Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM2 x2 4600+ EE or +5000+?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 8, 2006 2:43:00 AM

OK... i've planned on building my new system with an AM2 5000+ for a while now, but since it could be anywhere from less than a week, to more than a month until NCIX gets more i decided to look at the 4600+. Now this 4600 is actually an energy efficient version, which surpirsed me because i havn't seen any around before. So i looked at it and its 2.4ghz instead of 2.6 like the 5000, but i think this might actually be better since my corsair xms2 DDR 800 will be under clocked with the 5000. My plan to fix that problem was simply to overclock it to 2.8 and problem solved... however i just found out that the problem is based on odd number multipliers, and since the multiplier is locked i can't fix it that was. So since i was gonna overclock anyway, i'm starting to like this 4600 especially if i can get the better performance at 2.8ghz with less power consumption. Now my question is... will this be the case, will a 4600 EE perform better and take less power than 5000+ at 2.8?

sorry for this long rambling post but i'm feeling conflicted... and no i will not get a conroe so please don't try to convince me, its not because i think conroe sucks :wink:

More about : am2 4600 5000

August 8, 2006 2:50:05 AM

the 4600 would be fine for any system unless you really have your heart set on the 5000 then go for it but the GHz isn't worth the price, TRUST ME.

Also as far as i can remember the X2's arn't that great for OCing, i may be wrong though.

id like to know why you dont want to go conroe. they out proform the AMD chips with out breaking a sweat.
August 8, 2006 3:01:06 AM

Quote:
the 4600 would be fine for any system unless you really have your heart set on the 5000 then go for it but the GHz isn't worth the price, TRUST ME.

Also as far as i can remember the X2's arn't that great for OCing, i may be wrong though.

id like to know why you dont want to go conroe. they out proform the AMD chips with out breaking a sweat.


I'm pretty sure that this 4600 will overclock to 2.8 though i may be wrong, thats my question, whci processor will be better at 2.8ghz... or even at 2.6 considering the memory issue with the 5000. Also will the 4600 go crazy with power or still be energy efficient?

BTW i'm not going with conroe because i think AM2 has a better future, and i don't need that much power now, so i'll get this now, then get an AM3 processor later if all goes well 8)

also the prices arn't much different, the 5000+ is like 30 more than the 4600 CAD
Related resources
August 8, 2006 3:13:46 AM

ok, now i just found a review on x-bit saying these EE have lower voltage settings. Now i think that will hamper OCing, but maybe it will still OC to 2.8 or maybe 2.6. So here's an additional question, without considering power consumption(i'll consider that after) will a 4600 at 2.6 with fully clocked DDR2 800 outperform a 5000+ at 2.8 with DDR2 clocked 742?
August 8, 2006 3:24:29 AM

Quote:
OK... i've planned on building my new system with an AM2 5000+ for a while now, but since it could be anywhere from less than a week, to more than a month until NCIX gets more i decided to look at the 4600+. Now this 4600 is actually an energy efficient version, which surpirsed me because i havn't seen any around before. So i looked at it and its 2.4ghz instead of 2.6 like the 5000, but i think this might actually be better since my corsair xms2 DDR 800 will be under clocked with the 5000. My plan to fix that problem was simply to overclock it to 2.8 and problem solved... however i just found out that the problem is based on odd number multipliers, and since the multiplier is locked i can't fix it that was. So since i was gonna overclock anyway, i'm starting to like this 4600 especially if i can get the better performance at 2.8ghz with less power consumption. Now my question is... will this be the case, will a 4600 EE perform better and take less power than 5000+ at 2.8?

sorry for this long rambling post but i'm feeling conflicted... and no i will not get a conroe so please don't try to convince me, its not because i think conroe sucks :wink:


First DDR2 will run at the divisor, so when you turn up the bus to 220 it will divide by the same but the result will be more than 400MHz.(2860/7 = 408.5 )
Corsair 800Mhz is running at 1200. That's 600MHz. I think you'll be OK.

