Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6000 Have Any Kick Left? - Page 2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 20, 2007 4:23:27 PM

Dude! I had to buy a hydra monitor setup just so I could display my E-penis! And I use 60" displays! lol.
February 20, 2007 4:24:31 PM

I don't give a damn, but when you blatantly spread disinformation about testing procedures, I don't pull punches. You say bullshit, I'll call you. And drop the "Oh he's just flexing his e-penis" routine. I made no mention of me owning either or any class of chip. I spoke only of procedure and performance. Drop the bullshit, and give me that much respect at least. If you want to leave a discussion just do so.
February 20, 2007 4:28:14 PM

So, wouldn't everyone be happy if they did both the 1024x768 and the 1600x1200 tests? And included the 6400 and 6600? Personally, I feel most people have a computer that far surpasses what they use it for, but as for myself, I still want to be able to play Oblivion at decent frame rates! lol.
Related resources
February 20, 2007 4:29:02 PM

I think it's much more fun to get you going though....

Ok really Ninja, you have your school of thought, and we have ours. Lets just leave it at that.
February 20, 2007 4:30:54 PM

Quote:

Your ideology on benchmarking is like putting two vehicles on a dynomometer and only comparing the power at 2500 RPMs.

If you're satisfied to spend $$$ on a top of the line system to play games at 1024x768 with no AA or Ansio turned on, then good for you. I think most people upgrade so they can play games at the highest resolution they can, with the most eye candy enabled, so they get the best experience possible.

Bullshit. My idea of testing is to test the component. This is not the same as testing a car to a low rev.


But it is... look at the benchmarks for the article "8800 needs the fastest CPU" The AMD FX60 came back with the same video card to match and even surpass the Intel 6800 at high resolutions. I understand that it can be faster at low resolutions, but like my original post... who pays top dollar for a CPU to run it at low res with no eye candy. I'll wait for a more thorough review on caming with this CPU to see what it's capable of.

Quote:

Let me break it down for you.
If CPU A's performance in a CPU dependent test is greater than the performance of CPU B, then when playing at a higher resolution the added performance of GPU C will make CPU A's performance higher still than that of CPU B + GPU C.


But that is not the case... you need to look at high resolution gaming benchmarks.








Quote:
While the numbers for the G80 were impressive in our existing test platform, the new setup shows much better performance gains for Nvidia's DX10 based cards. The DX9 hardware gains somewhat, but there are fewer gains due to the nature of the limitations in what that hardware can do.

That said, there are a few things we would like to point out. The first is that Nvidia's cards had better gains from a faster CPU and platform. Part of this can be directly attributed to the driver; Nvidia's driver is known to utilize more of the CPU, so the more the CPU can deliver, the better the performance.

Along the same vein, ATI had fewer gains, but this is praise for Terry Makedon and the Catalyst driver team. It shows that an ATI card will not be as affected by slower components over different systems. This is true to a point anyway; once the system becomes the bottleneck, it doesn't matter what you put in the card, as not much will happen.

One thing is for certain: you need bleeding edge horsepower to get the most out of DX0 hardware. If you are in the market for a high end card, you'd do best with an entirely new system.

We upgraded our system to make sure we'd get the most objective results for our graphics reviews. The system might be upgraded once again over the next two quarters, but only time will tell if this will be necessary. For now the choice is clear: Conroe is the best choice for testing.

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


We must not be looking at the same tests.
February 20, 2007 4:31:15 PM

What're you, a devout Catholic?

Penis.
February 20, 2007 4:35:32 PM

Quote:
So, wouldn't everyone be happy if they did both the 1024x768 and the 1600x1200 tests? And included the 6400 and 6600? Personally, I feel most people have a computer that far surpasses what they use it for, but as for myself, I still want to be able to play Oblivion at decent frame rates! lol.


Yes, I would find the gaming benchmarks more credible if they included more resolutions, turning up the eye candy, and posting min/avg/max frame rates.
February 20, 2007 4:45:57 PM

Quote:

We must not be looking at the same tests.


No, that is the correct test, but you could have saved yourself some time by not posting the images that don't mean crap to me.... the ones without the EYE CANDY TURNED ON. Get it thru your head, that I don't care about gaming at low resolutions and without the details cranked up... that was my whole arguement!

