what is the best value x2 core?

[ming2000]

i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

 

[the Chase]

Best budget value- x2 3600 for $130 or less. Best overall (with OC'ing also) value- e6400. Motherboard prices may shift values towards AMD.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The Gigabyte DS3 is a pretty good OC board for the E6300 or E6400 and is "only" $150. But considering what you get, that can be seen as a bargain.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

I have 4400 x2 and Asrock dual Sata motherboard. total = $300. I have overclocked 4400 to 2.8-2.9ghz. below is my cinebench and 3dmark3 w/ 7600GT. The BFG 7600 GT sells for $115 after rebate. Buy 2 and an SLI board (additional $150) and your 3dmark score will shoot up to 25000-28000. I say AMD will give you more for your money considering above setup.
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1479/09182006051858bh1.jpg

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

It depends what chips from AMD and Intel you are comparing.

C2D's overclocked will be 30 - 40% faster than X2s overclocked based on average overclocks (C2D @ ~3.5GHz vs X2 @ ~2.8GHz for example).

It also depends what you intend to use your PC for. If it's a lot of multimedia encoding or rendering then C2D will be noticeably faster. If it is mainly for gaming then the difference will vary from game to game - some will see almost no improvement as they will be GPU limited, others that scale with CPU speed will show a substantial improvement. Note that if your budget is tight, it is usually better to spend more on the GPU than the CPU. Keep that in mind if you are a gamer.

I'm aware of the possibility that the poster above me (OcHungry) will try to tell you that C2D doesn't scale with overclocking. He has been proven wrong many times, but if you choose to believe him that is your prorogative.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I have a hard time recommending any AMD CPU if you're buying mobo and memory too. If you're upgrading CPU only and keeping curent mobo/memory then sure no problem.

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

I have 4400 x2 and Asrock dual Sata motherboard. total = $300. I have overclocked 4400 to 2.8-2.9ghz. below is my cinebench and 3dmark3 w/ 7600GT. The BFG 7600 GT sells for $115 after rebate. Buy 2 and an SLI board (additional $150) and your 3dmark score will shoot up to 25000-28000. I say AMD will give you more for your money considering above setup.
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1479/09182006051858bh1.jpg

I can only over-clock mine at 2.4 Ghz, it becomes un-stable at 2.5, and 2.6 won't POST. Tried a lot of things, for a long time.

Not all 4400+ will over-clock like yours.

Personally I wouldn't take that risk. I'd just go with one of the Core 2 Duo models instead, which you don't need to over-clock to get what's it's worth in your pocket.

 

[dexvx]

Core2-E6300 ($180ish retail)
Gigabyte DS3 ($140ish)
Not so O/C'able (maybe 25%) 945p board ($100ish)

Total = $320ish or $280ish

AM2 x2-3800 ($140ish retail)
Decent AM2 Overclocking board ($100ish)

Total = $240ish

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Core2-E6300 ($180ish retail)
Gigabyte DS3 ($140ish)
Not so O/C'able (maybe 25%) 945p board ($100ish)

Total = $320ish or $280ish

AM2 x2-3800 ($140ish retail)
Decent AM2 Overclocking board ($100ish)

Total = $240ish

And memory is another $300+. After it's all said and done it's not that much of a difference. When you're spending $600 on an upgrade an extra $100 doesn't mean much in the end, at least not for me when the performance is such a difference. Especially after overclocking.

 

[ming2000]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Core2-E6300 ($180ish retail)
Gigabyte DS3 ($140ish)
Not so O/C'able (maybe 25%) 945p board ($100ish)

Total = $320ish or $280ish

AM2 x2-3800 ($140ish retail)
Decent AM2 Overclocking board ($100ish)

Total = $240ish

the gigabyte one is intel chip, so i cannot use sli, or crossfire, any reasonable good mb that support either of them would be over $200, will these mb be as cheap as AMD ones? i dont see a reason why they are freaky expensive?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

It depends what chips from AMD and Intel you are comparing.

