NightStriker

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
40
0
18,530
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.
 

vsamaco

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
105
0
18,680
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.
 

ELB

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2006
80
0
18,640
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.
 

NightStriker

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
40
0
18,530
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.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
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.
 

ELB

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2006
80
0
18,640
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
 

Eviltwin17

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2006
520
0
18,990
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.
 

dougie_boy

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2006
596
0
18,990
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.
 

kamel5547

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
585
0
18,990
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.
 

RichPLS

Champion
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:
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
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.
 

ArbY

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2004
346
0
18,780
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:
 
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.

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.

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.
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
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
 

RichPLS

Champion
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:
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
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.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
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
 

gOJDO

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2006
2,309
1
19,780
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:
 

mickeddie

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2004
750
0
18,990
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?
 

AntiHax0r

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2005
185
0
18,680
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.
 
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.
 

aj6065

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
142
0
18,680
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.
 

aj6065

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
142
0
18,680
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.
 

ReliReli

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2006
55
0
18,630
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.