Starcraft 2

it also says that SC2 will only use two cores at a time. The core2quad is just a hair bit faster than the core2duo because it can use the extra 2 cores for random other processes in the background, but SC2 obviously likes the AMD chip a bit more.

o.O

Don't worry jon, my buddy is on beta right now maxed out and I'm pretty sure he's on a weaker intel than you... I'll find out and let ya know.

That is very interesting though.

Gah I want my key! 'They're' working on a crack for the beta release.   I can't post any info here about it though.

i'm not worried about the Q6600, it can hold its own when properly overclocked, i'm more worried about the 6000+ beating it out, the 6000+ is ok, but certainly not better than a Q6600, even at stock speed. There is just something weird about a 6000+ beating a Q6600 in ANY game. that is what is causing the confusion.

the AMD Athlon x2 6000 runs at 3ghz, the Q6600 at 2.4GHZ

if the game only utilizes two cores, the AMD chip will work better in some games (like Fallout 3), see the link below
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=53&p2=28&...

end of the day, the intel chip is still the better CPU, can easily be OC to 3ghz, and with games that utilize multi-cores will run circles around the AMD chip so don't sweat it

Yeah. I've always been a little iffy with fudzilla, I guess we'll see. I'm sure a lot of hardware sites will test this out, as weird as it is.

Interesting, I guess we underestimated the ipc of the old athlon duals I guess... fallout 3 tends to like amd more anyways no?

When the X2 6000 came out it was competitive with the E6600, why is everyone so shocked? Conroe didn't have that large of a performance gap over Windsor.

Interesting that SC2 only uses 2 cores, than again it is Blizzard, they like to make games that will run on almost anything.