C2D's overclocked will be 30 - 40% faster than X2s overclocked based on average overclocks (C2D @ ~3.5GHz vs X2 @ ~2.8GHz for example).

It also depends what you intend to use your PC for. If it's a lot of multimedia encoding or rendering then C2D will be noticeably faster. If it is mainly for gaming then the difference will vary from game to game - some will see almost no improvement as they will be GPU limited, others that scale with CPU speed will show a substantial improvement. Note that if your budget is tight, it is usually better to spend more on the GPU than the CPU. Keep that in mind if you are a gamer.

I'm aware of the possibility that the poster above me (OcHungry) will try to tell you that C2D doesn't scale with overclocking. He has been proven wrong many times, but if you choose to believe him that is your prorogative.

Misinformation is your habit isnt it?
Show me a conroe that is 30 to 40% better performer than a X2 4400.
are you saying that a e6400 can overclock to 3.5 ghz (a 65% overclock) and give you 30-40% better performance than a A64 x2 @ 2.8ghz (FX62 level)?
prove it.
Show me a $230 core 2 that is 30-40% better performer than a A64 x2 of the same price range.
To OP: thses 2 posters (cmdredd and harpoon) have been roaming around net promoting Intel junks. Probably both work for Intel. Dont beleve a word they say. Do your own search and if any one say 30%-40% know they are misleading you. check around the review sites and dont be fooled by these intel pushers.
Intel spent enormous amount money for conroe ads. I am sure there are plenty intel junkies here and everywhere dressed as ligit members. be careful.
Its funny how much intel has to spend in advertizing and marketing for the junks they sell. You never see an AMD ad on TV do you?

 

[myocardia]

Neither SLI, nor CrossFire are worth your money. If you have to worry about "value", then stop thinking about both. Just get a single, fast card, along with a cpu that can keep it supplied with data.

BTW, if you're wanting to know how to compare an X2 and a C2D, just multiply the C2D's clockspeed by 1.2, and that's how fast an X2 needs to be, for both chips to be equal in most applications.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: ming2000
the gigabyte one is intel chip, so i cannot use sli, or crossfire, any reasonable good mb that support either of them would be over $200, will these mb be as cheap as AMD ones? i dont see a reason why they are freaky expensive?

I'm not going into the whole XFire/SLi debate. Unless you plan on using the top video cards immediately, then you shouldnt use XFire/SLi period. Buying a mediocre card like a 7600GT and then adding another one later down the road is just idiotic, from a price/performance and performance/watt PoV. A single 7900GS will spank a 7600GT SLi and be cheaper down the line for an upgrade as well (and conversely a single 7900GTX will spank a 7900GS SLi).

However, that said if you do plan on SLi/XFire the top cards, best one I can recommend is the Abit Aw9D-Max. Its one of the few boards that includes an SLi bridge (using modded drivers you CAN run SLi on it).

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Zenoth

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

I have 4400 x2 and Asrock dual Sata motherboard. total = $300. I have overclocked 4400 to 2.8-2.9ghz. below is my cinebench and 3dmark3 w/ 7600GT. The BFG 7600 GT sells for $115 after rebate. Buy 2 and an SLI board (additional $150) and your 3dmark score will shoot up to 25000-28000. I say AMD will give you more for your money considering above setup.
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1479/09182006051858bh1.jpg

I can only over-clock mine at 2.4 Ghz, it becomes un-stable at 2.5, and 2.6 won't POST. Tried a lot of things, for a long time.

Not all 4400+ will over-clock like yours.

Personally I wouldn't take that risk. I'd just go with one of the Core 2 Duo models instead, which you don't need to over-clock to get what's it's worth in your pocket.

what 4400 do you have? is it a 89w or 110w? most of the 89watts get 2.7ghz on the lower end and 2.8ghz on the average. sometimes It's not the cpu that is holding you up. It could be the board, the memory or power supply.
Check the thread below and see what users are accomplishing w/ their 89w 4400's

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=473441

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

It depends what chips from AMD and Intel you are comparing.

