Re: 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 . . . .
You're the first person I've met that considers, "Not really..." to be strong language. As a matter of fact, I do not feel the 5600+ is, "Quite competitive." I feel that is giving it more credit than it's worth.
I will admit that the 5600+ can offer 5% more performance than the current bottom of the line Core 2 4000 series part, but the Core 2 4000 series parts come with lower power and a price that beats the 5600+ in performance/$ and performance/watt/$. There is also the Core 2 6000 series parts that beat the 5600+ both in performance and power, but not in performance/$.
The consumer has choices, and whether they are more motivated for performance, or power, or performance/watt, or performance/$, or any combination of the above, I think there are equivalent or better Intel based products to choose from. The "quite" in "quite competitive" suggests that any consumer would be much more likely to choose the 5600+ in spite of Intel's advantages, and I do not think that's the case. Frankly, I think the data speaks for itself, so I don't think I'm being biased in saying so, but you are free to judge however you'd like.
Re: 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.
I think that, demographically, you are going to find that most people who buy processors for >$100 will likely also buy a discrete graphics card with their system, even if that discrete graphics card is a value ended card. Most people who buy integrated graphics also buy inexpensive other hardware, such that the graphics are basically being thrown in for free. To the largest portion of this market, enthusiast 3D performance is not important. Intel may not be able to adequately run the top-10 games on the market with their integrated graphics, but they can usually run all the rest. You shouldn't take enthusiast ended reviews at face value, when they are reviewing value ended products.
Re: As for your power dissipation figures, they don't tally up with the Tech Reports findings.
Results do vary from reviewer to reviewer, but even your link is consistent with my claims that the 3.0+ GHz cores are among the most power hungry processors on the market, beating out every other single socket system out there, even the Core 2 Extreme quad cores, while having nowhere near equivalent performance prospects. And the 5600+ isn't exactly "low power", compared to other Core 2 processors available. Perhaps you could have chosen a review that bothered to use the newest steppings of Core 2 chips - you know, the ones that received the power reductions...? Either way, your 5600+ dissipates more than 50W greater system power than the low end of the Core 2 6000 series parts on the list, and in newer reviews, you'll note that Core 2 4000 series parts are even lower power.
So I would propose that my statements on power dissipation are dead on.
Re: 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.
Your Tech-Report link does not test the E6550, which is a new stepping that offers lower power than Core 2 predecessors. Do you have some aversion towards using data that actually supports your claims? Remember I said that it irks me when people make bold claims, but don't reference them with data? First of all, it puts the burden on me to either take your claim at face value, or go through the trouble of refuting you. And if I am going to go through the trouble, I'm probably going to let you know when you're wrong.
In this case, if you are hell bent on using Tech-Report, then why not use a newer article...? I suggest this one, and it happens to support my point:
E6750 - 5890 perf, 214W power 5600+ - 5209 perf, 257W power Intel Advantage - +13% performance, -17% power, 28% lower render energy
Seems like a pretty big win. The E6750, by the way, is a $50 investment over the 5600+. Again, it's a nominal amount for a consumer who is less interested in performance/watt/$ than they are with performance or performance/watt. The E4500 is a better buy for consumers interested in performance/watt/$, giving consumers a choice of Intel products, no matter which direction they are looking to spend.
In conclusion, that's not to say that no consumer will find value or a competitive solution with the 5600+. Rather, it attempts to put into context the relative choices, and gives me a clearer means of illustrating what I mean when I say that Intel has a better part eating into AMD's prospects from the bottom (where perf/$ and perf/W/$ are important metrics), and also from the top (where perf and perf/W are important metrics). I submit that Intel will reach more consumers with their product lines than AMD will reach with theirs.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