Look at the tests at 1600 and above. That's the 2.6Ghz FX-60 vs. the X6800. I can only imagine that the 6000+ is going to be even more competitive. The article about the 6000+ said the chip should retail for ~$459 vs. ~$900 for an X6800. For gaming, that could be a considerable savings.
February 20, 2007 5:10:45 PM

Quote:
The 6000+ is in large extent just a place holding product, something that is there for the sake of being, just like the FX-70,72 and 74. It's neither cheap, nor performing.


Boy you guys are a broken record. Non performng means you can't use it for games, not it loses to Core 2.

I spent $496 for a 4400+ so it is relatively cheap. I just want to see your faces if you have to put Core 2 down below Kuma.
February 20, 2007 5:17:14 PM

I think it's fairly evident that as of right now, it would be an unwise decision to upgrade to a core 2 duo if you already have an X2/FX/Opteron dual core running at 2.4 or above....for gaming at realistic resolutions with eye candy.
February 20, 2007 5:25:28 PM

DaSuckNinja.

Could you please read back to me the benchmark FPS for the 4xAA/8xAF FEAR marks, and oblivion. Just type the 1600x1200 and above resolutions. Particularly the 2048 :) .

Stop looking at the resolution/display settings that not one person will run in a game with an 8800gtx or gts
February 20, 2007 5:33:31 PM

Hemi..
What DaSickNinja is trying to say is that all the "EYE CANDY", ie.AA,AF, HDR, and super-high resolutions, is all GPU dependent. The CPU has almost nothing to do with that. The low resolution is being ENTIRELY rendered by the CPU. Hence, there is a real limit to what can be rendered, same as the 3DMark CPU test(s).

The purpose of the test was to show what the CPU - NOT THE GPU - could do. In this sense, it is not a "real world" test, because most of us DO use add-on video cards. In the "real world", all the CPU does is physics,AI, and model manipulation (3D movement), along with keeping up with GPU data requests. The CPU usage is (almost)exactly the same at 1024x768 as it is at 2560x1920 (texture requests may come slightly more often at extreme resolutions, depending on the application).
February 20, 2007 5:34:38 PM

Quote:
I'd venture to guess that the core 2 duo at the same mhz as mine (2.64ghz), runs games at nearly identical framerates on my 8800GTS.
You will not notice the difference between a
1.8GHz C2D and your X2 2.64GHz, neither.

Quote:
But hey, who am I, I'm just a realistic gamer
But hey, that is just you, 1 of 6,300,000,000! Most of the PC users don't give a $h1t about games and are using their PCs for other purposes!

Quote:
Wake up people....
Keep dreaming.....
Quote:
Edit : Even more hilarious, the 2.6ghz FX keeps up with the 2.9ghz 4mb L2 cache version of the core 2 duo at higher resolutions. None of those marks justify an upgrade if you ask me.
BS!
The difference in performance in games at higher resolutions between C2D 1.8GHz and X2/FX 2.6GHz is smaller than the difference between X2/FX 2.6GHz and C2X 2.93GHz. So?
February 20, 2007 5:45:08 PM

sweet article - good honest reporting!
February 20, 2007 6:01:23 PM

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


We must not be looking at the same tests.



What I see when looking at these tests is that every combination is playable out to 2560. (Everything else is bragging rights)

I also noticed that FX60 is limited to about 120fps in some games. But it does provide EXCELLENT frame rates.

Like I said, when I saw 300+ fps (Q3) it became about budget and not speed.

I would be interested to see those same tests with the 6000+ with the fastest RAM possible. I think the added bandwidth will enable it to get a few more fps at least.

I may just buy a 5600+/8GB RAM just because people say it isn't worth it.
February 20, 2007 6:01:28 PM

Quote:
Boy you guys are a broken record.
Blah....blah...BaronBS and his irony.....