C2D's overclocked will be 30 - 40% faster than X2s overclocked based on average overclocks (C2D @ ~3.5GHz vs X2 @ ~2.8GHz for example).

It also depends what you intend to use your PC for. If it's a lot of multimedia encoding or rendering then C2D will be noticeably faster. If it is mainly for gaming then the difference will vary from game to game - some will see almost no improvement as they will be GPU limited, others that scale with CPU speed will show a substantial improvement. Note that if your budget is tight, it is usually better to spend more on the GPU than the CPU. Keep that in mind if you are a gamer.

I'm aware of the possibility that the poster above me (OcHungry) will try to tell you that C2D doesn't scale with overclocking. He has been proven wrong many times, but if you choose to believe him that is your prorogative.

Misinformation is your habit isnt it?
Show me a conroe that is 30 to 40% better performer than a X2 4400.
are you saying that a e6400 can overclock to 3.5 ghz (a 65% overclock) and give you 30-40% better performance than a A64 x2 @ 2.8ghz (FX62 level)?
prove it.
Show me a $230 core 2 that is 30-40% better performer than a A64 x2 of the same price range.
To OP: thses 2 posters (cmdredd and harpoon) have been roaming around net promoting Intel junks. Probably both work for Intel. Dont beleve a word they say. Do your own search and if any one say 30%-40% know they are misleading you. check around the review sites and dont be fooled by these intel pushers.
Intel spent enormous amount money for conroe ads. I am sure there are plenty intel junkies here and everywhere dressed as ligit members. be careful.
Its funny how much intel has to spend in advertizing and marketing for the junks they sell. You never see an AMD ad on TV do you?

If I worked for Intel I'd buy your loyalty out and ban you from the internet.

In all seriousness you're an idiot. Thanks for showing us just how much. We all proved you wrong, and that's that.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: ming2000
the gigabyte one is intel chip, so i cannot use sli, or crossfire, any reasonable good mb that support either of them would be over $200, will these mb be as cheap as AMD ones? i dont see a reason why they are freaky expensive?

I'm not going into the whole XFire/SLi debate. Unless you plan on using the top video cards immediately, then you shouldnt use XFire/SLi period. Buying a mediocre card like a 7600GT and then adding another one later down the road is just idiotic, from a price/performance and performance/watt PoV. A single 7900GS will spank a 7600GT SLi and be cheaper down the line for an upgrade as well (and conversely a single 7900GTX will spank a 7900GS SLi).

However, that said if you do plan on SLi/XFire the top cards, best one I can recommend is the Abit Aw9D-Max. Its one of the few boards that includes an SLi bridge (using modded drivers you CAN run SLi on it).

let me get this straight, are you saying a single 7900GTX can beat 3dmark3 of 35000?
I have seen 7600GT in SLI do between 20000 to 35000 where as 7900GTX highest to be 21802 (in 3dmark3). Check it for yourself. The 7600GT in SLI will cost $230 whereas a 7900GTX is around $400. It seams the 7600GT in SLI is a better buy.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: ming2000
the gigabyte one is intel chip, so i cannot use sli, or crossfire, any reasonable good mb that support either of them would be over $200, will these mb be as cheap as AMD ones? i dont see a reason why they are freaky expensive?

I'm not going into the whole XFire/SLi debate. Unless you plan on using the top video cards immediately, then you shouldnt use XFire/SLi period. Buying a mediocre card like a 7600GT and then adding another one later down the road is just idiotic, from a price/performance and performance/watt PoV. A single 7900GS will spank a 7600GT SLi and be cheaper down the line for an upgrade as well (and conversely a single 7900GTX will spank a 7900GS SLi).

