Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon64 X2 5600 vs Core2Duo E6400

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 11, 2007 3:51:23 PM

Ok guys, just wondering if any of you more knowledgeable folks can help me out with a dilemma?

The X2 5600 is currently about £25 ($50) cheaper than the E6400, and according to the benchmark test on this site outperforms it as well. Just wondering what you guys think, because I’ve read a lot recently on Intel supremacy. Bear in mind the 2 most important things to me in my new PC are going to be 1) Gaming and 2) upgrade potential. I’m going to be rounding the system out with a fairly decent graphics card, probably a 8800GTS 320mb and 2 gig of decent RAM.

Thanks in advance guys!
Sam
April 11, 2007 3:58:39 PM

The two start roughly the same speed at stock MHz, if anything I would bet on the AMD chip to take a very slight lead - but it's well known that the Intel chips are able to over clock like crazy if you are into that.

As to future upgrade potential, the AMD platform is known to be very good, with all CPU's in the next 3 to 4 years being able to slot into AM2 motherboards, AM3 and AM2+ processors are guaranteed to work in AM2 based systems.
April 11, 2007 4:14:59 PM

The 5600+ is faster at stock speeds, no doubt. And cheaper, thanks to AMD's price cuts, which have made several X2s (most, actually...) attractive-looking buys.
Related resources
April 11, 2007 4:44:54 PM

On a Clock for Clock cycle, the Intel's toast AMD chips.
The Intel Chips will also run at much higher clock speeds.

Almost w/o fail every C2Duo from the E4300 and up will easily reach 3.0Ghz on stock or near stock voltage so long as you get a proper MB, RAM, PSU, etc.....

The C2Duos OC so easily, it's not even traditional OCing which takes special skill, expensive cooling, and chip risk.
April 11, 2007 4:47:25 PM

Quote:
Ok guys, just wondering if any of you more knowledgeable folks can help me out with a dilemma?

The X2 5600 is currently about £25 ($50) cheaper than the E6400, and according to the benchmark test on this site outperforms it as well. Just wondering what you guys think, because I’ve read a lot recently on Intel supremacy. Bear in mind the 2 most important things to me in my new PC are going to be 1) Gaming and 2) upgrade potential. I’m going to be rounding the system out with a fairly decent graphics card, probably a 8800GTS 320mb and 2 gig of decent RAM.

Thanks in advance guys!
Sam


If you plan to overclock, choose E6400. Otherwise x2 5600+ is a better deal. :wink:
April 11, 2007 5:01:54 PM

Im not sure how much you are paying, but after the 22nd Intel will be cutting prices as well, so if you can wait till then you could build either cheaper with an E6400 and OC or bump up to the E6600 and you would be besting the 5600+ even at stock, but then still have the OC headroom. That is what I would do if I were you! Just my two cents...hope this helps!

Best,

3Ball
April 11, 2007 5:26:48 PM

I was wondering the same thing with new build, but for me it was the difference in power consumption that tipped me to the Core 2 Duos (and the April 22nd price cuts). The Core2Duo line uses much less power than the X2 5000+ line. So, not only will you pay more over time with an X2 but you have a higher chance of heat-related problems (without a more expensive cooling system), not to mention just plain anti-environment outcome.
April 11, 2007 5:35:50 PM

Yea like I said before even if not OC'ing I think it would be a more wise choice to wait a week or 2 and buy the E6600 at this point.

Best,

3Ball
April 11, 2007 5:38:30 PM

Here's a good comparison of AMD vs. Intel processors following the 4/22 Intel price cuts/product introductions.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-r...

The e6420 matches up almost exactly with the 5600 in terms of price and stock performance. The C2D offers lower power consumption and better overclocking, the x2 generally offers cheaper MB options.
April 11, 2007 5:56:43 PM

Currently the CPU market is a bargain shoppers heaven. The only bad prices out there are when compared to other better prices, but historically it is hard to find a better period for consumers.

If you are the type to watch the prices after you will buy you will probably be disappointed. This is not the stock market, prices will almost always go down.