Second if you clock to 2.8 you will be second only to E6700 - up. I have found that EE chips are hard to get right now. If you can get one retail the retail HSF should take you to 2.8 for maybe a few bucks less.
August 8, 2006 3:26:06 AM

Ya i am just reading this stuff. I found a good review on x-bit. I found it looking on AMDzone, and they were trashing it for saying K8 is a failure, which it isn't, but anyway it turns out to be a good article with the exact info i was looking for.

x-bit benching 4600 and 3800 EE\

EDIT: now that i read further into this article they really do trash AMD, or at least are too harsh on them. They get the right info across, but convey it in a pitifull light, as if overclocking the 2.0ghz 3800+ EE to 2.55ghz on air is pitifull. Whatever... as long as you read between the lines you'll be alright :wink:
August 8, 2006 3:40:29 AM

Wow this is a stupid test.

NO SHAT X-BIT

of course if you DISABLE cool n' quiet the cpu won't be as effiecent... THAT'S THE POINT, and even then it still beats conroe.
August 8, 2006 8:23:55 AM

Quote:
Ya i am just reading this stuff. I found a good review on x-bit. I found it looking on AMDzone, and they were trashing it for saying K8 is a failure, which it isn't, but anyway it turns out to be a good article with the exact info i was looking for.

x-bit benching 4600 and 3800 EE\

EDIT: now that i read further into this article they really do trash AMD, or at least are too harsh on them. They get the right info across, but convey it in a pitifull light, as if overclocking the 2.0ghz 3800+ EE to 2.55ghz on air is pitifull. Whatever... as long as you read between the lines you'll be alright :wink:


Yeah, there nothing wrong with the EE processors, they perform as advertised, and kudos to AMD for answering the market with a lower power alternative --- I was thinking, and the jury is still out on this to an extent, that they were tweaking process parameters to churn out lower power chips -- I would have predicted the same way -- not great OCing, but the OC behavior in the xbitlabs report simply looks like a selection of higher bin parts simply down clocked and under volted at this point.

I am very anxious for the AnandTech EE review, I am hoping he gathers more data to be able to conclusively put this in the underclock/undervolt regime. I am certain Anand will have the data to get the answer.

JackThe Tech report gets the same results. These don't look like very overclockable chips.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/i...
August 8, 2006 12:00:07 PM

Quote:
Ya i am just reading this stuff. I found a good review on x-bit. I found it looking on AMDzone, and they were trashing it for saying K8 is a failure, which it isn't, but anyway it turns out to be a good article with the exact info i was looking for.

x-bit benching 4600 and 3800 EE\

EDIT: now that i read further into this article they really do trash AMD, or at least are too harsh on them. They get the right info across, but convey it in a pitifull light, as if overclocking the 2.0ghz 3800+ EE to 2.55ghz on air is pitifull. Whatever... as long as you read between the lines you'll be alright :wink:


Yeah, there nothing wrong with the EE processors, they perform as advertised, and kudos to AMD for answering the market with a lower power alternative --- I was thinking, and the jury is still out on this to an extent, that they were tweaking process parameters to churn out lower power chips -- I would have predicted the same way -- not great OCing, but the OC behavior in the xbitlabs report simply looks like a selection of higher bin parts simply down clocked and under volted at this point.

I am very anxious for the AnandTech EE review, I am hoping he gathers more data to be able to conclusively put this in the underclock/undervolt regime. I am certain Anand will have the data to get the answer.

JackThe Tech report gets the same results. These don't look like very overclockable chips.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/i...


Maybe they don't want them to OC. That means less business for the higher clocked chips. Can you say X6800?
August 8, 2006 10:55:02 PM

You realize we're talking about AM2 chips here eh BM?
August 8, 2006 11:10:13 PM

It isn't like you can buy either a 4600+ EE or a 5000+ anywhere anyway.

Paper launch anyone?
August 9, 2006 12:16:40 AM

Quote:
It isn't like you can buy either a 4600+ EE or a 5000+ anywhere anyway.

Paper launch anyone?


ummm... i'm getting a 4600 EE with mine, and they have plenty in stock, cuz they just came in. I can't tell you where though in case people rush into to get them before me. Its my secret 8) :twisted:
August 9, 2006 12:18:54 AM

Ah ok, so it isn't a paper launch - my mistake.

It's a secret launch.
August 9, 2006 12:31:27 AM

Quote:
It isn't like you can buy either a 4600+ EE or a 5000+ anywhere anyway.

Paper launch anyone?


If you pay attention, you will see that AMD is not trying to undervalue the market and won't accept "HeatBurst" type bids, NO MATTER HOW FAST CORE 2 IS.

Google AMD turned down business

They're around. They're are 1000s of retailers - online and brick-and-mortar - in the US.
SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY BOUGHT A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM.
August 9, 2006 12:35:32 AM

Quote:
Ah ok, so it isn't a paper launch - my mistake.

It's a secret launch.


lol, thats good, anyway i GUESS i can tell you... but don't tell anyone else k.

Like i mentioned in my first post its for sale at NCIX.
August 9, 2006 12:45:45 AM

Quote:
Maybe they don't want them to OC. That means less business for the higher clocked chips. Can you say X6800?

Just thought I should mention that the X6800 uses the exact same amount of power as the X2 4600+ EE 65W version. Not bad since it's the top of the line to a specialty low power version.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/i...

Granted it's system power, but your talking about the total system in the end anyways and both systems were configured equally strong.

AMD's TDP may mean 100% and Intel's TDP 75%, but it seems that AMD's 65W processors have little or no advantage against Intel's 65W processors. Especially when price and performance are also taken into account. The only really interesting EE to look at is the 35W X2 3800+ EE SFF.
August 9, 2006 12:52:17 AM

the x2 4600 overclocks like a dream, just dont be cheap and give your system a little TLC. Having a x2 4600 with value ram, 350 watt PSU and a cheap motherboard wont help.



http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=110731

havent even touched the voltage or the multiplier.

goto 21 hours before the wife turned it off to check here e-mail :evil: 

got the system to boot with a fsb clock of 235 and a multiplier of 12 but the system want stable enough to finish 1 hour of Prime95.


time to work on these voltages and maybe the multiplier :twisted:
August 9, 2006 1:00:52 AM

Quote:
Just thought I should mention that the X6800 uses the exact same amount of power as the X2 4600+ EE 65W version. Not bad since it's the top of the line to a specialty low power version.


What that could mean is that Intel made a "static max" design and underclocked. Or they have decided that they can get along with the lower ASP the E6300/E6400 will bring.

AMD did a good job getting 90nm chips to lower power, no matter whatCore 2 is doing...... I could say that Intel had 4 iterations of 65nm before they got a design thatwas "low-powered."

I believe that 65nm will lower that at least 15W, maybe 20. AMD is more concerned about the green that isn't money so.....

I'd be interested to know what Core 2 draws at the high 4.5GHz that it can run at.
August 9, 2006 1:05:16 AM

Quote:
AMD is more concerned about the green that isn't money so.....


Are you now saying that AMD is a company more focussed on environmental and social responsibilities rather than making money and using this to innovate? Because it certainly looks like it.

Most users if they can get higher performance for the same price will take it, and wait for a penguin to turn up on their front door before hugging it, rather than go out looking for it.

Maybe AMD will now re-brand ATI as Greenpeace...
August 9, 2006 1:16:48 AM

Quote:
Maybe they don't want them to OC. That means less business for the higher clocked chips. Can you say X6800?

Just thought I should mention that the X6800 uses the exact same amount of power as the X2 4600+ EE 65W version. Not bad since it's the top of the line to a specialty low power version.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/i...

Granted it's system power, but your talking about the total system in the end anyways and both systems were configured equally strong.

