Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X2 5000+ or E6600?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 27, 2006 11:44:38 PM

Ok here is my dilema should I get a X2 5000+ or a E6600, here is the deal.

Athlon 64 X2 5000+ = $309 at buy.com ( lowest price I could find )
Only has 1mb TOTAl l2 cache thow! How important is L2 cache?

E6600 = $360!! at tigerdirect 4MB total L2 cache.

Both products are out of stock everywhere I look.

More about : 5000 e6600

July 27, 2006 11:55:28 PM

Are you starting from scratch? or reusing hardware?

Have you seen benchmarks of e6600? I doubt cache between these two cpu matter...

Is money an issue for you?

Do you mind waiting another week for a conroe?

e6600 @ td is oem (no fan/heatsink)... Waiting another week, you can get it at zipzoomfly for $339 retail version.
July 27, 2006 11:55:34 PM

I'm no scholar when it comes to these chips, but I've read enough reviews in the past few days to say, "Forget talk of L2 cache, that E6600 is just plain faster."

The tests are conclusive: in challenge after challenge, the E6600 topped AMD's finest, and that X2 5000+ isn't AMD's finest. I must say here that I'm referring mainly to performance in games, which is what matters to me -- for other uses, I expect you'd see similar results, but I can't say for certain.

Furthermore, the Core 2s (E6600) are said to run far cooler than the AMD's, and also much quieter, which is always nice. The cooler part, in addition to who knows what else in that chip's architecture, means that the Core 2s have been shown to be phenomenal overclockers, so if overclocking is something you do or would consider, it appears there is, again, no contest.

The only logical reason I can see for picking up that 5000+ now or in the near future is that the price has been said, in various publications, to be on the way further down. So while the E6600 is likely to run you about $335-$360 now, I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't pick up a 5000+ for about $280 soon.

That said, is something like $50-$80 difference worth it to you?

Of course, I'm biased, I just ordered an E6600 today, but that bias is the result of the overwhelming evidence out there now that Intel has the performance war licked...for now.
Related resources
July 27, 2006 11:58:21 PM

I know the E6600 is better but it is also more exspensive AND less available I suspect I could get ahold of a 5000+ sooner than a Core 2.
July 28, 2006 12:02:21 AM

Quote:
Ok here is my dilema should I get a X2 5000+ or a E6600, here is the deal.

Athlon 64 X2 5000+ = $309 at buy.com ( lowest price I could find )
Only has 1mb TOTAl l2 cache thow! How important is L2 cache?

E6600 = $360!! at tigerdirect 4MB total L2 cache.

Both products are out of stock everywhere I look.


The only advantage for 5000+ is that IF you can get it the mobo will be cheap. For the 5000+ you can get a barebones from MonarchComputer, but they are nowhere to be found in retail like I thought.

Truthfully for most of the things people do with PCs you don't need that much power (5000+ OR 6300). The 4600+ is a great chip and you can easily run the bus at 210 with the stock retail heatsink.

I couldn't even find Core 2 on PriceWatch this morning. There were a few last night but that's it. The even bigger problem with Core 2 right now is selection of mobos. They're in demand and few so they cost an arm and a leg unless you get the 2MB version swhich can work in older mobos. The problem there is you still can't upgrade just the chip.

AM2 has tons of mobos right now and every other chip including the FX62 is available in retail. The 5000+ is system builders only for awhile.
July 28, 2006 12:14:30 AM

Honestly, unless all these online stores are messing with us, I don't see you having difficulty getting a Core 2 E6600. A good number of folks on these forums have already had shipping to them confirmed by Tiger Direct (with tracking numbers, etc.). And the guy I bought from at Tiger Direct today said mine would be on its way to me on Monday -- he even used the word "guaranteed" (which wouldn't be worth much, except that I've heard, again from posters here, that TD is reliable). And many others are saying their supply will be in next week, and quoting hard numbers to boot, so unless you can't wait a week, I genuinely believe you'll have your Core 2 if you want it.

- ELB
July 28, 2006 12:43:55 AM

if you are building a complete new system then go with the 6600, if you are stuck with amd because you already have an amd system get the 5000. Either way you are still getting a nice processor.
July 28, 2006 12:55:35 AM

Quote:

Only has 1mb TOTAl l2 cache thow! How important is L2 cache?


VERY

go into bios and disable ur L2 cache and try to load windows. it will take forever and a day. if u even get there.

L2 cache is impnt and thats why its a premium on the CPU.

e.g. semperons = 256k of l2 cache
FX-62 = 2mb.

its where the CPU stores the bulk of the intrutions for it to prosess. its a preimium and thats why AMD has slashed it on the latest models tryin to keep price and size down. its therefore a reason.

also the X2 has 2 seperate caches where the conroe has 1 unified cache. it all helps the conroe to be faster off the mark.
July 28, 2006 1:21:46 AM

Quote:

Only has 1mb TOTAl l2 cache thow! How important is L2 cache?


