I'd also like to know why the Q6600 doesn't benchmark as high as the E6600? Should I go with the E6600 for my new rig over the Q6600 or does the later have other advantages?
While I agree, it hurts me to see AMD doing so poorly recently. What if they fold? Intel will no longer have a viable opponent (unless you count VIA) in the mid-to-high end personal computer market, leading to complacency and stagnation.
I'm no cpu expert, but I believe the core 2 is getting higher marks than the quad core because the game isn't optimized for quad core performance, while it is for dual core.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MosquitoControl @ Nov 19th 2007 9:43AM
Yes, but the 9900 is killed by cheaper Intels.
I can't fathom why anyone would go AMD right now. Other than thinking Intel = big, evil Microsoft and AMD = small, independant underdog.
Don't support brands. They're both equally evil. Go with the better chip for the buck, and right now those are absolutely coming from Intel.
Why is the 2.4 Duo getting slightly higher than the 2.4 Quad? I'm still not certain if I should go quad for my next system or go with the 3.0 Duo...
Ross @ Nov 19th 2007 9:57AM
I'd also like to know why the Q6600 doesn't benchmark as high as the E6600? Should I go with the E6600 for my new rig over the Q6600 or does the later have other advantages?
rawhead @ Nov 19th 2007 11:55PM
While I agree, it hurts me to see AMD doing so poorly recently. What if they fold? Intel will no longer have a viable opponent (unless you count VIA) in the mid-to-high end personal computer market, leading to complacency and stagnation.
GregA @ Nov 19th 2007 12:59PM
I'll Tell you why I went with AMD. I scored a free X2 3800 this morning in the trash! Woo hoo free computers FTW!
Ayle @ Nov 19th 2007 5:25PM
Where do you live?
rv @ Nov 19th 2007 7:20PM
I'm no cpu expert, but I believe the core 2 is getting higher marks than the quad core because the game isn't optimized for quad core performance, while it is for dual core.