Hi all, can some explain the difference between the performance from an AMD 3400 to a Intel Dual Core 2.0gzI just found out that the AMD 3400 runs at 2.2gz and I always though a 3400 AMD was equivalent to a Intel 3.4gz. I was wrong. I just ordered a Intel Dual Core 2.0gz CPU that can easly OC to 2.6 - 3.0gz. Will I see a performance increase on CPU alone with my new chip? I have a better board with faster memory too. I have not built my somewhat newer system.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819116052Thanks,Bill

Yes, the AMD 3400 naming was to equate to an Intel 3400 proc but only needed 2.2Ghz to do it. AMD clocks were always lower than intel.Argueably a smart move replacing it with any C2D as these are smokin' most AMD procs at the moment. Find any proc comparison chart on many hardware websites and you'll see most of the C2D's near the top and the AMD's near mid-range for gaming purposes.I replaced an OC AMD 4000+ with a C2D E6700 and haven't regretted it for one second.Hmmm, I just looked at your NewEgg link and noticed you opted for the Allendale core. Personally, I would go with the Conroe cores especially for the 4Mb L2 cache on each core vice the Allendate 1Mb cache. Again, find a gaming performance comparison guide.

>Hi all, can some explain the difference between the>performance from an AMD 3400 to a Intel Dual Core 2.0gz>>I just found out that the AMD 3400 runs at 2.2gz and I always>though a 3400 AMD was equivalent to a Intel 3.4gz. I was>wrong. No, you were right. Or at least close to right.An AMD 3400+ would in fact be closer to a P4 at 3.4 ghz than anything else. Back when those cpu's were new, you could not look at the clock speed when it came to comparing AMD and Intel.That was particularly true 1.5-2 years ago when Intel had it's NetBurst P4 architecture and AMD had the A64 architecture.These days, both chip makers have lowered clock speeds. In a lot ways, AMD innovated, and Intel improved and did better on what AMD innovated with.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Well, I could not break the $200 mark for Christmas...really in a budget, and could not afford a complete new system. This is what I settled for. Hopefully it can provide me with at least a little increase in performance...after all it was faster memory and finally running dual channel memory from what I have in my sig (my old machine).http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145098http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813157115http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819116052Bill

Would betting this CPU be a very noticable difference than the one that I got form newegg? Im just really using my machine only for FS9.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115029Thanks,Bill

In FS9, you'll get 60+ FPs with the Allendale, and with the E6750, it will be off the charts.But the real question is, if you're getting 60+ fps, what's the difference to running 80 fps? 90 fps?My point is the Allendale is plenty fine for FS9.That E6750 will be faster than the Allendale core cpu, sure. But it will be most apparent in FSX. FSX is where the E6750 would do well at high settings, whereas with the Allendale, it would do ok, just at lower settings.If that computer will run just FS9, there's no need to get the E6750, if you ask me. If you plan to run FSX, then there is more of a case for the E6750.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Nope, not FSX for the time being strictly FS9 only. I was getting around 30 frames in KSAN with fly tampa scenery, 100% AI, activesky 6.5, Ge Pro, Ultimate Terrain with my old settup in my sig. I guess I will stick with the Allendale, however I will return my video card and get the same version execpt PCI express instead of AGP.Thanks,Bill

Well, I just found out that the board I got is limited to PCI express 4X only...I think Im staying with my AGP 8X. What do you think?Thanks,Bill