It will be interesting to see how these chips perform in a wide range of benchmarks, not just a few games. But the initial testing shows a pretty fair hit from the reduced L2.
Are you sure to looked at the graphs correctly? The Pentium E2160 at 1.8GHz, is only 1-3fps behind the Core 2 Duo E4300. Both of these are at 1.8GHz, just that the E2160 has half the L2 cache. If anything, the initial testing shows a trivial loss in performance despite the huge decrease in L2 cache size. I can't wait for the media encoding benchmarks.
If they wanted to kill AMD's lower end x2 they should have either left 2M of L2 with the actual clock speed or clocked them higher leaving the 1024K L2 but mwssing with both of them is crippling them too much; in pure Intel style, just the mistake they were doing with the Celerons.
What I don't like, is the step between performance and budget chips; it should actually be a smooth ramp instead.
Look at the benchmarks posted in the link....The Pentium e2160 (1.8GHz 2x 512KB L2 cache) beats the crap out of the 1.9GHz AMD Athlon 3600 X2. The 1.6GHz Pentium E2140 manages to just barely edge out X2 3600, despite it's 300MHz clock disadvantage. I'd say Intel will be beating AMD's low end X2's pretty well come June 3rd. With prices at $75 for the E2140 and $85 for the E2160, AMD must make their April price cuts just to stay competitive. However, Intel's Pentium E should overclock slightly better than AMD's X2, and for everyone who has a great overclocking board, the Pentium E2140 should be a guaranteed 100% overclocker to 3.2GHz/400fsb, using the stock hsf. That's X6800 performance for $75 folks. :idea:
Wait for the Celerons to be benched. Intel will have a strong single core for the ultra low end, with prices starting at $39 for a 1.6GHz single core, up to $59 for a 2.0GHz top end model which should compete fairly well with the Athlon64 3500 and maybe the 3700, if these benchmarks are any indication.