However, that said if you do plan on SLi/XFire the top cards, best one I can recommend is the Abit Aw9D-Max. Its one of the few boards that includes an SLi bridge (using modded drivers you CAN run SLi on it).

let me get this straight, are you saying a single 7900GTX can beat 3dmark3 of 35000?
I have seen 7600GT in SLI do between 20000 to 35000 where as 7900GTX highest to be 21802 (in 3dmark3). Check it for yourself. The 7600GT in SLI will cost $230 whereas a 7900GTX is around $400. It seams the 7600GT in SLI is a better buy.

Too bad you didn't look at the CPUs used. C2D systems at 4Ghz+

Generally that's not reasonable. Becides, who compared 3Dmark03 anymore? Use 06 because it relates to current generation games.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: ming2000
the gigabyte one is intel chip, so i cannot use sli, or crossfire, any reasonable good mb that support either of them would be over $200, will these mb be as cheap as AMD ones? i dont see a reason why they are freaky expensive?

I'm not going into the whole XFire/SLi debate. Unless you plan on using the top video cards immediately, then you shouldnt use XFire/SLi period. Buying a mediocre card like a 7600GT and then adding another one later down the road is just idiotic, from a price/performance and performance/watt PoV. A single 7900GS will spank a 7600GT SLi and be cheaper down the line for an upgrade as well (and conversely a single 7900GTX will spank a 7900GS SLi).

However, that said if you do plan on SLi/XFire the top cards, best one I can recommend is the Abit Aw9D-Max. Its one of the few boards that includes an SLi bridge (using modded drivers you CAN run SLi on it).

let me get this straight, are you saying a single 7900GTX can beat 3dmark3 of 35000?
I have seen 7600GT in SLI do between 20000 to 35000 where as 7900GTX highest to be 21802 (in 3dmark3). Check it for yourself. The 7600GT in SLI will cost $230 whereas a 7900GTX is around $400. It seams the 7600GT in SLI is a better buy.

Too bad you didn't look at the CPUs used. C2D systems at 4Ghz+

Generally that's not reasonable. Becides, who compared 3Dmark03 anymore? Use 06 because it relates to current generation games.

I did look at edm06 and saw 6000-7000 for 7600GT in SLI and below 6000 for 7900GTX.
The spec for the core 2 that has highest score is also $500 more expensive. Scroll down 3-4 spaces and you see A64 x2 @ 2898mhz w/ 27208 score(7600GT in SLI). The core 2 was Overclocked to >4200mhz to get 35000. I am sure if there was a user that had overclocked A64 x2 to over 3ghz we probably would see his score up on top too. But this is not the point here, and we are not into WR. The OP wants value and performance and you can achieve it w/ A64 x2 and a 7600GT in SLI to get impressive scores(overclocked A 64 x2 ~20%-30%). At the end you have paid a lot less. No need to spend arm's and legs for a few points or FPS.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: ming2000
i didnt read too much about the best combo for conroe, I know conroe might have better performance than AMD X2, but after consider the price of both cpu and mb, is conroe still the winner?

It depends what chips from AMD and Intel you are comparing.

C2D's overclocked will be 30 - 40% faster than X2s overclocked based on average overclocks (C2D @ ~3.5GHz vs X2 @ ~2.8GHz for example).

It also depends what you intend to use your PC for. If it's a lot of multimedia encoding or rendering then C2D will be noticeably faster. If it is mainly for gaming then the difference will vary from game to game - some will see almost no improvement as they will be GPU limited, others that scale with CPU speed will show a substantial improvement. Note that if your budget is tight, it is usually better to spend more on the GPU than the CPU. Keep that in mind if you are a gamer.

I'm aware of the possibility that the poster above me (OcHungry) will try to tell you that C2D doesn't scale with overclocking. He has been proven wrong many times, but if you choose to believe him that is your prorogative.

