Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD64 X2 5000+ or Intel E6300 (no overclocking)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 15, 2007 11:18:03 AM

Any opinions on which is the better choice (not intending to overclock)? A cheaper system with the 5000+ or a little more for the E6300?

Thanks for your opinions.
January 15, 2007 11:22:09 AM

X2 5000+....but WHY WOULD YOU PURCHASE AN E6300 AND NOT OC IT??? :?
January 15, 2007 11:23:05 AM

The AMD will be on Par, or may slightly beat the E6300 in some benchmarks. And without Overclocking absolutely the X2 5000+.
Related resources
January 15, 2007 11:27:11 AM

Quote:
The AMD will be on Par, or may slightly beat the E6300 in some benchmarks. And without Overclocking absolutely the X2 5000+.


Are you making this statement assuming an OC'd E6300??? 8O NO WAY! OC'd the E6300 would demolish the X2 (even if it too, is OC'd).
January 15, 2007 11:54:17 AM

The X2 5000+ is faster at stock speeds, no doubt. It's equal to or slightly faster than an E6400.
January 15, 2007 11:57:57 AM

Quote:
X2 5000+....but WHY WOULD YOU PURCHASE AN E6300 AND NOT OC IT??? :?


Some people are just not comfortable with overclocking. While we can encourage them to overclock, at the end of the day it's their money and their hardware. ;) 
January 15, 2007 11:59:48 AM

Quote:
X2 5000+....but WHY WOULD YOU PURCHASE AN E6300 AND NOT OC IT??? :?


Some people are just not comfortable with overclocking. While we can encourage them to overclock, at the end of the day it's their money and their hardware. ;) 
:cry: 
January 15, 2007 12:14:53 PM

Overclocking is def not for everyone.. I dont OC.. I dont need to..

But the main thing is, OC'ing reduces the lifespan of your machine because it imposes additional stress on your hardware.. Which can lead to failure, and not many people can afford to replace hardware.
January 15, 2007 12:26:14 PM

Quote:
Overclocking is def not for everyone.. I dont OC.. I dont need to..

But the main thing is, OC'ing reduces the lifespan of your machine because it imposes additional stress on your hardware.. Which can lead to failure, and not many people can afford to replace hardware.


I'd agree, if you have to give your components extra voltage...but I don't believe it'll shorten lifespan with stock voltage levels. My personal policy is OC as far as I can with stock voltage (or less, if possible). My opty 165 (1.8GHz @ 1.35V stock) was able to reach 2.7GHz (50% OC) without any additional voltage. But, I am also interested in component life, so I backed off to 2.4GHz and UNDERVOLTED the proc to 1.25V.

You don't need too??? Well, in that case, you didn't NEED your last CPU upgrade either did you? I remember back in the late 90's when it was very common reading these forums, to hear people's sob stories about frying a proc due to OC'ing. But, I can count on one hand the # I've heard of in the last 6 years.
January 15, 2007 1:47:05 PM

Quote:
Any opinions on which is the better choice (not intending to overclock)? A cheaper system with the 5000+ or a little more for the E6300?

Thanks for your opinions.

Well, first of all X2 5000+ is more expencive than both the C2D E6300 and the C2D 6400:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2, $269
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Conroe 1.86GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775, $192
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775, $221

In terms of performance, the X2 5000+ beats the C2D E6300, but performs roughly same as C2D E6400.
C2D E6400 is better choice then X2 5000+ because it runs cooler, it is more energy efficient, performs excellent with cheap ram(ex. DDR2-667 CL5) and it is much more overclockable.
Anyway, the C2D E6600 is slightly more expencive than the X2 5000+, but it outperforms all sAM2 AMD CPUs. It is better in everything than the X2 5000+, and is more worth for the money:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775, $317

Check out the sticky thread about Core2 on this subforum to learn more about it and its performance.
!