Intel Corp (INTC)

[sheriffbakanay]

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)

When I said that the 5600+ was quite competitive, you responded with "Not really . . . . "

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?

I focussed on the 5600+ processor because that is the only AMD processor I would consider buying(not for me personally, but if someone wanted a budget system), as I feel it is the only one that offers reasonable value for money compared to Intel's offerings, especially if you want to go with a motherboard with integrated graphics.

As for your power dissipation figures, they don't tally up with the Tech Reports findings. http://techreport.com/articles.x/12210/13

Also, as for your why not spend $30 more question, because as the Tech Report link shows, the 5600+ is very close in performance to the E6600, which I presume is about the same speed as the E6550? And again the power usage is not that big a deal according to the Tech Report.