Quote Originally Posted by gosh View Post
And the "placebo" is the defense for Intel users justifying the higher price and that theirs CPU therefore needs to be better
As I said before, I don't have that much experiance using a C2Q but you need to be blind if you don't notice the differences comparing a C2D (no OC) and A Phenom when some multitasking is in the works. Don't know how the C2D feels if you overclock it.
if I run performance tests on the C2D and the Phenom the C2D wins most of the time.

Before I bought the phenom for the work computer I had Opteron 165. It IS slower than the C2D, you feel that it is much slower but it is also smooth. And that makes it feel pleasant to work with even if tasks takes a bit longer to complete.

I think the main difference is that Intel has gone totally for speed. They have worked on their already fast areas and made those faster. The weak parts is still weak though.
Amd has done the opposite. They have worked on their weak parts and made those faster. The processor doesn't have any weak areas. But it doesn't have any superfast areas either. The CPU is evenly built.
So your saying in performance tests you'll see a C2D win but in a 939 you'll feel better smoothness. Hrmm yeah I can't say I've seen too many people go from a 939 to a Phenom or C2D back to a 939 again. How are AMDs ratios compared to Intel, cause if AMD runs something inparticularly tighter that could have an effect.
So basing your performance on desktop smoothness I don't think is gonna do it for most people. Again another car analogy, it's like a car salesman being like well ya know that car over there has 300HP and grumbles and shakes a bit but this one hear well it's only 100hp but its smooth as silk when it idles. You want the best performance out of your processor generally meaning the fastest so its prolly going to be obvious the one you'd want to buy even if it is a bit rough around the edges