X2 5600+ vs Core 2 DUO E6600

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
I play games, I like to multitask ALOT, bit of an AMD fan but my 2 year old turion laptop runs like a dog and I have not been too happy about the performance ..


Im building a new desktop ( Im on a year out from education and am on placement, so I have money spare). Im looking to spend about 200 pounds ( ha uk here) on my CPU.

For around 200 my choices are the 5600 & the E6600. I dont plan to overclock. So please dont tell me to. I love the fast responce, snappy feel I first got with my turion, but now thats faded big time.

I used to be quite in the loop concerning CPU's till the X2's hit the scene and I havnt checked up too much since.

I plan 2GB of ram or even more just so you know.

Cheers

Chris

 

Rottie

Diamond Member
Feb 10, 2002
4,795
2
81
I think you should go with Core 2 Duo E6600 because you love the fast responce, snappy feel and I have seen a lot of AMD fanboys flocked to Core 2 Duo when it came out and the current speed king.
Sell your system and get some money to build core 2 duo system.

my 8 months old A64 4800+ X2 feel likes fast and snappy I am happy with it.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Go with the E6600.

There's no reason to go with the X2 unless you have legacy parts you don't want to replace (motherboard, DDR, etc.)

If building a new machine from scratch it is a no-brainer.
 

MarcVenice

Moderator Emeritus <br>
Apr 2, 2007
5,664
0
0
intel is faster, pabster is pretty much right. I suggest waiting till april 22nd, prices should drop a fair bit then. For abt 200 quid you might even be able to get a qaud by then :)
 

Cabville

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2007
16
0
0
Originally posted by: clarkey01
I play games, I like to multitask ALOT, bit of an AMD fan but my 2 year old turion laptop runs like a dog and I have not been too happy about the performance ..


Im building a new desktop ( Im on a year out from education and am on placement, so I have money spare). Im looking to spend about 200 pounds ( ha uk here) on my CPU.

For around 200 my choices are the 5600 & the E6600. I dont plan to overclock. So please dont tell me to. I love the fast responce, snappy feel I first got with my turion, but now thats faded big time.

....................

Please ignore all the people who just told you there is no reason to buy anything but core 2. They're dead wrong. I'm getting a little tired of this core 2 lemming mentality. These chips are currently the fastest on the high end and overclock very well. But there are plenty of scenarios where AMD still comes in strong. And yours is one of those situations.

At Stock speeds those two chips are roughly equal. The 6600 overclock better, but that is not a consideration for you. I also feel that AMD motherboards are better pound for pound than their Intel counterparts. So I think your situation favors AMD slightly. But you will be happy either way.

And I commend you aigomorla for actually thinking out your and response rather than just throwing the knee-jerk "core 2 rules!" reaction that everyone else did. Hard-core overclocker's represent about 1% of computer users yet some of you talk like you represent the entire Computer world.




 

Pugnate

Senior member
Jun 25, 2006
690
0
0
Even if the E6600 doesn't overclock it is faster so why not? Plus the motherboard you get for the E6600 will probably allow you go quadcore down the road. With the 5600 you've hit the end of the road.

I wish I could recommend the AMD though, as I've been with them for so long. In fact this is my first Intel since the P2. But in the end you've gotta go with what is right for you.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Cabville
Originally posted by: clarkey01
I play games, I like to multitask ALOT, bit of an AMD fan but my 2 year old turion laptop runs like a dog and I have not been too happy about the performance ..


Im building a new desktop ( Im on a year out from education and am on placement, so I have money spare). Im looking to spend about 200 pounds ( ha uk here) on my CPU.

For around 200 my choices are the 5600 & the E6600. I dont plan to overclock. So please dont tell me to. I love the fast responce, snappy feel I first got with my turion, but now thats faded big time.

....................

Please ignore all the people who just told you there is no reason to buy anything but core 2. They're dead wrong. I'm getting a little tired of this core 2 lemming mentality. These chips are currently the fastest on the high end and overclock very well. But there are plenty of scenarios where AMD still comes in strong. And yours is one of those situations.

At Stock speeds those two chips are roughly equal. The 6600 overclock better, but that is not a consideration for you. I also feel that AMD motherboards are better pound for pound than their Intel counterparts. So I think your situation favors AMD slightly. But you will be happy either way.

