Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD X2 5200+ or Intel Core 2 E6320 ???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 28, 2007 7:06:45 PM

Hi building a new system so got confused whether to go for Amd or Intel. help me guys. wana use it for heavy softwares like video editing, graphics and alot of gaming. i aint an overclocker.
April 28, 2007 7:14:44 PM

Without overclocking, the 5200+ would be a little bit faster in most tasks. If you decide for the Intel, though, get the E6320, it has more cache than the E6300 for the same price.
Related resources
April 28, 2007 7:30:49 PM

AMD X2 5200+ would be a better choice
April 28, 2007 7:44:28 PM

5200+ is the way to go.
April 28, 2007 7:59:17 PM

between the two I would pick the 5200+.
April 28, 2007 8:43:38 PM

Word
April 28, 2007 9:00:53 PM

You say your using it for gaming.

Curious.....I know single core is pretty much out the door.(But)All things being equil what would it take Dual Core wise to match Single Core,in terms of processing power for gaming?
Say 3800 single core?What would it take to equal it in a Dual Core?
April 28, 2007 9:09:08 PM

but heavy video editing, and graphic rendering will benefit from the second core.
April 28, 2007 9:26:56 PM

I understand that.When I build my new rig it will be Dual.
But wanted to get an indea of how the difference stacks up gaming wise.
April 28, 2007 9:39:01 PM

well, until games really start taking better advantage of multiple cores, a dual core will give you marginal speeds over a single core clocked the same (In theory). But with the dual cores they usually have more optimization per core so the difference will be more. But it's not a bad idea to have a single core in a computer if it's just for gaming, being that your graphic card is going to determine the quality of your gaming more then the processor. But soon you will see more games taking better advantage of multiple cores, and then you will see a bigger performance boost with multiple processors.
April 28, 2007 10:10:13 PM

The X2 5200 is the better choice for you, but since cache does not matter much in K8 CPUs, I'd either get the X2 5000+ for something less or better the 2.8GHz X2 5400+ for ~$15 more.
April 29, 2007 12:58:20 AM

if your not over clocking then AMD is way to go, up until E6600,6000+ where AMD cant compete.
April 29, 2007 8:21:01 AM

if u have a good overclocking mobo get the core 2 - if u have no oc ability then amd is better value

really comes down to this:

if u are not going to oc because your afraid or what ever - amd
if you can not oc since your mobo has no ability go amd

in almost all cases the Intel chip is superior
April 29, 2007 1:08:42 PM

Quote:
Here we go with the Intel blah blah superior stuff...As long as you put together a well balanced system overall, then you will be very happy with it. Who cares if you dont get 10 more frames per second from OCing your processor as long as its smooth,playable and makes you happy. There isnt any game out now that slows mine down, maxed settings 1920 x 1200 loving it! All those Intel bandwagon people will come back to AMD once the quad core and R600 come out this summer and be back on top.


well said :trophy: :D 
April 29, 2007 1:46:58 PM

Yet another thread is lost to the battle of the fanboys :cry: 

Quote:
I understand that.When I build my new rig it will be Dual.
But wanted to get an indea of how the difference stacks up gaming wise.


Few current games really take advantage of dual core, but it is still useful, For example, you can run spyware detector while you play online with nary a performance hit.

Edit: grammar
April 29, 2007 2:01:27 PM

In the UK both of these processors the E6600 and the 6000+ are going around the hundred and fifty something pound mark.AMD's 6000+ did look like great value before, but with its equivalent rival the E6600 more of less matching it now in price this not good for AMD.
Anyway back to the question at hand I would pick the 5200+ X2 if I had no overclocking ambition.
April 29, 2007 2:51:33 PM

