Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > AMD X2 5200 VS E6600

AMD X2 5200 VS E6600

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - AMD X2 5200 VS E6600

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 
still_life   12-11-2006 at 01:44:33 PM

I can get them both at the same price. Which would be the best to get for an Xmas buy????

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
gOJDO   12-11-2006 at 01:54:40 PM
- 0 +

E6600 is:
1. faster for everything
2. more energy efficient
3. overclcoks much more
4. dissipates less heat
than X2 5200+!

Get E6600.

Reply to gOJDO
YO_KID37   12-11-2006 at 02:00:31 PM
- 0 +

I've Checked Tom's CPU charts and have concluded that there is Virtually NO DIFFERENCE in between the two processors at stock speeds. They seem to Tie each other in almost every single bench mark and beat each other only in about 4-6 Bench Intel and about 4-6 bench AMD. So concluded that you may go for either one of These processors and at stock speed they will perform EXACTLY the SAME

*Used the FX-62 On Toms Charts Because X2 5200 and FX-62(with unlocked Multiplier) is exactly the CPU.

Reply to YO_KID37
YO_KID37   12-11-2006 at 02:03:31 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

E6600 is:
1. faster for everything
2. more energy efficient
3. overclcoks much more
4. dissipates less heat
than X2 5200+!

Get E6600.



Well for #1 Your COMPLETELY WRONG Is NOT Faster* in every thing These processors are EXACTLY the Same in Virtually All benchmarks. While the #2,#3,#4 Also have a good Point, but besides that they are EXACTLY The SAME*

*I've Used the FX-62 as reference, because I've found no difference in the 2 Processors in most benchmarks, so you can use either CPU Interchangeably.

Reply to YO_KID37
epsilon84   12-11-2006 at 02:11:32 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

I've Checked Tom's CPU charts and have concluded that there is Virtually NO DIFFERENCE in between the two processors at stock speeds. They seem to Tie each other in almost every single bench mark and beat each other only in about 4-6 Bench Intel and about 4-6 bench AMD. So concluded that you may go for either one of These processors and at stock speed they will perform EXACTLY the SAME



Utter rubbish. I don't know what charts you're looking at since Toms doesn't even have an X2 5200+ in the charts!!!. The highest X2 is the 5000+.

Edit - I see you compared it using the FX-62. These two are not the same!. The X2 5200+ runs at 2.6GHz, the FX-62 runs at 2.8GHz.

Here is a price/performance comparison between an E6600 and X2 5000+:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/432-465-195.png

Clearly the E6600 is the better choice.

Reply to epsilon84
YO_KID37   12-11-2006 at 02:14:55 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

I've Checked Tom's CPU charts and have concluded that there is Virtually NO DIFFERENCE in between the two processors at stock speeds. They seem to Tie each other in almost every single bench mark and beat each other only in about 4-6 Bench Intel and about 4-6 bench AMD. So concluded that you may go for either one of These processors and at stock speed they will perform EXACTLY the SAME



Utter rubbish. I don't know what charts you're looking at since Toms doesn't even have an X2 5200+ in the charts!!!. The highest X2 is the 5000+.

Here is a price/performance comparison between an E6600 and X2 5000+:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/432-465-195.png

Clearly the E6600 is the better choice. I


Still_Life:

Quote :

I can get them both at the same price



And Read my *In my 2nd Post The 5200 and the FX-62 Are exactly the same Chip :roll:

Reply to YO_KID37
epsilon84   12-11-2006 at 02:18:23 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

I've Checked Tom's CPU charts and have concluded that there is Virtually NO DIFFERENCE in between the two processors at stock speeds. They seem to Tie each other in almost every single bench mark and beat each other only in about 4-6 Bench Intel and about 4-6 bench AMD. So concluded that you may go for either one of These processors and at stock speed they will perform EXACTLY the SAME



Utter rubbish. I don't know what charts you're looking at since Toms doesn't even have an X2 5200+ in the charts!!!. The highest X2 is the 5000+.

Here is a price/performance comparison between an E6600 and X2 5000+:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/432-465-195.png

Clearly the E6600 is the better choice. I


Still_Life:

Quote :

I can get them both at the same price



And Read my *In my 2nd Post The 5200 and the FX-62 Are exactly the same Chip :roll:

Err... no they're not. The X2 5200+ runs at 2.6GHz, the FX-62 runs at 2.8GHz. Besides, even an FX-62 is slower than an E6600 overall, so quit while you're behind without further embarassing yourself.

DELETED I hate arguing with n00bs. :roll:


Message edited by turpit on 08-10-2007 at 06:55:49 AM
Reply to epsilon84
YO_KID37   12-11-2006 at 02:24:04 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

I've Checked Tom's CPU charts and have concluded that there is Virtually NO DIFFERENCE in between the two processors at stock speeds. They seem to Tie each other in almost every single bench mark and beat each other only in about 4-6 Bench Intel and about 4-6 bench AMD. So concluded that you may go for either one of These processors and at stock speed they will perform EXACTLY the SAME



Utter rubbish. I don't know what charts you're looking at since Toms doesn't even have an X2 5200+ in the charts!!!. The highest X2 is the 5000+.

Here is a price/performance comparison between an E6600 and X2 5000+:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/charts8/432-465-195.png

Clearly the E6600 is the better choice. I


Still_Life:

Quote :

I can get them both at the same price



And Read my *In my 2nd Post The 5200 and the FX-62 Are exactly the same Chip :roll:

Err... no they're not. The X2 5200+ runs at 2.6GHz, the FX-62 runs at 2.8GHz. Besides, even an FX-62 is slower than an E6600 overall, so quit while you're behind without further embarassing yourself.

