X2 5000+ or E6600?

[49ers540]

A cheap X2 does make a lot of sense for a single core S939 owner.

I agree, for example I was thinking about X2 3800+. Anyway it is the same case Pentium D singe/dual cores. But when building a new rig, 5000+ is a CPU for loosers

But wait, Baron Matrix is going to buy a X2-5000? :lol:


No I want an AM2 4x4 at 2.6GHz. SO I guess I want

TWO

What's wrong, awesome benchies of conroe won't make you switch?
Conroe rocks, so cool, sooooooooooooo quite! :lol:

 

[symbi0nt]

A cheap X2 does make a lot of sense for a single core S939 owner.

I agree, for example I was thinking about X2 3800+. Anyway it is the same case Pentium D singe/dual cores. But when building a new rig, 5000+ is a CPU for loosers

But wait, Baron Matrix is going to buy a X2-5000? :lol:


No I want an AM2 4x4 at 2.6GHz. SO I guess I want

TWO

I thought that only worked with the FX series on the 4x4?

 

[ryder_22]

Okay, I've asked this question other times but havn't got a straight answer. Is Intel planning to do the 4x4 concept with Conroe? If not, wouldn't 2 Am2 x2 4600+'s beat a Conroe 6700? both amd cpus work out to being cheaper. AMD seems a good route to go when thinking about future upgrades. Any thought, or will 4x4 not be the gaming thing for quite some time?

 

[CoolChill]

When we take average of all benchmarks 5000+ can fight neck to neck with E6600. 60USD difference is good enough for you to choose 5000+. Other interesting thing which most of the people dont know is--- Your AM2 mobo will be compatable to AMD's upcoming AM3 (K8L) desktops in 2007. It is no rocket science that K8L will beat Core confortably. It gives you good upgrade path to next generation with minimal distruction.

Given sum of all averages, I think you should bet on 5000+ AM2.
1. 60USD Difference
2. Equal performance with E6600
3. Future proof.

 

[BaronMatrix]

A cheap X2 does make a lot of sense for a single core S939 owner.

I agree, for example I was thinking about X2 3800+. Anyway it is the same case Pentium D singe/dual cores. But when building a new rig, 5000+ is a CPU for loosers

But wait, Baron Matrix is going to buy a X2-5000? :lol:


No I want an AM2 4x4 at 2.6GHz. SO I guess I want

TWO

I thought that only worked with the FX series on the 4x4?



I don't care what hey call it as long I can get two for not more than the price of 5000+. I didn't tell them to drop the price that much. No way would I buy for more than $400 apiece. Since i have a whole system I'll just be buyign the mobo chips, and RAM. I'll probably buy some of the RAM along the way.

So around XMas I should get a nice present like 80% faster compiles (just a guess). teh ability to run even more VMs and still play games. I guess AMD kept my business for awhile longer. Mostly because I just bought a system I couldn't be happier with.

Well, last Fall but it's still got a nother year. Only 4x4 would make me upgrade from 939. FX60 will be bargain basement soon. that's a nice upgrade from 4400+.

Anyway, the other thing about Core 2 is good mobos. The few nVidia releases will go so fast they won't have time to tell you the price went up.

Intel is promising a million chips in 7 weeks but that's almost 2 months.

 

[Ycon]

Your business? You mean Microsoft?

 

[gOJDO]

When we take average of all benchmarks 5000+ can fight neck to neck with E6600.

The 5000+ can compete with and will be beaten by the E6400. It will be beaten further if both are overclocked to the max. The E6400 is less expencive than the 5000+ and the DDR2-800 CL3 required by the sAM2 K8 is much more expencive than the DDR2-667 CL5 required by C2D. The C2D system is faster and better value for the money.
About compatibility, don't forget that the quadcore C2D-Kentsfield and the 45nm derivates of both will be compatible with Conroe mainboards.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Your business? You mean Microsoft?

When you buy from a company they get your business. AMD will continue to get mine.

 

[elbert]

Okay, I've asked this question other times but havn't got a straight answer. Is Intel planning to do the 4x4 concept with Conroe? If not, wouldn't 2 Am2 x2 4600+'s beat a Conroe 6700? both amd cpus work out to being cheaper. AMD seems a good route to go when thinking about future upgrades. Any thought, or will 4x4 not be the gaming thing for quite some time?

First let me state that its fuzzy if the X2's will even work on the 4X4. The released information AMD gave stated current FX CPU's will only work. Thats not to say now current or future X2 CPU's want but the X2 4600+ was released at that time so it shouldn't.