AMD's TDP may mean 100% and Intel's TDP 75%, but it seems that AMD's 65W processors have little or no advantage against Intel's 65W processors. Especially when price and performance are also taken into account. The only really interesting EE to look at is the 35W X2 3800+ EE SFF.

sorry but thats only at peak load. At low or idle, the EE versions use much less because they clock down lower than the conroes. So if you are looking for very good EE and good performance then this 4600 EE is your man.
August 9, 2006 6:58:33 AM

Quote:
SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY BOUGHT A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM.
You probably did just so that you could say "I TOLD YOU THEY WOULD SELL FAST". :roll:
August 9, 2006 7:02:06 AM

Quote:
I'd be interested to know what Core 2 draws at the high 4.5GHz that it can run at.
I'd be interested to know what a K8, that could compete with a 4.5GHz C2D, would draw. A kilowatt? :roll:
August 9, 2006 7:52:54 AM

Surprised you're not getting a Conroe like everyone else. Anyway I am right now running an AM2 X2 4600+ (not the EE version) - had wanted to buy a 5000 but nowhere to be found at the time and still nowhere to be found now. I'm running my X2 4600+ at 217FSB = 2.6GHz at stock voltage (1.39V). 2x1GB RAM (Corsair XMS2 DDR2800/C4) running at 866MHz at 2.1V (4-4-4-12 timings). I believe my system outperforms a stock 5000 on various benchmarks. I think the EE versions will not have a problem with hitting 2.6GHz if you raise the voltage, possibly 2.8GHz, based on the x-bit and AMDzone reviews.
August 9, 2006 8:26:28 AM

Ya supposedly you can hit 2.6ghz without raising the low voltage, and 2.85 max from chip. BTW, if i do overclock it to 2.6 without raising voltage, will it draw more power and become non energy efficient?
August 9, 2006 2:53:24 PM

How much of a price premium are we talking about for the EE? I don't think you'll make your money back in a reasonable amount of time based on lower power consumption alone. Even running the thing 24/365 only saves less than $7-8/year on average. It just doesn't make sense for most users to consider the EE.
August 9, 2006 5:31:08 PM

Quote:
How much of a price premium are we talking about for the EE? I don't think you'll make your money back in a reasonable amount of time based on lower power consumption alone. Even running the thing 24/365 only saves less than $7-8/year on average. It just doesn't make sense for most users to consider the EE.


Its like $30 CAD more for the EE. You may not save much money NOW, but prices for electricty will go up big in the next couple years, especially where i live. Anyway, if it was between pay an extra $30 for a cpu, or pay an extra $30 for electricty, you may as well get the EE... whats the point of wasting energy?
August 9, 2006 7:20:10 PM

Quote:
How much of a price premium are we talking about for the EE? I don't think you'll make your money back in a reasonable amount of time based on lower power consumption alone. Even running the thing 24/365 only saves less than $7-8/year on average. It just doesn't make sense for most users to consider the EE.


Its like $30 CAD more for the EE. You may not save much money NOW, but prices for electricty will go up big in the next couple years, especially where i live. Anyway, if it was between pay an extra $30 for a cpu, or pay an extra $30 for electricty, you may as well get the EE... whats the point of wasting energy?

I'm saying the extra money is not worth it. It will take a few years to pay for the difference, and that's running the thing 24/365. Even then, you have to apply a discount rate to the savings. It would make more sense for the other components in a computer to be more energy efficient, like the gfx card. So A, you have to actually use and keep this processor for years to pay for itself, and B, probably big server farms will see any benefit as the reduced heat output may mitigate the use of more expensive cooling solutions.

edit: Wanna save power? Just use your computer with the room lights off :roll:
August 9, 2006 8:30:30 PM

I think thats wrong too, that seems very low. But even so, not only big server farms would benifit from less heat, everyone else would too. Anyway i think this processor is worth the extra money, and in the end thats my personal decision, like buying the normal version is your choice. 8)
August 9, 2006 8:59:55 PM

Personally I'd get an EE if I were looking to get a new CPU. I like the idea of saving electricity, and its not for the money. I pay a flat utilities fee in my appt. If only they made a 35W version of something a bit faster than an X2 3800+.
As for OCing and no longer being EE... It will consume more power than it usually does (given), but should still a decent bit less wattage than a non-EE chip (my guess).

