If possible, I'd like to see comparisons between the AMD and Intel CPU's with the cache disabled. Would the performance loss on the AMD processors be less as they have 512Kb/1Mb in comparison the Intel's 1/2/4Mb and due to the integrated memory controller?
Or is the Core2Duo's architecture so much more superior that it will still beat the "more elegant solution"?

Is the question not whether cache is benfical but whether it is good use of the silicon real estate. When the Athlon upgraded from the Thunderbird core to the Palomino core with no increae is cache size it got about 5% faster for a minor increase in the transitor count (37 million to 37.2). When they upgraded from Thoroughbred to Barton which double the cache from 256kb to 512kb resulted in a huge transitor count increase from 37.6 to 54 million for a 5% speed increase. Based on this it seems to me that adding cache is a lazy but expensive way to increase performance by the chip manfactures and it would be better if they spent more time looking at other ways to improve their chips.

Just a bit of a shame you didn't add to the conclusion that the PRICE difference between the processors compared to the PERFORMANCE difference between them.
Short: Price-performance

Because PP-wise:
E2160 $72.00
E4400 $129.99
X6800 $985.00
Prices from Newegg (in most countries the differences are even bigger)

So the av. difference at the same clock speed between the E2160 and the X6800 is about 10% and the price difference is nearly a horrible 1400%!!

Like most reviews IF you add anything like this, the conclusion will probably be:

If you've got a budget then consider taking the cheapest E2100 serie. If you want to build your-average PC take a E4000 serie and well, if you've got a wallet you found to empty then hit it with a grand to get rid of it before the cops find out.

Anyway, my point is that I think Toms should inform people about reasonable price performance differences. If more review sites do this then manufacturers will ofcourse keep higher prices, but will see a drop in buys of these products and see their mid-range products being bought and used very well. (or they'll start producing low -and mid-range products that are very limited so they can't compete at any rate with the high-end parts).

Just my two cents...

Actually the first processor to have on-die full speed 256kb L2 cache was the AMD K6-III, not the Intel Pentium III Coppermine.

The K6-III was released in Febuary 1999, Coppermine Pentium III's didn't appear until late October.