In the server business you'll see that most of the time theres a 80% increase when doubling the number of CPU's cores. This should hold true for the 4X4 but the X6800 has a good 30% advantage going over all AMD CPU's. The X2 4600+ is about 20% slower than the FX62 so, unless Intel releases its 3.33Ghz X6900, the 2 X2 4600+ should have about a 30% advantage.
.
2 X2 4600+ on a dual mobo in theory would beat all Core 2 duo's in multithreaded programs. Currently games are not multithreaded so the current top 3 Core 2 duo's would beat the 2 X2 4600+ in games by up to the same 50%.

Next year the new games will be multithreaded and then its win all for the top platform.

 

[BaronMatrix]

When we take average of all benchmarks 5000+ can fight neck to neck with E6600.

The 5000+ can compete with and will be beaten by the E6400. It will be beaten further if both are overclocked to the max. The E6400 is less expencive than the 5000+ and the DDR2-800 CL3 required by the sAM2 K8 is much more expencive than the DDR2-667 CL5 required by C2D. The C2D system is faster and better value for the money.
About compatibility, don't forget that the quadcore C2D-Kentsfield and the 45nm derivates of both will be compatible with Conroe mainboards.


You sound like some desperate psycho who has 3 days to sell a million Core 2s.

You wll not change anyone's mind about their purchase. Be happy that they have what they want.

Thereis NO VISIBLE difference between 105fps and 120fps. If you sit around burning DVDs onto your PC you're an idiot - unless your LCD si bigger than your TV.

If you sit at home beating off to SuperPi scores, then you're worse offthan I thought.

Even Tom says ALL CHIPS EXCEPT FX62 has met the price/performance of Intel.
There are at least 23 mobos on newegg for AM2 UNDER $100. At least 10 are under $75.


Only 4 are over $150. There are 38 total


The Core 2 selection is 7. all of them are over $100. So in order for Intel to reach the same price they have to drop their prices so mobos won't break the bank.

Did I mention that nearly ALL OF the AM2 mobos were SLI or CrossFire? AMD now wins at price/perf for the most part.

good SLI AM2 mobo - $100
AM2 5000+ - ~$350


good Core 2 SLI mobo - $249
Core 2 6600 - ~$325


As you can see, you save money going with AM2. It will be that way until mobos start to drop in price.


So you're precious Core 2 is NOT THE price/perf leader anymore. Anands latest tests show 6600 and 5000+ NECK and NECK with a $125 cheaper mobo/CPU price in favor of the CPU. Everything else is the same and for those with problems that will more than pay for CAS 4 800. So there.

To the OP:
Dude get the chip you want no matter which one it is.

 

[rahul_cracker]

Ok hi there .If you are getting a new system go for core 2 (AMD can't beat it ) but if you have a older rig (dont mind older it's relative ) get AMD for a gamer nothing less than core 2 ,but if you can wait you will get a cheaper MOBO and intel chip ,at least try and wait rather than fell sorry later (about 6 month's from now ).

 

[Robteam70]

When we take average of all benchmarks 5000+ can fight neck to neck with E6600. 60USD difference is good enough for you to choose 5000+. Other interesting thing which most of the people dont know is--- Your AM2 mobo will be compatable to AMD's upcoming AM3 (K8L) desktops in 2007. It is no rocket science that K8L will beat Core confortably. It gives you good upgrade path to next generation with minimal distruction.

Given sum of all averages, I think you should bet on 5000+ AM2.
1. 60USD Difference
2. Equal performance with E6600
3. Future proof.

You are delusional if you think the 5000+ is anywhere near the E6600. What becnhmarks have you been reading? The E6600 destroys fx-62s, so how would the 5000+ compete? Sounds like you're living in an AMD fanboy fantasy world.

Go with the E6600, it is much faster and runs a lot cooler.

 

[superwoofer]

Im planning to build a whole new comp this summer, and i wanted to share the specs so you guys can tell me what to change so here it is. Athlon64 x2 5000 512k , amd64 asus m2n32 ws-pro Maxtor atlas 15 k 68p, corsair 800 mhz ddr2 2048 twinx pro, thermaltake 750w toughpower sli, asus radeon rad extreme ax1900xtx. it all adds up to $2500 canadian and I want it only for gaming/porn, "dont we all". Soooo can any1 tell me whats wrong with this system and what should I change it to for around the same price range. thanks

 

[lcandy]

When we take average of all benchmarks 5000+ can fight neck to neck with E6600. 60USD difference is good enough for you to choose 5000+. Other interesting thing which most of the people dont know is--- Your AM2 mobo will be compatable to AMD's upcoming AM3 (K8L) desktops in 2007. It is no rocket science that K8L will beat Core confortably. It gives you good upgrade path to next generation with minimal distruction.

Given sum of all averages, I think you should bet on 5000+ AM2.
1. 60USD Difference
2. Equal performance with E6600
3. Future proof.

lol £20 difference in the uk, significantly better performance for the E6600, as future compatable as AM2 is, cheaper all round system when you factor in needing considerably more expensive ram to make the 5000+ do it's best.