In my opinion if you want to play todays, and the next year full of games, you could probably do fine with an AMD Athlon64 4000+ and be just fine. There are new processors on the way soon and rather than give these bloated fatso proc companies your cash (let's face it, most of the cost of a proc goes to them) you might make due for 2 years on a much much cheaper system. By the time most of us drop another $200+ on a processor we're likely to upgrade our failing mobo's and ram anyway so you might as well go with whatever you imagine you'll need rather than the latest and speediest trend. On the other hand, the E6600 or E6400's do quite nicely, as do any of the X2's for AM2. You won't be disatisfied regardless of what you purchase I imagine.
April 29, 2007 11:24:22 PM

Quote:
Here we go with the Intel blah blah superior stuff...As long as you put together a well balanced system overall, then you will be very happy with it. Who cares if you dont get 10 more frames per second from OCing your processor as long as its smooth,playable and makes you happy. There isnt any game out now that slows mine down, maxed settings 1920 x 1200 loving it!
Yes, either of the systems will be more than enough to feed a decend graphics card, but the 5200+ will perform better, even in games.
Quote:
All those Intel bandwagon people will come back to AMD once the quad core and R600 come out this summer and be back on top.

R600 will not win the crown, nither desktop K10 will come this summer.
April 30, 2007 1:33:26 AM

Quote:

All those Intel bandwagon people will come back to AMD once the quad core and R600 come out this summer and be back on top.

R600 will not win the crown, nither desktop K10 will come this summer.

The 5200+ will most defiantly win, but only because you don't want to overclock...

gOJDO, can you really know that AMD will or will not make a product to take back the performance crown, at this point it seems like there is way to much speculation... But it does seem that the 8800GTX will go unchallenged for now because of the way the x2900xt is on level with the 8800GTS... Buuut it has been said that the x2000s are more optimized for DX10... anyways, My point is that I don't think that any claims can be made for the future of r600 and Barcy...
April 30, 2007 1:37:48 AM

depending on how much video editing you're doing, which of the processors have a larger cache? that cache helps determine which one will be faster overall, even if they're clocked similarly.
April 30, 2007 1:55:11 AM

Quote:
Here we go with the Intel blah blah superior stuff...As long as you put together a well balanced system overall, then you will be very happy with it. Who cares if you dont get 10 more frames per second from OCing your processor as long as its smooth,playable and makes you happy. There isnt any game out now that slows mine down, maxed settings 1920 x 1200 loving it! All those Intel bandwagon people will come back to AMD once the quad core and R600 come out this summer and be back on top.


The r600 already has been admitted to not being able to beat the 8800gtx. It's not even designed to compete with it. Check anandtech if you don't believe me. AMD won't return to being on top with the GPU crowd, maybe k10 if it comes out before Penryn at the rate AMD is going it won't.
April 30, 2007 2:02:49 AM

Quote:
if u have a good overclocking mobo get the core 2 - if u have no oc ability then amd is better value

really comes down to this:

if u are not going to oc because your afraid or what ever - amd
if you can not oc since your mobo has no ability go amd

in almost all cases the Intel chip is superior


If he's asking us to tell him whether to get Intel or AMD he hasn't chosen his mobo yet has he?

The Intel chip is not superior, the 5200 would beat it in the majority of benches, the Intel OC's better but this bloke doesn't look like he's into that.
April 30, 2007 2:20:07 AM

Why is it that so many posts offer useless info? He wants a certain atainable price point. He gives his two choices. Which of the two are better? And where on Anandtech will you find any posted benchmarks? Those "benchmarks" were maybe done at DT, not Anands. And once again, no one really knows in this area how things will turn out. To the OP, I believe your answer is the 5200.
April 30, 2007 2:34:51 AM

man's got a point!
April 30, 2007 3:13:54 AM

Quote:
Here we go with the Intel blah blah superior stuff...As long as you put together a well balanced system overall, then you will be very happy with it. Who cares if you dont get 10 more frames per second from OCing your processor as long as its smooth,playable and makes you happy. There isnt any game out now that slows mine down, maxed settings 1920 x 1200 loving it! All those Intel bandwagon people will come back to AMD once the quad core and R600 come out this summer and be back on top.