If you are in the low/mid end market you are certainly fine buying today. Like others said, get the C2D if you are going to overclock and the AMD if you are going to run stock.
April 11, 2007 6:27:26 PM

Quote:
Location: Underwater



If only that were true. . . :roll:
April 11, 2007 6:36:40 PM

Are they releasing the 6420 on the 22nd?

Best,

3Ball
April 11, 2007 6:52:40 PM

Quote:
Are they releasing the 6420 on the 22nd?
Best,
3Ball


Yes, as far as I know :wink:
April 11, 2007 7:03:25 PM

WOW! I retract my previous statement to the OP. Get the 6420 after the 22nd instead of the E6600 and then run it @ 400mhz FSB (3.2ghz CPU Speed) and set memory to 1:1 making it run @ 800mhz! lol that is good news for new builders such as my roommate, thx for the info man.

Best,

3Ball
April 11, 2007 7:18:51 PM

Quote:
I hear the little 3600+ brisbanes are hitting 3ghz too


3GHz K8 would be like a 2.5GHz C2D. A 3GHz C2D would be a 3.6GHz K8. A 3.6GHz C2D would be a 4.3GHz K8.
April 11, 2007 7:36:39 PM

He can get a good mobo for around $125 - 135 and the proc for $185 after the 22nd if he OC's the the price is justified!

Best,

3Ball
April 11, 2007 7:54:22 PM

Aren't you comparing a high end AMD chip to a lower end Core?
-cm
April 11, 2007 7:54:39 PM

thanks guys, thats AWESOME!

Great range of responses, I'm very grateful

sorry to go a little off topic, but is overclocking all that neccessary? I can afford to spend about $600 a year on new components, so will get a new $200 chip every 12 months or so. will this not keep me fairly up to speed? thats why my main concern was the upgrade potential - I need a good board with a couple of years life on it - from what I gather theres a fair bit of development still planned for the AM2

in case you're wondering by the way, the rest of the cash I spend will be on a GPU :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

gotta love the gaming

Thanks again dudes - I'm surprised by how helpful you've been. In the past I've been called noob and worse for similar questions - not on this site though :) 
April 11, 2007 7:56:48 PM

Quote:
Location: Underwater



If only that were true. . . :roll:

Harsh... harsh... do you even know MrsBytch?

Cause if you do then you know just how right you are...
-cm
April 11, 2007 8:01:36 PM

Quote:
God I hate Mrs.Bytch myself


It's the fashionable thing to do.
-cm
April 11, 2007 8:05:44 PM

No Kidding. I heard that the last 10 or 20 folks who bashed Mrs. Bytch mysteriously disappeared. :twisted:

Honestly, though, just my input, but in a case where I was deciding between AMD and Intel, both chips being at or near equal, but AMD was slightly more in price, I would purchase AMD. If everyone decided to support the behemoth Intel just because they cost a little less, and the worst happens to AMD, we would certainly be paying for it soon enough...and I'm not 100% referring to money, either.
Anonymous
April 11, 2007 8:18:22 PM

Hi there, I'm new :) 

I would buy the E6400 and just give it a slight push. Even if you aren't into overclocking, giving a slight push and just buying that is a good idea. As said before, there is not much skill needed for overclocking these chips until you get into the higher speeds. 3ghz is an easy reach, after that is where a teeny bit of skill comes in, but still not much, and easy for anyone.
April 11, 2007 8:36:11 PM

Quote:
I hear the little 3600+ brisbanes are hitting 3ghz too


3GHz K8 would be like a 2.5GHz C2D. A 3GHz C2D would be a 3.6GHz K8. A 3.6GHz C2D would be a 4.3GHz K8.

But it cant touch $62 now can it fanoy?STFU, go back in your corner, and continue banging your head against the wall. :x As usual, you didn't pay attention. The x2 3600+ wasn't one of the options.....TARD!!
April 11, 2007 8:36:38 PM

But it's not all about Ghz my friend.

A 3Ghz C2D would toast a 3Ghz Brisbane.
So you spend $100 less and you get a CPU with far less potential.

Certain priced builds this may be a wise more.

However, in this case we are talking about the X2 5600.
There are no price points that would justify this CPU IMHO for custom builders.