VERY

go into bios and disable ur L2 cache and try to load windows. it will take forever and a day. if u even get there.

L2 cache is impnt and thats why its a premium on the CPU.

e.g. semperons = 256k of l2 cache
FX-62 = 2mb.

its where the CPU stores the bulk of the intrutions for it to prosess. its a preimium and thats why AMD has slashed it on the latest models tryin to keep price and size down. its therefore a reason.

also the X2 has 2 seperate caches where the conroe has 1 unified cache. it all helps the conroe to be faster off the mark.

Um... its importantance is based on the architecture of the CPU... hence AMD's CPU's with lower cache were killing the old Netburst chips, you cannot compare different CPU architectures based on cache you simply have to evaluate on archtecture against another as a whole.

As far as the AMD thing goes doubling the cache size really didn't make a big difference in performance... thus the decision to simply up the operating speed and have one level of cache....

I don't disagree that Core2 is far superior, I jsut think your reasoning for it is flawed.
July 28, 2006 1:28:21 AM

Quote:
if you are building a complete new system then go with the 6600, if you are stuck with amd because you already have an amd system get the 5000. Either way you are still getting a nice processor.


How does having an AMD machine help make a case for AMD now?

Either way he needs a mobo and memory at minimum, which knocks AMD out of the running leaving the only choices being one of these... E6300/E6400/E6600
Anyone who just bought an AM2 PC surely would not come here asking what to upgrade to now that they have a 2 month old PC... :roll: And if they did, then definitely DO NOT BUY AMD AGAIN!!! :twisted:
July 28, 2006 1:36:59 AM

When comparing Core 2 and K8 in terms of perfromance, power efficiency and price or any relation performance/price or performance/power, Core 2 chips are better than K8 about everything.
Only noobz or AMD fan-extremists will go after K8.
July 28, 2006 1:50:02 AM

Quote:
Only noobz or AMD fan-extremists will go after K8.


A cheap X2 does make a lot of sense for a single core S939 owner.
July 28, 2006 1:57:46 AM

Quote:
Only noobz or AMD fan-extremists will go after K8.


Umm ... or people on a tight budget who don't need "ub3r 1e3t" gaming FPS.
With AMD prices falling, their price to performance ratio in comparison to Intel's is almost even. Read.

The AMD performance isn't dismal, but it's less than that of the C2D performances.

:roll:
July 28, 2006 1:58:19 AM

Quote:
go into bios and disable ur L2 cache and try to load windows. it will take forever and a day. if u even get there.

True but with limit space on a CPU you can also have to much cache.

Quote:
L2 cache is impnt and thats why its a premium on the CPU.

e.g. semperons = 256k of l2 cache
FX-62 = 2mb.

True again but the X2's have show that 200Mhz over make up the difference from 512K to 1Mb as the X2 4200 with 512K and the X2 4400 with 1Mb. The 2 CPU's have equal Gigahertz but the X2 4600 only has 512K with a 200MHz increase over the X2 4200.

Quote:
its where the CPU stores the bulk of the intrutions for it to prosess. its a preimium and thats why AMD has slashed it on the latest models tryin to keep price and size down. its therefore a reason.

should be costs, as AMD has to pay for the extra materials and labor total, but you assertion is correct.

How important is cache doesn't have an easy answer as it depends totally on how well its used. How much room cache will take away from the rest of the design space and or create heat is another consideration. Price, we as consumers will have to pay, is another important issue as 24Mb Xeon's costing over $10000 isnt going to sale. Cache is only important till a X2 5000+ beats a FX-60 on some benchmarks.

AMD place an importants on atleast have 512K per core on its X2 line. AMD place an importants on have 1MB of cache per core on its FX line. Intel place an importants on atleast having 1MB per core on ther E6300 and E6400. Intel place an importants on having 2MB of cache per core on its E6600, E6700, and X6800. I guess its important to stay around those amounts of cache for those CPU designs.

A faster CPU may need more cache unless the design changes.
July 28, 2006 2:10:44 AM

Quote:
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
July 28, 2006 2:13:47 AM

Quote:
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? :wink: :lol: 
July 28, 2006 2:17:17 AM

Quote:
Umm ... or people on a tight budget who don't need "ub3r 1e3t" gaming FPS.
With AMD prices falling, their price to performance ratio in comparison to Intel's is almost even. Read.

The AMD performance isn't dismal, but it's less than that of the C2D performances.

:roll:

I disagree. For example the E6600 is outperforming FX-62. The FX-62 is more than twice more expencive than the E6600.
I don't play games and I have K8 becouse it was better bang for the buck when I bought it. Soon it will be replaced with E6600, ATi RD600 & DDR2-800 CL5.
July 28, 2006 2:18:42 AM

Quote:
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? :wink: :lol: 


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

TWO
July 28, 2006 2:20:42 AM

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

Sure, but he will buy two of them and he will make some black voodoo magic to put them in 4x4 and enable the ReverseBull$h1tting :roll: :lol: 
July 28, 2006 2:24:05 AM

Quote:
Are you starting from scratch? or reusing hardware?

