Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help me chose: Athlon 64 X2 5200+ VS. Core 2 Duo E6400?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 12, 2006 6:18:27 AM

System is

2 GB DDR2 800
Geforce 8800GTS

But which CPU should I get? (no over clocking)

Total system price differs less then $10 so that makes no difference either but makes it harder to chose...
December 12, 2006 6:20:46 AM

At stock speeds the X2 5200+ would be slightly faster so I'd go for that. The E6400 would own the X2 if you're overclocking, though.
December 12, 2006 1:00:28 PM

I would go for the E6400 because although the performance is similar its looking like it will be better to stick with intel for this coming year if you plan to upgrade at all.
Related resources
December 12, 2006 4:23:28 PM

Quote:
I would go for the E6400 because although the performance is similar its looking like it will be better to stick with intel for this coming year if you plan to upgrade at all.


Haha, well if you've got the benchmarks for the Stars processors...show them to me.

This guy's a fanboy, things could go either way this upcoming year. If you're only options are those two, go with the 5200+.

edit - if you want to overclock, go for the 6400. You'll be able to get a lot more performance out of it, then, more than the 5200+, even overclocked (probably).
December 13, 2006 11:49:20 AM

Yes, when overclocking, AMD doesn't stand a chance.
This because to have similar performance, the X2 needs to be clocked significantly higher (2.6GHz VS 2.13GHz), and the maximum overclock potential of AMD is 3.0-3.2GHz, while C2D could reach 3.5GHz or maybe even more (and it would take an AMD 4.0+GHz to match that in performance).
But if you don't want to overclock and the price is the same, the 5200+ is a good choice.
December 13, 2006 12:14:05 PM

6400...Same performance, and $100 cheaper. If u decide to OC later (which u most likely will), the 6400 has much more potential.
December 13, 2006 12:41:05 PM

Quote:
6400...Same performance, and $100 cheaper. If u decide to OC later (which u most likely will), the 6400 has much more potential.


He said that he could get them for the same price.
December 13, 2006 1:13:03 PM

I'd say get the E6400.

The Core 2 line is totally new and is going to have quite a lengthy lifespan ahead of it (well, in IT terms anyway)

The AMD line is wheezing along now compared to the Core 2, much like the old Pentium 4/D line has been wheezing along previously. AMD will be desperate to bring out new technology to help them compete on performance again, this means their existing processor line is likely to have a relatively short future.

I suspect Intel is holding back on releasing higher clock speeds until it needs to, waiting for AMD to make a play and then respond to it quickly.

Anyway, Core 2 is new technology and it's going to be around for a while, meaning you'll be future-proofing your PC much better. Get the right motherboard and you'll be able to upgrade to quad core later on (or maybe even beyond that, 8 cores?)
December 13, 2006 2:17:09 PM

for a performance pc.
nothing but core2
if oc later, defect most of amd line.

for other range(lower price), sempron & amd x2.
but they won't go with the Gefore8 anyway..... :) 
December 13, 2006 3:10:17 PM

E6400 FTW
It will annihilate any X2
December 13, 2006 3:30:48 PM

Quote:
System is

2 GB DDR2 800
Geforce 8800GTS

But which CPU should I get? (no over clocking)

Total system price differs less then $10 so that makes no difference either but makes it harder to chose...


The 2 cpus are pretty much the same in overall performance, but personally i would get the E6400 (lower power consumption).
December 13, 2006 4:25:59 PM

There are some factors being overlooked...
The AMD CPU has onboard memory controller - so AM2 CPUs may cost more but the mobos are usually less expensive.
Also, Core2 CPU could save some money on memory as DDR2-667 is perfect.
AM2 works best with DDR2-800 (and you will need better if OCing).
So: the three should be priced up together, ie. CPU/mobo/RAM. This is why he says overall cost is comparable.
But as for just CPU, lemme see here...
The x2 5200+ is $465 CDN; even an x2 4600+ is $300 bucks!
The E6400 is only $260 CDN (and memory costs less too).
You would have to get a free mobo to make AM2 worthwhile...
However, I build a lot of AM2 systems using A64 3800+ (single-core) @2.4GHz which is a good deal and still very fast.
But x2 5200+!? No thanks LoL - I can get a mighty E6600 for $365 bucks ($100 less).
Regards
December 13, 2006 4:33:14 PM

