ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better
ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here
)
let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.
the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg
now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.
Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency