First, I think the Cool & Quiet thing is a minor bit. Second, Intel using their own "Custom" ATI drivers is a bit of a deal.
Third, a motherboard that doesn't recognize the processor sucks. In fact, you basically only get support out of 1 core in a dual core setup. Fourth, AMD does need to fix the deal with the memory controller. Fifth, yeah, it is weird that using the same tests that Intel did, a 4000+ (non-dual core) gets basically identical benchmarks to Intel's Conroe. It makes you wonder what the hell went on in that test. >- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save >power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be >running as low as 800MHz in certain programs - no matter what the program >is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games >but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & >Quiet >enabled unless it's a fanless machine or media center. It should be enabled as that is what most PC's will use. It's a great feature. We're talking decimal point performance differences with it on. And how do you disabled Intel's throttling? >Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in >the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) >at IDF. Scores that close I consider identical. The real drama in this ongoing AMD vs Intel saga should be over the AM2 mess - it is not going well and either the DDR2 performance stinks or the memory controller is buggy and reverts to a speed slower than DDR2-667.