If the Chips were going to run at stock, the pehaps.
However, anyone who runs low to mid-range CPUs at stock is really
not configuring their system optimally. In an off-the-shelf system on which you cant tweak the speed is a place where AMD holds more ground.

No, I'm not a Fanboy.

I'm just somebody who knows that the AMD chips toasted the old Intel Netburst chips, Intel released new cores that now toasts the AMD cores that are many years old now, and that we are currently awaiting AMDs response to come in the fall.

The reason that AMD has been forced to slash prices as far as they have is because they know their chips are not as good at this point in time.

As you pointed out, the Brisbane 3600+ is a very nice chip at that price point. It can be used to build very nice systems. However, the chip being discussed is the X2 5600 which is far more expensive and negates those advantages. If you were highly budget constrained I could support the use of the chip you specified.

For example, Yesterday a poster said he had about $300 to spend on CPU, MB, and RAM and that he had most of the other components from previous sytems. I specked out a very nice combination with that Brisbane you mentioned. And I added that if he waited two-three weeks and tossed in another $75 he could build a much better system.

In this case, I based my recommendation on suggesting a CPU that was cheaper than any he was looking to purchase and yet could outperform any CPU that AMD has to offer at any price point. It also had about the same potential as the CPU he had listed. If price was a big concern, I would recommend holding off about two weeks for the price cuts and new CPUs to be released.

Fanboy? Yes I am. I am 100% a Fanboy.
But no, I'm not an Intel Fanboy. Nor am I an AMD Fanboy.

I'm a Inexpensive Quality Built System Fanboy.
Give me the best parts at the best prices to meet my needs.
April 11, 2007 8:44:36 PM

Quote:
I hear the little 3600+ brisbanes are hitting 3ghz too


3GHz K8 would be like a 2.5GHz C2D. A 3GHz C2D would be a 3.6GHz K8. A 3.6GHz C2D would be a 4.3GHz K8.

But it cant touch $62 now can it fanoy?STFU, go back in your corner, and continue banging your head against the wall. :x As usual, you didn't pay attention. The x2 3600+ wasn't one of the options.....TARD!!

No, It can't touch $62.

Perhaps this Intel Chip.............
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

It should be able to hit 3.0Ghz, and is only $36!!!!!

Silly comparison you say because the Brisbane would toast this chip?
Well of course.
And the C2D would toast the brisbane.

You get what you pay for.
That is why this Intel Chip is $36 and why the Brisbane is only $62.
April 11, 2007 8:47:14 PM

MrsBytch just likes to argue, for arguments sake. She/he likes to live up to the name. :wink:
April 11, 2007 9:00:56 PM

Quote:
I hear the little 3600+ brisbanes are hitting 3ghz too


Fanoy? You are mean. You said Brisbanes can hit 3GHz also, implying similar performance, I correct you, fanoy.
April 11, 2007 10:19:55 PM

Cheers for the help guys - I think I've come to a decision....


And the winner is.......

Neither!

After reading all your comments, looking at info elsewhere and properly examining what I really want out of a PC, I've decided on two things

A) I'm going to wait until early June - I have exams until then, and if I start playing games now (expecially LOTR online :)  ) then I can kiss my A grades goodbye!

B) I'm going to stick to a budget of £450, and get the best I can for that - this will include a hard drive, mobo, chip, memory + GPU ( I have everything else already) this should see me well into next year, when I plan on picking up a mid-high end proc + graphics card. The money I save this year will be put towards a much needed holiday.

Well then, thats it. Sorry that this thread now seems kinda pointless, but I think that many valid points have been made. It certainly increased my knowledge!

Thanks guys!
Sam
April 11, 2007 10:49:21 PM

Quote:
I hear the little 3600+ brisbanes are hitting 3ghz too


3GHz K8 would be like a 2.5GHz C2D. A 3GHz C2D would be a 3.6GHz K8. A 3.6GHz C2D would be a 4.3GHz K8.


YOur clock speeds are incorrect... it's more like 650 across the board
April 11, 2007 11:32:08 PM

650 what?
April 11, 2007 11:45:45 PM

Quote:
On a Clock for Clock cycle, the Intel's toast AMD chips.
The Intel Chips will also run at much higher clock speeds.

