I wanted to make a small point on some reviews I've seen today. I have AMD cpu, but I'm no fanboy, but I buy the best performance/price. Now that's cleared up let's go on to the point. As you may have noticed Anandtech.com and Tomsharware.com posted their reviews a little later than the others and I waited to see them too before making an oppinion. After all they seemed to me to be the most reliable sites as I was reading them since 5 years ago. There are the links in case you haven't seen it already:
What I have found is two different points of view, wich is quite normal in the end: one pro-AMD and one against-AMD. The other sites were quite neutral. You can find other reviews here:
First of all I read tomshardware's 62 pages review during wich they bechmark the new A64 AM2s concluding there's not a performance gain between the sk939 and sk AM2.
With Socket AM2 the (OEM) customer now has the option of DDR2 memory from AMD too. In theory, that should produce a higher memory bandwidth, which in practice is only achieved by the expensive top processors. Compared to "old" DDR memory-based platforms, the bulk of AMD's CPUs cannot benefit from the higher bandwidth of the DDR2 memory.
Anand concludes on preety much the same thing in regards to the transition from sk939 to AM2:
It is ironic and equally unfortunate for AMD that on the eve of Intel finally getting its act together, that the Socket-AM2 launch is so devoid of any sort of performance improvements. It's clear that AMD's architecture just simply isn't starved of memory bandwidth at this point, and it will take either higher clock speeds or architectural improvements to make the move to DDR2 necessary.
Everything is fine from this perspective, but there is a catch. They both made another comparison: how does the X2 4000+ behave when compared to the similary priced Pentium D 950. Here there are huge differences in their point of views.
Comparing the low-priced Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (2.0 GHz, 2x1 MB L2 cache) with the Intel Pentium D 950 (3.4 GHz, 2x2 MB L2 cache) costing the same, we do see a performance advantage of up to 20 percent.
They also add this graph:
I guess it is obvious who they is the winner if we look only at this.
On the other hand Anand makes the same analisys between the x2 4000 and the 950 but somewhat different results:
Anand's comclusion on various benchmarks:
DIVx: DivX performance is extremely strong with the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and 3800+, but once again we see absolutely no performance difference between the two CPUs. Both AMD offerings are able to significantly outperform the Pentium D 950.
WME9:The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ manages to pull slightly ahead of the 3800+, but the two are basically tied. The Pentium D 950 is far more competitive in the WME9 test but isn't tangibly faster than the X2 4000+
Gaming - Oblivion: As we saw in our Oblivion CPU comparison, this game really favors AMD's K8 architecture for all of its strengths and severely penalizes the Pentium D for its NetBurst roots. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ does continue to hold a performance advantage over the 3800+, but it isn't as large in Oblivion as we've seen in the previous two games.
I can say the differences between these sites are totaly outrageous. Anandtech compares the x2 4000 with the 950 and finds it is equal if not better in certain tasks, and Tomshardware says the Pentium wins 30 out of 35 benches. Honestly it is obvious that one of them either posted fake results or ran optimised benches wich questions their credibility.
I thank the ones that managed to read this post and I'm asking you: what do you think? Are we suppose to benchmark ourselfes the CPUs before deciding what to buy?