Have you seen benchmarks of e6600? I doubt cache between these two cpu matter...

Is money an issue for you?

Do you mind waiting another week for a conroe?

e6600 @ td is oem (no fan/heatsink)... Waiting another week, you can get it at zipzoomfly for $339 retail version.


This will be my first time buying a CPU. The retail version comes with heatsink/fan? I thought I would have to buy one on my own. If they do come with heatsink/fan why buy a different one?
July 28, 2006 2:28:39 AM

Not to mention that even AMD's top CPU needs high speed/low latency DDR2 ram to be near as fast as the Core2s which can utilize low speed DDR2 ram.
July 28, 2006 2:31:06 AM

Quote:
Are you starting from scratch? or reusing hardware?

Have you seen benchmarks of e6600? I doubt cache between these two cpu matter...

Is money an issue for you?

Do you mind waiting another week for a conroe?

e6600 @ td is oem (no fan/heatsink)... Waiting another week, you can get it at zipzoomfly for $339 retail version.


This will be my first time buying a CPU. The retail version comes with heatsink/fan? I thought I would have to buy one on my own. If they do come with heatsink/fan why buy a different one?
Overclocking, just wanting your CPU to run cooler and quieter, or just wanting to do it yourself take your pick.
July 28, 2006 2:43:33 AM

Quote:

Only has 1mb TOTAl l2 cache thow! How important is L2 cache?


VERY

go into bios and disable ur L2 cache and try to load windows. it will take forever and a day. if u even get there.

L2 cache is impnt and thats why its a premium on the CPU.

e.g. semperons = 256k of l2 cache
FX-62 = 2mb.

its where the CPU stores the bulk of the intrutions for it to prosess. its a preimium and thats why AMD has slashed it on the latest models tryin to keep price and size down. its therefore a reason.

also the X2 has 2 seperate caches where the conroe has 1 unified cache. it all helps the conroe to be faster off the mark.

You're going to give him the impression that AMD is terrible compared to Intel simply because of the lower amount of cache. You can't compare cache between two brands, just like you can't compare pure gigahertz between two brands.
July 28, 2006 2:47:05 AM

I would definetely go with the E6600. Even if you buy the CPU and motherboard right now, when prices are high, it still wouldn't be too much more than an AMD setup. And you would also be getting some better performance, lower heat, and lower power consumption.
July 28, 2006 3:04:03 AM

E6600 all the way; it's the same model I'm going for. The price difference is negligible, especially when you consider overclocking performance which would render the price difference insignificant.

Heck, you could get a E63/6400 for a lot cheaper than a 5000+, plus they OC quite effortlessly beyond the former's performance. The L2 cache size CAN easily boost performance, or at the very least not hurt it. With a 1066MHz FSB, how can you go wrong?

*Fantasizes of an OC'ed E6600 liquid-cooled in a Koolance PC4-1036* Ohhhhhhh yeah, that's the good stuff.
July 28, 2006 3:07:34 AM

Quote:
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? :wink: :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: 
July 28, 2006 5:56:40 AM

Quote:
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? :wink: :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?
July 28, 2006 6:29:50 AM

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?
July 28, 2006 7:06:52 AM

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.
July 28, 2006 2:02:46 PM

Quote:
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? :wink: :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.
July 28, 2006 2:39:20 PM

Your business? You mean Microsoft?
July 28, 2006 3:48:25 PM

Quote:
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.
July 28, 2006 3:55:27 PM

Quote:
Your business? You mean Microsoft?



When you buy from a company they get your business. AMD will continue to get mine.
July 28, 2006 4:36:15 PM

Quote:
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.
July 28, 2006 4:49:18 PM

Quote:
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.
July 28, 2006 4:57:19 PM

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 ).
July 28, 2006 5:11:45 PM

Quote:
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.
July 29, 2006 9:41:33 PM

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
July 29, 2006 10:13:07 PM

Quote:
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.
July 29, 2006 10:27:28 PM

Quote:
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.
July 29, 2006 10:32:40 PM

Quote:
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?
July 29, 2006 10:46:03 PM

Quote:
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.
July 30, 2006 1:35:52 AM

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.
July 30, 2006 1:54:03 AM

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. :) 
July 30, 2006 2:46:25 AM

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."
July 30, 2006 2:53:22 AM

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. :) 
July 30, 2006 3:26:06 AM

Quote:
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).


Quote:

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.
July 30, 2006 3:51:04 AM

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.
July 30, 2006 4:01:49 AM

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
July 30, 2006 4:20:19 AM

Quote:
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.
!