Almost w/o fail every C2Duo from the E4300 and up will easily reach 3.0Ghz on stock or near stock voltage so long as you get a proper MB, RAM, PSU, etc.....

The C2Duos OC so easily, it's not even traditional OCing which takes special skill, expensive cooling, and chip risk.


Yeah Fanboy, but I hear the little 3600+ brisbanes are hitting 3ghz too and there only $62. AM2 mobos are also dirt cheap. On a budget, no C2D can touch that.....Yet.

Yeah, my old P4 could reach 3GHz too, what's your point? ;) 
April 11, 2007 11:57:58 PM

What's up with people and the hesitance to give simple, factual answers?

If you're not into overclocking, the X2 5600+ is hands down the faster processor in just about every application.

If you like to overclock, you'll get a lot more out of the E6400--but at $40 more.
April 12, 2007 12:00:36 AM

Yeah, I have a 5200+ and it's plenty for the type of stuff I do (regular home usage/gaming basically).
April 12, 2007 12:48:03 AM

Quote:
Yeah, but 3ghz is no where near the max of the netburst arch, while the k8 arch maxes a bit above 3ghz, so 3ghz is a far bigger feat there. Now if you got a p4 to 6ghz, that would be a feat, as 8.xghz was the last record I was aware of and that is where the max of the arch is around. It's a lot more impressive when you hit the max of your architecture than just a specific speed


I was merely stating (tongue in cheek) that clockspeed doesn't really mean much nowadays... ;) 
April 12, 2007 12:53:26 AM

Quote:
Yea like I said before even if not OC'ing I think it would be a more wise choice to wait a week or 2 and buy the E6600 at this point.

Best,

3Ball


Except upgradability was #2 on the asker's list and I would consider the AMD Agena Quad and Kuma Dual core release in a couple months.
April 12, 2007 12:59:58 AM

Quote:
Aren't you comparing a high end AMD chip to a lower end Core?
-cm


No, it's called comparing a mid-range chip to a mid-range chip; and if one could save $50 on a AM2 board this is a consideration also.

It cracks me up, i've seen more than one on this board with:

E6600@3.6Ghz
4GB PC1066
Intel integrated video

-what-
Anonymous
April 12, 2007 8:56:39 AM

Quote:
thanks guys, thats AWESOME!

Great range of responses, I'm very grateful

sorry to go a little off topic, but is overclocking all that neccessary? I can afford to spend about $600 a year on new components, so will get a new $200 chip every 12 months or so. will this not keep me fairly up to speed? thats why my main concern was the upgrade potential - I need a good board with a couple of years life on it - from what I gather theres a fair bit of development still planned for the AM2

in case you're wondering by the way, the rest of the cash I spend will be on a GPU :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

gotta love the gaming

Thanks again dudes - I'm surprised by how helpful you've been. In the past I've been called noob and worse for similar questions - not on this site though :) 


Overclocking isn't necessary obviously, but it is a nice thing to do to save yourself money from having to upgrade to a higher model, you just bump up the clock. Spending $600 a year for new PC parts isn't really a good idea, because that money is being spent on parts that are only a bit faster, or, if the companies are having a slow year, there will be NO new parts for you to replace it with. I would wait 2 years then get a new GPU, I want to wait every full generation (8800GTX to 9800GTX for example). All depending on performance and value of course.
April 12, 2007 1:36:26 PM

Quote:
Cheers for the help guys - I think I've come to a decision....


A) I'm going to wait until early June


That is a good idea. Since you stated that you want to play games and your budget is $450 you will by that point have a good choice of medium priced graphics cards from Nvidia and ATI. That will be a far more important buying decision that the CPU's.

FYI - I just got a AM2 x2 5800+ and mATX MB for $190 from Fry's B&M - to build a new media PC. The MB has onboard 6100 graphics (yuck) but it will limp along until I can get a medium priced graphics card *with the best HD (HD DVD / BluRay) playback acceleration and video quality*.
April 12, 2007 3:55:01 PM

sorry - the budget is 450 pounds - about $850

planning on a decentish card this year, just to keep me going, then get a top notch 98xx next year if they're available
April 12, 2007 5:23:00 PM

For the upgrade potential I would go AMD the reason is the motherboard. Memory is the death of the motherboard with just no way to get around this fact. The AM2 ECS can hold a max of 32G RAM for $55.99 or for $99 a crossfire x580. The Abit 775 can hold max of 32G for $126.99 but supports sata2 and SLI. I would say go for the AMD system as the price change on april 22 will not make up for the price difference in the motherboards.
April 12, 2007 10:10:57 PM

sorry to keep the questions flowing, but could someone briefly explain what K10 is?

thanks guys
April 13, 2007 1:57:28 PM

Sure there is ..............
That has never been the case for me.
Or at least not the MAX ram limit.