And I commend you aigomorla for actually thinking out your and response rather than just throwing the knee-jerk "core 2 rules!" reaction that everyone else did. Hard-core overclocker's represent about 1% of computer users yet some of you talk like you represent the entire Computer world.

Interesting post, but I think it misses a bit of the point relative to the OP. He's into games and heavy multitasking. The 4mb unified cache of the 6600 performs incredibly well under these circumstances, as 512k x2 on the X2 is decent, but hardly equal. The X2 is a fine processor, but the C2D is clearly superior at this point. Having a guaranteed drop-in Quad-Core option is nice as well, as the dust hasn't settled on the AM2 vs AM2+ vs AM3 processor support.

OP, any reason why you want to avoid O/Cing? It's much easier on the Intel side IMHO, and you should be able to set the FSB 10% faster with basically any mobo and any ram. That is an incredibly understated overclock, but 10% free performance is hard to pass up. Especially when you consider that it is virtually guaranteed to be 24x7x365 stable just as stock. Hell, even 3Ghz should be almost guaranteed with any 6600, which equals a processor that costs three times as much.

Cheers
 

eternitykh

Member
Mar 14, 2007
40
0
0
ya, im not a intel c2d fanboy either, i actually have been an AMD fan for a long time until prescotts, and recently i have upgraded again.

i looked into the X2's, seems to be great value, and at stock speeds its ALMOST as fast as their intel counter parts.
i ended up buying a c2d e4300.
but like you said, u do heavy multitasking. which would make the 4mb cache superior. and like others have said, upgrading to a new c2d mobo would open up the quad core for future upgrades, and since intel is dropping their prices, that would be a logical choice. all this would be at stock speeds.

but yes im also curious why you want to avoid OC.
my defense for OC are
you dont need to upgrade cooling for casual OC speeds, stock cooling is sufficient (any computer would need good case circulation in the first place)
c2d's EASILY OC to +75%
they are rock solid, even the most unlucky ones are stable at 2.8~3.0
also, like Arkaign says, you should look at 10% OC into consideration, they run at stock voltages with no heat heat difference, free performance!

by all means not telling you to OC, it's your choice of course

but ya, what would your reasons be for not OCing?
 

Rottie

Diamond Member
Feb 10, 2002
4,795
2
81
I know you don't plan to overclock which is good thing you will save money with warranty in a long run. warranty is not for overclockers.
 

Cabville

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2007
16
0
0
Originally posted by: Pugnate
Even if the E6600 doesn't overclock it is faster so why not? Plus the motherboard you get for the E6600 will probably allow you go quadcore down the road. With the 5600 you've hit the end of the road.

I wish I could recommend the AMD though, as I've been with them for so long. In fact this is my first Intel since the P2. But in the end you've gotta go with what is right for you.

This is simply not true. The the X2 5600 and the E6600 are about equal at stock speeds. Part of this core 2 mystique was a result of the pricing structure early on. It wasn't so much that core was faster than every x2. It was simply faster than every x2 in its price range. But that was back in August. AMD has dropped its prices about 60% since then and core prices have remained largely unchanged. At stock speeds, AMD currently holds an advantage of some significance through the $200 price range from $200-$350, they just about breakeven, and from there Intel controls the high end. These two chips are in the middle ground, which is more or less breakeven territory in both price and stock performance.

Your information about the motherboard was totally inaccurate. The Barcelona Quad core chips are going to be released on socket AM2. And they will work on current motherboards. In its Intel that typically has the upgrade issues. Most of the pre-core 2 socket 775 motherboards are incompatible with core 2 . May be the case of their next-generation as well On the AMD side, if the chips fits the socket, it almost always works. And AMD motherboards are typically better pound for pound anyway. Probably because they work more closely with the aftermarket chipset manufactures and the motherboard manufacturers don't have to worry about the memory controller. This typically result in better performance and/or lower pricing. A factor often overlooked by people with the CPU tunnel vision.

