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

[shahzad]

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.

 

[ajfink]

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.

 

[Periander]

The E4400 offers better price performance than the E6320 if you are going Intel.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup_8.html

 

[miro84]

AMD X2 5200+ would be a better choice

 

[gOJDO]

5200+ is the way to go.

 

[goldragon_70]

between the two I would pick the 5200+.

 

[fender22]

Word

 

[xsamitt]

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?

 

[goldragon_70]

but heavy video editing, and graphic rendering will benefit from the second core.

 

[xsamitt]

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.

 

[goldragon_70]

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.

 

[m25]

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.

 

[kagai]

if your not over clocking then AMD is way to go, up until E6600,6000+ where AMD cant compete.

 

[dragonsprayer]

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

 

[miro84]

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:

 

[r0x0r]

Yet another thread is lost to the battle of the fanboys

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

 

[speedbird]

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.

 

[JonnyDough]

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.

 

[gOJDO]

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.

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.

 

[fender22]

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...

 

[hieuhef]

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.

 

[Badnatured]

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.

 

[locky28]

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.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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.

 

[hieuhef]

man's got a point!