Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 Duo / E6400 or AMD Athlon 64 x2 AM2 4200+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 24, 2006 6:06:14 PM

The price of the processors is about the same in The Netherlands,
I'm gona use it for gaming, the latest games.
Which is best ? , thanks :p 
October 24, 2006 6:23:27 PM

Quote:
The price of the processors is about the same in The Netherlands,
I'm gona use it for gaming, the latest games.
Which is best ? , thanks :p 


The one you can afford to build.
Check out the hardware sites for the comparasions they did with both CPUs. There are at least 5 of them, that I know of.

As for which is best? That depends on who you ask. Again, look at benchmark results and find out which would be the best for the price and configuration you are looking to build.

I'm not going to start an AMD vs. Intel war again.
October 24, 2006 6:49:59 PM

Quote:
The price of the processors is about the same in The Netherlands,
I'm gona use it for gaming, the latest games.
Which is best ? , thanks :p 


From what I have seen on benchmarks and such I would buy the E6400 right now as its price basicly the same and its better then the 4200+ and the E6400 is a way better overclocker. One thing to remember is that over all the intel motherboards are more expencive then AMD so that can change the price.
Related resources
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
October 24, 2006 7:14:15 PM

I would go for the E6400. At stock speed it is a better benchmark performer. Also the AM2 Athlon 64 4200+ needs DDR2 800 RAM just to be as fast as a S939 Athlon 64 4200+ with DDR 400 RAM. Anandtech.com did a RAM comparision some months ago.

The E6400 only needs DDR2 533 to be at optimal speed, anything more would be for overclocking, and the Core 2 Duo CPU is a very good overclocker.
October 26, 2006 1:39:09 AM

You're kidding right? AMD is worthless and has nothing going for it except ATI. And when the cancer that is AMD comsumes ATI, (which is already happening), that will be gone too. You should go C2D. Now that we have that we can all leave AMD for dead once and for all!!!
October 26, 2006 2:03:46 AM

Ah! The pantomime season has started early.
October 26, 2006 2:12:42 AM

You really suck as a troll. Go practice.
October 26, 2006 2:16:44 AM

Quote:
You really suck as a troll. Go practice.


hehe, I'm working on it, trust me. I'm new at this! 8)
October 26, 2006 2:23:38 AM

Look up 9-inch or AMDmeltDown in the search function. Those are true trolls. You have much to learn my young padawan...


Just so you know, I'm not advocating you trolling the Forumz. Doing so could get you banned.
There. I covered my own ass.
October 26, 2006 2:37:00 AM

Quote:
Look up 9-inch or AMDmeltDown in the search function. Those are true trolls. You have much to learn my young padawan...


Just so you know, I'm not advocating you trolling the Forumz. Doing so could get you banned.
There. I covered my own ass.


Thanks for the tip...maybe I'll keep it clean because I don't want to be known as a mindless troll. That's not why I'm here, I was just trying to speak my mind. :oops: 
October 26, 2006 2:45:37 AM

As long as you have fun, and have built up a reputation among the rest of us, you can drop a small troll here, and a small troll there. Just remember to leave the words "AMD, ATI, Nvidia or Intel" out of your... activities and don't piss off people too much.
Oh, and add a YHBT when its all said and done. Keep it in good taste and in good humor and it'll be cool.
Ninja
October 26, 2006 4:47:02 AM

Quote:
The price of the processors is about the same in The Netherlands,
I'm gona use it for gaming, the latest games.
Which is best ? , thanks :p 
Actually the E6300 matches, and at times exceeds, the X2 4200+ in most benchmarks/games. The E6400 will only outpace it. So if price is an issue, the E6300 would be a good bet. As jaguarskx noted, AM2 requires DDR2-800 to perform properly vs DDR2-533 for Intel...but if you want to overclock the Intel, you'll want some DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 as well. GL :) 
October 26, 2006 8:14:13 AM

C2D E6400 outperforms A64 X2 4200+ for about 20% in average. It is much better overclocker and it consumes less energy/disspates less heat.
October 26, 2006 8:44:42 AM

Quote:
I would go for the E6400. At stock speed it is a better benchmark performer. Also the AM2 Athlon 64 4200+ needs DDR2 800 RAM just to be as fast as a S939 Athlon 64 4200+ with DDR 400 RAM. Anandtech.com did a RAM comparision some months ago.

Yes, and according to this anandtech article, which i had linked in another thread, AM2 Athlons need only DDR2-667 to match the performance of DDR-400.
DDR2-800 gets a tiny bit more.
But then again, if i was going to build an AMD system, i'd probably even go for DDR2-533, if i find it at a much better price.
Even there, the performance penalty is absolutely marginal (2-4%), and it's certainly not worth paying a fat price premium.
However, at the end of the day, the E6400 is a much better performer.
October 26, 2006 9:00:25 AM

What's best for gaming is the best graphics card you can buy. E6400 wipes the floor with equivillant X2 CPU's, but it wont matter much unless your graphics card is high up on the food chain.

If I was just going for the best gaming machine possible for the best price, I would funnel all my cash into a graphics card just "one down" from the flagship products. Add an E6300 with either 667 or 800MHz memory and overclock the CPU by at least 1GHz (so easy to do on these chips, apparantly). There are plenty of places on the net showing how to do this and whats the best motherboard etc.

Good luck.
October 26, 2006 10:38:46 AM

This is what i'm referring to. (link)
October 26, 2006 2:52:21 PM

Quote:
What's best for gaming is the best graphics card you can buy. E6400 wipes the floor with equivillant X2 CPU's, but it wont matter much unless your graphics card is high up on the food chain.