Misinformation is your habit isnt it?
Show me a conroe that is 30 to 40% better performer than a X2 4400.
are you saying that a e6400 can overclock to 3.5 ghz (a 65% overclock) and give you 30-40% better performance than a A64 x2 @ 2.8ghz (FX62 level)?
prove it.
Show me a $230 core 2 that is 30-40% better performer than a A64 x2 of the same price range.
To OP: thses 2 posters (cmdredd and harpoon) have been roaming around net promoting Intel junks. Probably both work for Intel. Dont beleve a word they say. Do your own search and if any one say 30%-40% know they are misleading you. check around the review sites and dont be fooled by these intel pushers.
Intel spent enormous amount money for conroe ads. I am sure there are plenty intel junkies here and everywhere dressed as ligit members. be careful.
Its funny how much intel has to spend in advertizing and marketing for the junks they sell. You never see an AMD ad on TV do you?

It's not that hard to fathom - unless one is blinded by an undieing loyalty to AMD like yourself.

C2D = 20% faster than X2 clock for clock. That, plus the fact that C2Ds can currently overclock to clockspeeds 20 - 25% faster than the average X2 overclock, and you can see that my 30 - 40% estimate is no exaggeration.

But hey, if you want me to prove myself, I will.

The following is an article that compares the performance of an E6300 @ 3.36GHz against stock X6800, E6700, E6600 and the fastest CPU currently available from AMD - the Athlon FX-62.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2014&cid=2&pg=1

SYSmark 2004
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 357
Athlon FX-62 - 282
Intel advantage: +26.6%

SYSmark 2004 Internet Content Creation
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 470
Athlon FX-62 - 364
Intel advantage: +29.1%

SYSmark 2004 Office Productivity
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 271
Athlon FX-62 - 219
Intel advantage: +23.7%

PCMark05 CPU Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 8624
Athlon FX-62 - 5741
Intel advantage: +50.2%

PCMark05 Memory Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 7088
Athlon FX-62 - 5191
Intel advantage: +36.5%

Cinebench 2003
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 1076
Athlon FX-62 - 746
Intel advantage: +44.2%

XMpeg 5.03 (lower is beter)
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 6.33 minutes
Athlon FX-62 - 9.62 minutes
Intel advantage: +52%

3DMark06
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 4771
Athlon FX-62 - 4602
Intel advantage: +3.7% (GPU limited benchmark)

3DMark06 CPU Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 2836
Athlon FX-62 - 2165
Intel advantage: +31%

AquaMark 3
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 125.47 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 103.59 fps
Intel advantage: +21.1%

AquaMark 3 CPU Score
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 17651
Athlon FX-62 - 12678
Intel advantage: +39.2%

Quake 4 (single core)
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 94.6 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 74.3 fps
Intel advantage: +27.3%

Quake 4 (SMP)
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 102.2 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 90.3 fps
Intel advantage: +13.2%

UT2004
E6300 @ 3.36GHz - 133.67 fps
Athlon FX-62 - 106.7 fps
Intel advantage: +25.3%

Overall E6300 @ 3.36GHz advantage over Athlon FX-62 - 30.22%

THERE! DONE!

Conclusion: Overclocked E6300 @ 3.36GHz owns Athlon FX-62 (and your X2 4400+ @ 2.8GHz too). Ouch, truth hurts huh?

This was achieved with a lowly $180 E6300. E6400s can usually be pushed even higher (3.5GHz is not uncommon), so a 30 - 40% advantage over an overclocked AMD X2 @ 2.8GHz is NOT an exaggeration.

Enough proof for you OcHungry? Have you eaten enough humble pie for a day or are you after seconds?

Owned. Thank you and good night.

 

[NoStateofMind]

OP how long do you intend to keep your new system? A few years? Then C2D is what you want IMO. At this point in time you do not see a HUGE difference between C2D and X2 processors<--This statement was just owned by above post. There are instances where Intel does put a smack down on AMD.