If you are building a new system, the E6600 is by far the better choice. This is not a debatable point, despite some peoples efforts.

 

[ConsciousTech]

Im planning to build a whole new comp this summer, and i wanted to share the specs so you guys can tell me what to change so here it is. Athlon64 x2 5000 512k , amd64 asus m2n32 ws-pro Maxtor atlas 15 k 68p, corsair 800 mhz ddr2 2048 twinx pro, thermaltake 750w toughpower sli, asus radeon rad extreme ax1900xtx. it all adds up to $2500 canadian and I want it only for gaming/porn, "dont we all". Soooo can any1 tell me whats wrong with this system and what should I change it to for around the same price range. thanks

You haven't been reading the thread have you? Swap out the Athlon64 x2 5000+ for the C2D E6600. The performance between the two is worth the extra $100 for the mobo in a full system build. Other then that you might want a secondary HD for purely storage since all you did is game and pr0n which use up a lot of space.

EDIT: Oh yeh and I'm not big on ATI but from what I've heard OC'n XT models of their video cards to XTX standards is very economical.

 

[superwoofer]

Im planning to build a whole new comp this summer, and i wanted to share the specs so you guys can tell me what to change so here it is. Athlon64 x2 5000 512k , amd64 asus m2n32 ws-pro Maxtor atlas 15 k 68p, corsair 800 mhz ddr2 2048 twinx pro, thermaltake 750w toughpower sli, asus radeon rad extreme ax1900xtx. it all adds up to $2500 canadian and I want it only for gaming/porn, "dont we all". Soooo can any1 tell me whats wrong with this system and what should I change it to for around the same price range. thanks

You haven't been reading the thread have you? Swap out the Athlon64 x2 5000+ for the C2D E6600. The performance between the two is worth the extra $100 for the mobo in a full system build. Other then that you might want a secondary HD for purely storage since all you did is game and pr0n which use up a lot of space. Ya I was just reading up on the e6600 and it looks nice, but should i get the 6700 for a couple hundred more? And what would you recomend for a mobo if I get it?

 

[kukito]

Okay, I've asked this question other times but havn't got a straight answer. Is Intel planning to do the 4x4 concept with Conroe? If not, wouldn't 2 Am2 x2 4600+'s beat a Conroe 6700? both amd cpus work out to being cheaper. AMD seems a good route to go when thinking about future upgrades. Any thought, or will 4x4 not be the gaming thing for quite some time?

Not that I'm aware of, but they will have Kentsfield out around the time 4X4 is released. That's Intel's answer. The only valid comparisons will be between a four core 4X4 or a four core Kentsfield.

 

[superwoofer]

God now that ive set my heart on an x2 5000 i read up on this e6600 then I look at test and bs. and now im more confused than ever, maybe ill just get BOTH ANd BUILD 2 computers, that will solve it!!!! some tests I read say that x2 5000 is better for future proofing, and the e6600 is better at gaming....but then the test was only done with a single x1900xtx so im not sure who would win the gaming end with crossfire. anyone know? all I care about is maxing out my vid settings in games for the next 2 years.

 

[chuckshissle]

I pick the E6600, I got nothing against AMD or X2 5000 but the E6600 runs faster, bigger L2 cache and runs cooler which makes up a great cpu for gaming.

 

[AntiHax0r]

I convinced a friend to choose C2D over AM2 ^^ newsystem build

-" Yup, I broke to the overwhelming power that is Core 2. I am designing a machien around a 6600, i picked that cuz its where the 4mb Cache starts. So feel happy, you got me."

 

[redwolfexr]

Heh, I am pretty much building 2 machines.

I have usually kept 2 machines at a time and it usually ends up being one Intel and one AMD since I DIY the AMDs and seem to either have money OR time but not both. (overtime does that) Well, three machines counting the pentium m "work" laptop...

This time I am getting rid of my Intel gaming rig and replacing it with an X2 5000+ based machine mainly because I like the M2N-32 SLI board and the 590 chipset for what this pc will *eventually* become -- a replacement for my current AMD XP 2600+ server. (with an internal wireless I can direct connect to with the laptop as well as build in RAID5)

In a few months when the Intel boards mature I will start looking again to make my gaming machine. (the video/audio cards as well as the extra 2g of memory work on either Conroe or x2) Heard there were a few really nice boards in the pipeline for the Conroe, but not really happy with the current ones.

Intel's chipsets $*%k, and the current alternatives aren't quite ready for prime time. I suspect it will be 2-3 months before good supplies of decent boards are out there.

I agree with Tom, the price/performance if you aren't making a super gamer are comparable. Its probably slightly toward AMD right now in the low/mid mainly because the markups on the Conroes have been a bit more than the markups on the A64 X2s. Not by much either way.