If I was just going for the best gaming machine possible for the best price, I would funnel all my cash into a graphics card just "one down" from the flagship products. Add an E6300 with either 667 or 800MHz memory and overclock the CPU by at least 1GHz (so easy to do on these chips, apparantly). There are plenty of places on the net showing how to do this and whats the best motherboard etc.

Good luck.


I completly agree about this. A Graphics card will make all the diffrence in gaming. But still E6300 or E6400 have better multi tasking and over all its just a better CPU.

I cant wait for AMD to get there CPU GPU proccessors out. I guess it looks like late 2007/early 2008. This is the thing that I will want to take a look at. I just hope they get it to work with the PCIe slot. :p  But until then AMD doesn't look like they are going to have anything on the Highend market that can beat Intel.
October 26, 2006 5:43:36 PM

I've been looking for some sort of a chart or something to compare the current C2D and X2 cpus (Other than the current benchies out there). It seemed to be easier before the dual core cpus came out, or maybe I'd just had a lot more time to get to know the differences.

For example:
6300 = X2 3800+

I know it's not as simple as that these days. From what I've read, the 6300 would be more on par with the X2 4200+. That's not even mentioning OC'ing ability. Also read somewhere that to match the 6400, you'd need something in the X2 4600+ to 5000+ from AMD to match.

Pricewise, the 6300 with mobo, falls somewhere in line with the X2 4200+ with mobo. Depending on which mobo you pick of course. Any suggestions where I might find something like this, or is it all pretty much opinion based? I've noticed too many differences lately in benchmarks to go by that. (Comparing Anandtech to Toms for example.)

Wondering if I should have started a new thread for this, but we'll see what kind of play it gets donw here.
October 27, 2006 1:10:32 AM

Quote:
I've been looking for some sort of a chart or something to compare the current C2D and X2 cpus (Other than the current benchies out there). It seemed to be easier before the dual core cpus came out, or maybe I'd just had a lot more time to get to know the differences.

For example:
6300 = X2 3800+

I know it's not as simple as that these days. From what I've read, the 6300 would be more on par with the X2 4200+. That's not even mentioning OC'ing ability. Also read somewhere that to match the 6400, you'd need something in the X2 4600+ to 5000+ from AMD to match.

Pricewise, the 6300 with mobo, falls somewhere in line with the X2 4200+ with mobo. Depending on which mobo you pick of course. Any suggestions where I might find something like this, or is it all pretty much opinion based? I've noticed too many differences lately in benchmarks to go by that. (Comparing Anandtech to Toms for example.)

Wondering if I should have started a new thread for this, but we'll see what kind of play it gets donw here.


This is an 'aggregate' AMD/Intel performance chart (no E6400 though, but going by that chart it'll put it around 5200+ levels).
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2070&c...

Here is also a price/performance chart:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=...
October 27, 2006 1:30:40 AM

Thanks for the links! Pretty much what I was looking for.
October 27, 2006 1:56:00 AM

Quote:
Thanks for the links! Pretty much what I was looking for.


Yeah, not many sites bother to tally up all the results for an easy to read graph on 'general' performance, so kudos to Hardwarezone for those charts. Much easier to read than THG's charts too, may I add.

I must say the E6300 performance ranking surprises me a little. I always thought it was between X2 4200+ to 4600+ levels depending on the benchmark, but this chart puts it right up there with the X2 5000+.

The Pentium-D/EE results also seem a bit high to me, I always thought the lower end X2s had better performance and value overall.

I guess it all depends on the benchmarks used.
October 27, 2006 2:11:49 AM

whoever payed more was announced the winner imo, its a common way to go.
Benchmarks can only give you an idea how it performed at someones elses computer. You wont always get same results as somebody else. You can have same hardware but a little different settings and it will perform worse or better. I bought a cool rig a year ago but im sure i could set things up better to squeeze more juice from it at gaming.
Just a thought
October 27, 2006 4:04:15 AM

Quote:
Look up 9-inch or AMDmeltDown in the search function. Those are true trolls. You have much to learn my young padawan...


Just so you know, I'm not advocating you trolling the Forumz. Doing so could get you banned.
There. I covered my own ass.


Good. Nobody wanted to see it or do it for you. :-P
October 27, 2006 4:07:14 AM

Amddd,

I used to be partial toward AMD products, and in the past I would have definitely said go for the AMD product. Now time has past, and I have opened my mind a bit more.
Both Intel and AMD both produce great products, but based upon Intels recent release of C2D, and the evidence of overall better performance for usually a better price, I would likely go for the E6400 or E6300 over AMD's X2 4200+.
Of course there are always variables that you personally should take into account. You already know what you will use it for, now how much are you willing to spend? Also check out some reviews. Here's tom's CPU chart, http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html .
October 27, 2006 4:09:49 AM

Things to consider...ram cost, mobo cost, parts you already have? If you have DDR ram already you would use, get a board that supports it.
October 27, 2006 1:39:03 PM

Quote:
Things to consider...ram cost, mobo cost, parts you already have? If you have DDR ram already you would use, go for X2.
Why X2?
There are DDR mainboards for C2D.
October 27, 2006 4:31:38 PM

Oops! *EDIT Hehe. I haven't looked at Core 2 Duo hardly at all since my 939 setups are brand new and just fine. :-P I'll read up in another year. I thought the whole point of switching to socket AM2 was for DDR2? I guess Intel's are different?
October 29, 2006 1:49:00 AM

I would personally get the e6400 intel conroe core 2 duo.. They are the best chips out on the market. They game better than amd so why stick with amd?

Amd used to be the top dog but now the Intel conroe has them beat. Amd will catch up eventually again then intel will come out with an even better chip..

If you have alittle more the e6600 is the best price to performance ratio chip if you do not plan on overclocking at all... The e6600 beats amd's top end amd fx-62 chip at almost every single benchmark including gaming so there is no reason not to go for the conroe all together..
!