Quote: Originally Posted by BigAkita I caught your last couple of paragraphs, but still wanted to get your honest opinion... Using today as a snapshot in time, isn't the Conroe the way to go right now? I understand that there are not any true overclocking boards available for the Conroe yet, but even a poorly configured rig using mediocre graphics can surpass some of AMD's finest when it has a Conroe in it. The pricing is also surprisingly accessible to the average user unless you are shooting for a top of the line 6800. I'm one of those guys who will change allegiance with whomever has the power, which is why I switched to Intel in my main rig and slapped a 7950 in it instead of the 1900XTX that was installed. Rumor has it that AMD has their dominance scheduled for spring 2007, and I will probably go that route at that time. Currently these Conroe's rock, I just need a better board than the Axe to run mine on. I know you are an AMD enthusiast, but aren't you a bit curious about how it feels to run Intel again?

Yes BA, I would definitely agree for 99% of people building a new rig today, there is no contest, hands down "Conroe" mops the floor with AM-2, but there are a few "Arguments" for AMD. one of them comes from your "Buddy" "Kyle" at [H]OCP (LMAO sorry bout that, I know you can't stand him)

I don't trust his opinion either, it's kinda "Weak Sauce" but it does bring up a few valid points of contention, so I would like to hear your opinion on the article.

Quote: As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...ZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

You can get a bit deeper insight into my reasonings for going AM-2 at this time by checking out my personal, and I hate this term "Blog" (Though I would be building Conroe if I had another 300-1500$ more in my budget, the biggest part of wich would be for new high end video cards)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...b-8fec8394c614


To sum up my feelings for not going Intel at this time, I also see the tables possibly turning in 2007, as you mentioned with "Quad Core" CPU's, and by going AM-2 now, this saves me money in the long haul, cause I am not going to want to have to dump my hardware cheap to "Keep up with the Joneses" in less than six months...I don't think Intel's method of slapping 2 COnroe's on a die is going to be able to keep up with AMD's plans for "Native" quad core...I am betting it will be similar scenario (Though not as bad) as Intel's first stab at Dual Cores.

I'd like to do an article similar to this for Conroe soon, and spend some time with the "Motherboard" problem that overclockers are facing with "Dual GPU's at this time, it looks like they NF-4 SLI boards (Even DFI) are pretty sad in the FSB dept.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=113639


Bottom line, yes, Conroe is still going to be the better choice TODAY for a build, but this article was written for the few of us who are choosing to go the other way

Oh, and BTW, I have never owned and Intel, but I am not opposed to it either, I wrote an article back in January that predicted how this would be the year "The Empire Strikes Back"

Thanks for bringing this excellent point up BA