Quote:
Non performng means you can't use it for games, not it loses to Core 2.
You may say the same about Pentium EE. It holds its own against K8, as much as K8 hold its own against Core2. :wink:

Quote:
I spent $496 for a 4400+ so it is relatively cheap. I just want to see your faces if you have to put Core 2 down below Kuma.
Damn stupidity...It has no limits!
I spent almost $1000 for two P2 Klamath CPUs in 1998. Does it make your purchase an insane deal? :roll:
You don't understand very simple things...People really don't care about the brand, as you do. I know that its not human, but am always smiling at your stupidity. So, when you are going to see my face, I'll be smiling at you. :lol: 
February 20, 2007 6:05:58 PM

Quote:
Boy you guys are a broken record.
Blah....blah...BaronBS and his irony.....

Quote:
Non performng means you can't use it for games, not it loses to Core 2.
You may say the same about Pentium EE. It holds its own against K8, as much as K8 hold its own against Core2. :wink:

Quote:
I spent $496 for a 4400+ so it is relatively cheap. I just want to see your faces if you have to put Core 2 down below Kuma.
Damn stupidity...It has no limits!
I spent almost $1000 for two P2 Klamath CPUs in 1998. Does it make your purchase an insane deal? :roll:
You don't understand very simple things...People really don't care about the brand, as you do. I know that its not human, but am always smiling at your stupidity. So, when you are going to see my face, I'll be smiling at you. :lol: 


If I'm so stupid why do you stalk me? I didn't say anything about EE. We'll see when Kuma comes out. I guess you'll have to jump the fence and then maybe jump back again when Penryn comes out and maybe again when Shanghai and again when Nehalem and maybe again when the next AMD chip comes out in 08.

Seems like too much trouble to me. but then you can't decide on even your avatar so I would't expect you to just pick one and stick with it.
February 20, 2007 6:48:13 PM

for once baronmatrix ISNT the biggest moron in this thread hemi is either get a clue or get a brain hemiorrhage. haemorrhage BTW
February 20, 2007 7:29:12 PM

Alright morons...read the title to the article.

It says "geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu"

NEEDS it for what? To run 1024 with no AA.

Fukin retarded if you ask me.....

it needs nothing more than a cpu that's been out for 2 years.
February 20, 2007 8:08:08 PM

Quote:
I hate to be crass about this, but this review sucks. Where the hell are the benchmarks for the E6600 or E6300? And putting a Pentium D in there... what's the point of that?

Come on guys. This is the most pathetic CPU review i've seen on this site in years.

***disappointed***


Note that Tomshardware (why is it still called that ?) has been seriously slacking off. They're beginning to remind me of the uninspired (mis)management running most companies today. Get in, make money, move on. Don't contribute anything worth having. How long has it been since the Interactive CPU Charts were updated ? And why is there still no good review of the 6300 Conroe ?
February 20, 2007 8:19:17 PM

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933

Anand has a good review of the 6000. Looks like the core 2 duo is obviously still crowned the winner, but read into the marks carefull.

the intel chip still suffers without the memory controller on chip in 64bit applications.
February 20, 2007 8:30:54 PM

Quote:
Lets put this thread to rest....I think daninja wins the E-Penis game. If everyone else is happy with their slightly smaller E-Penis, I think we are good.

You're just bitter because you lose. At everything.
February 20, 2007 8:36:32 PM

Quote:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933

Anand has a good review of the 6000. Looks like the core 2 duo is obviously still crowned the winner, but read into the marks carefull.

the intel chip still suffers without the memory controller on chip in 64bit applications.


A fairly good article, but still wandering why reviewers hardly ever do any multithreaded testing.

To this day I still haven't seen proper, complete and exhaustive benchmarking for multithreading.
February 20, 2007 8:47:03 PM

Quote:
for once baronmatrix ISNT the biggest moron in this thread hemi is either get a clue or get a brain hemiorrhage. haemorrhage BTW


Are you insulting me or trying to get my phone number? I can't figure out which. :oops:  :lol: 

CLICK -> Punctuation
February 20, 2007 9:30:29 PM

Quote:
Good grief, the gaming benchmarks were crap. WhoTF buys a top of the line processor and runs games at 1024x768?? Talk about spinning the gaming benchmarks in favor of Intel so they can say Intel dominates across the board...


Yeah I hated the selected benchmarks that were shown in the article. Like no one would notice or nobody cares. It did mention however that you could look at the CPU interactive charts. And I also did get the feeling I was reading a biased article.