-mcg
August 9, 2006 9:41:55 PM

Quote:
Anyway, if it was between pay an extra $30 for a cpu, or pay an extra $30 for electricty, you may as well get the EE... whats the point of wastingenergy?
More importantly, why line Hydro One's pockets? :wink:
August 9, 2006 10:02:49 PM

Quote:
Anyway, if it was between pay an extra $30 for a cpu, or pay an extra $30 for electricty, you may as well get the EE... whats the point of wastingenergy?
More importantly, why line Hydro One's pockets? :wink:

haha...ya, i forgot you live in Ontario too. I think i'll be using it enough to get my money paid back with savings on the bill.
August 9, 2006 11:17:07 PM

Good to see you found the "reply" button, instead of the more familiar "post new garbage" button.
August 10, 2006 1:20:00 AM

Quote:
Anyway, if it was between pay an extra $30 for a cpu, or pay an extra $30 for electricty, you may as well get the EE... whats the point of wastingenergy?
More importantly, why line Hydro One's pockets? :wink:

haha...ya, i forgot you live in Ontario too. I think i'll be using it enough to get my money paid back with savings on the bill.

wow i thought this posted hours ago... ohwell here ya go anyway, better late than never :wink:

EDIT: WTF, I DID post this hours ago... i wonder why the reply screen stayed up, hmm... spooky 8O
August 10, 2006 1:29:56 AM

Its funny because everything except the mobo is the same as i'm getting, and even the 590 chipset is the same. I havn't seen the vid card yet though. It looks like a good deal but in the end i'll probably still get the 4600 EE since i really wanted a 5000 in the first place. But if this overclocks well as i read on i might change my mind :wink:
August 10, 2006 1:36:47 AM

actually man i just realized that this has the same issue with ram as the 5000 with the odd multiplier... i guess its still gonna be 4600 EE
August 10, 2006 2:02:39 AM

Quote:
Ah ok, so it isn't a paper launch - my mistake.

It's a secret launch.


No, not at all. European deliveries have been announced. :wink:





Peace
August 10, 2006 2:09:49 PM

Quote:
I think your calulations are wrong. It would definately save you more than $7 a year, even if you dont run your computer 24/7.


Gotta find average cpu average power consumption. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-energy...
I am taking info from here. I found average cost per kWh for residential here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a...

I used the figures provided by the xbitlabs article for calculating the difference between using a 35W tdp X2 3800+ and an Intel E6300, the next most energy efficient processor. the article provides usage for load of the cpu and the system as a whole. To find KWh for a whole year take consumption x 24 x 365 / 1000. Multiply by the average cost of $0.1031 to find the total cost difference.

Looking at system usage under load for windows media player and 3dmark, the increased cost to power the E6300 for a whole year 24/7 is $19.87 and $18.06, respectively. A quick froogle search shows the lowest priced E6300 at around $194. A froogle for the X2 3800+ EE 35W shows the lowest price as $398!! I don't know if the 35W EE 3800+ chips are widely available, but this puts the conroe in a respectable light. I wish the article had used the 65W version of the 3800+. Now these are only two tests by one site. I would like to find more numbers and references. If you can find a better price for the 35W chip, let us know.
August 10, 2006 7:14:32 PM

Ok but that price is very wrong for the 3800 EE. Thats more than i'm paying in Canadian for my 4600 EE. On NCIX the 3800 EE is 237 CAD. Reg version is 194. American would be less, so that price is wrong, unless someone is trying to rip people off.
!