Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Get the Core 2 Duo E6300 or Athlon 64 X2 3800+???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2006 11:22:25 PM

That's the question.

Upgrade time. Which shows the best promise down the road? This would be on a 775 board for the Intel or a AM2 board for the AMD.
September 25, 2006 11:29:16 PM

Quote:
That's the question.

Upgrade time. Which shows the best promise down the road? This would be on a 775 board for the Intel or a AM2 board for the AMD.


Promise down the road? You mean, upgradability? Well, that's something no one really knows for sure. I mean, Intel said that Kentsfield would be compatible with existing Core 2 mtoherboards, now it seems like it would only work with 975x motherboards. Of course, that's just the hearsay, right now, but there has been Kentsfield ES running on 975x boards.

As for AM2, well, AMD has claimed that AM3 CPUs would work on them. Again, it's all speculation, so no one can really claim that fact for sure.

Mostly, I would suggest you get a setup that will fit your budget and what your computing needs happen to be (video, gaming, folding, etc).

Either setup (775 or AM2) would be fine, but to know what future tech would run on those boards is sketchy, at best.
September 26, 2006 2:05:57 AM

c2d
Related resources
September 26, 2006 2:07:23 AM

Core 2 Duo. Unless you're comparing a 6300/6400 to a FX-62 for the same price, just get the Conroe, it's really no competition.
September 26, 2006 2:55:46 AM

I would go for the C2D setup also. Upgradeability is anyones guess, AM2 is the newest setup, but the performance goes to the c2d. A Price Range would really help.
September 26, 2006 3:22:58 AM

Now: C2D provides better performance, at a slightly higher price

Down the Road: Who Knows? An E6300 should play all games coming out in the next 3-4 years, as long as it's paired with a decent graphics card.

IMO, if it (CPU) works for what you need it to do, then why upgrade?
September 26, 2006 3:26:46 AM

Hmmm I'd go with the C2D setup too.

As for upgradeability, keep in mind that THG's Kentsfield tests were done on a currently available Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6. It's expensive, but it'll probably support a Kenstfield upgrade.

This is a little iffy, but the info we currently have in regards to future quad-core upgrades is looking good for Intel and is simply unknown for AMD (no ESs anywhere).

(In any case, the 12-phase voltage regulation on that Gigabyte board is so wonderfully overengineered that it might be good even for a 200W processor. It's expensive though... and doesn't officially support SLI, if that's your thing)
September 26, 2006 2:03:40 PM

You're right. :) 

Intel spent way too much time with Netburst. Now we're back to where we should be: exciting product launches, new architectures, ES benchmark "leaks" and so on.

For a looong while, nothing could really touch A64s. Fortunately, and quite excitingly, this has finally changed. Times have changed... again.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 4:12:10 PM

Quote:
The E6300 is a bit faster but also costs more. Also the mobo will cost more, and if you want upgradability for quad core then you will need 975x I believe.
Id say a X2 4200-4400 is comparable to a E6300. All AM2 boards WILL support quad core next year. The choice is yours.


People claim it's a bit faster, well I'd say it's MUCH faster. but of course it depends on the testing conditions and what parts you plan to use in your PC as well as what applications/games you intend to use.

As for the P965, Most boards fully support Intel's Core 2 Quadro. All they need is a 6Phase or more Power Regulation. Like Asus' P5B series or Gigabyte's DQ series. Here's a quote from Intel's Website.

Quote:
Supports Intel® Core™2 Duo processor, Intel® Pentium® D processor, Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with Hyper-Threading Technology (HT Technology)†, and all other Intel® Pentium processors and Intel® Celeron® processors in the LGA775 socket, with scalability for future processor innovations.


Now if that's not convincing enough there are numerous tests (such as THG's) that have run Kentsfield (Core 2 Quadro) on an Intel P965 based board. Also you can check out Asus' website.

