Im a fan of AMD because of their high L caches. Thats about the only area they can truly beat Intel right now.
Of course, if you do the math, the Phenom can deliver a tiny bit more processing power quicker because of the cache. So it really is the better choice for quad core.
Either way, I have the 9600, and I love it. Its a great chip that has alot of power behind it.
I'm not 100% sure 'the better choice for quad core" is correct. I was with AMD for years (k62 through athlon64, my first multi core was back to intel) until Intel cracked their premium prices and started really competing. Right now I have a quad core 6600 air oced to 3.4ghz and I have to say, I don't think a Phenom can come even mildly close to what I'm getting right now....I mean, based on various benchmarks I've seen all over the net', I'm pretty sure it can't. Some people say I don't wanna OC, fine - getting the quad 6600 isn't even 'real' oc as you don't have to change a thing. Even at that, you're pretty much kicking a 9600 to the curb.
So consider that you've purchased a Phenom 9600 for 220-240 when an intel quad core EASILY oc'able to at the very least 3.0ghz is only 10-20 more. I'm not saying the Phenom sucks or anything, but I just have to argue that in my opinion the Intel Q6600 is the best value for your quad-core seeking buck right now.
I still root for AMD. I wouldn't build a system for myself with it, but I'd def. build systems for other people who aren't seeking the same quality and detail that I am. Not to say it's a bad chip, but it's more of the budget and not even so much right now. If there was no AMD though, Intel would charge an arm and a leg for their products so in a way, I think I'll always support AMD in some way.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Im a fan of AMD because of their high L caches. Thats about the only area they can truly beat Intel right now.
Of course, if you do the math, the Phenom can deliver a tiny bit more processing power quicker because of the cache. So it really is the better choice for quad core.
Either way, I have the 9600, and I love it. Its a great chip that has alot of power behind it.
I'm not 100% sure 'the better choice for quad core" is correct. I was with AMD for years (k62 through athlon64, my first multi core was back to intel) until Intel cracked their premium prices and started really competing. Right now I have a quad core 6600 air oced to 3.4ghz and I have to say, I don't think a Phenom can come even mildly close to what I'm getting right now....I mean, based on various benchmarks I've seen all over the net', I'm pretty sure it can't. Some people say I don't wanna OC, fine - getting the quad 6600 isn't even 'real' oc as you don't have to change a thing. Even at that, you're pretty much kicking a 9600 to the curb.
So consider that you've purchased a Phenom 9600 for 220-240 when an intel quad core EASILY oc'able to at the very least 3.0ghz is only 10-20 more. I'm not saying the Phenom sucks or anything, but I just have to argue that in my opinion the Intel Q6600 is the best value for your quad-core seeking buck right now.
I still root for AMD. I wouldn't build a system for myself with it, but I'd def. build systems for other people who aren't seeking the same quality and detail that I am. Not to say it's a bad chip, but it's more of the budget and not even so much right now. If there was no AMD though, Intel would charge an arm and a leg for their products so in a way, I think I'll always support AMD in some way.