AMD and Intel are cutting prices faster than ever, which has moved high-end CPUs into the $200 range. We compare the Core 2 Duo E6400 against AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5600 , to see which might be the better choice for you.

x2 3600 and x2 5600 for AMD, e6320 and e6600 for intel. They are good deals, you just have to decide if you will overclock.

The new 60/90 min power consumption test is very interesting, because it clearly shows how the X2s, even consuming more power at full load, overall have a lower mixed power consumption. This should be because Cool'n'Quiet is more effective than SpeedStep in the low power consumption modes; X2s can go as low as 800 MHz while Core2s are stuck at the double; 1600 MHz lowest.

The power consumption is the main reason I might build an AMD system this fall. I don't do anything high-end, so I'm not looking at CPU's over $150.

in my country you can get an e6600 for 197€ anyway, so there really is no competition here

Then you should also get ~197€ X2 6000+s

In a thread not long ago, after several folks tried to paint the x2 6000 as a power-hungry toaster, etc., I was pointing out that most x2 6000s will end up spending a lot of time at idle with QuietN'Cool, and that the max power draw wasn't so much of an issue. I even calculated the electricity cost difference for heavy use over time, which was interesting, since although heavy use isn't that common, it's still interesting to folks who like to look at numbers.

I think it's finally a no-brainer at this point to choose an am2 5600 for a new build, with the idea of upgrading to a quad core in time.

The only last instance where I would recommend a C2duo is only for something like constant encoding work where the cpu is not at idle much during the day, but....someone doing this should actually look at getting quad anyway. So I'm not sure there is a situation to recommend c2duo for now, and that's a change. They are good processors, but their advantages don't add up for most situations. Only overclockers now might prefer them on the specs.

with intel price cuts amd has no chance, even though i dislike the big monopolistic manufacturers like nVidia and Intel, if amd\ati shows better products, then we will have a interesting summer.

It makes me wonder what the upcoming split power planes and such will do for power consumption (for both AMD and Intel platforms). Nice to see that a CPU will be able to idle with most cores clocked down to barely anything and one hardly running at all to keep background processes churning, which will cause power consumption to be...nil. Now if only graphics cards....

Typo on page 1. An E6600 costs around $220 and clocks at 2.4GHz. I think the author meant to say E6700.

When you buy the AMD6000 X2 you are buying an end-of-life product with minimal upgrade potential. Meanwhile the E6600 overclocks past 3GHz and there are stock parts that clock at 2.93GHz (as well as a quad core part)

Not mentioned in this article, but Intel CPUs are far more sensitive to memory performance than AMD. If you want to build an Intel system and performance is your goal, you should factor another $100+ for top-end memory.

The power question is mostly spurious; both chips run cool, neither requires special heatsink considerations. Building a solution with a 420W supply is easy for both CPU solutions - your decision on power supply is guided more by your choice in graphic cards. If you are a super-greenie you should be using a notebook.

If I had to buy a system today it would be Intel for longevity and overclocking. But if I could wait it would probably be Barcelona. The question is when? And is Barcelona really as good as AMD says it is? I certainly hope so for AMD's sake and our collective pockets!

I am no fan of the X2 6000+, I believe there are better options from both AMD and Intel, but to say it has 'miminal' upgrade potential is absurd considering upcoming K10 CPUs will run on current AM2 boards.

C2D is nowhere near as sensitive to memory speed as AM2 is. You can use DDR2-533 on a C2D and get similar performance to DDR2-800. You'll lose 10 - 20% performance on AM2 in the same situation. I don't know where you got the idea from, but it's clearly wrong.

Well, idle values will stay more or less the same but full load power consumption will have the upper hand on process refinement and die size shrink; we're (not that slowly) getting used to 100W+ CPUs.

I am fascinated you think that AMD has any useful upgrade potential. Barcelona requires a new motherboard (as does Penryn) so I would evaluate the upgrade path based on which line of processors has the most headroom. This favors Intel as the Core 2 Duo have proven capable of remarkable overclock potential and the available speed stepping are already 20% above the E6600 that is compared in this article.

Like most people who have any interest in building their own system, I am interested in ripping media and playing games. I backup my DVDs to 4.7GByte DVD+R which requires transcoding. So, to be fair here, both the AMD top-of-range and Intel middle-of-range are good solutions. But I also upgrade my system from time-to-time so there is really no contest. Intel are today's winner.

If I want quad-core then I suggest waiting for Barcelona. But if you decide today then it's Core 2 Duo.

It's a "no-brainer" to buy an AMD now because you drop-in a agena quad core upgrade into that same motherboard (and same window's licence $100 also) later on. Your "end of life" idea is "spurious" as you say. Also spurious to suggest (even indirectly) that an AMD system will fail sooner than an Intel system. In fact, overclocking shortens cpu life even with good cooling (not that this matters to enthusiasts!).

Ummm, my understanding is that the opposite is true.

Well, idle values will stay more or less the same but full load power consumption will have the upper hand on process refinement and die size shrink; we're (not that slowly) getting used to 100W+ CPUs.

I think it will really work with quad-cores more than dual-cores. Two cores can be nearly inoperative until a highly threaded or demanding multitasking situation is happening. If even only two cores are really running at any given, average time, a quad-core CPU would be consuming in the ballpark of ~65w.

K10 works in AM2 and 1207 except without HT3, split power planes, memory burst transfers, and other little things. The gist is, it will work.

Except for some features, AM2+ CPUs WILL work on all exicting AM2 boards and if penryn needs a new socket, then AMD wins this upgrade game.

AMD are talking about an AM2+ board which suggests the final cut of Barcelona for the desktop (Agenda) is, like Penryn, going to require a modded motherboard. I wouldn't hold your breath on using Agenda as an upgrade path on your AM2 mobo. In any case, AMD are talking about moving to DDR3 in 2008 which, for a quad core, is very reasonable and I applaud AMD for taking the leap.

I did not imply a "shortening of life" and I'm curious how you could possibly imply this from my words. Is English a second language for you? I have both Intel E6600 systems and an AMD 6000X2 solution. The E6600 overclocks easily to 3.2GHz (a 25%) whereas I had difficulty getting the AMD6000X2 past 3.2GHz (a mere 6.6% overclock). Both systems using a Tuniq tower heatsink. I believe this is typical for both processors.

I noticed almost a 10% performance jump on my Core2Duo when upgrading from cheap PC6400 to top-end PC8500 sticks. This was a big suprise to me. The identical memory upgrade on the AMD6000X2 yielded a 2.5% performance jump (on the applications I favor). These figures are pre-overclock. In my opinion the AMD memory controller is less sensitive to memory than my P965 and P975 mobos.

Could you also explain your point on window's license to me? Microsoft state their license on Windows is based on the number of processors; not the number or cores. So your comment is meaningless as far as solutions from both Intel and AMD are concerned.

Any motherboard capable of supporting an X2 6000+ has the power capabilities to run a quad-core at stock. Overclocking it may be a different matter.

I don't know why you said it was impressive "for a quad core." It's an entire platform shift. Changing the memory controller isn't a big deal for AMD.

You did imply that AM2 had a short lifespan as of now. While that's true in one respect, as it will be replaced in the mid- to high-end by AM2+ shortly, AM2+ processors will still be compatible with AM2.

As to memory performance changes, I think you should brush up on the information surrounding AMD's memory division and speed reduction. A 6000+ at stock runs DDR2-800 at something like DDR2-750.