Abit板939的就AN8系列最快,AM2系列的就是AN9,
(KN)系列雖然是Abit的入門系列,但是都會比其他牌子更穩定,
尤其是電容,很少會壞的,大部分Abit都用Japan出的電容來.

now intel core duo 2 very geng, and ati support crossfire. i prefer intel + ati . I think thsi combination will work best.

Most people used to have more confidence on Intel, that was why they dominate the CPU market before, but situation has been changed in the recent years, AMD has grip much more portion of the market that was reflected from their shares prices in the Wall Street Stock market. All the independent review reports showing AMD beats Intel's brenchmarks in over 90% of the applications, especially for the 3D gaming. I have been using KVM to work with 2 computers, 1 Intel and 1 AMD, began at PIII 1G and Athon 1G, until now at P4 905 and Athon  64 3800+X2 (AMD's price is cheaper), comparing two machines in doing the same job with the same application under identical environment, no matter photo editing or video conversion, AMD is at least 25+% faster. So my favourite is AMD so far until Intel can have some new stuff to beat AMD in price and performance to show me.

There are two potential concerns with building a budget Core 2 Duo system. The first is availability, and hopefully we will have a clear answer on that subject in the near future. The other is motherboard cost. The ASUS P5W-DH we used in this article is currently the best overclocking motherboard we've seen for the socket 775 platform, but at $250 it is anything but cheap. We have seen quite a few of the P965 motherboards that can also overclock the budget Core 2 chips to reasonable levels, with prices hovering much closer to $140. Unfortunately, none of those boards can support SLI or CrossFire at present.

If you are simply interested in maximum processor performance, P965 with any of the Core 2 Duo parts is going to be very fast. Gamers on the other hand are probably going to at least want to think about SLI/CrossFire, as typical gaming settings will be GPU limited with just about any current single GPU. That means they might need to pay more for an appropriate motherboard, especially if overclocking is a primary concern. We're also waiting to find out how nForce 500 for Intel does in the overclocking arena; at present, there's definitely concerns about whether or not the NVIDIA motherboards can reach the high FSB speeds that are required for overclocking everything but the X6800.

The E6300 and E6400 can easily overclock to E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 levels, though the smaller cache does limit performance a bit. That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that.

We had seen Conroe performance results that showed the new architecture being able to offer fairly competitive memory access latencies to AMD's architecture, without the need of an on-die memory controller. Our ScienceMark 2.0 results confirm just that:

We start off with Business Winstone 2004, a benchmark that has since been discontinued by VeriTest but one we continue to use because of the relevance of its results. Business Winstone doesn't generally vary all that much with CPU speed as the benchmark itself is quite I/O heavy. As you can see below, this doesn't stop the Core 2 Extreme X6800 from maintaining a healthy lead over the FX-62:







Overall Office Productivity performance with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is just over 26% faster than the identically configured FX-62. The breakdown of the OP suite is below, as you can see some individual tests are closer than others:

Gaming Performance






Core 2 Extreme boasts a 17.8% performance advantage over the FX-62 in average frame rate.  

The minimum frame rate is significantly higher at 50.9%, and even after multiple runs the performance advantage was consistent:



Finally the Core 2 Extreme system was able to boast a 14.2% higher maximum frame rate under F.E.A.R.



Our final gaming benchmark during our short but sweet testing period with the Core 2 Extreme was Battlefield 2, and its performance was in line with what we've seen in the previous two titles:



Intel's holding on to a 20.3% performance advantage under Battlefield 2.  

We're still wary of crowning Intel the new gaming performance champion, especially without having run other very important titles such as Oblivion and Half Life 2: Episode 1, but until we can things are definitely looking extremely promising for the Core architecture.

我有部 P4- 2.4G overclocked to 2.6G,
但我另一部 Athlon 2600+ 快佢好多....
同級既話, 我認為 AMD 較平和快

最近 Athlon64x2 跌價我又組合左部 3800+,
mainboard 用 nvidia chips,
好快, 感覺好好

Support AMD + nVidia !!!

Thank you Alan for your valuable info, I respect your opinions on the high end performance and agree the FX-62 isn't a successful product with overpricing. But I am just a average computer user and would never spend that much extra money to chase after the top end performance. I compare dollar to dollar value for making my decision and telling my experience from my real life. Appreciate your enthusiasm in sharing us your knowledges, thanks again.

Intel and nvidia got my vote there. I like intel because of it multi tasking performance and it more stable to use with. I used amd xp b4 and it burned out after half a yr with the mb and ram too.