A very comprehensive review, including all Conroe Parts, an EE Conroe OCed to 3.66 ghz, plus all the Merom mobile parts, and the full range of AMD offerings.
 
Highlights:
 
An (EDIT) E6600 (2.4 ghz - $314) beats an FX62 in the clear majority of benchmarks.
 
     => FX62s @ $299 anybody?
 
The 3.66 ghz OCed EE Conroe just &*^%ing humiliates the FX62, it is an absolute, total, across the board utter complete buttkicking...
 
The Merom parts perform, clock for clock, pretty close to their Conroe twins (hardly a shock) and in games the Meroms often beat the FX62 (!)
 
Here is the link:
 
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire [...] /page1.php
 
It is french, but it babblefishes ok....

 
Of course is spanks it.  Its clocked 800mhz faster, its 65nm, and its got double the cache.  Wow thats a surprise.

Yes, but Conroe can even overclock further, but go ahead... OverClock the FX-62 as far as you choose, it still gets beat since it is not very overclockable by AMD's great design...

It would prolly beat it even at half of FXs clockspeed... or something like that.
 
However, we can talk again when youve added 2 MB L2-Cache, 800 MHz and 65nm but I tell you: You will be the one getting humiliated, shakira´s thong.

 
 
interesting I didn't see a 6400 in the test. Good numbers, though. I guess I'll have to put "shameful rig" above the specs in my sig

the K8 arc is getting very dated, the 90nm has been pushed to its highest efficiency and every feature of the K8 is almost generations old now. Considering it was almost revolutionary when it came out somanyyear ago. What ever the FX or the Opteron can do on 1mb or 2 mb L2 cache even at 2.8Ghz is pretty impressive. considering the k8 was spanking and giving the pentiums doggy styles for so many business quarters from back in the days of the "prescott" race all the way to the Dual core and the even the first revision of Core duo

Your specs are not the top anyways... but I wonder how accurate they are... You claim an Antec TruepowerII 500 watt PSU...
When was that made?  Or are you labeling the SmartPower 500 watt as a TruepowerII???
Or do you even know the difference?
My PC...
Lian Li PC-60plus Black Aluminum Case (w/TR-3B Black Thermometer/Fan Controller 3.5” bay)
L.I.S. 2 Fan Controller - USB
Opteron 175 (2x 2.64 GHz, 2x1MB cache, Socket 939, .09 micron, E6 stepping, OSA175DAA6CD)
ThermalTake BigWater745 liquid cooling system complete kit
Asus A8R32-MVP Motherboard (ATI Radeon Xpress 3200 CrossFire, socket 939, SATA2)
HiS X1800XT Graphics Card (625 MHz/700 MHz OC core/1500 Mhz/1600 MHz OC mem, Dual DL-DVI VIVO 512 MB PCIe)
ATI TV Theater 550 PRO Tuner (PCI TV and FM Tuner)
4x 512MB Corsair Micro Xpert DDR RAM - 11x240MHz (2.5-3-3-8-2T (spd 2-2-2-5-1T) TwinXP 1024-3200XL)
2x 74gig Western Digital Raptor Hard Drives RAID-0 (WD740GD RAID0 150gig Boot Drive)
2x 250gig Western Digital Caviar SE16 Hard Drives (WD2500KS storage and data)
Plextor 716AL Black 16x DVD/CD Burner (IDE slot loading type)
Antec TP-II 550 Power Supply (550 Watt ATX12V v2.0 PSU)
Dell 2405FPW 24-inch LCD Monitor (UltraSharp Wide Aspect Flat Panel Display)
Logitech G-15 Gaming Keyboard
Logitech Cordless Optical TrackMan
Case Fans (SilenX 120mm intake, Adda 120mm exhaust blower, SilenX 92mm exhaust and SilenX 80mm Fan)

 
I'll give you the overclock, but the transition to 65nm doesn't inherently increase speed and according to what I've read from alot of AMD people the huge cache is just cheating.  

 
I'll give you the overclock, but the transition to 65nm doesn't inherently increase speed and according to what I've read from alot of AMD people the huge cache is just cheating.  
 