My old P4 System next to me has a 4gb RAM limit and is sitting with 2Gb.
(Bought About 2-3Years Ago.)

The limiting factors is that the CPU socket can't take newer CPUs.
Additionally, I would not want to buy the old RAM instead of DDR2.

Since right now 2Gb is really all folks need, the MBs that support 8gb are quadruple the needed amount. That should take people easily three years out. By that time, you will want to be on DDR3 and running 8-core processors.

Such a high RAM limit is of no use for normal user.
Perhaps a special function server.

But in reality, I don't think I would intentionally buy a slower system now so that in 3 years I can upgrade to a system that is yet again outdated.

For tight budgets that can't afford the power of a C2D system which will run you an extra $100 then the AMD system will do you fine. If you have the extra cash for a CD2, then go for that since it will run much faster.
(Note: Grab the one of the 965 boards that were just released that support 1333FSB for forward growth.)
April 13, 2007 2:29:14 PM

if you are looking for the most upgrade potential, known anyway, go for amd. Their current am2 boards will support am2+ and am3 processors, the upcoming am2+ boards will have a higher HT and will be backwards compatible with am2 processors and forwards compatible with am3 processors. Am3 has a higher HT and ddr2 + ddr3 support, but no backwards compatibility


So you could potentially take your current build, buy am2+ when it comes out and use your ddr2. then when am3 comes out all you have to do is buy a new processor and you are golden. I say upgrade to am2+ because of the higher HT, without it you will have a huge performance bottleneck. So if you were to use that upgrade path i suggest you get some quality ddr2 ram just to keep bandwidth issues from arising when you upgrade to am3 processors on an am2+ board.
April 13, 2007 3:37:45 PM

Quote:
Cheers for the help guys - I think I've come to a decision....


And the winner is.......

Neither!

After reading all your comments, looking at info elsewhere and properly examining what I really want out of a PC, I've decided on two things

A) I'm going to wait until early June - I have exams until then, and if I start playing games now (expecially LOTR online :)  ) then I can kiss my A grades goodbye!

B) I'm going to stick to a budget of £450, and get the best I can for that - this will include a hard drive, mobo, chip, memory + GPU ( I have everything else already) this should see me well into next year, when I plan on picking up a mid-high end proc + graphics card. The money I save this year will be put towards a much needed holiday.

Well then, thats it. Sorry that this thread now seems kinda pointless, but I think that many valid points have been made. It certainly increased my knowledge!

Thanks guys!
Sam


You are very wise for postponing gratification and realizing that playing the games will wreck your games. School first, games later grasshopper.
April 13, 2007 4:37:57 PM

Quote:
thanks guys, thats AWESOME!

Great range of responses, I'm very grateful

sorry to go a little off topic, but is overclocking all that neccessary? I can afford to spend about $600 a year on new components, so will get a new $200 chip every 12 months or so. will this not keep me fairly up to speed? thats why my main concern was the upgrade potential - I need a good board with a couple of years life on it - from what I gather theres a fair bit of development still planned for the AM2

in case you're wondering by the way, the rest of the cash I spend will be on a GPU :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

gotta love the gaming

Thanks again dudes - I'm surprised by how helpful you've been. In the past I've been called noob and worse for similar questions - not on this site though :) 


No, overclocking is definitely not "necessary". Especially for gaming, OC'ing a 2.1ghz C2D to 3.0ghz will not net you huge gains, maybe a few FPS (unless your running at 800x600). This is even more true the higher your resolution is. If you are running at or above 1280x1024, most of the work is being done by your GPU, and you won't see significant gains from an OC'ed CPU. This appears to be your case, so I'd definitely suggest sinking any extra money into your graphics card. A C2D e4300 + GF 8800 GTS will destroy a C2D e6700 + GF 7900 GT par exemple.