Quote:
From a performance standpoint, the new Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is no match for Intel Core 2 Duo processors from the E6700 up. However, it is still worth consideration, because AMD is very well aware of its performance handicap and adjusted the stepping as well as its processor pricing accordingly.


I'm no AMD fan boy, but the glass seems half empty for AMD here. Newsflash..they weren't trying to compete with Core 2 Duo. This is rather a very attractive upgrade alternative with current AMD owners. Something that you couldn't have said in the last few months. And how can you put "handicap" and "still worth consideration" in the same sentence?

Quote:
From a technology standpoint, the new model clearly is an improvement, although it reminds us of Intel, trying to squeeze as much clock speed as possible out of an aging architecture.


LOL....yeah right. Again the glass seems half empty doesn't it? The difference here is in the past, intel was trying to squeeze something out of a already flawed net burst architecture. It's actually a nice surprise to see that AMD, using an old architecture, post respectable benchmarks. Something Intel before couldn't have dreamed of.

OK, still I wouldn't buy the AMD X2 6000 for building a brand new system from scratch. But at least AMD gave us something to make us raise our eyebrows and talk about. And it gives us hope that their upcoming processors will be great competition for Intel.
February 20, 2007 9:32:37 PM

Here's a though. Not everyone on the board speaks English as a first language. I don't.
February 20, 2007 10:04:58 PM

Quote:
Here's a though. Not everyone on the board speaks English as a first language. I don't.


Okay, that probably explains why you cannot comprehend my point of view, but at least you use punctuation to defend yours. Thank you for the clarification.
February 21, 2007 1:37:01 PM

I’m excited about this new product. AMD’s way of doing buisness makes me feel like I”m part of the industry rather than a marketing target. They do a great job of filling out the product line, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. The big performance boost is the move to 65nm, but that’s just one peice of the pie. Rather than desperately grabbing for an advantage, AMD seems to focus on common sense buisness. Industry is dynamic, not static. AMD sticks to it’s guns, keeps it’s boots on, despite all the spin. That’s pretty cool. This 4x4 platform is really shaping up to be something special.


I really enjoyed the interview. Those were some tough questoins to face, in the interview, but AMD really seems confident, like they’ve got a set. Speaking of which, any word on an FX product with the F3 stepping?
February 21, 2007 5:08:47 PM

I think that AMD is making a statement with the 6000+. They are by far not dead yet, and could keep bumping up the speeds of there 64 x2's if they thought that was the way they needed to go. It shows that they would rather look into making a better more innovative chip.


As for the article. It mentions the E6600 more then once and says that the 6000+ performs between the E6600 and the E6700, but didn't show the E6600 in the benchmarks. It would have been nice to see how much better the 6000+ did then the E6600. Further more, In some of the test it puts all the AMD's chips below the Intel's, and that is the only reason why I can think that they didn't include the E6600. Additionally, I have an E6600 in my computer and I would like to have seen if the difference was really measurable.
February 21, 2007 5:15:25 PM

Quote:
A new Athlon 64 X2 top model launches, squeezing 3.0 GHz out of AMD's 90 nm silicon. It cannot end Intel's Core 2 Extreme supremacy, but AMD's aggressive pricing fuels the price war, making the 6000 somewhat affordable.


I have only read the first of 4 pages of comments so far, but I can already tell that many posters on this article have not read the whole thing. It compares the performance of the processors they mentioned, and many of the complaints about it are actually answered in the article itself. Makes you wonder...

How many posts per article come from those who haven't read the entire article?

Not saying it is forbidden to post or something, but I figured most of us here have read the article. I am now discovering that this may not be the case...
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2007 5:30:27 PM

bourgeoisdude wrote:
> Not saying it is forbidden to post or something, but I figured most
> of us here have read the article. I am now discovering that this may
> not be the case...

I read all of it, aswell as at least a dozen other articles on other
sites about the 6000+. Looking for a new setup to go with my
existing X1950Pro AGP, I did a lot of research. Finally bought a
6000+, mbd, case, PSU, etc. this week, & was wondering how the recent
huge price drop has affected what peoples' opinions are. The
performance differences are still the same of course (E6700 is
faster) but I just couldn't say no to a 6000+ at 156 UKP, which was
_half_ the cost of the E6700. Most articles focus on performance, but
IMO the new pricing is very good for AMD. For someone in my position
who already has a decent AGP card, one can get a good mbd, best
possible CPU and have a very nice system at much lower cost compared
to spending the same amount of money on a Core 2 Duo setup.

