Re: The 5600+ has similar price and performance to the Intel offerings in the band that wbmw stated, so how can it not fit the description of competitive?
You should keep in mind that those are your words, Sheriff, not mine. When I compared the CPUs in the price range of $120-200, I said that Intel was, "fairly uncontested here." I did not say that AMD was completely uncompetitive (or any other stronger language), but if you look at the entire lineup in that price range, you'll see very good performance and low power Core 2 4000 series chips at prices below the 5600+, and very high performance and power efficient Core 2 6000 series chips at prices above the 5600+.
I definitely don't define the 6000+ and 6400+ parts as competitive, but that's due to the extreme power tradeoff that a consumer would have to endure to use them. I have been to more than a dozen 3rd party review sites, and they unilaterally show AMD's 3.0+ GHz Windsor cores as very high power devices, and many times compare them as equal or higher power than Intel's Pentium D and Pentium 4 chips!
As for the 5600+, it's probably the most reasonable of AMD's faster 90nm dual cores, but frankly I think that Intel is in a much better position to win in that segment, with 4000 series parts eating from the bottom, and 6000 series parts eating from the top.
After all, as an unbiased consumer, why would you focus myopically at the $139 processor that offers good performance, when you can spend $30 more for a much higher performance Core 2 6000 series (that is also lower power), or spend $12 less for something that offers only 5% less performance, but 40-50% less system power dissipation?
That's what I meant by "fairly uncontested".
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