Quote:
LGA775 socket for Intel Core2 Duo, Core2 Extreme and next generation Mulit-Core CPU


Quote:
Good news to consumers. Intel has changed its mind to give P965 to support the upcoming quad-core Kentsfield processors. Kentsfield is Intel’s first quad-core desktop processor for extreme users in which Intel pushed to appear no after than this year. In the original plan, 975X chipset is the only one supporting the new processors. But two weeks ago, manufacturers have received surprising news that Intel had changed its mind to give P965 a new pose.


Then there's the articles on Xtremesystems showing a P5B running a Kentsfield.
Xtremesystems
September 26, 2006 4:43:20 PM

He is right, an e6300 will perform like an x2 4200+ mostly! Overall, the AM2 system would be cheaper, mainly because of the MOBO choices. It is really a tuff decision honestly. Either the 4200 or e6300 for sure though
September 26, 2006 4:53:50 PM

If speed is your concern: Intel
If power consumption is the concern: AMD
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 5:16:39 PM

Quote:
He is right, an e6300 will perform like an x2 4200+ mostly! Overall, the AM2 system would be cheaper, mainly because of the MOBO choices. It is really a tuff decision honestly. Either the 4200 or e6300 for sure though


Really? Like a 4200+ eh?

Explain these to me? That's right.. for games and synthetic applications as well as Office applications the Core 2 Duo E6300 is on par or faster then an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. It's only slower and comparable to a 4200+ when doing Professional 3D rendering (2 apps).













Last image here shows the OVERALL avg. As you can see teh Core 2 Duo E6300 falls in between the 4200+ and the 4600+ OVERALL. Now if you compare the scores you'll see that the E6300 is closer to a 4600+'s performance then it is a 4200+'s performance. Thus it is more comparable to a 4600+.


As for Price/Performance.. that's right the E6300 has the best Price/Performance Ratio.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 5:33:39 PM

What about Performance Per Clock?


That's right.. if you do the math you'll find that an E6300 once again but using this method performs in between a 4600+ and 4200+ but much closer to a 4600+.

C'est la vie.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 6:06:38 PM

Quote:
Really? Like a 4200+ eh?

Explain these to me? That's right.. for games and synthetic applications as well as Office applications the Core 2 Duo E6300 is on par or faster then an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. It's only slower and comparable to a 4200+ when doing Professional 3D rendering (2 apps).


Well thg overclocked a x2 3600 (dual sempron 256k) and it smoked the E6300 in all benchmarks.

Oh yeah? Well that's Super Duper. Many users have overclocked there E6300's to 7x400 keeping the memory 1:1 using PC2 6400. That's a clockspeed of 2,800MHz and it seems to be the norm. At that speed you would need to clock an FX-62 (with it's Dual 1MB L2 Cache) to ~3.4GHz.

Hmmm.... $180 for a CPU that when oc'd can be at the VERY least equivalent to an AMD Athlon64 X2 running at 3.4GHz...

Of course.. to overclock a CPU you need a platform. So either AMD or Intel you need a chipset/board that supports overclocking. Not some Intel nForce4 or VIA AMD Chipset.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 6:34:14 PM

Quote:
Really? Like a 4200+ eh?

Explain these to me? That's right.. for games and synthetic applications as well as Office applications the Core 2 Duo E6300 is on par or faster then an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. It's only slower and comparable to a 4200+ when doing Professional 3D rendering (2 apps).


Well thg overclocked a x2 3600 (dual sempron 256k) and it smoked the E6300 in all benchmarks.

Also.. I'll respond directly to what you're saying. Now I couldn't find the article you're speaking of but I did google Athlon64 X2 3600+ overclocking and Core 2 Duo E6300 overclocking. I wanted to find a website that overclocked both of them. I found it.

But the results do not mirror what you're saying. The Maximum Achievable overclock on the 3600+ using an air cooler was 2.6GHz (as opposed to 2.9GHz for the E6300 found here). Of course a second opinion is always good found here (3.4GHz).

And the performance?? Well let's just say it's nothing to write home about even when compared to a stock E6300.





Of course in non-gaming tests the difference was more pronounced.. but that's expected seeing as one is clocked at 1.8GHz while the other is running 2.6GHz.

