and the 4600+ OVERALL. Now if you compare the scores you'll see that the E6300 is closer to a 4600+'s performance then it is a 4200+'s performance. Thus it is more comparable to a 4600+.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu [...] verage.png

As for Price/Performance.. that's right the E6300 has the best Price/Performance Ratio.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu [...] iceper.png

What about Performance Per Clock?


That's right.. if you do the math you'll find that an E6300 once again but using this method performs in between a 4600+ and 4200+ but much closer to a 4600+.

C'est la vie.