Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is it worth it to upgrade from an AMD X2 to a Conroe system?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 16, 2006 5:51:28 PM

First off im not a gamer, I may play an occasional game once in a blue moon so im not really interested in gaming performance. I do alot of multimedia stuff(pics, music, videos) as well as some CAD stuff for work. My setup right now is as follows:
AMD x2 4400 @ 2.6ghz
2gigs OCZ Gold
74gig WD Raptor system drive
300gig WD storage drive
ATI AIW 800xl
Creative XF-I Extreme Music
24in Dell LCD monitor

This system was pretty high end when I built it a year or so ago, but now it seems like its outdates with the release of AM2 and Conroe. My main question is, will an entry level Conroe(6400) system give me big performance advantage over my current system?? Or will it really be a small upgrade?? If I do descide to upgrade is it worth spending the extra money for he 6600 to get the extra cache? It seems the benchmarks and reveiws available on the web are for the higher end Conroe chips, i wonder how a 6300/6400 would compare to the 4000X2? Thanks
September 16, 2006 5:59:59 PM

Agreed. Stick with what you have.
September 16, 2006 6:00:03 PM

Quote:
First off im not a gamer, I may play an occasional game once in a blue moon so im not really interested in gaming performance. I do alot of multimedia stuff(pics, music, videos) as well as some CAD stuff for work. My setup right now is as follows:
AMD x2 4400 @ 2.6ghz
2gigs OCZ Gold
74gig WD Raptor system drive
300gig WD storage drive
ATI AIW 800xl
Creative XF-I Extreme Music
24in Dell LCD monitor

This system was pretty high end when I built it a year or so ago, but now it seems like its outdates with the release of AM2 and Conroe. My main question is, will an entry level Conroe(6400) system give me big performance advantage over my current system?? Or will it really be a small upgrade?? If I do descide to upgrade is it worth spending the extra money for he 6600 to get the extra cache? It seems the benchmarks and reveiws available on the web are for the higher end Conroe chips, i wonder how a 6300/6400 would compare to the 4000X2? Thanks
IMO, at this point and time, you may as well stay with your current system. An E6400 will perform similarly to your 4400. You would need to step up to an E6600/E6700 to make a noticeable difference, in the apps that you use. The higher model C2D are smokin' fast with CAD-type stuff, encoding/rendering and photoshop type programs. You already have a pretty good machine. GL :) 
Related resources
September 16, 2006 6:15:43 PM

Quote:
The higher model C2D are smokin' fast with CAD-type stuff, encoding/rendering and photoshop type programs. You already have a pretty good machine.


Don't believe the hype. I just came from Northwood P4 3.4GHz and it was plenty. I passed on the P4 Prescotts, the Pentium D's, and now I wished I'd passed on the Core 2 Duo. 800MHz FSB was plenty. I currently run a e6600 and the amount of hype TG Forumz and THG put out was just that...hype! Take it from a real-world user. Your just fine with what you have.
September 16, 2006 6:16:46 PM

Thanks guys, i pretty much figured it wouldnt be worth it right now to upgrade. But with all the talk about how great Conroe is it made me think maybe I need to upgrade. Thre seems to be very little info or benchmarks for the lower end Conroe chips that most people will buy. Not many people I know have $1000 to drop on a 6800extreme.
September 16, 2006 8:12:27 PM

I can't speak on AMD processors, but Core2Duo is a good processor. The sticky post at the top of the CPU Forumz indicating the e6600 beat out all of AMD offering is what made me purchase. But once I got it and witnessed its power, I reallized my 3.4GHz Northworth was one bad mofo (for my needs). I did not see the performance increase I was expecting from the Core2Duo's 1066MHz FSB. Maybe had I been upgrading from a 533FSB, I probably would crap my pants. But coming from an 800MHZ FSB processor, the Core2Due e6600 made me do nothing in my pants.
September 16, 2006 9:48:45 PM

You already have dual-core, so waiting for a video to encode in the background is a more viable option than for single-core machines. Also, CAD applications run pretty well on Athlons already.

If you're going to overclock and are prepared with a separate HSF and thermal interface material, then the C2D is a good performance upgrade. But if not, you won't see much if any overall performance advantage at 2.16-2.4GHz compared to your "stock FX-60".
September 16, 2006 10:33:43 PM

I certainly wouldn't do it; now Kentsfield is a different story... :) 
September 16, 2006 11:28:29 PM

I completely agree with what others have said. You have a really nice build right now. Note also that AM2 brings very little to the table yet. You wouldn't see much improvement going even to a 5000+. Core Duo could gain you a noticable performance bump but at considerable expense with regard to what you use your system for because you'd need to aim fairly high. You should be real well off with what you now have for at least another year or two.
!