"how poo wud that be u tool shhhh before u make a fool of ur self. and AMD r avin a %50 price cut between now and dec31st god dont u read up on anythin before openin ur stuipd mouth. amd rules FFFFFFAAAAAAACCCCCTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" wow...that was the most typo filled, inarticulate rebuttal ive ever read. you have the ability to (almost) type poo, tool and stupid and for that i congratulate you. Considering they have to cut their prices by 50% to compete, i would say they dont "rule" as much as they once did. as the two companys compete there would obviously be slight price drops every now and then but halfing their prices just shows that AMD have been hit hard. btw: $630 * .5 = $315 > $183 They're halfing their prices and still its relatively overpriced.

whats with everyone still saying "AMD = better bang for the buck, im still going to stick with them" E6300 is just about equal to +4800 4800+ costs $630 E6300 costs $180 who cares if theyre benchmarking intels newest processors with AMDs (several month) old processors, im guessing less than 10% of the market go for the high end stuff. look at the results for the affordable processors, E6300, E6400 and theyre comparable with AMDs processors that are currently priced more than twice as much.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=265&type=expert&pid=11 heres a few more benchmarks. according to that article the E6300 will cost $183, and in terms of gaming is slightly better than the +4800 ($632 at newegg). i was planning on an upgrade with one of the AMD 3x00+, but if these new processors are as good as they sound i guess im going to have to switch over to Intel. seems like alot of AMD fanboys have been stirred by these. i myself have had many an argument taking the side of AMD but seriously, a CPU which is a third of the price of one of their mid/high ends and having practically equal performance...