amd is not better for games, not for a long time... you won't find
any benchmark/fps charts that back that up anymore, in fact i'd be pretty flabbergasted to see AMD in any kind of major advantage:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/ ... age14.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/ ... age15.html
6600 is the alternative to the AMD you chose, which is proving to be a solid 10fps in the gaming benchmarks (at all sites); doesn't seem like a lot to some people, but down the line that's the difference between tolerable and unplayable so its quite important for a geek freak like me
I am upgrading from an athlon64, which was an upgrade from athlonXP; I think continuing the amd trend for me would have stung me. thankfully i have no brand loyalty, and have ditched nvidia, ati, amd and intel on different occasions.
That "its better for games" was applicable only about half a decade ago, when AMD had a better single core setup for gaming with its XP range; ever since core duo a couple of years back they are being trounced.
Not to mention AMD bugs for games like Total War and BioShock; amd are becoming a huge turn off. The whole ATI thing could be a disaster too if they neglect Nvidia (who are a better alternative to ATI imo, especially with their stronger drivers).
My 2 cents anyway, just surprised you picked AMD given the current trouncing intel is giving it, even in games these days. Its not to say amd is terrible but its X2 range just isn't competing like the XP range did back in the day
Shame really.
Outside of gaming, i chose intel for my laptop too because their mobile chips run faster, on less power and producing less heat. That's why you see so many of them now in the market.
AMD is competing only by slashing prices quite significantly, which is costing them a big slice of profits this time round. Back in the radeon days, ati + amd were the combo to go for, but its a long time ago now