**** I hate arguing with n00bs. :roll:

Okay i guess i was off with the GHz, i for A second though they were equally clocked but that was the Athlon x2 5400(not the 5200) Okay then the

E6600 Is clearly the better choice

Reply to YO_KID37
epsilon84   12-11-2006 at 02:28:08 PM
- 0 +

I'm glad we can agree on that point. 8)

Reply to epsilon84
mad-dog   12-11-2006 at 04:16:00 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

*Used the FX-62 On Toms Charts Because X2 5200 and FX-62(with unlocked Multiplier) is exactly the CPU.


False, the 5200+ is virtually identical to the FX-60 but w/o the unlocked multipliers.

Reply to mad-dog
mad-dog   12-11-2006 at 04:19:39 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Okay i guess i was off with the GHz, i for A second though they were equally clocked but that was the Athlon x2 5400(not the 5200) Okay then the


5400................................?

Reply to mad-dog
gOJDO   12-11-2006 at 06:01:05 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Well for #1 Your COMPLETELY WRONG Is NOT Faster* in every thing These processors are EXACTLY the Same in Virtually All benchmarks. While the #2,#3,#4 Also have a good Point, but besides that they are EXACTLY The SAME*

*I've Used the FX-62 as reference, because I've found no difference in the 2 Processors in most benchmarks, so you can use either CPU Interchangeably.


I think you've allready figured out that E6600 outperfroms X2 5200+ in everything except in one synthetic benchmark, ScienceMark.

Reply to gOJDO
I_can_read   08-08-2007 at 05:53:01 PM
- 0 +

Epsilon_clueless, The graph you posted yourself says that the 5000+ is a BETTER buy than the E6600. Just read the bottom of your graph "less is better." (If you are going to have attitude, you should get your facts straight.

Reply to I_can_read
Heyyou27   08-08-2007 at 06:10:29 PM
- 0 +

The E6600 is the superior CPU in just about every way, as gOJDO said.

Reply to Heyyou27
firetatoo   08-08-2007 at 06:27:22 PM
- 0 +

yeah. but for the price the 5200+ is the better proc.

------------------------------ To comfort the afflicted, to afflict the comfortable.
 Reply to firetatoo
Maziar   08-08-2007 at 06:34:30 PM
- 0 +

No it worth to pay for the E6600 , E6600 is in many cases better than X2 6000 even , due to its larger cache , get the E6600 definitely , also it OC's very well

------------------------------ Q6600@3.4+ TT V1 Cooler,SAPPHIRE HD 4870X2,ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA,4GB OCZ DDR2 800,LG W2452V 1920x1200
 Reply to Maziar
marike   08-08-2007 at 06:34:32 PM
- 0 +

Umm I dont know where your shopping at but the 5200+ is easily $100 cheaper then the 6600 here in the states.

Reply to marike
ailgatrat   08-08-2007 at 06:35:59 PM
- 0 +

Old thread guys...let it go... really. :heink:

Reply to ailgatrat
AdamJ   08-08-2007 at 07:09:15 PM
- 0 +

the 6000+ JUST pulls ahead of the E6400 so...

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to AdamJ
Hatman   08-08-2007 at 08:18:01 PM
- 0 +

Get the 65nm version of the 5000 x2 and then you have a much better abng for buck CPU then the e6600 in almost every way. And performs around the same as the e6400.

Much cheaper though.

------------------------------ Na na na na na na na na HATMAN!
 Reply to Hatman
shadowmaster625   08-08-2007 at 09:43:41 PM
- 0 +

1. Why not get an E6550?
2. The Athlon is cheaper because it requires a cheaper motherboard. (No northbridge.) This is a hidden cost.
3. The intel core2 cpus overclock VERY easily, so much so that it is better to buy a Gigabyte P35-DS3R for $129 and then buy a E4300 and overclock it. (Total = $250) You will end up with a better performer than either, plus a quality motherboard that should last a long time! It is better to go this route than to say spend $70 on a mobo + $200 on an E6600 to get only a questionable overclock.
4. Best yet, you could go this route and get X2-5200 performance (through OC) at a really good price:
Processor ($65)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103068
Motherboa rd: ($80)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813138081


Message edited by shadowmaster625 on 08-08-2007 at 09:45:47 PM
Reply to shadowmaster625
rodney_ws   08-08-2007 at 09:56:02 PM
- 0 +

Are you SURE you can get them both at the same price? From what I can tell the E6600 is considerably more expensive. Now I'm not saying you should get the AMD... just questioning your pricing methodology.

Reply to rodney_ws
speedbird   08-08-2007 at 09:59:23 PM
- 0 +

AdamJ wrote :

the 6000+ JUST pulls ahead of the E6400 so...



Benchmarks I have seen show a 6000+ X2 to be nearly as fast as a E6600. E6600 is the better CPU, but a 6000+ X2 with a cheap AM2 motherboard is a cost effective solution.

Reply to speedbird
238syrus   08-08-2007 at 10:06:16 PM
- 0 +

if any1 reads the reviews of the 6000+ or the charts the 6000 IS better than the e6600 but falls behind the e6700

Reply to 238syrus
turpit   08-10-2007 at 07:01:59 AM
- 0 +


:sarcastic:

This thread is 9 months old. Some "stranger" dug it up, and has no doubt been enjoying themselves watching people argue over it

Locked

------------------------------ http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg233/turpit/SIG2A.jpg
 Reply to turpit
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > AMD X2 5200 VS E6600
Go to:

There are 1162 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.265 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?