Applications

"While the top model, the Core 2 Extreme QX9650, which is based on four processing cores, was already launched in late 2006" isn't that meant to be 2007?

I still maintain that AMD is not so bad - in this article you are effectively comparing a Ferrari and a Porsche; both are fast products.

Does it matter whether you drive a Ferrari to go to the corner store? Most people would say no, because all that most people want to do is get from A-to-B as cheaply as possible. And that is where AMD fits in.

People are too quick to slate AMD..without the A64 there would be no C2D/C2Q. And still, the A64 which is a generation behind C2D, can still compete. The 6000+ puts in a stirling effort.

These 45nm parts are good devices, but they lack a dedicated bus interconnect and of course, they lack a memory controller. Even with these things I would not buy Intel because historically they have always lagged behind in terms of innovation (and some would say, fair play). Phenom does need work, and hopefully AMD can address this, but I think the only reason you're suddenly seeing half-decent products from Intel is because it has had to. Right up until recently AMD has been a fierce competitor. In certain, bandwidth-intensive applications AMD still has the lead.

Deep Power Down might not always make sense in a desktop environment, where more applications and services are active than on the desktop.