I'm familiar with AMD CPUs but not with Intel. So I have so far only considered AMD as a upgrade alternative. I'm thinking about AMD 64 X2 4800+. I would like to know which Intel CPU corresponds to that in performence?

When the C2D was released, the slowest C2D was about the same performance as the fastest AMD X2 of the day, so I'd say somewhere around an E6300 would be the equivalent.Gary

I agree. The E6300 is gonna be pretty close match, especially if you bump it up a notch. It seems a general rule is that clock for clock, Intel gets about 20% more work done. The 4800 runs at 2.4 Ghz on a 200 Mhz FSB. The 20% slower (clock for clock) Intel model that runs on a 200 Mhz FSB is the 2.0 Mhz E4400. If you don't overclock, these will run neck and neck. The prices of the two are identical (wonder why!), so the big advantage with the E4400 is that it will O/C to 3.0 Ghz. The 4800 would have to O/C to 3.6 to match that . . . and those poor ol AMD's just won't go that high.

If so there is no reason to look at Intel since the AMD is much cheaper than the corresponding Intel

A little, not much, cheaper, yes. As Sam says, if you don't overclock then the AMD will be slightly cheaper for similar performance. But, if you overclock, the Intel whips that AMD chip's butt :-)Gary

Price / Performance wise, AMD has been forced to match Intel. In any price / performance comparison, it's a dead heat. Like Gary said, if you are not going to overclock, it just doesn't matter. AMD is a completely competent CPU. Intel's value lays in its ability to overclock. There, Intel becomes 2X - 10X the value. O/C'd, the cheapest Intel CPU will outperform the most expensive AMD.

>I'm familiar with AMD CPUs but not with Intel. So I have so>far only considered AMD as a upgrade alternative. I'm thinking>about AMD 64 X2 4800+. I would like to know which Intel CPU>corresponds to that in performence?http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

>>I'm familiar with AMD CPUs but not with Intel. So I have so>>far only considered AMD as a upgrade alternative. I'm>thinking>>about AMD 64 X2 4800+. I would like to know which Intel CPU>>corresponds to that in performence?>>http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htmlOf the machines i have built i have to say Intel has done a good job. The problem i saw with the 680i chipset mobo's was some stuttering, even with high end vid cards etc, in FSX.An Athlon64 X2-6000 on the Asus crosshair mobo recorded a few less FPS but you could not get it to stutter at all.All the machines were installed with Corsair high performance memory, the fastest available for the system in question.IMHO opinion AMD has a better platform, seems smoother when switching views, more flyable with slightly lower frames, etc.A BIOS update on one of the Intel mobo's helped with memory management (could see all, 2gig) but still stuttered from time to time.I left it to the owners to work on the stuttering bit. They wanted to take the machines home.Buck

That's very interesting to get a view of the 2 platforms side by side. So the story goes, Intel worked hard on their memory controller with the new P35. It would be interesting to get your observations about this new chipset once you have built a couple. RSVP!

>Price / Performance wise, AMD has been forced to match Intel.>In any price / performance comparison, it's a dead heat. Like>Gary said, if you are not going to overclock, it just doesn't>matter. AMD is a completely competent CPU. Intel's value lays>in its ability to overclock. >>There, Intel becomes 2X - 10X the value. O/C'd, the cheapest>Intel CPU will outperform the most expensive AMD. But also AMD CPUs could be overclocked.

Yes, but by nowhere near as much. Haven't Sam and I made this particularly clear? If not, there are plenty of resources on the internet you can research to eventually come to the same conclusion. Gary