Plus, the one thing I was really shocked to discover was that there
wasn't a single motheboard available for Core 2 Duo that had AGP
_and_ had DDR2 memory running at the full 800 speed. It was always
crippled down to 667 or 553! Wierd. Either way, I bought an
AM2NF3-VSTA nForce 3 mbd, along with 4GB of OCZ Platinum Rev 2 DDR800
RAM (2 x 2GB kits), 700W Altrix PSU, a nice black ASUS case, and the
proverbial 6000+ retail pack (the CPU was 149.75 + shipping from
Komplett; all other items I bought from Microdirect for 369.87 UKP
total). My old system (a dual-XEON Dell 650) has 4 x 147GB 15000rpm
U320 SCSI disks and the X1950Pro, so I'll be moving those over to the
new setup, along with the 20X DVDRW and LSI U320 dual-channel RAID
card. Should be rather good for Oblivion/Stalker. 8)

Btw, I was able to overclock the Sapphire X1950 from 580/703 to
641/783 no problems once I replaced the stock cooler with an ACCELERO
X2; has anyone heard of overclocked timings for this card higher than
that? I bought the same card for my brother's PC (plus the same new
cooler) but it won't go over 627/735 and still remain stable. Was I
just lucky? At load it doesn't go over 50C, and idles now at 35C.I
was quite shocked to see it take a 10% overclock without problems.

Either way, Oblivion/Stalker already look great at 1024x768 on the
old system, but the newer system's faster memory should give a 50% to
100% speedup (the Dell only has PC2100 ECC and FSB533), as suggested
by comparison tests on my brother's Athlon64 3400+ setup (FRAPS
showed various example Oblivion locations were 1.5X to 2X faster).
Speedy RAM definitely helps, which was a definite nail in the coffin
with respect to considering a Core 2 Duo solution, along with the 2X
higher CPU price.

Being able to afford a 6000+ because of the price drops means I
should be able to pretty much max out the various visual effects, and
probably run the games at 1280x1024 instead. It's a pity the various
tech sites haven't updated their 6000+ reviews because the new
pricing changes everything IMO.

Cheers! :) 

Ian.

PS. The only thing I haven't done yet is obtain a better cooler for
the CPU for overclocking. I'm still wading through various product
reviews. Not such an obvious choice of a product that will work
well.
April 21, 2007 7:42:52 AM

i hate bumping old posts so good some one did

i selling my 3800+ X2 and getting the 6000+ X2 purely for cost and performace
i seen loads of revews and the 6000+ seems to stand up to the e6600 alot, apart from when it comes to overclocking the e6600 Clocks Very well, but even then results that you get back from it you not see in games
for me its only £100 for the upgrade saves me haveing to buy an new motherboard and cpu @ £300 ish, i may make the leap to the Blue side when thay bring out there new cpus thats if AMDs cpus match it or out perform it then i still be on the green side and then it may only be an CPU upgrade not motherbord as well

if i was makeing an new system i make an e6600 as an min spec for it but i got every thing now so 6000+ is not wasted in my set up now all games will run Very well on it

fact 8800GTX/GTS 640mb - for DX9 games is CPU limted you run a game at less then 1600x1200 with AA , 8800 is the first card in its class to make it CPU limited in an long time , if you run an game at 1024x786 dam any cpu should do in the last 3 years

i do think it looked like an little bit of an short review tho and no e6600 in there to test it to as well , other web sites need to update there reviews as still stateing there high price it was before (my Friend got an 4200+ X2 for £160 and now he can get an 6000+ X2 for £150 month or so after :)  )
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2007 10:12:51 PM

leexgx writes:
> i hate bumping old posts so good some one did

Whoops, I didn't notice. :D 


> i selling my 3800+ X2 and getting the 6000+ X2 purely for cost and performace

That should be one sweet upgrade!

I've just installed my new system btw, still putting on extras. Hope to run some bench
tests shortly.


