To start, I will fix your quoting errors, so your post will make some sense, without having to spend 15 minutes “decoding” it.
At least when you quote your master, try to get it right.
Let's look at your sentences:
"The higher priced RAM required by AM2 offsets the mobo price difference "
Ok , listen #1:
It is E6300 that needs higher priced Ram to be able to do 400mhz FSB not AM2.
w/ AM2 all you need is DDR2 533 which is cheaper w/ tighter timings. here IMC's power come to play. w/ dual core A64 4200 you can do: 11x266=2926mhz 1:1 ratio. That means DDR2 533 (533/2=266.5)
With E6300 which has a 7x multiplier you have to overclock FSB to 400 to get 7x400=2800mhz.
400mhz FSB means DDR2 800 = more expensive that DDR2 533.
conclusion#1 : first sentence you quoted from your master was dumb.
your 2nd sentence: " The Core 2 beats the AM2 X2s in the price/performance spec (for now) "
You know Mike, I've asked you this before, do you actually read what you write before you hit the “submit” button? Your master? Who, pray tell, is my master? Are you seeing what you write? This “your master” comment ranks right up there with your "darkside of Conroe” comment. It is indicative of an individual who is seriously disturbed, at a deep emotional level and feels (wrongly) unjust personal persecution. My masters...get real.
This is not Lucas’s Star Wars epic. There is no “Darkside”. There are no “masters” You are not Mad Mod Mike Skywalker, saving the helpless citizens of universe from the evils of Darth Intel. These delusions exist
only in your mind. There is only a small group of individuals who really, truly, have serious problems.
I’m not going to bother going into the AM2 CAS issues, as every day there are at least 2 posts on THG begging for help with AM2 ram problems, because someone tried to sneak by with cheap ram. In short, you are wrong.
So you disagree w/ THG and all other review sites? Then why should you believe anything they say?
your 3rd, and 4th sentences : "Without overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2
With overclocking, comparable AM2s cannot out perform Core 2"
again, Every review sites say that E6300 stops below A64 5000 as far as performance goes, w/ or without overclocking. And in 64bit OS, AM2 gains about 6% of the loss. Check w/ your masters on this before you continue making another ass of yourself. That drops E6300 to A64 4200 is window xp 64 addition.
As to disagreeing with THG and Anand, I do not. In fact I
trust what they state. The problem here is that you failed to read or comprehend the articles in their entirety.
You are comparing the E6300 to the x2 5000. Intel’s "counterpart" to the X2 5000 is not the e6300, but the E6600, which THG, Anand and every other reputable site has show, does in fact meet or exceed Intel’s claim of a 20% performance increase over the x2 5000. I just compared the latest prices. Just for this rebuttal. The cheapest 5000 I could find was listed at $309 US. The cheapest E6600 I could find was listed at $339. Neither site had the chips in stock. The price difference equates to 9%. I would say a $30 or 9% increase in price is a fair bargain for a 20% increase in performance.
Now, to compare the E6600 to its true AMD counterpart, (in terms of performance) the FX62 (@ $842, again the cheapest current price, though these actually were in stock) the price difference expands significantly to $503 dollars, or a 40% increase for the same performance. I strongly recommend you go back and re-read the reviews in their entirety as these sites do point out that while in one to one product line comparison, AMD has dropped its prices, in one to one performance comparison, Intel is still the better value
Besides, I wasn’t talking about overclocking when I suggested price/performance. It was about how much you feel the difference in speed between the 2 in real life and ordinary computing tasks. Ask your masters (the one's who actually tested conroe and AM2's and are using both platforms in house) they will tell you " you don’t really feel the difference" This is a quote from one of anandtech's staff who does reviews. I am sure he has reviewed more than 500 systems (that’s 500 more than you have)- That's what he says, and that's what I was trying to relay to those who careless which system to buy.