 
Cheating? lol wtf do you mean by that, these companies are out to make the most money they can , theres no such thing as cheating

ITs not just the cache that makes Conroe so fast, its all the little things Intel did. The allowed it to execute more instructions per clock, they increased floating point performance, they implemented alot of the design strengths from the P4(ok so alot is relative.) Don't just say that slapping cache on an AMD will do it good, its been shown the performance increase between identical clocked but different cache parts is the same in all but a few tests.

 
I'll give you the overclock, but the transition to 65nm doesn't inherently increase speed and according to what I've read from alot of AMD people the huge cache is just cheating.  
 
Cheating?  8O  As long as the benchmarks are properly conducted without bias, there is no cheating involved. The worst you can say is that two chips at different price-points are being compared. However, these chips are going to be priced cheaper than the FX-62.

Some of us don't live and breathe money.  And his PSU being 500W is probably a typo.  What does it have to do with anything though.
 
 
I said this about a month ago.  I really wish Conroe would just come out so maybe people will shut the hell up about it a little.  Yes its going to be a good processor that will outpace the Athlon X2 series.  But does there need to be 20 new topics a day about it?
 
Man, you'd think Intel created a cure for cancer or something with how much time nerds spend jacking off about it.

 
Hey calm down everybody. I don't think that a large cache is cheating at all. I made the comment because I think it's funny that as early Conroe benches were released, AMD guys claimed that it was all programs that were loaded in the cache and as soon as Conroe was put in real world applications it wouldn't be able to keep it's lead. Now that more and more reviews are released and Core is still in the lead, these same AMD fans are claiming the huge cache as an advantage.

The point is he either makes a lot of typos, which elude to facts which are false, or he intentionally miss interprets data and specs to fit his definition of what is best often which are … fanboi saturated
Lately, as with a few others, this has been exacerbated...

 
I'll give you the overclock, but the transition to 65nm doesn't inherently increase speed and according to what I've read from alot of AMD people the huge cache is just cheating.  
 
 
Cheating? lol wtf do you mean by that, these companies are out to make the most money they can , theres no such thing as cheating
 
If Intel Ships out Molex connector compatable Dildo's it still would'nt be considred cheating because they'd just ship is  a"female" package only difference from OEM and "female" package would it would include a Molex connecter compatable Dildo and just no cooling fan or heat sink. This "package" would become a wildly sucessful in the single mother and the single female market segment. No offence to any females if there happen to be any/ only talking in a sense of business and profits not human relations and human resourses(well this idea would build massive female following) Intel would finally have "Fangurls"

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire [...] page13.php
 
If you look.
 
In games going from 2MB to 4MB achives 8,7% to 16,2% improvement.  
Tests where done at just 640x480, which makes the cache more important, with less data to process, more is cached.  
 
I wonder how would be the Core 2 with 1MB. Don’t forget AMD has 1MB for one core VS 4MB of Intel.

 
I wonder how would be the K8 without the ODMC.
 
Design principles for Intel and AMD are obviously different. Having a large cache is about as much cheating as having an ODMC is. What is important is, that whatever be the design principles, it seems that the Core 2s are going to perform better and cost less than Athlon 64s. Maybe AMD needs to strip the K8 off their ODMCs to reduce costs...
 
Please, don't whine about the large caches. There is no doubt that having a large cache is beneficial. Even AMD knows that.

They conveniently forget all of that, like a dumb blonde mezmerized by a shiney new nickel.

Just making a point and clarifying it.
I was with the impression that what it was being said is that the 4MB cache is not one of the Core 2 performance key points.
 
The cache is very important to Intel or they wouldn’t put 4MB in it.
 
Like you said IMC is important to AMD.

Not to troll or anything. but games at 640? WTF was that....looks at toms own Core2 vs FX62
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] page5.html
Core 2 does better at low settings(i think P4's did as well)
they are not all that far off in games.
 
I do think that if AMD gave 4megs of cache they would close the gap in games, but if Intel went with a ODMC AMD may just go boom....
 
I dont care either way intill i see a Conroe(Core2) sitting in my PC i will not put faith in the benchmarks.
 
In the end this all means lower prices for us!!!!