y'all are so drunk on this OC crap, 2.5GHz is enough for anyone except the most "extreme over the top moneys no limit gotta have the fastest chip in the world i got bragging rights gamer"...
3GHz for servers and workstaions running multiple apps...
Back before we had access to dual-core chips and megaspeed cpu's overclocking was necessary to achieve the required performance levels for a specific program to run correctly....
Now it's just a game of who has the fastest processor, never mind the fact that it's overkill and mere mortals cannot harness the full potential of said speed-demon......but it's still cool.
Focus your energy on something constructive, like using all that power to create world peace....
I'm not singling you out bro, just hitching a ride on your thread
December 13, 2006 5:29:43 PM

Dog! Great post, I agree completely. I was gonna say myself... (but not as eloquently).
The nice A64 at 2.4GHz is fantastic for most people.
I could buy three of them for those prices! Heheh...
December 14, 2006 11:50:18 AM

Quote:
y'all are so drunk on this OC crap, 2.5GHz is enough for anyone except the most "extreme over the top moneys no limit gotta have the fastest chip in the world i got bragging rights gamer"...
3GHz for servers and workstaions running multiple apps...
Back before we had access to dual-core chips and megaspeed cpu's overclocking was necessary to achieve the required performance levels for a specific program to run correctly....
Now it's just a game of who has the fastest processor, never mind the fact that it's overkill and mere mortals cannot harness the full potential of said speed-demon......but it's still cool.
Focus your energy on something constructive, like using all that power to create world peace....
I'm not singling you out bro, just hitching a ride on your thread


You know I laugh every time I read posts like this. Is it odd for a person to want to get more out of what they paid for, especially knowing they can for $50-$100. Let me give you an example. You go out buy your self a new car. You find out that by adding a K&N Air Filter you will shave 1 second of the quarter mile and your top speed will increase by 30mph. For a mere..$100? Whould you do it? I know quite a few people who would. But why? The average speed limit is 50mph. Why do you need a car that goes 150? People sink thousands of dollars into cars to make them go faster, and perform better, for no other reason than...Yah you guessed it, bragging rights. The fact of the matter is, it's human nature to want more out of what you have, especially if you know its capable of doing it.
December 14, 2006 12:02:54 PM

Besides, you'll eventually need that extra speed as time progresses.
December 14, 2006 12:17:31 PM

hmm....just a thought.. get the 5200+.... so you can help AMD in ur own little way to bring out a better processor. I mean, u know, stick with them in this dark (est?) hr. (no flame pls.) :wink:
December 14, 2006 12:26:57 PM

Quote:
Besides, you'll eventually need that extra speed as time progresses.


Futureproofing, wtf who does taht?
December 14, 2006 12:28:04 PM

If thats your reason I'm not going to flame you for it. But would you have done such with the 3.8Gz P4, arguably one of the worst performer than almost everything else?
December 14, 2006 12:44:09 PM

Quote:
Futureproofing, wtf who does taht?


People who want to ensure the life of their PC is as long as possible, that's who.

Granted, depending on how PC technology progresses, which can be highly unpredictable, sometimes its effectiveness is limited, but sometimes it's the difference between having to buy a whole new PC in 2 years time or upgrading your existing PC in 2 years time and buying a whole new PC in 4 years time.
December 14, 2006 12:45:59 PM

what about an x2 3800+ for $130.. still will be able to handle any of todays games, especially with that 8800! lol, i know this is far from the performance you were looking for, but it could save you some dough.
December 14, 2006 12:57:25 PM

Quote:
Futureproofing, wtf who does taht?


People who want to ensure the life of their PC is as long as possible, that's who.

Granted, depending on how PC technology progresses, which can be highly unpredictable, sometimes its effectiveness is limited, but sometimes it's the difference between having to buy a whole new PC in 2 years time or upgrading your existing PC in 2 years time and buying a whole new PC in 4 years time.

