X2 5000 unvieled!!!

[chuckshissle]

It's out, eerrr unvieled and Im wondering this new chip can smoke the FX60. Could be the answer to Intel's Conroe?

 

[Fungalberry]

Intel...sucks. Don't buy from them. Ever. If you really have the $xxxx to get a either the FX-60 or the X2 5000, go right ahead (and waste a LOT of cash). If you don't, however, go for the X2 4800+ and overclock it. It overclocks to 2.7 GHz on stock cooling, never above 50C. All for about $630.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

AMD Unveils Details about AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
AMD Publishes Specs for Unannounced Athlon 64 X2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060320235451.html


http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Socket 939
Cache Amount (Conflicting numbers in AMD document)
2600 MHz Operating Frequency


Will it beat a Athlon FX-60? It sounds like it IS an Athlon FX-60 but branded differently.

 

[CompGeek]

No,it's(or will be, i heard at AT that it will be released for 939 too) a FX 60 with less cache.
@Fungalberry Yet another fanboy. Intel OCs far better than AMD. Your statement fails. Cooling shouldn't be an issue for a good overclocker.

 

[RichPLS]

Spend less, overclock higher and increase your odds of reaching 2x3000MHz and get the Opteron 170, good odds getting 2x2800MHz on stock cooler.

 

[CompGeek]

I always thought it was going to have 2x512 kb.
Well i guess it's a poor man's FX

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

It's out

I believe that statement is not correct. Next time post your sources so we can go read for ourselves!

 

[chuckshissle]

Sorry, Im just excited I guess. So I've heard it's a poor man's FX60? How poor are we talking about here? Around $600 a piece?

 

[CompGeek]

I meant it's cheaper than a FX

 

[MU_Engineer]

There are a few funny things in the whitepaper. Apparently my 4200+ is the coolest-running dual-core they make- look at the TDP figures for the chips and you will see. It is very apparent at idle (1GHz) as it is well under 40W and all the others are over this. I would have assumed that the 4600+ or the 5000+ would have been better as the higher-clocked chips are supposed to be more efficient in their usage of power and generate less heat at the same frequency for the same cache size (hence that's why they are clocked higher- they can handle it without frying.)

Any thoughts as to why this is the case?

 

[MU_Engineer]

Okay, that sounds reasonable. And the reason why the 3800 runs hotter and slower is also due to gate leakage (but because of imperfectly-formed gates?)

 

[hashv2f16]

Intel...sucks. Don't buy from them. Ever. If you really have the $xxxx to get a either the FX-60 or the X2 5000, go right ahead (and waste a LOT of cash). If you don't, however, go for the X2 4800+ and overclock it. It overclocks to 2.7 GHz on stock cooling, never above 50C. All for about $630.

I should slap you.

We all know (or, should know) that Intel makes perfectly good stuff. Equally as good as anyone else's, depending on what they have out at the time and what tasks you are wanting to perform.

 

[mdd1963]

"....and Im wondering this new chip can smoke the FX60."

Nope, it won't....

On DDR2 rigs, it will be lucky to match the 939 X2/4800+, I'm betting!

 

[CompGeek]

It should beat a 4800X2. In fact it should be on par with the FX 60 with lack of quality( FX are simple more solid chips than X2s) and locked multipliers(?).

 

[RichPLS]

So it would be a little slower than an Opteron 185

 

[hashv2f16]

It's out, eerrr unvieled and Im wondering this new chip can smoke the FX60. Could be the answer to Intel's Conroe?

isn't this just a "200mhz overclocked" 4800+, one model above the highest current cpu in the X2 series? not based on any new core or anything is it?

 

[enewmen]

Can someone explain what the big deal is?
All X2 chips are currently very good anyway.
I only guess the x2-5000 is (at best) 4.1666% faster than the x2-4800
Also costing much more than 4 %

Sit tight and wait for the K10

 

[bront]

With the 512 chip, the 5000 X2 might OC better than the FX, though a locked multiplier may hurt that.

I'm happy with my 3800 X2 at 2.5 Ghz though.

 

[CompGeek]

Now that is the worst post ever. Congrats!

 

[sandmannight]

Intel...sucks. Don't buy from them. Ever. If you really have the $xxxx to get a either the FX-60 or the X2 5000, go right ahead (and waste a LOT of cash). If you don't, however, go for the X2 4800+ and overclock it. It overclocks to 2.7 GHz on stock cooling, never above 50C. All for about $630.

In fact just buy a opteron 165 at 1.8 and with good air cooling you can overclock it to 2.6 and I have heard with water cooling people get em to 2.8 and it is only 325 dollars compared to the 4800 which is like 600. Spend the extra cash on water cooling and overclock the crap out of it. It also has 1MBx2

 

[RichPLS]

Where is this mystery AMD 5000+ CPU???

Don't tell me AMD is so desperate as to release info on a processor not ready for market? Ohh, the shame!

 

[doomturkey]

Intel...sucks. Don't buy from them. Ever. If you really have the $xxxx to get a either the FX-60 or the X2 5000, go right ahead (and waste a LOT of cash). If you don't, however, go for the X2 4800+ and overclock it. It overclocks to 2.7 GHz on stock cooling, never above 50C. All for about $630.

I should slap you.

We all know (or, should know) that Intel makes perfectly good stuff. Equally as good as anyone else's, depending on what they have out at the time and what tasks you are wanting to perform.

Seeing as your name is hash, your avatar says marijuana, and you call your processor "celery", I'm not sure I can trust as to Intel's chips being "as good as anyone elses". He is a stoner and he likes intel...interesting correlation.

 

[theaxemaster]

I'd also bet that at least some of these are partially-failed FX-60's. I'm sure they got a few 60's with some bad cache. Seal it off, and bang, X2-5k.