> i seen loads of revews and the 6000+ seems to stand up to the e6600 alot, apart from
> when it comes to overclocking the e6600 Clocks Very well, but even then results that
> you get back from it you not see in games

Yes, absolutely. And btw, the mbd I bought (Asrock AM2NF3) has something called
AM2 Boost. This automatically changed the system clocks so that the CPUs are
running at 3120MHz by default. 8) An unexpected bonus! It's just set the memory
to 208 instead of 200.


> for me its only £100 for the upgrade saves me haveing to buy an new motherboard

Wow! Where did you find the 6000+ for 100??


> and cpu @ £300 ish, ...

Well, the mbd was only 35, so total 191, but I did also splash out on 4GB RAM. :D 


> i may make the leap to the Blue side when thay bring out there new cpus thats if AMDs
> cpus match it or out perform it then i still be on the green side and then it may only be
> an CPU upgrade not motherbord as well

Yep, definitely plenty of choices in the future, though I think I'll be ok for a fair while now.


> if i was makeing an new system i make an e6600 as an min spec for it but i got every
> thing now so 6000+ is not wasted in my set up now all games will run Very well on it

I would have gone for an E6600 if I could have found a mbd with full DDR2/800 RAM
and AGP, but there were none available. Seems to be a bit of a hole in the market
for Intel boards. By contrast, almost all the DDR2 AMD AGP boards support the RAM
running at full 800 speed.


> fact 8800GTX/GTS 640mb - for DX9 games is CPU limted you run a game at less then
> 1600x1200 with AA , 8800 is the first card in its class to make it CPU limited in an long
> time , if you run an game at 1024x786 dam any cpu should do in the last 3 years

That's one down side of the VGA charts, they don't allow one to contemplate the
same gfx choices but with different CPUs. Tests are always run on a top-end system,
but probably most people are still using much older CPUs, in many cases single-CPU,
single-core, like my brother's original AthlonXP 2400+. At least TH has done tests
with new cards on old boards, but it's still difficult to work out the consequences of
any particular upgrade path.


> i do think it looked like an little bit of an short review tho and no e6600 in there to test

Yes, the lack of an E6600 in there was a bit odd, especially given it can be overclocked
beyond a stock E6700 and the fact that the E6600 is about the same price as the 6000+.


> it to as well , other web sites need to update there reviews as still stateing there high
> price it was before (my Friend got an 4200+ X2 for £160 and now he can get an 6000+
> X2 for £150 month or so after :)  )

Yes, exactly! I was out in town on Friday, typical small high street computer shop (checking
price list I grabbed...) still sells the measly 5200+ for 156! They didn't even have the 5600
or 6000. What a ripoff! :\

Anyway! Back to installing stuff, am about to stick on a BIOS update aswell. Good luck
with your upgrade!

Ian.
April 22, 2007 12:50:31 AM

Quote:
i wouldnt wipe my butt with a C2D, wll then again maybe I would! lol


Better to wipe your butt with a C2D than that X2 6000+ you got there. Human a$$holes aren't designed to tolerate 125W of concentrated heat, at least I don't think so. :wink:
April 22, 2007 12:57:25 AM

Quote:
i wouldnt wipe my butt with a C2D, wll then again maybe I would! lol


Better to wipe your butt with a C2D than that X2 6000+ you got there. Human a$$holes aren't designed to tolerate 125W of concentrated heat, at least I don't think so. :wink:

Bwahahaaahhahaha :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Im still awaiting his reply to my question as well. :lol: 

Gee that's a hard question ain't it? :roll: :lol: 

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-round...
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-round...

Ahh, fanboys will be fanboys... :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2007 2:26:47 AM

Quote:
Well thats nice and everything but it still doesn't dispute the fact that Core 2 duo>AMD at the moment.


A rather irrational comment given cost is also an important factor for many. The 6000+
cost me 155 UKP, whereas the E6700 was more than 300 UKP. Sometimes economics
are just as important. And as for speed, as I said before and elsewhere, there was NOT
any LGA775 AGP mbd available which would allow DDR2 RAM to run at full 800 speed;
since RAM speed is important for games, the logical choice, combined with cost, was
AMD 6000+. I've just been running some tests; for the Sandra memory tests, in one
case (memory bandwidth float) the _only_ CPU examples which beat my system are
the quad-core Intels, ie. the 6000+ was faster than both the E6600 and E6700 by
a significant margin.