That was sarcasm my friend. =)
December 14, 2006 12:59:13 PM

I just grabbed a historic old processor for my HT rig, an FX-55. Paired with nice memory its just plain fast. The Core/Xeons are nice but there's still some descent AMD deals out there.
December 14, 2006 1:03:51 PM

Quote:
That was sarcasm my friend. =)


In that case, let me say "doh" :oops: 

Sorry, probably the hangover from last night's work Christmas party. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. :D 
December 14, 2006 2:35:15 PM

As there is not much in it I would currently go for the C2D because of lower power condumption and better headroom for later oc'ing.

However the 65nm AMD chips should be reviewed in the next few weeks so I might wait to see how they fair before making a purchase.

Both chips are somewhat underpowered for that video card though!!!!!!!! :oops: 
December 14, 2006 4:52:15 PM

Agreed, but he's not overclocking! 8O
December 14, 2006 5:40:33 PM

Quote:
Wow what a shame. So much unlocked potential if he goes with a E6400

LoL, so true - look at OCnewb, running E6400 @ 3.7ghz (463x8) heheh, that's 175% or what?
But ya gotta OC these a little bit, why not? Even I have my FSB at 300 on all stock voltages,
L8R
December 14, 2006 11:31:30 PM

e6400 even without overclocking even beats out an fx-62... check out the CPU charts, imagine it overclocked :twisted:
December 15, 2006 6:42:25 PM

Sweet man nice OC. I just picked up a Monsoon II TEC cooler. Waiting for the AS5 to kick in, but at 3.7ghz im at 47c under load!!
December 16, 2006 1:28:28 AM

Quote:
Sweet man nice OC. I just picked up a Monsoon II TEC cooler. Waiting for the AS5 to kick in, but at 3.7ghz im at 47c under load!!


Nice overclock dude!

Shame about the massive graphics bottleneck :-\
December 16, 2006 2:28:36 AM

I know you said no overclocking.

I have a 6400. I got it up to 2.5 ghz no voltage mods. There is no stability issues, only crashed twice in 4 months and thats better than average for most computers considering i run mine 24/7 on climate prediction.net

You should be get it up to 2.8 easily! Only slight +....

So you may say whats the point. You pay $240 for a processor thats doing what an $800 processor does.

There is a great article on anandtech.com.... http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...

You should be able to get it up to 2.88 ghz at 1.35 voltage, up from 1.3volts.
December 16, 2006 2:37:48 AM

You're spending $600 on a graphics card and cheaping out on the processor? Weird.

The only reason not to overclock a C2D is if you are running a mATX and can't find a good motherboard for it. An extra 1Ghz is nothing to ignore.

Get a good C2D and overclock it so you don't slow your nice pretty graphics card down.
December 16, 2006 3:55:28 AM

A 8800GTS costs $600 in the US? For once I think that's more than the UK :p 
December 18, 2006 6:29:31 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I know you said no overclocking.
I actually got my E6400 all the way up to 3.3ghz P95 stable for 14+hrs at the default 1.3vcore. It was funny too because so many guys here were calling bs left and right but that was nothing I couldnt handle with a few screen shots. :lol: 

Oddly enough after 3.5ghz I have to start upping the vcore more frequently as I suppose the CPU is getting near its limit.

I just installed my new Tuniq Tower 120 and right now im sitting at 3.7ghz at 1.45vcore rock solid. I think I will just leave it here and be done with it.


heh pick me pick me!! I was one of those guys, and indeed was shut up with your screenies. U got a good chip on your hands. As far as the Monsoon II, for moderate OC's its not worth it. However if you wanna push 4ghz, its great.
December 18, 2006 7:13:51 PM

E6400.
December 18, 2006 7:53:51 PM

The overclocking thing gets me too, you spend 125-250 for a water cooling system when you can just upgrade to a better processor that will last longer because its not overclocked. Of course emulator guys are even worst, I have a buddy who has like 6 computers, one is a dual socket dual core opteron with 4gb memory, and a 6800 ultra video card, he has that system to emulate ps2 and xbox(also xbox 360). It would be cheaper to just buy the systems rather than buy the equipment. For the record though, i kinda built my system with emulation in mind, but i knew where it becase a hassle. I have nintendo, super nintendo tg-16, amiga, c64, nintendo 64, playstation, and sega genesis/saturn/32x emulators, and they rock.
December 18, 2006 8:06:45 PM

Quote:
I have a buddy who has like 6 computers, one is a dual socket dual core opteron with 4gb memory, and a 6800 ultra video card, he has that system to emulate ps2 and xbox(also xbox 360).

