posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:32 AM
The fastest AMD, the 9950 ($170), is barely faster than my two year old Q6600 ($180) while running stock, despite my Q6600 putting out about 30 - 45
watts less heat (95 watt TDP). Once you get into overclocking it really is no contest, with a $70 cooler it's possible to get a Q6600 to 3.6ghz,
stable, whereas a 9950 may not be abled to get much over 3.4ghz - while the AMD is using more power and still less efficient clock for clock.
The $1500 Core 2 Quad Extremes (QX) are simply head and shoulders above anything else - look at benchmarks. You can get them to 4.5ghz on air, stable.
These have the added benefit of SSE4, higher FSB, & more cache. So they're far more efficiant per cycle then a Q6600... Are AMD compatible with
DDR3? If not, then a QX9770, overclocked, DDR3, rig is going to be perhaps twice as fast as any AMD...
When Nehalem comes out at the end of the year, the gap will be widened. That is another 50% increase in performance, minimum, with 10% increase on
power consumption.... (over Q9450).... High end Intels are so expensive simply because they have no competition. Regarding your 3dmark scores, was the
Core 2 Quad Extreme a two year old QX6700, paired with a slow videocard?
[edit on 15/10/2008 by C0bzz]