question about AMD vs. Intel
 

I'm planning on building a new rig on a budget, but I don't know whether to go with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ or an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500. The AMD is clocked at 2.8 GHz while the Intel, which is ~$100 more with appropriate mobo, is only clocked at 2.2 GHz.

Is the Intel worth the extra money, or should I just go with the AMD? I'm not planning on overclocking.

I've tried googling for comparisons, but all I got was a bunch of "Intel is better than AMD" responses, or vice versa. I also checked Tom's Hardware CPU chart, but it doesn't list the E4500.

For your particular price point, the AMD is the better deal. Unless you're spending enough money to get performance past the best AMD chips, AMD will be faster for less money.


Edit; also, I'd look into getting an Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Brisbane core proc; while it has a slightly lower clock speed (2.7ghz vs 2.8), it has a newer/smaller manufacturing process (65nm vs 90) and thus will run cooler, consume less energy, and most likely be just as fast as the higher clocked (but older) chip, for all practical purposes.

get an even cheaper core2 (2xxx series) and overclock the shit out of it.

Re: question about AMD vs. Intel
 

:)

I believe Rocker can read. . .

You could try the Athlon x64 Black Edition which has a factory unlocked multiplier giving you some great bang for the buck. You can pick it up on the cheap at New Egg.With a factory unlocked multiplier you may want to reconsider overclocking as you will not have to mess with the bus speed to get more out of the CPU and thereby save the rest of your system the stress that overclocking by the fsb creates.