 

hardwareking

Senior member
May 19, 2006
618
0
0
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=696&model2=432&chart=193

well the x2 5600+ is a good processor.And if ur on a budget it'll do u well as it performs on par or a tad slower than the E6600.Also motherboards are cheaper for AMD,u can find a top of the line motherboard for as little as $150

But if ur not on a budget theres no reason not to go fo the E6600.U can find decent motherboards for $150 or more and performance is better(for whatever its worth)
Also the E6600 is marginally ahead in the price/performance field

U won't be disappointed either way u go.
 

yacoub

Golden Member
May 24, 2005
1,991
14
81
Originally posted by: Cabville
Part of this core 2 mystique was a result of the pricing structure early on. It wasn't so much that core was faster than every x2. It was simply faster than every x2 in its price range. But that was back in August.

Actually it was faster than pretty much every X2, but AMD has released higher clocked X2s since then to try to compete. I think they're getting there now with 5600+ and 6000+ and the pricing is forced to be somewhat reasonable because of the core2duo (a good thing for everyone), but still, the c2d is the easy road here.
 

Cabville

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2007
16
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign

Interesting post, but I think it misses a bit of the point relative to the OP. He's into games and heavy multitasking. The 4mb unified cache of the 6600 performs incredibly well under these circumstances, as 512k x2 on the X2 is decent, but hardly equal. The X2 is a fine processor, but the C2D is clearly superior at this point. Having a guaranteed drop-in Quad-Core option is nice as well, as the dust hasn't settled on the AM2 vs AM2+ vs AM3 processor support.

...................................................[/quote]

The 5600 has one meg of level 2 cache per core, not 512.

Generally speaking core to is a superior processor, but not in every scenario. There are quite a few price and usage scenarios that favor AMD right now. In fact most do. Most computers used chips price under $200 at Stock speeds. AMD currently rules that territory. And the specific situation that this particular user is describing is basically breakeven.

Your level 2 cache argument is not relevant. The effect of level 2 cache is already considered as part of the chips overall speed and performance to which I referred earlier and the difference between these two particular chips in both gaming and multitasking is insignificant.

AMD has already announced that socket AM2+ and socket AM3 processors will work with socket AM2 motherboards. Plus is just a faster version of hyper transport which will be backward-compatible. AM3 will simply include an upgraded memory controller to support DDR 3 which will be backward-compatible with DDR 2. Neither of these is technically challenging and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that AMD will not be able to deliver. It's about as silly as worrying about core 2 being compatible with DDR 3. It's just not a realistic concern.
 

Cabville

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2007
16
0
0
Originally posted by: yacoub
Originally posted by: Cabville
Part of this core 2 mystique was a result of the pricing structure early on. It wasn't so much that core was faster than every x2. It was simply faster than every x2 in its price range. But that was back in August.

Actually it was faster than pretty much every X2, but AMD has released higher clocked X2s since then to try to compete. I think they're getting there now with 5600+ and 6000+ and the pricing is forced to be somewhat reasonable because of the core2duo (a good thing for everyone), but still, the c2d is the easy road here.

Again, almost completely inaccurate information on the speed issue. The 4600 is about equal to the E6300 and is $50 cheaper. The 5200 is about equal to the E6400 and is in the same price range, and the same is true of the 5600 versus the E6600 and these chips were all available in August. So no, core 2 was not faster than every x2 in August.Yes, the 6000 is genuinely new, but we 5600 is just the the FX 62 with a locked multiplier and a new name. The 5400 is the FX 62 with half the level 2 cache. And the Brisbane cores are almost identical in terms of speed to their predecessors so far.

So outside of the 6000, every chip currently available from AMD falls into the same performance envelope as the chips in August. The difference is price. What was $400 in August he is $100 now. What was $800 in August is $300 now while the Intel prices have remained mostly static and that has brought AMD the back into the game in the low to midrange chip market.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Cabville
Originally posted by: yacoub
Originally posted by: Cabville
Part of this core 2 mystique was a result of the pricing structure early on. It wasn't so much that core was faster than every x2. It was simply faster than every x2 in its price range. But that was back in August.

Actually it was faster than pretty much every X2, but AMD has released higher clocked X2s since then to try to compete. I think they're getting there now with 5600+ and 6000+ and the pricing is forced to be somewhat reasonable because of the core2duo (a good thing for everyone), but still, the c2d is the easy road here.

Again, almost completely inaccurate information on the speed issue. The 4600 is about equal to the E6300 and is $50 cheaper. The 5200 is about equal to the E6400 and is in the same price range, and the same is true of the 5600 versus the E6600 and these chips were all available in August. So no, core 2 was not faster than every x2 in August.Yes, the 6000 is genuinely new, but we 5600 is just the the FX 62 with a locked multiplier and a new name. The 5400 is the FX 62 with half the level 2 cache. And the Brisbane cores are almost identical in terms of speed to their predecessors so far.

So outside of the 6000, every chip currently available from AMD falls into the same performance envelope as the chips in August. The difference is price. What was $400 in August he is $100 now. What was $800 in August is $300 now while the Intel prices have remained mostly static and that has brought AMD the back into the game in the low to midrange chip market.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=10

"With the latest round of price cuts AMD is far more competitive than at any other point since the release of Intel's Core 2 processors. Unfortunately for AMD, this means that at best, it can offer performance close to that of Intel's Core 2 processors at similar prices."

:p

Seriously, look at the review, in many cases the 6600 is NOTICABLY faster than the 5600, and when you also look the C2D processors with 2mb vs 4mb @ the same clock speed, the extra 2mb cache DOES make a difference, depending on the app. Particularly as you multitask more, 512k x2 (in many X2 procs), or 1mb x2, get left behind by the 2mb or 4mb unified cache design.
 

A554SS1N

Senior member
May 17, 2005
804
0
0
On scan.co.uk the X2 5600+ is £128.08 and the X2 6000+ is £156.28 - the E6600 is £184.46 - factor in that a decent Intel board is around £10-15 more expensive, and really, they're in quite a different price group *at the moment* as obviously the Intel price-cuts will change all that.

Looking at the anandtech article:

E6600 beats X2 5600+ 15-5 - obviously way ahead
E6600 beats X2 6000+ 12-8 - pretty close, and so quite a saving could be made.



Quite a bit of money could be saved for pretty similar performance in the 6000+ X2's case, which could be spent elsewhere - it all depends on whether you want to save money or not, if you've got the cash, then you may as well go with the E6600 (which is nicer in terms of power consumption, and probably wouldn't need as high wattage PSU, as it's more efficient.
 

coldpower27

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,676
0
76
AMD is pretty even stock wise up to the 6000+ which can trade blows with the E6600 evenly, but the E6700 and above is not something AMD can handle at this time.
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Cabville
Originally posted by: clarkey01
I play games, I like to multitask ALOT, bit of an AMD fan but my 2 year old turion laptop runs like a dog and I have not been too happy about the performance ..


Im building a new desktop ( Im on a year out from education and am on placement, so I have money spare). Im looking to spend about 200 pounds ( ha uk here) on my CPU.

For around 200 my choices are the 5600 & the E6600. I dont plan to overclock. So please dont tell me to. I love the fast responce, snappy feel I first got with my turion, but now thats faded big time.

....................

Please ignore all the people who just told you there is no reason to buy anything but core 2. They're dead wrong. I'm getting a little tired of this core 2 lemming mentality. These chips are currently the fastest on the high end and overclock very well. But there are plenty of scenarios where AMD still comes in strong. And yours is one of those situations.

At Stock speeds those two chips are roughly equal. The 6600 overclock better, but that is not a consideration for you. I also feel that AMD motherboards are better pound for pound than their Intel counterparts. So I think your situation favors AMD slightly. But you will be happy either way.

And I commend you aigomorla for actually thinking out your and response rather than just throwing the knee-jerk "core 2 rules!" reaction that everyone else did. Hard-core overclocker's represent about 1% of computer users yet some of you talk like you represent the entire Computer world.

Interesting post, but I think it misses a bit of the point relative to the OP. He's into games and heavy multitasking. The 4mb unified cache of the 6600 performs incredibly well under these circumstances, as 512k x2 on the X2 is decent, but hardly equal. The X2 is a fine processor, but the C2D is clearly superior at this point. Having a guaranteed drop-in Quad-Core option is nice as well, as the dust hasn't settled on the AM2 vs AM2+ vs AM3 processor support.