That's impossible.
The Xbox360 GPU is way faster (and has much more advanced functionalities, more than DX9) than a 6800 ultra.
I don't think even a X6800 with 8800GTX could emulate and Xbox360 at full frame rate.
December 18, 2006 8:20:18 PM

Quote:
I have a buddy who has like 6 computers, one is a dual socket dual core opteron with 4gb memory, and a 6800 ultra video card, he has that system to emulate ps2 and xbox(also xbox 360).

That's impossible.
The Xbox360 GPU is way faster (and has much more advanced functionalities, more than DX9) than a 6800 ultra.
I don't think even a X6800 with 8800GTX could emulate and Xbox360 at full frame rate.

Last I checked the Xbox 360 GPU was a stunted 7900GT with extra extensions, giving the Xbox 360 DirectX 9.0X, which is some where between DX 9.0C and DX 10. The 360 CPU is a 3 core IBM powerpc proc, and pretty sure a X6800 could challenge it, and a QX6700 could lay it to waste :) 

So yes, it probably out paces the 6800 Ultra, but as for the dual opty's.... idk I would need more information in order to make an educated guess.
December 18, 2006 8:35:44 PM

Ah hell... you are right, i was thinking PS3 when I said 7900 GT.... how very wrong of me. 8O
December 18, 2006 8:47:17 PM

Quote:
its the most hyped up cpu ever and in all reality is no better than the one in the 360.
More so than K8L?? I highly doubt it. K8L has a lot of fragile ego's counting on it's success. :?
December 18, 2006 8:49:33 PM

Quote:
Ah hell... you are right, i was thinking PS3 when I said 7900 GT.... how very wrong of me. 8O


lol its ok man. the cell cpu in the PS3 is also a in order code read only cpu. its the most hyped up cpu ever and in all reality is no better than the one in the 360.

I thought they were similar in terms of GPU power (give and take on certain aspects) and the CPU power was slightly tilted towards the PS3 but the actual architecture made coding overly complicated. They are more alike than unlike as most people want to say, imo (silly fanboy).

Side note: read only? could you elaborate, I am not a CPU expert.... :) 
December 18, 2006 8:58:30 PM

Quote:
System is

2 GB DDR2 800
Geforce 8800GTS

But which CPU should I get? (no over clocking)

Total system price differs less then $10 so that makes no difference either but makes it harder to chose...


Once a time, I told a good friend of mine to give me an advice but he told me that he doesn't likes to give people advice, becasue an advice is like saying to someone to do exactly what you want them to do. instead, I'll give you an opinion:

IF I were you, I'd wait for retail 65nm AMD X2 processors. These will consume less power than any intel processor and they'll cost the same as current 90nm processors (or even lower). This new process will allow more OC'ing headroom for X2s with stock air cooling, BUT if you do want to overclock and don't matter about heat and power consumption, then a C2D will suit your need.
December 18, 2006 9:00:58 PM

Quote:
System is

2 GB DDR2 800
Geforce 8800GTS

But which CPU should I get? (no over clocking)

Total system price differs less then $10 so that makes no difference either but makes it harder to chose...


Once a time, I told a good friend of mine to give me an advice but he told me that he doesn't likes to give people advice, becasue an advice is like saying to someone to do exactly what you want them to do. instead, I'll give you an opinion:

IF I were you, I'd wait for retail 65nm AMD X2 processors. These will consume less power than any intel processor and they'll cost the same as current 90nm processors (or even lower). This new process will allow more OC'ing headroom for X2s with stock air cooling, BUT if you do want to overclock and don't matter about heat and power consumption, then a C2D will suit your need.



Toms just ran an article that showed that the GeForce 8800 needs high end processors to reach its full potential, showing that even FX-62 bottlenecked the graphics card.

Stop giving bad advice and biased opinions to people who value their money.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_nee...
December 18, 2006 9:19:37 PM

Quote:
System is

2 GB DDR2 800
Geforce 8800GTS

But which CPU should I get? (no over clocking)

Total system price differs less then $10 so that makes no difference either but makes it harder to chose...


