In isolation, the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ EE is a decent processor. However, simply put, it's time for a much-needed update to AMD's K8 architecture. We know that it's coming later this year, but in our opinion, it can't happen soon enough. K8 has been great over the years, but AMD just can't get to high enough frequencies to compete with Intel at the moment. If you're looking to build a new system then the choice is quite a clear one; unless you already own a socket AM2 motherboard, Intel's Core 2 Duo processors are a much better choice.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/review/2007/01/18/AMD-Athlon-64-X2-5000-EE-65nm-/p1

Well, I for one think AMD made a hell of a run.  And they are starting to show up in Dell computers, for them, that is success.  My last two systems were built on AMD and even though I am getting ready to build again, I am still considering AMD first.  No, they are not as fast as Core 2 Duo, but they are fast.... and they have proven they can compete with Intel.  Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Intel and will likely build an Intel based system again... AMD just impressed me, and like in sports, since I am a Chicago fan and rarely see my team in any playoff situation (I am still glowing from the White Sox in the 2005 WS)... unless I am cheering for my team, it is for the underdog.

(in reply to cadoo)

I'm using AMD processors for 7 years. Didn't have any problems with them. Beside reliabilty, their price is always 50% cheaper than similar Intel processors.
Maybe Intel got fastest processor but generally AMD is better choice for me.

(in reply to SithTracy)

I think it helps that nVidia and ATI (now AMD) make outstanding chipsets for the AMD architecture.  Now that ATI is in the AMD tool box I am watching this with great interest.  I'm already considering my next box to be Crossfire based.... though I doubt I will run dual video cards anytime soon.  I never did with SLI.

(in reply to cadoo)