Core 2 Duo or Athlon 64 X2 (AM2 Version)

[Phil Meyer]

Robert L. Cochran wrote:
> I'm working on plans to build myself a new desktop system. I'm unsure 
> whether to stick to AMD Athlon 64 (the socket AM2 flavor) or go to 
> Intel Core 2 Duo. The Intel E6600 has a 4 Mb L2 cache, and the price 
> is very attractive to say the least. Would Fedora Core (5 or 6) work 
> with this? The E6600 should scream past my Athlon 64 X2 4400+. Is 
> there any reason for staying with an AMD processor? Or should I run to 
> the Intel store with my money?
>
> What would you do if you had to build a new system today?
Politics and personal beliefs aside:

AMD is a better 64bit implementation.
Running 64bit means less support for plugins.
The new intel CPUs are indeed a step above Pentium 4, but they did it by 
borrowing heavily on the Pentium M technology, and is more akin to the 
Pentium 3 than Pentium 4 in terms of architecture.

AMD should be able wind up AMD2 to new heights when they move from 90mm 
process.  It takes AMD longer to change process than it does intel.

So as of today, intel has the lead in pure performance in nearly every 
category.
We have yet to see what the new AMD2 CPUs will do (late fall).

Multi core Multi CPU boards based upon NVIDIA chipsets (for example the 
very nice TYAN boards)  and Opteron CPUs vs intel chipsets with XEON 
CPUs favor NVIDIA, and probably will when both the new XEONs and the new 
AMD2 CPUs are available.

I recently participated in some SUN, HP,and DELL small server testing.  
Just performance on our applications, the SUN box was the best in the 
category of 2 CPU dual core systems. 

Its good to see the competition heat up again in the CPU wars.

Single CPU 32 bit systems go to intel today.
Single CPU 64 bit systems are leaning intel's way today.

Dual core 32bit systems go to intel.
Dual core 64bit systems still lean AMD way, but the prices are beginning 
to mismatch, giving intel the edge here.
Multi CPU Dual Core still go to Opteron over XEON.

You mileage will certainly vary! :)