AMD 5600+ or Intel Core 2 Duo E6300?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Mike2021

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2007
24
0
18,510
In a battle in video editing which of these CPU's would win? I am building a workstation and had decided on the Core 2 Duo E6300 but now with AMD's price cut's I can afford the 5600+. My question is which cpu would be better for video editing.
I use Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5, After Effects 7.0, and Adobe Audition 2.0. The computer will be used only for video editing.


PS. Any idea when the intel Core 2 Duo is cutting their prices? I was told before that by the endings of this month...just wonderin.
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
The 5600+ is faster than the E6300 in the vast majority of applications, no question.

Intel's pricecuts are coming April 22nd, as well as additional models (E6320, E6420) which are basically E6300s/E6400s with 4MB cache. More info and comparisons can be found in this Xbit article: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup.html

Just note that AMD's official prices are now slightly higher than listed in the article, which came out before the actual cuts took place.

After pricecuts, the E6420 would cost and perform roughly the same as the X2 5600+. However, it runs significantly cooler under load, so I'm leaning towards the E6420 at this point.

Cost conscious people will argue that AM2 has the cheaper mobos, which is true. However, when you consider that you don't require DDR2-800 on C2D for decent performance, unlike AM2, it sort of balances out. So while AMD's mobos may be $50 cheaper, you can save $50 and get DDR2-533 instead on C2D and still achieve good performance.
 
the_vorlon

the_vorlon

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
365
0
18,780
Is it a great time to be alive, or what?

The 5600+ is, essentially, an FX62 with a locked multiplier. heck, given that it's a 89 watt part (versus 125 watts for the FX-62) it will likely even overclock better than an FX62 would.

1 year ago this was a $1000+ cpu, it's now a $188 part. :)

At todays prices, a 5600+ is a better deal. Performance wise it's about halfway between an E6400 and an E6600, but costs less - the same as an E6300. A clear win for AMD.

Now by month end, after the next Intel price cuts, the x2 5600 will go head to head with an E6400, which is pretty close price wise. Modest AMD advantage speed wise at stock speeds, while, as we all know, the E6400 will destroy the x2 5600+ if you overclock it. (If you have a pulse you can get just about any c2d past 3.00 ghz, and 2.4 ghz beats a 5600+, so if you OC, the Intel is the clear winner)
 
Dade_0182

Dade_0182

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2006
1,102
0
19,280
I'm gonna have to agree with the other people but I'm surprised that no one mentioned ocing. Everyone knows an E6300 can oc past E6600 speeds on stock cooling and voltage. Just a thought...
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
I'm gonna have to agree with the other people but I'm surprised that no one mentioned ocing. Everyone knows an E6300 can oc past E6600 speeds on stock cooling and voltage. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

The Vorlon mentioned overclocking. ;)
 
B

BlackThyra

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2007
25
0
18,530
yep. u should go E6300 and do MILD overclocking. i'ld say 5600+ is nothing compared to 2.6GHz E6300. 2.6ghz C2D can leave AMD FX-62 miles away!

if u dont know how to do overclocking, u should learn. :)
 
the_vorlon

the_vorlon

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
365
0
18,780
I'm gonna have to agree with the other people but I'm surprised that no one mentioned ocing. Everyone knows an E6300 can oc past E6600 speeds on stock cooling and voltage. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

The Vorlon mentioned overclocking. ;)

Just out of curiosity, has anybody, anywhere, run into a core 2 duo that DIDN't get to 3 ghz when overclocked?

Is Intel even actually binning these things?

I really don't know what I am actually buying when I go up a bin with Intel. Other than cache and multiplier, they seem to be all the same.

E6600s on average, get to the same speed as E6700, and EX6800s.

They all go 3.2 gigs pretty close to stock, 3.6 if you push them, and 3.8 if you really know what you are doing, with oddball chips getting over 4.0 now and then.

Remember when 50% was a really good overclock ?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
I'm gonna have to agree with the other people but I'm surprised that no one mentioned ocing. Everyone knows an E6300 can oc past E6600 speeds on stock cooling and voltage. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

The Vorlon mentioned overclocking. ;)

Just out of curiosity, has anybody, anywhere, run into a core 2 duo that DIDN't get to 3 ghz when overclocked?

Is Intel even actually binning these things?

I really don't know what I am actually buying when I go up a bin with Intel. Other than cache and multiplier, they seem to be all the same.

E6600s on average, get to the same speed as E6700, and EX6800s.