Once a time, I told a good friend of mine to give me an advice but he told me that he doesn't likes to give people advice, becasue an advice is like saying to someone to do exactly what you want them to do. instead, I'll give you an opinion:

IF I were you, I'd wait for retail 65nm AMD X2 processors. These will consume less power than any intel processor and they'll cost the same as current 90nm processors (or even lower). This new process will allow more OC'ing headroom for X2s with stock air cooling, BUT if you do want to overclock and don't matter about heat and power consumption, then a C2D will suit your need.



Toms just ran an article that showed that the GeForce 8800 needs high end processors to reach its full potential, showing that even FX-62 bottlenecked the graphics card.

Stop giving bad advice and biased opinions to people who value their money.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_nee...

Sorry to say this but the only hardware site that is indeed spreading FUD across the enthusiast media is THG.
How come no other "respectable" review site didn't found the above mentioned but "suspiciously" THG is the only ones that are making such claims. Are they working intel's propaganda machine these days? I'd hate to know that. :) 

Anyhow, We're not talking about the bias of THG since this is off-topic. The guy is asking for an opinion and I'm giving him an open-minded one without any sense of bias.
December 18, 2006 9:26:12 PM

Oh, the world must be biased!
December 18, 2006 9:31:55 PM

Quote:

However the GPU in the 360 is beaten pretty easily by both a X1900XT or a 7900GTX which are both non unified shader but posses more processing power and speed than the 360 GPU which offsets the advantage that the 360's GPU had with the unified shader architecture. If the 360's GPU had been faster and had a higher fillrate then things would have been the other way around.

Not so fast.
I think we will get a better idea about this, when R600 comes to market.
R600 is probably the GPU which has the most in common with Xenos, the GPU of the Xbox360, but R600 has 64 shaders and Xenos 48.
However, 8800GTX has 128 shaders, but it is expected that a single ATI shader is more powerful than a shader into the 8800, but we'll see.
However, please keep in mind that RSX is quite comparable (and possibly faster) to a 7900GT:
* same pipelines
* core clock: 550MHz RSX, 450 MHz 7900GT
* mem bandwidth: 22.4GB/s(local mem) + 25.6GB/s (system mem) for RSX, 42.2GB/s 7900GT
Now, it is more difficult to compare the power of Xenos, but keep in mind that this has one advantage over every other GPU: a massive bandwidth of 256GB/s on the eDRAM, used for back buffer, z-buffer and 4x MSAA virtually for free.


Quote:
Now on to the CPU. This is the part everyone seems to misunderstand, the CPU in the 360 is nothing special with its in-order read only code :roll: , its easily said to be matched by a pentium 4 running at 1.6 to 1.8ghz.

Any processor north of that will simply kill it, and please dont even compare it to a core 2 duo or a dual core Amd as either one of those will run circles around it day and night much less a quad core.

Then again, not so fast.
For running poorly written business applications, there's no doubt that you're right.
But with properly optimized code and a lot of architectural registers, in-order execution is not bad at all, especially for streaming computation and multimedia data.
To give you an example, i'm doing image-processing on an embedded system equipped with a humble MIPS R7000 running at 576MHz; despite being in-order and outdated, in this kind of task that CPU runs as fast as x86 CPUs clocked more than twice as high.

But the most important point of all is: in order to emulate a system, you can't use a system which is barely faster.
Or not even "just" twice as fast, you have to be orders of magnitude faster.
And at the moment no PC is orders of magnitude faster than an Xbox360.
Especially if equipped with an outdated GPU like a 6800GT.

Links:
7900 GT
X360 Vs PS3
December 18, 2006 9:37:48 PM

Quote:
Ah hell... you are right, i was thinking PS3 when I said 7900 GT.... how very wrong of me. 8O


lol its ok man. the cell cpu in the PS3 is also a in order code read only cpu. its the most hyped up cpu ever and in all reality is no better than the one in the 360.

I thought they were similar in terms of GPU power (give and take on certain aspects) and the CPU power was slightly tilted towards the PS3 but the actual architecture made coding overly complicated. They are more alike than unlike as most people want to say, imo (silly fanboy).

Side note: read only? could you elaborate, I am not a CPU expert.... :) 
Cell is better than the Xbox360 CPU.
The problems is that it was hyper-hyped :lol:  as a supercomputer-on-a-chip, which is obviously far from the truth.
For running general purpose code, the Xbox360 CPU is better because it has 3 identical general purpose cores which can execute a total of 6 threads.
But for streaming processing, doing audio calculations, physics calculations, geometry, etc, Cell is much more powerful, however is more difficult to program.
As i said in other threads, the PS3 and Xbox360 are very close in overall performance, the X360 will win in cross platform titles because it's easier to program and has much better development tools, not to mention more similar to a PC in architecture.
Instead, in games which are PS3 only and highly optimized, we could see some more effects which the X360 cannot do at the same level.
December 18, 2006 9:39:06 PM

Please. Stop the lies. Stop the deceit. If you love AMD then fine. That's your God given right and I have nothing against it. But don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. In other words, don't bullshit everyone with flowery statements or complicated pseudo-technical language which is a front for what amounts to Grade A 100% pure bullshit.

You twist evidence and misquote data in a way that BaronMatrix never would, which is a perversion of the truth, and in a way patronizing all of us by thinking we're actually stupid enough or lack the comprehension to fall for what amounts to fallacy. I'm not going to debate you on the merits of your sources since it is obvious that it won't reach your mind, and I leave the discussion to those with the stomach to sit through your spiels.

Now I understand why Dario and 3lf told me to stay out of the CPU section. Please don't bother responding to this as I will not respond to you. Peace, prosperity, joy and the continuing pursuit of knowledge to all.
Allah yisallimak.
Ninja
December 18, 2006 9:48:04 PM

Quote:
Please. Stop the lies. Stop the deceit. If you love AMD then fine. That's your God given right and I have nothing against it. But don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. In other words, don't bullshit everyone with flowery statements or complicated pseudo-technical language which is a front for what amounts to Grade A 100% pure bullshit.

You twist evidence and misquote data in a way that BaronMatrix never would, which is a perversion of the truth, and in a way patronizing all of us by thinking we're actually stupid enough or lack the comprehension to fall for what amounts to fallacy. I'm not going to debate you on the merits of your sources since it is obvious that it won't reach your mind, and I leave the discussion to those with the stomach to sit through your spiels.

Now I understand why Dario and 3lf told me to stay out of the CPU section. Please don't bother responding to this as I will not respond to you. Peace, prosperity, joy and the continuing pursuit of knowledge to all.
Allah yisallimak.
Ninja


...Then why have you answered my post if indeed I've hurt your fanboy feelings?

It hurts being a fanboy specially when someone else comes and destroy your strong belief with facts.

If you think intel will rule the world forever and ever, it's fine with me. :) 
December 18, 2006 9:51:58 PM

Quote:
Please. Stop the lies. Stop the deceit. If you love AMD then fine. That's your God given right and I have nothing against it. But don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. In other words, don't bullshit everyone with flowery statements or complicated pseudo-technical language which is a front for what amounts to Grade A 100% pure bullshit.

You twist evidence and misquote data in a way that BaronMatrix never would, which is a perversion of the truth, and in a way patronizing all of us by thinking we're actually stupid enough or lack the comprehension to fall for what amounts to fallacy. I'm not going to debate you on the merits of your sources since it is obvious that it won't reach your mind, and I leave the discussion to those with the stomach to sit through your spiels.

Now I understand why Dario and 3lf told me to stay out of the CPU section. Please don't bother responding to this as I will not respond to you. Peace, prosperity, joy and the continuing pursuit of knowledge to all.
Allah yisallimak.
Ninja


...Then why have you answered my post if indeed I hurted your fanboy feelings?

It hurts being a fanboy specially when someone else comes and destroy your strong belief with facts.

If you think intel will rule the world forever and ever, it's fine with me. :) 

First - please take a lesson on the use of the english language and grammar...it's really quite painful to read your posts. Even Sharidouche has a slightly better grip on this than you. Hurted???

Second - You have backed up your statements in this thread and many others with exactly -nothing-.

You're a troll, trolls belong under bridges, not on 'net forums.
!