My (2.54g RDRAM-based) intel box is well past its retirement, but my current server is still making it -- just want to convert it to RAID5. Lost a large storage drive last year that wasn't "worth" backing up but I sometimes miss its contents. Everyones situation is different -- with both AM2s and Conroes using interchangable memory/audio/video its no hassle to convert a gamer to a server.

 

[ethernalite]

Even Tom says ALL CHIPS EXCEPT FX62 has met the price/performance of Intel.

That's all great and dandy... if you don't want the best chips on the market. You are right: AMD can compete in the mainstream segment with their dualcore processors. AMD has matched the $149-300 market. However, if you want the best performance, you must now go with Intel. Their high-end mainstream processor does, afterall, beat AMD's enthuasist processor. What Intel has done is push all of AMD's processors, effectively, into the mid-level mainstream market. (I would call mainstream ~$125-$300).

If you buy the most expensive AMD, you are still a full three tiers "from the top" (E6600, E6700, X6800).

Thereis NO VISIBLE difference between 105fps and 120fps. If you sit around burning DVDs onto your PC you're an idiot - unless your LCD si bigger than your TV.

Wow, how you flipflop. You always babble on about how you do "intense computing" and how you need all the computing power in the world. Especially "intense multitasking", which is why you shunned the Conroe at first - it was supposed to get "killed" in multitasking.

And now you say you don't need more processing power? And the line where "too much processing power" is crossed is magically the 5000+? What a lucky coincidence!


And as far as you rambling on about motherboards, you're right. They're expensive right now: two days after Core 2 Duo was released. I feel confident that, within a month's time, we will see many sub-$100 Core 2 Duo motherboards.

 

[ninjaquick]

Bigger cache=bigger die
bigger die=more expensive
intels have bigger caches cause they used to need it (cause of their cpu frequency to ra frequency barrier) and now, at the lower frequencies, it is almost unnecesarry to have such a big cache, is just a marketing thing: you see, intel relies on ppl who think bigger caches are better, thats their primary market, ppl who dont know what a cache is for and whatnot. and look into the future: how long are you planning on sticking with this build, are you willing to spend the $xxx for the conroe mobo, and are you planning on usiing vista (Microsoft preffers AMD over Intel...)

its just complicated and time will tell what the best buy is. just wait a little longer, until your current pc is no longer working/running(what ever it might be that you run on it)...

iite thats it.

 

[clue69less]

What Intel has done is push all of AMD's processors, effectively, into the mid-level mainstream market.

That's it precisely. The good stuff is now so fast, I'm guessing that most users can't even tell the difference unless they run a synthetic benchmark.

I feel confident that, within a month's time, we will see many sub-$100 Core 2 Duo motherboards.

I'll be interested to see how the price drops go for the best-performing C2D mobos and DDR2. Within a year, they will practically be giving great rigs away.

 

[Mex]

Bigger cache=bigger die
bigger die=more expensive
intels have bigger caches cause they used to need it (cause of their cpu frequency to ra frequency barrier) and now, at the lower frequencies, it is almost unnecesarry to have such a big cache, is just a marketing thing: you see, intel relies on ppl who think bigger caches are better, thats their primary market, ppl who dont know what a cache is for and whatnot. and look into the future: how long are you planning on sticking with this build, are you willing to spend the $xxx for the conroe mobo, and are you planning on usiing vista (Microsoft preffers AMD over Intel...)

its just complicated and time will tell what the best buy is. just wait a little longer, until your current pc is no longer working/running(what ever it might be that you run on it)...

iite thats it.

Wow, where to start...first, I'm no expert, but here's my take on this:

CPU cache is not a marketing tool, frequency is. CPU cache is expensive to implement, which means that Intel wouldn't just throw it around willy-nilly, because that wastes money. A large, unneccesary cache is just a waste of money, and as you said, contributes to a bigger die size, which makes the CPU even more expensive to manufacture. I think companies would rather keep cache size to a minimum in order to maximize yields. Therefore, cache is not a marketing tool.

The reason Intel uses large caches is to compensate for the lack of an integrated memory controller. AMD uses this along with HyperTransport to create a direct high bandwith, low latency pathway between the CPU and memory. Intel must use the FSB and the northbridge to access memory, which means that memory access is slower, plus it has to deal with limited bandwith. Intel compensates by using large caches and constantly keeping them filled. That way, the CPU only has to go as far as the L2/L3 to find data. Along with an intelligent prediction system, the CPU usually has the needed data stored on die before it needs it, allowing Intel to stay competitive with AMD's better solution (At least, I think it is).

The problem is that this is a finite solution, and Intel realizes it. On Tukwila, a next-gen Itanium, Intel is supposed to implement a IMC and CSI, their answer to HyperTransport.

...Alright people, hurry up and flame me already.