September 26, 2006 6:40:58 PM

You have proven nothing, and your attempt to belittle me is just sad! I agree, the E6300 is a better CPU, but at the same price of an e6300 build, the 4200+ build is worth looking at.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 6:56:56 PM

Quote:
elmo ,do you waltz around the web just owning people?
the bytch was PWND
but the 3600 is a nice performer.it doesnt smoke in everything,against the core2,but it does a great job.
and you cant oc the sempron and not oc the core2 6300,what kind of bs is that?
stock vs/stock;oc vs/oc.logic is not a friend to some.


LOL.. I'm a Political Pundit on my spare time.. so it comes naturally :p 

The problem is that too many people take a hard stance based on emotional feelings to wards the subject they're defending.
I prefer to take a factual/intellectual stance. In other words I'm a realist, a centrist. If I tell you something.. odds are it can be backed up by countless independent studies.

I mean why would I risk my reputation by lying. Of course this all comes at a price. Sometimes I'll say something VERY unpopular.. no matter how many facts exist to back it up. This is especially true when discussing George W. Bush's Foreign Policy and the Legacy that is Republican Foreign Policy.

Of course this is the wrong forum to discuss such things.. :wink:
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2006 7:05:07 PM

Quote:
You have proven nothing, and your attempt to belittle me is just sad! I agree, the E6300 is a better CPU, but at the same price of an e6300 build, the 4200+ build is worth looking at.


I don't believe I've belittled you. I'd say I countered your argument. Nothing in my post was a direct insult toward you. If I did insult you then please post where I did such a thing.

My post was factual, it may have wounded your ego by shattering your beliefs and affirming my conclusion as being the factual and proper one. Other then that I see no reason why you should be upset.

In fact.. I believe you should thank me instead :) 
September 26, 2006 7:13:41 PM

Quote:
rsonally id do the x2 sempron before the 4200.


nice spelling

Are you aware that the X2 Semprons aren't out yet? You're comparing a processor that's out right now, with lots of benchmark tests, to a processor that's coming out IN A YEAR with NO benchmark tests...Also are you aware that they aren't designed for uses like gaming? (I'm assuming the OP is looking for a gaming computer) I don't know why you suggested the X2 Sempron, it just makes no sense. What I would say is you really enjoy disagreeing with people as much as possible, even if you're wrong.

If you don't know that the 6300 is by far the best choice in its price range and up into the low $200s, then you're a moron. If you try to prove otherwise, you're a moron. If you believe that someone flaunting this obvious information with overly complicated posts is smart and can be deemed as "pwning" the other moron, then you are one of the biggest morons I've ever heard of.

Go with the 6300, just keep in mind that not all motherboards that support C2D will also support Kentsfield, at least it's not set in stone yet. So you may be taking a gamble spending less on a C2D mobo to compensate for your slightly more expensive 6300 (in reference to the X2 3800+, which I believe is the best choice for its price range) in that your cheaper motherboard might not be one of the ones that supports Kentsfield, whereas it's a requirement for AM2 motherboards to support AM3 processors. So, the choice is between the X2 3800+ with a mobo that definitely supports AM3 come the right time, or the e6300 with a mobo that may be phased out as early as the first Kenstfield procs are out.

Of course, if you're not planning on upgrading often, then the C2D is the obvious choice.
September 26, 2006 7:36:55 PM

I re-read, and my apologies to your sir.

Like I said, I agree with you %100 that the e6300 is a much better CPU then the 3800, but I still do not think it justifies the extra cash (stock for stock)
September 26, 2006 8:42:50 PM

Quote:
like spelling?yeah it was funny. 8O :roll:
are you aware that id asked if anyone had found one for sale?or knew of the released date?nahhh that would mean you read that post.oh well :roll:
as far as your price performance assertion ill refer to elmo's posted charts.
are you aware it was also benched in gaming?and performed well?and your point has no merit?and i argue if i know things to be different from what i have read at various sites,and when i am wrong i admit it?
are you aware of this?nahhh that would mean that you have read alot of stuff :roll: :roll:


Have someone who passed english in 3rd grade read that post aloud, and translate it to me, please.

by "it" are you referring to the X2 Sempron? Because they don't exist at the moment.