The r600 already has been admitted to not being able to beat the 8800gtx. It's not even designed to compete with it. Check anandtech if you don't believe me. AMD won't return to being on top with the GPU crowd, maybe k10 if it comes out before Penryn at the rate AMD is going it won't.

I know this stuff. This is all DX9 bechies if I remember... The word is that the AMDs r600 is more optimized for Dx10
April 30, 2007 3:18:24 AM

Quote:
depending on how much video editing you're doing, which of the processors have a larger cache? that cache helps determine which one will be faster overall, even if they're clocked similarly.


Hmmm, no no.. You cannot compare, Clock speed, Cache size, or many other things across different processor family's with different architecture... Cache size between any Athlon x2 and C2D is not a valid way to compare... It just has to be benched out.. The 4600+ is relatively = to the e6300... And the 6000+ is relatively = to the e6600... The 5200+ lies somewhere in between, but it does, in fact, beat out the e6320 (at stock speeds)
April 30, 2007 3:24:27 AM

Quote:
Here we go with the Intel blah blah superior stuff...As long as you put together a well balanced system overall, then you will be very happy with it. Who cares if you dont get 10 more frames per second from OCing your processor as long as its smooth,playable and makes you happy. There isnt any game out now that slows mine down, maxed settings 1920 x 1200 loving it!

Excellent post to this point - I agree completely. Well except for maxing Oblivion or FSX on a GTS at 1920x1200 - that's SLI'd GTX territory - even if you have a 5 GHz Barcelona Quad FX sample powering it.
Quote:

All those Intel bandwagon people will come back to AMD once the quad core and R600 come out this summer and be back on top.

And you had to go here. Those "Intel bandwagon" people would be what we call "non fanboys" - we buy what's best at the time if it happens to be Intel or AMD, ATI or nVidia. So yes we'll be back with AMD IF the K10 is better than Conroe C2Ds, then back to Intel IF Penryn beats K10, and so on. As it should be. Otherwise, why would either company bother developing products if they had enough fanboys to always buy whatever they were peddling?

Regarding the R600 vs G80, we'll see when the real benches come out. I don't have a sample card, how about you guys? I do still have high hopes for the R650 in any case.

Anyway, regarding the OP: with no overclocking the answer is clearly the AMD system.
April 30, 2007 3:28:52 AM

I stay away from the 2 x 1 meg cache x2 processors for two simple reasons:

The jump from 2 x 512 to 2 x 1024 have a very, very modest impact on actual performance - a couple percent.. maybe....
SEcondly, if you do overclock, the 2 x 1024 chips tend to be failed high bin Opterons, so they have little or no headroom to overclock.

In the x2 line, the x2 5400 (2 x 2.8 ghz) is actually 6 or 7 percent faster for about $15 more, so it's a good deal.

Going down in the line, the x2 5000+, same x 2.6 ghz cores, except 512 cache is maybe 2% slower, but also cheaper.

An Intel 6420 is the same speed as an x2 5400/5600 and about the same price, so if you are running at stock speeds, either is a good pick.

If you overclock, the Intel will utterly destroy any AMD chip, but for everyday work, the market place has performed well, and chips with very similar performance have very similar prices.

If you already have an AM2 board, the AMD chip is a no brainer.

If you are starting fresh, at anything 6000+/E6600 and below speed wise, both companies have a chip that is withing couple percent of the other firm both in terms of price and performance at every speed grade.
April 30, 2007 5:41:23 AM

Quote:
Hi building a new system so got confused whether to go for Amd or Intel. help me guys. wana use it for heavy softwares like video editing, graphics and alot of gaming. i aint an overclocker.


Get the 5200. The E6320 can outperform it significantly, but only with overclocking which means an enthusiast mb and a good hs/f and memory modules. That setup would cost more money than the AMD alternative. But it's really a moot point since you said you aren't an overclocker.
April 30, 2007 9:32:34 AM

Quote:
gOJDO, can you really know that AMD will or will not make a product to take back the performance crown, at this point it seems like there is way to much speculation... But it does seem that the 8800GTX will go unchallenged for now because of the way the x2900xt is on level with the 8800GTS... Buuut it has been said that the x2000s are more optimized for DX10... anyways, My point is that I don't think that any claims can be made for the future of r600 and Barcy...