You will be happy with either one I would think. I just think the newer C2D's would last longer with Vista and DirectX 10 in the wings.

If intel is not your thing, and you can hold out for a bit (6 to 8 months) AMD's K8L might be your ticket into town.


As for OChungry, this guy seem's to be majorly biased IMO. Seems like its highschool football with him. "My team is gonna beat your team" blah blah.

Do not take ANY single persons views as golden (including my own) and draw your own conclusions. We can give advice, but in the end it's up to you, you are spending the money.

Give us a budget of what you have to work with and we will go from there.

 

[Bobthelost]

If you can't afford a 6300 and a DS3 then go for AMD, you're not exactly going to be suffering with a 3800X2 even at stock. If you can afford the C2D then get the C2D.

However you must remember that you'll get better gaming performance from a single core A64 and a better graphics card than you will with a overclocked C2D and a worse graphics card.

 

[River Side]

any fool recommending an AMD X2 over a C2D for new users is not worth listening to. Upgrades are another story altogether..

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: River Side
any fool recommending an AMD X2 over a C2D for new users is not worth listening to. Upgrades are another story altogether..

I disagree...I think theChase had the wisest things to say on this whole thread.
It all depends on the pricepoint your at...
In the low end, it's AMD...and in both the mid and high end it's Intel.

 

[dexvx]

I will gaurantee you the 7950GT 512MB @ under $300 will smash any 7600GT ($250ish AFTER 2x REBATES) in SLi

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130061

Oh, and if you want a DIRECT comparison with MULTIPLE GAMES:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics....elx=33&model1=523&model2=528&chart=196

Even 7800GT's beat 7600GT SLi's consistently in real world games. Simply put, mid-range SLi is not even close to worth it for the value, even as a later add-on. A single "better" card will give you more performance/money and more better performance/watt as WELL AS saving you a PCI-E slot.

Oh and BTW, those tests were done on an AMD FX-62 based system.

 

[herbiehancock]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: River Side
any fool recommending an AMD X2 over a C2D for new users is not worth listening to. Upgrades are another story altogether..

I disagree...I think theChase had the wisest things to say on this whole thread.
It all depends on the pricepoint your at...
In the low end, it's AMD...and in both the mid and high end it's Intel.

But I'd think it depends upon if you are just upgrading or building an entirely new system. For an upgrade, esp. if you have a lot invested in the parts, an upgrade is probably the best investment you can make.

Case in point.....I'm VERY seriously considering a new build with the C2D processors.....after al, their perfoemance is just too good not to ignore. BUT....I've also got a substantial investment in my Socket 939 system...an ASUS A8N32 motherboard, an ATI X850XT video card, 2 x 1GB Corsair XMS DDR. (I know...the video card is a dog, but I was waiting for Donroe to come out before deciding on what to buy....)

I'd LOVE to build up with a C2D system.....but hate the idea of throwing out my DDR and with the prices of DDR2 skyhigh, I'll just upgrade my processor to an X2 and call it done. Then, I'll just wait for the DDR2 prices to deflace, which they surely will over time.

Now, to build a new system with AMD, using the AM2 socket......well, that would just seem to me, at least, a losing proposition. You're going to have to buy DDR2, so the memory cost would be the same as a C2D build. Personal video card choice will probably be the same regardless of system platform you choose. The other parts, mb and cpu costs, are variable, but you'll end up with probably a bit more expensive mb and the cpu is a wash as far as I can tell......

But then I'd ask myself which platform look to be the better investment for long-term viability, and I'd honestly have to answer the Intel platform. With Kentfield coming out in Nov. (with more affordable cpus in that line to follow early next year), I cannot really justify buying AMD with their poorer performance, stock speeds or in OC'ing and with no demonstratable future.

Personally, building anything with AMD, outside of a cheap sub-$500 Sempron system today, makes no sense for the long-term.