Comments

# root said on March 14, 2008 10:49 PM:

Has AMD fixed their bug yet?

I'm actually inclined to agree with most of that.

# Blog Picks said on March 14, 2008 11:48 PM:

RJ_Systems: CPU list You should have a basic idea about CPU rank before you buy… Created by RjBass ,

# PROACEX1 said on March 15, 2008 10:18 AM:

You forgot Opteron's and Xeons...

Back in AMD's Glory Day's, Opteron's were the overclockers dream, being able to go much further then a plain ol' AMD 64 Athlon...

And Xeon's have always been the only way to get more cores then you'd normally be able to achieve...For example, you could get octo-core right now (Which has amazing performance since Xeon's are essentially modified Conroe's/Penryn's/whatever Intel's current generation is), but you'd have to skip SLi or Crossfire to get it...

Respectfully,

PROACEX1

# kc102 said on March 15, 2008 10:35 AM:

FX Cores?

# RjBass said on March 15, 2008 12:19 PM:

I wasn't sure if I should include AMD's FX's or not as they seem to be becoming more and more rare.  In fact I thought they discontinued that line.  

# slmclarengt said on March 17, 2008 3:53 PM:

Well I agree and disagree with this because some processors from each line outperform others while being defeated by others. For example, the AMD 6400+ beats the Intel E4500 but generally loses to the Intel E8400 thereby falsifying this chart. But I do agree with the general consensus although I believe C2Ds and Athlon 64 X2s compete fairly well and some beat others and vice versa.

# PROACEX1 said on March 18, 2008 12:50 PM:

Yea, FX's aren't normally included because they're essentially tweaked Athlon 64's (AM2's) while you can easily get a quad-core Phenom for much less, with roughly the same performance and without the issues of the FX dual-socket motherboards... >_<

@slmclarengt: Agreed, but this is only an overview like summary, but it is good to point that out... :D

Respectfully,

PROACEX1

# Spongeboy5040 said on March 18, 2008 6:23 PM:

I think Phenoms go under Core 2....

# rkherman said on March 29, 2008 7:21 AM:

I really prefer Athlon but Intel right now is as you say handing them their a** on a plate.  I have an athlon 62 x2 6000 and it performs very well. My Laptop an asus lamborgini has a t7400 centrino dual core and it is the fasted laptop I have every laid eyes on. My linux box is a socket a 2800+ Athlon Barton core.  It performs real well for what it is as Linux uses far less resources than windows does and all the tools you need to protect windows. Three computers at my desk is all I have room for. Right now I think a huge concern for AMD is the ATI line and what are they going to do with that, and also cpu's.  have always prefered Nvidia Graphics cards and chipsets.  Have had no problems.  one thing is certain as long as the two companies compete its a win win situation for us as buyers and sellers, as far as price goes.  Amd needs to come out with a revalation almost to catch up now, and they have before, and I think they will again.  If they don't then Intel will be able to raise their prices and still get the sale.

# rkherman said on March 29, 2008 7:22 AM:

I meant Athlon 64 is early yet :)

# ceh4702 said on April 1, 2008 11:44 AM:

I noticed a 45nm Core 2 Quad with 1333 FSB for sale on New Egg.

# PROACEX1 said on April 1, 2008 12:42 PM:

Yap, the E8400...One of the first avaliable mid-range Penryn's... ^^

Respectfully,

PROACEX1

# intelguy said on April 13, 2008 12:06 PM:

hehe

# Gametech said on May 9, 2008 8:57 AM:

This is great as an overview but how about a more in depth chart showing each model type. That could really be useful, because as someone above commented certain cpu's outperform others even though they maybe in a category that dosen't.

Overall agree with what you have but would like more detail.

Anonymous comments are disabled