I agree about R600, we need DX10 benchmarks to declare it as a failure. But, AMD already admitted that it will be slower than G80.
About K10, no body knows for sure until release. Everything depends on its frequency. If the rumors about its top frequency of 2.5GHz are true, then you don't have to be genius to conclude that K10 won't bring the crown back to AMD. According to the micro-architecture details, I don't believe that a K10 at 2.5GHz will outperform a 65nm 3GHz C2Q. But, even if happens K10 to be so amazingly good, it will face a 3.66(if not more)GHz Penryn.
April 30, 2007 2:58:24 PM

E6320
Just wait for a P35 mainboard (anybody know when they are launched?) and you have some nice upgrade path until 32nm processors arrive.

Concering the processors itself, theres not much of a difference. Only thing is that you can use cheapo RAM with the C2D.
April 30, 2007 7:48:15 PM

hi thanx for posting ur views but i am wondering should i buy an asus m2n sli deluxe for amd 5200+ and asus x1950pro, this wat my budget says, i will be crossfiring another graphics card but the board allows crossfiring at 8x so is it slower than crossfiring at 16x. Thanx
April 30, 2007 10:33:21 PM

Quote:
hi thanx for posting ur views but i am wondering should i buy an asus m2n sli deluxe for amd 5200+ and asus x1950pro, this wat my budget says, i will be crossfiring another graphics card but the board allows crossfiring at 8x so is it slower than crossfiring at 16x. Thanx



First good choice on the AMD.

Second you must use the same graphics cards in crossfire mode. The 8x/16x isn't that big of a hit to system performance the bus isn't maxed out at 8x for the x1950pro. As for the whole crossfire story just get a better GPU and forget crossfire it's twice the money for maybe 20% more performance.
April 30, 2007 10:52:02 PM

Quote:
gOJDO, can you really know that AMD will or will not make a product to take back the performance crown, at this point it seems like there is way to much speculation... But it does seem that the 8800GTX will go unchallenged for now because of the way the x2900xt is on level with the 8800GTS... Buuut it has been said that the x2000s are more optimized for DX10... anyways, My point is that I don't think that any claims can be made for the future of r600 and Barcy...

I agree about R600, we need DX10 benchmarks to declare it as a failure. But, AMD already admitted that it will be slower than G80.
About K10, no body knows for sure until release. Everything depends on its frequency. If the rumors about its top frequency of 2.5GHz are true, then you don't have to be genius to conclude that K10 won't bring the crown back to AMD. According to the micro-architecture details, I don't believe that a K10 at 2.5GHz will outperform a 65nm 3GHz C2Q. But, even if happens K10 to be so amazingly good, it will face a 3.66(if not more)GHz Penryn.

Haha.. We can declare it a failure yet is what it sounds like... I see your point and it is a formidable argument... You have your judgment.. and I have my hope for a stellar product and higher clocks... :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2007 11:46:31 PM

wow for once no one is screaming INTEL RULES

At stock speeds, the AMD
Overclocking (final performance), the Intel
Future Proof System, Intel (ATM theres quad cores etc)

if your want a fast system, either will do it, for most the AMD will be the choice here.
April 30, 2007 11:52:31 PM

Quote:
hi thanx for posting ur views but i am wondering should i buy an asus m2n sli deluxe for amd 5200+ and asus x1950pro, this wat my budget says, i will be crossfiring another graphics card but the board allows crossfiring at 8x so is it slower than crossfiring at 16x. Thanx


Unless you go for two of the best card, of the same exact type it's not worth the money to go sli or Crossfire you can always buy a better card for the same amount for the price of the two cards.
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2007 12:23:15 AM

The AMD is the better of the two.
!