Replies to post #54684 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[mmoy]

That's a bit of an odd list as you have the better performing 2.2 Ghz part selling less than Intel's slower parts.

I would guess that the 5600+ is competitive with the 4600+ and the 6000+ a tad faster you're using much more power than the E4600 and I'm guess that there's a lot more headroom with the Intel part. Here we say that the high-end of AMD's line is competitive with Intel's economy line. When I say the economy line, it's not the very low-end but the lower half of mainstream. It's hard to describe processor markets these days as the high-end is moving up so quickly. The 6550 is probably the bottom of Intel's mid-range but I think that it's quite a nice bump in performance off the E* line.

I have yet to play with an E67* part. You usually don't see those in CompUSA.

[wbmw]

Re: I would say that AMD is quite competitive in this section with the x2 5600+

Not really. It's marginally faster than the E4500. Xbit-Labs did a review earlier in the year, which included an E4400.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup_8.html#sect0

If you extrapolate, I estimate a total performance score of about 1.45. The 5600+ gets a blended score of 1.53. So it's about 5% faster. But on the other hand, if you look at power dissipation, the E4500 is extremely low in power, while AMD's 90nm Windsor cores are very high in power.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/385/core-se-decline-en-pentium-et-celeron/page5.php

E4500 = 71W idle, 97W load (26W delta)
5600+ (FX-62) = 72W idle, 194W load (122W delta)
5000+ = 68W idle, 156W load (88W delta)

Or you can assume that the 5600+ is a lower power part these days if you want, along the lines of the 5000+ that was tested, but either way, the E4500 is low power and economical. It's a better buy for only 5% less performance. It's also $12 lower in price.