The cost saving allowed me to invest in some extra items instead, eg. noise dampening
holder for the system disk, vibration/noise reduction pad for the PSU and main fan,
cooling fan for the disk, and a good gaming mouse. Overall, compared to buying an
E6700 system, the lower cost of the 6000+ meant I could get all these extras plus
have 4GB RAM instead of 2GB RAM. No contest.

3DMark scores coming shortly...

Ian.

PS. Remember I already had a good AGP card I wanted to keep from my old system,
so a PCIe mbd was not an option for me.
April 22, 2007 2:49:29 AM

Why didn't you get the E6600? Just a smidgen "slower", a lot cooler. And cheaper now.

And wtf at DDR2 800? Conroe on slower RAM is still going to be faster than Athlon with fast RAM.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=7

Why do you run Sandra? If it's not real world it doesn't matter. And neither does 3DMark. But I guess some guys are after the score than getting actual things done.
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2007 3:54:39 AM

r0ck writes:
> Why didn't you get the E6600? Just a smidgen "slower", a lot cooler. And cheaper now.

Read my earlier posts.


> And wtf at DDR2 800? Conroe on slower RAM is still going to be faster than Athlon
> with fast RAM.

I still wanted a mbd that would allow full 800 speed. What's the point in buying PC6400
RAM if it's crippled down to 533 or 667? All the Intel available 775/AGP boards did not
support PC6400 RAM at full speed, period.


> Why do you run Sandra? If it's not real world it doesn't matter.

Maybe not for you, but it *is* useful for me. I run all the tests I can to get a broad
picture.


> ... And neither does 3DMark. ...

Nonsense. I find many of the 3DMark tests correlate closely with the apps I want
to run (Oblivion & Stalker), so they're perfectly useful comparisons.


> But I guess some guys are after the score than getting actual things done.

I'm not one of them. I bought my initial system for video encoding (dual-XEON
P4/2.66 Dell Precision 650), thus my interest in SGIs and 500MB/sec RAID systems
for reliable uncompressed capture, etc. Getting an X1950 to put in the Dell was just
a bonus. But after seeing how much faster even a single core Athlon was for both
video conversion tasks and games (a 3400+ o.c.'d to 2.64GHz, same gfx), I decided
to replace the Dell with a newer system, keeping the X1950 I already had.

If a benchmark is similar to one's target application, whether that's a game or not (in
my case both), then the test is a perfectly valid & useful comparison.

What's really sad is that if mbd makers really wanted to allow people to push what
these CPU designs are capable of, they'd offer mbds with PCIX instead of just
pathetic 32bit/33 PCI. The Dell 650 was a slower system, but I'll miss the PCIX
U320 speed it offered (200MB/sec and 1ms access time from 3 x 147GB 15K).

Ian.
April 22, 2007 4:36:41 AM

Quote:
Why didn't you get the E6600? Just a smidgen "slower", a lot cooler. And cheaper now.

And wtf at DDR2 800? Conroe on slower RAM is still going to be faster than Athlon with fast RAM.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=7

Why do you run Sandra? If it's not real world it doesn't matter. And neither does 3DMark. But I guess some guys are after the score than getting actual things done.


The E6600 actually outperforms the X2 6000+ slightly.
From a review that actually *compares* it directly to an E6600 (wink wink THG :roll: )
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-round...


Compared to the competition, the X2 6000+ fails in all areas: Price/performance, heat, overclocking.

The X2 5600+ is a better choice for a 'high end' AM2 setup. 95% the performance @ 75% the price.
April 22, 2007 5:42:21 AM

In case you don't get it, we don't give a flying f*** what car you drive, how many times you get laid, or how many years you've served in military.

However, your fanboyism is annoying and childish. It stops people from having any real discussion without you butting your sorry ass in.

Did you get fired by Intel by any chance?