You have no idea how many systems I have owned as I have never stated nor alluded to that number. You write that as innuendo in an attempt to discredit me. The problem is you don’t know what I use my computers for, nor apparently, did you read the whole article. As for feeling the difference, I think I can garuntee I would feel it, based on what I use my computer for, which is not primarily gaming. I use my computer for both 2D and 3D rendering, video editing, as well as day to day administrative BS i.e. word processing, spreadsheets etc. Oh, by the way, you quoted the reviewer out of context. If you go back and re-read it, you will find, as I recall, a “unless..” in that sentence. Again, I strongly recommend you go back and read the articles.
So, as far as price/performance is concerned, AMD is ahead whether you admit it or not. One look at retailer’s most popular products selling, one will realize it is AMD's. Only one or 2 Intel's PDP's are selling but below AMD's #.
That should give you a good indication of what people prefer to buy.
As for the number of sales, I find it interesting that you would raise that issue, as the Core 2 family has only been out for 3 days (in the US) and most of those sold out in less than an hour. The “most popular” product comparison you are alluding to is
current AMD vs. P4/Netcrap. I would hope to god AMD beats Netshit in popularity. But we are not speaking of Netfailure, we are speaking of Core 2. The reason this is so interesting is that this piece of information does absolutely nothing to prove your point. In fact, it adds further proof to the theory that you habitually take information out of context.
For me ? I will never buy Intel if it was dime a dozen, for personal reasons. One look at how Intel operates and how it has cheated consumer for 4 years w/ that netburst crap, one will see my point. You yourself is a victim of the netburst, but no guts to admit it. They lied to you then and they will lie to you now, again and again, but who cares, right? You will wait another 6 months if you have to, to taste that “AMD killer”.
A victim of net burst????? God Mike, listen to yourself. Really! If you have read any of my posts, you would have seen me state, more than once, that I have not owned an Intel system for over 5 years. In fact, the last Intel I owned, a slot 1 PII is sitting in a closet right now collecting dust. Right next to my old AMD Athlon 1900, 2600XP and 2800XP.
Mike you really need to sit back and read what you write. You then need to compare your posting style and actions to other peoples posts.
Use me for example
-I do not hide behind a puppet. You are Mad Mod Mike. Everyone knows this, yet you refuse to admit it. Although you did once make a deliberately suggestive statement indicating the truth. Why is it, you and the other 3 hide behind puppets?
-I have never been banned from THG. You have. Ask yourself: why?
-I do not quote only the parts of articles or reviews which prove a point, while failing to acknowledge or even recognize those parts which disprove my point.
-I do not claim to know everything, in fact I have said many times I know much less than the other users of THG forums. You, through your actions, attempt (unsuccessfully) to present the appearance of expertise.
One look at how Intel operates and how it has cheated consumer for 4 years w/ that netburst crap, one will see my point
-Guess what? I agree, Netburst was/is crap.
-Guess what? I believe for 3 years Intel’s marketing division promoted a crappy product.
-Guess what? I loved my AMDs. They have given me great service.
-Guess what? Even if you
really were Mad Mod Mike Skywalker, saving the helpless citizens of universe from the evils of Darth Intel, it would not change the fact that the Core 2 performs better than X2 and (at this point in time) for a better price per “unit” of performance.
-Again do you read what you write? You are stating, that you are willing to pay premium prices for lower performance for a
consumer product. This is not a set of tires that wear abnormally and burst unexpectedly. This is not a "lowest bidder" "O" ring than fails causing explosions. Its a friggin CPU. Get over it.
Whats the point of this? Yes Mike, netburst was crap. Congratulations, you got something right, but Core 2
is not netburst. Core 2 is better than AM2. You your self admitted this in your own blog. Why are you fighting this?
Mike, no shite, you need help. This has nothing to do with CPUs. You have a much deeper problem that is masquerading as an opinion of a companies products. Go to a clinic. Seek help, now, before it is too late for you.