OP, any reason why you want to avoid O/Cing? It's much easier on the Intel side IMHO, and you should be able to set the FSB 10% faster with basically any mobo and any ram. That is an incredibly understated overclock, but 10% free performance is hard to pass up. Especially when you consider that it is virtually guaranteed to be 24x7x365 stable just as stock. Hell, even 3Ghz should be almost guaranteed with any 6600, which equals a processor that costs three times as much.

Cheers

Im a noob at it for a start ( OC'd a 5600fx years ago), ha Im not sure, I hate to findle with things if there not broke.
 

Cabville

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2007
16
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign

"With the latest round of price cuts AMD is far more competitive than at any other point since the release of Intel's Core 2 processors. Unfortunately for AMD, this means that at best, it can offer performance close to that of Intel's Core 2 processors at similar prices."

:p

Seriously, look at the review, in many cases the 6600 is NOTICABLY faster than the 5600, and when you also look the C2D processors with 2mb vs 4mb @ the same clock speed, the extra 2mb cache DOES make a difference, depending on the app. Particularly as you multitask more, 512k x2 (in many X2 procs), or 1mb x2, get left behind by the 2mb or 4mb unified cache design.

I already read the article when it came out, and noticed immediately two omissions of relevance on your part. It's wonderful that you quoted the first paragraph of this summary, but a portion of the second paragraph was equally enlightening:

-----"Overall, the performance advantage still goes to Intel's Core 2 lineup but there are a few situations where the performance between the two families is close enough to be considered a tie. There are also the outlier cases where the Athlon 64 X2 actually ends up faster than the Core 2........."---

Which is exactly what I've been saying. That's relevant omission number one.

Omission number two is the price cuts they were referring to in this article are not the most recent price cuts. The 4600 for example was priced $10 higher than its Intel counterpart at the time this article was published. It is now selling for $50 less than its Intel counterpart. That is true of the rest of the line as well. These changes have carved out a solid advantage for AMD at stock speeds for all chips under the $300 price range. So the dynamics of the market have changed substantially since the publication.

As for the speed comparison, and earlier comparison posted in this very thread by Tom's hardware was much more comprehensive and shows effective parity between chips. Yes there was a marginal advantage for the 6600, but it was negligible. The 5600 is also less expensive and has access to better quality motherboards at lower prices. Like I said, it's a wash.

There are no core 2 processors at the same clock speed with different levels of level 2 cache. The two meg versions are clock lower than the four meg versions. So I don't know where that claim came from. And if you look at the Tom's hardware comparison the Intel and AMD chips in question performed identically in the multitasking test. Again, just as I said they would.
 

Cabville

Junior Member
Apr 1, 2007
16
0
0
Originally posted by: coldpower27
AMD is pretty even stock wise up to the 6000+ which can trade blows with the E6600 evenly, but the E6700 and above is not something AMD can handle at this time.

Yep, that is exactly where Intel starts to pull away. From that point on up Intel is in a class by itself.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Cabville
Originally posted by: Arkaign

"With the latest round of price cuts AMD is far more competitive than at any other point since the release of Intel's Core 2 processors. Unfortunately for AMD, this means that at best, it can offer performance close to that of Intel's Core 2 processors at similar prices."

:p

Seriously, look at the review, in many cases the 6600 is NOTICABLY faster than the 5600, and when you also look the C2D processors with 2mb vs 4mb @ the same clock speed, the extra 2mb cache DOES make a difference, depending on the app. Particularly as you multitask more, 512k x2 (in many X2 procs), or 1mb x2, get left behind by the 2mb or 4mb unified cache design.

I already read the article when it came out, and noticed immediately two omissions of relevance on your part. It's wonderful that you quoted the first paragraph of this summary, but a portion of the second paragraph was equally enlightening:

-----"Overall, the performance advantage still goes to Intel's Core 2 lineup but there are a few situations where the performance between the two families is close enough to be considered a tie. There are also the outlier cases where the Athlon 64 X2 actually ends up faster than the Core 2........."---

Which is exactly what I've been saying. That's relevant omission number one.