Rumor has it Sharikou was fired by Intel, and everyone knows how he turned out. All that bitterness and contempt locked up inside. ;) 

Good luck with your future purchases, I hope for your sake AMD's K10 lives up to expectations. ;) 
April 22, 2007 1:30:13 PM

It seems to be that you like getting big synthetic memory scores. To that, I salute you.
April 22, 2007 2:07:15 PM

Quote:
Intel C2D Means nothing to me and neither do any of you Intel fanboys. Framerates and visual speed between mine and a 6600 or 6400 whatever wouldnt be noticeable. I will have quad core next and a 8900 gtx and pay cash for it. So you can post all your little comments you want, I will still get all the female ass i want drive my 2007 loaded Z06 vette and be happy with my choice of system and i will still have 3 wars under my belt and 19 years of service to this country. Dont come to me with your little kiddy comments about my processor owns yours Bs, get a overall well balanced system with a real resolution to play it on,do something with your life other than being a minor step ahead in processor choice, poor asses. Now go back out and play before mama comes calling you for supper...LOL

How does one go from the subject of computers to cars to female ass all in the same post... could it be.. Piddy?
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2007 2:18:10 PM

Quote:
It seems to be that you like getting big synthetic memory scores. To that, I salute you.


It seems to me that you like hurling insults instead of reading what I said. Fast memory is
important for good frame rates in games; that's what I was overwhelmingly told by numerous
forums when initially exploring why my XEON Dell didn't perform so well. Thus, I wanted to
get an AGP board with proper DDR2/800 support. I am now getting frame rates 50% to
100% better; memory scores are appropriately higher. Thus, the system is now bottlenecked
by the gfx, not the CPU or RAM, which was not the case before.

I must say, I've read more than 50 threads on a dozen different forums whil trying to work
out how best to upgrade; this forum has by far the highest level of personal insults than
any of them, which is a shame. Surely if system A is faster than B, then _why_ it is faster
should be they key point of interest, yet all I see here is childish brand loyalty. I've no doubt
you didn't read my post on the other forum which explains in full what I've been trying to
do wrt upgrading. Instead, every time I state my rationale for doing a particular tests, I'm
shouted down or patronised. I can only infer that such people have little real knowledge
about benchmarking methodologies and how they should be applied.

For the last time: _if_ there was an LGA775 board with AGP and full DDR2/800 support,
then I would have bought it and got an E6600. There was no such board from any
supplier I could find, so I bought an AM2 board instead. I had a set of requirments, I
used benchmark tests to explore those requirements, and made a purchase based on the
results. I don't expect the details of what I did to match my needs to be 100% relevant
to what other people do with their systems, but I do expect some degree of common
sense by those who respond with respect to why a benchmark may be useful if the
final intended task is correctly reflected by that test.

Ian.
April 22, 2007 2:22:24 PM

I'm not sure what Xeon you had but most of them depend on the FB-DIMM platform which is screwy when it comes to latency and bandwidth.
April 22, 2007 3:07:55 PM

Well, you care about getting DDR2 800 for the sake of the 800, care about Sandra memory scores, care about 3DMark, give no regard to AMD being dependent on RAM while Intel not.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-r...
This review with 800 places E6600 ahead. The gap extends with slower RAM. And of course, review after review shows that a 6000+ will burn a hole in your case :p 
April 22, 2007 3:31:11 PM

I'm frankly not sure why this argument still persists.
April 22, 2007 4:03:04 PM

Dead horses make for good beatings I guess. :wink:
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2007 5:07:59 PM

r0ck writes:
> Well, you care about getting DDR2 800 for the sake of the 800, care about Sandra memory
> scores, care about 3DMark, give no regard to AMD being dependent on RAM while Intel not.

Again, you've not understood what I said at all. How can you say I seek these things for
their own sake when I've been basing my search on precisely the recommendations from
other forums that max RAM speed was the thing to go for? You're basically saying I'm
lying and know nothing about benchmarking, which is more of a nonsense than you
could possibly imagine. Could you be any more rude? Sheesh...


> This review with 800 places E6600 ahead. The gap extends with slower RAM. And of
> course, review after review shows that a 6000+ will burn a hole in your case :p 

_What_ 800? Is there some part of "there was NO 775/AGP board with 800 support" that
you don't understand?

I care about the tests I mentioned because those are the tests which most closely
represented the final tasks I wanted to run. If they're not relevant to what you use
your system for, fine, but don't sit there and tell me they're not relevant to me; that's
just plain stupid.

Ian.
!