right so first off Ive used AMD since getting my gaming computer about 2years ago (been upgraded since but always AMD).

at the moment im using an AMD 6000x2 which clocks at about 3ghz , now i know amd and intel clock speeds used to differ
not sure if they still do, but for £98 when i bought it i believe its by far the best CPU on the market(apart from now the 6400x2 and maybe some of the phenoms, haven't used quad core really for gaming as i see no need), now America is far cheaper so if anyone can find an Intel chip that can compare on price and performance i would love to know.

this is just to see if AMD really dont have much going for them, as they are the only true 64bit processors and querying a post by someone saying AMD loses the high power CPU ground over intel
thanks for your time

whoever told you intel procs are not 64 bit, was lieing, blind or mad. (also, is this flamebait....?)
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/show [...] =CP-191-IN
e8200>pretty much anything amd has, particularly if you OC

That's $200 Reef... buy a Q6600 for that money. P.S. I think the mods should automatically change the title of any "amd vs intel" or "intel vs amd" thread.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/show [...] =CP-191-IN

is now 94.99 which is now, the AMD 6000x2 is now only 82.99 also has +.36ghz clock speed,

also at madcow, last year there wasnt a quad core in sight when i bought this, i think it was only the black edition of this above it

also the America has things cheaper when it comes to this means the Q6600 would cost me £125 now, (250$ ish) let alone a year ago

well, come fall AMD is supposed to have something much better than a phenom if you want to wait and see. Spose'd to fit AM2 and AM2+ boards last I read.

yeah im going to upgrade soonish, phenoms dont really do much for me, and last experience i had of Intel was a bad one x_x
i read somewhere AM3 is more likely although im not sure what they're gonna do about cache sizes bla bla bla

Good ol' ripoff Britain!

I just bought a 9600 black edition from newegg for $160 - 55 for combo with a 4850. I was going to get the E7200 because I read it was almost as good as a E8200 but it costs only $130. For the price I thought the 9600 was a better fit because it was a quad. I could have gotten a faster Intel but frankly I prefer AMD over intel. The 9600 is about 13% slower than Q6600 but at the price it's fairly competitive.

Let's hope so.

indeed
im just seeing if i got A: best for my money
B: a stable platform

i do believe intel had quad cores out, AMD didnt at the time but i remember them costing £350+ ($700+) and they had tiny little caches and clocked at about 2ghz

@ compy386: please keep it for english prices, the exchange rate is about 2:1 but the price difference makes anything obsolete, American prices are about 30% cheaper!

added to this i saw something about the AM3, that it will only hold DDR3 ram and not really looking forward the the huge price jump in that as of yet

CYRIX FTW!!!

And the reason the OP didn't see any quad cores when he originally looked is because Phenom was delaaaaaaaaayed.

i know ...... i was just saying, tbh im not interested in quad core yet, not until game designers get theyre 64bit games sorted *cough* assassins creed *cough*

^ That's Dx 10.1 but 64 bit? No

64bit no? what?
just saying assassins creed was recommended 3gb Ram and on release it wasnt 64bit compatible