Omission number two is the price cuts they were referring to in this article are not the most recent price cuts. The 4600 for example was priced $10 higher than its Intel counterpart at the time this article was published. It is now selling for $50 less than its Intel counterpart. That is true of the rest of the line as well. These changes have carved out a solid advantage for AMD at stock speeds for all chips under the $300 price range. So the dynamics of the market have changed substantially since the publication.

As for the speed comparison, and earlier comparison posted in this very thread by Tom's hardware was much more comprehensive and shows effective parity between chips. Yes there was a marginal advantage for the 6600, but it was negligible. The 5600 is also less expensive and has access to better quality motherboards at lower prices. Like I said, it's a wash.

There are no core 2 processors at the same clock speed with different levels of level 2 cache. The two meg versions are clock lower than the four meg versions. So I don't know where that claim came from. And if you look at the Tom's hardware comparison the Intel and AMD chips in question performed identically in the multitasking test. Again, just as I said they would.

Yes, but we have seen tests where a 2mb chip was clocked at the same speed as the 4mb one, and the benchmarks show a clear advantage, varying from minimal (1%) to large (10% or more).

Also

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103771

5600 is $269

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003

E6600 is $309, a $39 premium for an undeniably superior product. There is a price difference, but not a significant one. It is about on line with getting a better product. I have more AMD boxes than Intel ones, but it's borderline insane to consider buying a current AMD product unless you're pinching every penny possible. The clock headroom alone is staggeringly different.

Not mention that many X2s are only 512k x2 cache.

Can't find the specific cache article I was looking for, but this is pretty clear : both of these processors are clocked at the same Mhz, but the performance delta is between 0-16.2% depending on the app.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/...-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page13.php

 

PinchyCM

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,006
0
71
Originally posted by: coldpower27
AMD is pretty even stock wise up to the 6000+ which can trade blows with the E6600 evenly, but the E6700 and above is not something AMD can handle at this time.

this is true. pair that with the combo deals that newegg currently sports (they offer a tforce 550 for free for both the 5600+ and 6000+), and it's very very competitive in terms of bang/buck.

come monday (4/9), i think decisions will be a lot hard to make, since the 6000+ will be at ~180-190 price range. if they continue the bundle the tforce with it, you'd almost have to be crazy to not go for it.

even with the price cuts on 4/22 for intell, the e6600 will go down to ~230 (40 bucks more) and probably won't be bundled as well as its amd counterpart.

add that with the news that barcelona will come in am2 flavors as well, i think i know where i'll be buying come monday.

i'm all about bang/buck, baby!

ps - i want a c2d, i just can't justify paying so much more for it. especially with the combo deals going on.

edit: i guess only the 5600+ is being bundled with the tf550 now. :( oh well, still a fantastic deal if it holds up monday.

 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: PinchyCM
Originally posted by: coldpower27
AMD is pretty even stock wise up to the 6000+ which can trade blows with the E6600 evenly, but the E6700 and above is not something AMD can handle at this time.

this is true. pair that with the combo deals that newegg currently sports (they offer a tforce 550 for free for both the 5600+ and 6000+), and it's very very competitive in terms of bang/buck.

come monday (4/9), i think decisions will be a lot hard to make, since the 6000+ will be at ~180-190 price range. if they continue the bundle the tforce with it, you'd almost have to be crazy to not go for it.

even with the price cuts on 4/22 for intell, the e6600 will go down to ~230 (40 bucks more) and probably won't be bundled as well as its amd counterpart.

add that with the news that barcelona will come in am2 flavors as well, i think i know where i'll be buying come monday.

i'm all about bang/buck, baby!

ps - i want a c2d, i just can't justify paying so much more for it. especially with the combo deals going on.

edit: i guess only the 5600+ is being bundled with the tf550 now. :( oh well, still a fantastic deal if it holds up monday.

Do you o/c? If so, there's no reason NOT to buy a C2D, as the $150ish 4300 can blow away the most expensive X2 you can find. If you don't O/C, why not ;)
 

PinchyCM

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,006
0
71
Not these days, my friend.

THese days, I'm place a higher price on stability and quietness. I just don't have the kind of time to be messing around with that kind of stuff anymore.

I'm not sure I can make it till 4/22 for the price cuts. LOL. My computer's in pieces right now, and I'm confined to a laptop. :)