TSI alone has more maturity than that of everyone arguing with him on this thread...combined.
September 26, 2006 9:24:12 PM

Quote:
An E6300 should play all games coming out in the next 3-4 years, as long as it's paired with a decent graphics card.

I doubt any current dual core CPU will be good enough for gaming in 3-4 years the way most people want it.
Quote:
He is right, an e6300 will perform like an x2 4200+ mostly! Overall, the AM2 system would be cheaper, mainly because of the MOBO choices. It is really a tuff decision honestly. Either the 4200 or e6300 for sure though


Really? Like a 4200+ eh?

Explain these to me? That's right.. for games and synthetic applications as well as Office applications the Core 2 Duo E6300 is on par or faster then an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+. It's only slower and comparable to a 4200+ when doing Professional 3D rendering (2 apps).













Last image here shows the OVERALL avg. As you can see teh Core 2 Duo E6300 falls in between the 4200+ and the 4600+ OVERALL. Now if you compare the scores you'll see that the E6300 is closer to a 4600+'s performance then it is a 4200+'s performance. Thus it is more comparable to a 4600+.


As for Price/Performance.. that's right the E6300 has the best Price/Performance Ratio.

A simple "The E6300 is faster" would have been sufficient. ;) 
September 26, 2006 10:37:54 PM

Haha oh man. When did I say I didn't read your unintelligent post asking about how you couldn't find any X2 Semprons when any idiot and his dog (glances at avatar) knows they're not even close to being out.

When you suggested an X2 Sempron I was so amazed because you were suggesting a processor a year before release.

HeyYou27 is correct. Elmo definitely didn't need to post all those friggin benchmarks. Like I said, you don't have to do such an incredible amount of research (or act like you did by copying/pasting tons of crap) to conclude that the e6300 is the best choice.
September 26, 2006 10:53:36 PM

To the OP-

All in all, it would be better to get the C2D setup as far as performance goes, but if money is tight, and you can throw the extra $50 for the e6300 and afford a decent LGA775 C2D Mobo, then the x2 3800 is still a viable option. Paired with the right GFX card, the 3800 is still a bargin CPU and can play most any game smoothly. (apparently you need all the help you can get for oblivion though)
September 26, 2006 11:00:19 PM

Right. Just to add, however...the X2 3800+ can run any current game at max settings with perfectly acceptable framerates...with the right video card. No I'm not talking about a GX2, I'm talking about MY X2 3800+ and my eVga e-GeForce 7900 GT KO superclocked that costed $300 USD a month ago running Oblvion on max settings with framerates at 50+ fps.

This is because games are simply getting much more graphics intensive where the GPU is doing a much larger percent of the work than it used to.
September 26, 2006 11:31:00 PM

Quote:
Right. Just to add, however...the X2 3800+ can run any current game at max settings with perfectly acceptable framerates...with the right video card. No I'm not talking about a GX2, I'm talking about MY X2 3800+ and my eVga e-GeForce 7900 GT KO superclocked that costed $300 USD a month ago running Oblvion on max settings with framerates at 50+ fps.

This is because games are simply getting much more graphics intensive where the GPU is doing a much larger percent of the work than it used to.


Now THAT is so true, and something that us geeks do forget. We get so excited about the shiny new stuff that we neglect the fact that what we already have is fine.

I have a single core 3500+ / X1800XT setup and it runs all the latest games with ease, which is all i need it to do.
September 26, 2006 11:48:37 PM

when u buy a new system for gaming, plz buy newer tek, no sense in "yesterdays" tech IF it dosnt perform as well, dosnt matter if its amd or intel
September 26, 2006 11:52:56 PM

If your budget allows.
September 27, 2006 12:16:37 AM

The x2 3800+ system will be cheaper, draw less power and run cooler.

The C2D e6300 is faster... but for most desktop and gaming applications you won't notice a very big difference. For long CPU intesive applications (like video encoding) you definately will.

you decide
!