I think you din't reach the true limit of the chip. I mean, 2600 @ 1.25v. Give it 1.4 and see how it performs.

Provided you can read, you would see the DID NOT compare 3600+ to the E6300.

They compared it to the 3800+ (cache/price reason) and 915(pirce reason). The E6300 results are provided simply as an reference point.

Looks to me that the review had graphs showing the reviewed product at stock speed, and at potential overclocked speed, so you could compare it against other AM2 products, namely the 3800+ and 5000+. The Conroe results were added as a point of relevance.

With Conroe costing over $200 at many retailers right now ($250 at NewEgg wasn't it?), a $150 X2 3600+ is not exactly "priced exactly the same". Even the RRP of the Conroe is over $30 more expensive than the stock X2 3600+ price. So that's a blatant lie on your part. Let us not take the cost of the motherboard into consideration, Conroe is very new, so motherboards are still quite highly priced.

The TDP is roughly the same for both processors at stock speeds. The E6300 is better performing however, for the extra $50 - $100 you pay currently.

The E6300's don't overclock that great according to all the reviews I've seen. 2.5GHz seems an average result. The higher end Conroes do overclock very nicely however.

So, in conclusion, the review gave all the information allowing for the informed and intelligent reader to form their own opinion. If you are incapable of doing that, then who is the 'stupid' person?

yeah, but look at what the results are at 2.5ghz


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&am p;p=9

From the performance perspective: Yes
Prom pre price perspective: No

915 sits ~ $10 below 3800+ price
945 sits ~ $10 above 3800+ price

3600+ sits $10 below 3800+ price (it is currently a little bit overpriced)

Even comparind 3800+ to the 945 would give it an price advantage, not to mention the case of 3600+.

It may be so officialy. At my dealer the prices I wrote above are a reality.

Also one should consider PD eats ~$5 a year more on electricity than X2, so to achieve price-parity PD should be in fact $10-$20 cheaper.

Yes that's why I'm interested in seeing the new D0 stepping PDs to see if they actually show any power savings over B1 and C1 PDs. They should considering with B1s 95W was only the 3GHz 930D, the C1s upped that to 95W for 3.4GHz 950Ds, and D0s upped again at 95W for 3.6GHz 960Ds.

IMHO the D0 will be better, for sure. However at the gap(esp. at idle) is too big to be closed completely.

LOL, thats a comment ;-)

It's your case.

In my case the system from:
ATA100 - 15 seconds Boot time
SATA - 25 seconds Boot time.

After booting, overall SATA is slower to 0% performance increase.

Grow the fuck up. You basically made the same comment as the other guy. (Post number 2)

The review had both the stock and overclocked numbers for the 3600+. The point is to give you an idea how much you gain if you went for the cheapest A64 X2 now and overclocked. The Core 2 Duo and other CPUs are used as a comparison to provide some sort of reference of where it lies. (both in stock and overclocked speeds). Apparently, your brain is incapable of interpreting that simple concept.

Maybe if you bothered to actually READ and UNDERSTAND the article and actually took the time to compare the numbers, than post your 2 cents worth of shit, you wouldn't look like a no-clue moron!

That's whats wrong with sites like Xbit Labs...You have try-hard idiots who don't have a fucking clue what is going on. They mindless post shit.

*correction*

mindless => mindlessly