On the other hand, if you are running decoding apps, Excel, multi-tasking etc. an OC'ed CPU can make performance snappier. In addition, you can prolong your CPU's performance-life by OC-ing: you won't be so apt to buy a new processor if you have a nicely OC'ed CPU. There's also the satisfaction of OC'ing a low-end CPU (e.g. e4300) to perform equally or above a much more expensive solution (e.e. e6800)
April 13, 2007 5:26:02 PM

I agree with most of what you said.

While I agree that OC'ing may not give a big boost, there is definately no reason to not OC the lower end C2D's to speeds approching 3.0Ghz.

This can usually be done w/o adding voltage or requiring expensive or exotic cooling methods.

But along the lines of what you said, My e4300 OC'd to 3.2 Ghz on stock voltage, but my CPU fan was noticable at peak usage.

I dropped my CPU to 3.0Ghz and dropped the voltage to actually below stock and my system now runs much cooler and quieter. I really can't feel the 200mhz in anything I do. The 1.2Ghz from 1.8 to 3.0 is quite noticable in many tasks I do frequently. (Zipping/Unzipping multi-GB files for example.)

Also, I totally agree that for gaming, the GPU is far far more important the the CPU. And consider the lower end CPUs can be OC'd much more than a GPU you should never skimp on the GPU for the CPU.
April 13, 2007 8:34:34 PM

guys - my hat is off to the last 3 replies - telling me exactly what i need to know!

what about the upgrade potential though? is socket 775 going to be around for as long as AM2?

basically I want to keep the core of my system (motherboard,case,psu,hard drive, RAM) for at least the next 3 years -I'm moving in with the Mrs and this way I can do sneaky upgrades without her realising!

thanks again for the excellent advice guys
April 13, 2007 9:15:34 PM

don't suppose anyone has any idea when am2+ will be available, or projected prices?
April 13, 2007 10:17:08 PM

Quote:
The general rule of thumb for ocing is that you won't notice any difference at all until you hit a 50% oc or at least a ghz, so you'll feel a speed boost in general everytime you oc a ghz more, so the person that got an e4300 (must have had an excellent stepping) at 3.8ghz on air must have felt a massive boost by ocing 2ghz. So I'd agree and say that 3ghz would be the smart choice if you can keep it cooler and quieter since you won't actually notice the difference
Where on earth did you hear that? :roll:
April 13, 2007 10:59:54 PM

Quote:
Plenty of people have told me that, and I have noticed that myself. My x2 4000 runs a stock of 2ghz (90nm) and at first I oc'd it to 2.5ghz, but I didn't notice any speed boost at all. I kept pushing the chip until about 2.8ghz (fx speeds) and then I actually noticed my apps opened faster and such. I don't know if I am right about this, but that's what I experienced
Well, maybe you have to be more "in-touch" with your machine. I feel that i am, i guess. :? My PIII 866 O/Ced to ~1008(133FSB-155FSB) was significantly faster..and that's taking into account that i had to drop RAM timings from 2-2-2 to 3-3-3(SDRAM-PC150). That was only a 142MHz(16.5%) increase in clockspeed. I could name all the CPU's i've overclocked, and i almost always "see and feel" the difference. My current Pentium D915(2.8 ) is overclocked to 3.4GHz(600MHz/21.5% increase), and it makes a very big difference. Apps/folders open quicker(so-called..snappiness), games run smoother, AVG/Spybot/Ad-Aware do scans quicker... the list goes on and on. The only place i don't see much improvement is in boot-up time(more HD-dependant). This is on a less than top-of-the-line mobo (ASRock 775 Dual VSTA) using DDR-400. :)  I think some people expect that if they overclock a CPU by 50%...they will open/execute 50% faster, and once you realize that that's almost never the case....you will realize a nice perf. increase without having to wring your CPU out... to the limits.(though i like doing that too) :p  . I'm not trying to argue with you Taco, i just find that gains can be had, for the average user, and felt(not on all CPU's, but most). Peace. 8)
!