Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

r600 and amd athlon 6000 worth it

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 12, 2007 1:24:03 AM

i want to upgrade to an amd athlon 6000 and maybe the new r60 when it is released will it be worth it.
April 12, 2007 2:17:43 AM

it would be worth it if you plan on keeping the system for a while, if you only play on using the 6000+ as a stepping stone to K10 then just buy a cheaper x2 and upgrade when k10 comes out, dont forget that am2 will support am2+ and am3 when they come out so if that helps influence your decision then great!
April 12, 2007 3:25:33 PM

I have a better idea - buy an E4200 when it comes out in a week for 100$.
Related resources
April 12, 2007 3:47:08 PM

Hard to tell what its worth to you. Sounds like a gaming rig in the process, so yea I would assume it would be worth it. I would only go AMD now if you are wanting to go to K10 very soon. If this if for long term and you dont already have the motherboard as in, if this is not an upgrade then I would get a C2D when the prices drop.

Best,

3Ball
April 12, 2007 6:38:35 PM

i have a am2 mobo and an athlon 4000 and i am in it for gaming.
April 12, 2007 6:54:08 PM

Quote:
Why, that would be stupid to buy the e4200 when the allendales don't hit as high fsb and it has an 8 mult, you would get no where with that, perhaps just over 3ghz if you were lucky.


I've never heard of an e4200. An e4300 at a reasonable 2.8GHz would be faster than just about any current AMD chip. It's possible you could get OC a 6000+ or top Opteron quicker, though they're more expensive. That isn't exactly "nowhere".

Quote:
the k10 cpus which will demolish the current conroes


Link?


Quote:
i have a am2 mobo and an athlon 4000 and i am in it for gaming.


If you've got a 4000+ and it's single core not X2 and you want something faster, I'd say go with something like a X2 5600+, it's under $200 and only 200MHz slower than a 6000+.

edit: though, if you're mostly just gaming, do you really need something faster yet? the 4000+ I thought was around 2.4 or 2.6GHz, a 6000+ or 5600+ wouldn't be a whole lot better in single threaded applications like most games.
April 12, 2007 7:44:51 PM

I guess we'll know more, when, the 23rd? AMD better pull something big off, for all of our sakes. By big, I mean the k10 better outperform the C2D by at least 20% clock-to-clock, if not more, considering its low initial clock.

OP, the 6000 is a great deal right now, I don't think you'd regret its purchase. It's less likely than the other CPU's that have been mentioned to bottleneck the R600. ATI has been good in the past at not allowing CPU bottlenecking as a result of efficient driver implementation on their part, but with no data it's impossible to know if this will be an issue with R600 or not. Anything above a 5000 should be fine, but again, it's hard to tell with no real data.
April 12, 2007 8:01:38 PM

Unfortunately words on AMD's marketing press releases don't prove performance. Nor do hopes. Only benchmarks are proof, and they've been suspiciously absent so far. I wouldn't count on K10 being anything special. I'd like it to be, for sure, but I wouldn't bet a bread crust on it.

Still, it's probably wise to wait a couple weeks for the supposed K10 demo and Intel's price drops if you decide on a major upgrade instead of a 5600/6000.
April 12, 2007 8:15:21 PM

Its specs make do look like it has potential, but so did Netburst's. CPUs are so complicated it's impossible to tell how it'll perform before benchmarks no matter what details they list. I know what their specifications mean as I'm a software engineering student, but that isn't enough information to judge how well it'll actually perform. And yeah the clockspeed issue is worrisome, I was hoping their 65nm would get them farther than it did.

Still, there's always hope. Maybe they weren't releasing benchmarks because they couldn't get a decent clock out of it, and now they've got it. But let's not turn this into another K10 arch discussion lol, there's too many of those already.
April 12, 2007 8:42:50 PM

we were told in another thread here that AMD doesnt make gaming CPU's

so waiting on anything from AMD for gaming is a waste of time

C2D is pretty much it ....so we been told
April 12, 2007 9:27:44 PM

Quote:
But the 65nm won't do you any good at all except drop your temps, that's something that people failed to realize. Going to 65nm just allows amd to produce cheaper and cooler running cpus, when your cpus are architecture limited when it comes to clockspeed, die shrinks won't make any difference, especially when you are dealing with an arch designed for 130nm, so you'd be surprised how good of a job they did that they weren't given credit for by not loosing tons of performance compared to the original 1.3um athlons

lordpope: Do you ever shut up about amd, first you start making fun of intel, then you start making fun of amd, then you start saying amd has no hope what so ever and that's not helping them get market share. Do amd a favor and just let them slowly get their business back


TACO in the 8800GTX @*&#@ thread.... we are told by a forum expert that AMD's cpu's are not for gaming.... Dont shoot the messenger
April 12, 2007 9:52:10 PM

As far as I know, there are NO CPU's designed for gaming. Last I checked, they just do math and stuff........

But seriously, I think you're confused, Barcelona is being designed primarily as a Server/workstation platform, but doesn't mean it can't do gaming just as well as anything else. Xeon's game well, as do Optys. AMD cpu's are still just fine for gaming, it's just that they're generally beat fairly badly by C2D's. C2D is a newer, much better architecture than AMD's, but even it wasn't designed specifically for gaming. And waiting two weeks to check some highly relevent benches is by no means a waste of time. We finally get to see whether AMD has an answer to G80 and C2D. If they don't, well, grab a cheap C2D while they last, cuz as soon as AMD kicks the bucket, CPU prices will start a long, uphill climb.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 9:52:42 PM

Quote:
we were told in another thread here that AMD doesnt make gaming CPU's

so waiting on anything from AMD for gaming is a waste of time

C2D is pretty much it ....so we been told

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
I get the joke.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 10:08:40 PM

Quote:
i want to upgrade to an amd athlon 6000 and maybe the new r60 when it is released will it be worth it.

To be honest, you may find the 8800GTX to be a better option. I doubt it, but we just don't know. It's best to wait and read lots of trustworthy reviews that test your games.

Anyway, if we assume the R600 is about equal to an 8800GTX, there is no reason why you couldn't pair it with a X2 6000+. Most games are more GPU limited than CPU limited. There are definate exceptions where the CPU will hold performance back, but in general the reason for buying a card such as the R600 or 8800GTX is to get amazing visuals (as in high resolution, max details, and FSAA and AF) and smooth performance in your games. The thing to remember is all current CPU's including the C2 extreme 6800 could lower framerates over what these cards could potentially put out. But that doesn't mean it will impact your gameplay or change your max playable settings. Sure there are limits. For example, I wouldn't pair an R600 with a 1.8GHz A64 or anything slower for a long term solution anyway. But you won't need the highest clocked quad core to justify buying the R600 either.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2007 10:16:59 PM

Quote:
Actually I don't think pope was joking there, I think he actually meant it when he said that stuff, he's a big intel fanboy.
LOL, it sounded way to stupid to be serious. :p 

I suppose the OP should then stick to the X300 (or whatever) he has now unless he plans on buying and overclocking a C2 extreme 6800 or Quad core. :twisted:
April 12, 2007 11:34:39 PM

Quote:
Why, that would be stupid to buy the e4200 when the allendales don't hit as high fsb and it has an 8 mult, you would get no where with that, perhaps just over 3ghz if you were lucky.


Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. "I_Love_Tacos and AMD, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Seriously, the E4200 cant overclock? What are u on?? I defy u to prove that any Core 2 Duo cant get to 500Mhz FSB. And i want REAL proof, not ur Christian/Fanboy fake proof.
!