They all go 3.2 gigs pretty close to stock, 3.6 if you push them, and 3.8 if you really know what you are doing, with oddball chips getting over 4.0 now and then.

Remember when 50% was a really good overclock ?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I see where you're coming from. In the hands of an experienced overclocker, using the right mobo and RAM, no, I have yet to see someone not attain at least 3GHz from overclocking a C2D. I'm sure it *has* happened to someone, many people in fact, but mostly it's the mobo or RAM crapping out due to high FSBs.

I believe, by the looks of the vast majority of people achieving 3GHz at stock volts, that Intel could easily use 3GHz as a BOTTOM bin, and bin additional 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz and (if desperate) 3.6GHz speed grade chips should the need arise. Which may very well be the case if Barcelona/Agena lives up to the hype. Of course, there is also Penryn, but it just seems Intel is clocking Conroe very conservatively atm due to lack of competition.
 
1Tanker

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
1
22,780
I'm gonna have to agree with the other people but I'm surprised that no one mentioned ocing. Everyone knows an E6300 can oc past E6600 speeds on stock cooling and voltage. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

The Vorlon mentioned overclocking. ;)

Just out of curiosity, has anybody, anywhere, run into a core 2 duo that DIDN't get to 3 ghz when overclocked?

Is Intel even actually binning these things?

I really don't know what I am actually buying when I go up a bin with Intel. Other than cache and multiplier, they seem to be all the same.

E6600s on average, get to the same speed as E6700, and EX6800s.

They all go 3.2 gigs pretty close to stock, 3.6 if you push them, and 3.8 if you really know what you are doing, with oddball chips getting over 4.0 now and then.

Remember when 50% was a really good overclock ?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I see where you're coming from. In the hands of an experienced overclocker, using the right mobo and RAM, no, I have yet to see someone not attain at least 3GHz from overclocking a C2D. I'm sure it *has* happened to someone, many people in fact, but mostly it's the mobo or RAM crapping out due to high FSBs.

I believe, by the looks of the vast majority of people achieving 3GHz at stock volts, that Intel could easily use 3GHz as a BOTTOM bin, and bin additional 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz and (if desperate) 3.6GHz speed grade chips should the need arise. Which may very well be the case if Barcelona/Agena lives up to the hype. Of course, there is also Penryn, but it just seems Intel is clocking Conroe very conservatively atm due to lack of competition.Yeah, and i would say that future steppings should help in those respects, but, IIRC...aren't the newer stepping C2D's a little worse at O/Cing than the last stepping?

Discussion@XTremesytems

I guess it's not so much a different stepping, just newer batches(weeks). :?
 
B

BlackThyra

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2007
25
0
18,530
yep.. E6300 can do 2.8GHz (50% OC) EASILY at stock voltage/cooler. Relatively no extra money for ur stable and reliable OC. :wink:

and make sure to have DDR800 ram to maximize ur OC capability :D

thats why i recommend E6300 over AMD 5600+! :D
 
Dade_0182

Dade_0182

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2006
1,102
0
19,280
I confess, I get lazy and sometimes skip over the longer posts. Didn't read The_Vorlon's whole post...My bad...just too damn lazy after the very long weekend. :wink:
 
Ycon

Ycon

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
1,359
0
19,280
You must consider the additional RAM cost for an AMD processor.
Next thing is the April 22nd price cut and also the availability of mainboards based on the new 650i Ultra chipset (means dirt cheap mobos).

If you are getting the E6300, Id say that you should wait, since the E6x20 models should arrive in the next few days and will give you some performance boost.
 
H

halbhh

Distinguished
Mar 21, 2006
965
0
18,980
This is the beauty of the sudden emphasis on power ;) ....

The good old equation P=C*V^2*F....

Intel's process is capable of handling high V and, consequently, high F --- as evidenced by the 65 nm Netburst (short lived line). But because everyone thrashed them on power and AMD made it a cornerstone of their marketing, Intel simply said -- ok, our mobile IPC is good, lets just improve it, clock it and bin it to hit the market needs for both clock and power, eh, 65 watts max sounds good (crank, adjust test, wolla Core 2 Duo).

An efficient architecture on a process that can go to high F, but scaled back because of the "power".... in mobile and server, these are important.... for you and me on desktop... heck, it is challenge to figure out how to dissipate 150 Watts... so yeah, take that sucker up to 3.5 GHz....

It's like free performance ;) Well, not free but you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's the ticket for those needing extra performance/price.

btw, I'm curious. what is the power dissipation of a C2duo at 3.5Ghz anyway? (presuming a common voltage level)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom