Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Real-world opinion - Athlon X2 5600+, 6000+, or FX-62?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
August 18, 2007 2:55:40 AM

Greetings kind opinion-givers,

I am selecting AMD over Intel for philosophical reasons, so Intel supporters please don't hammer me.

I am looking for real-world opinions on which CPU to choose, the AMD Athlon X2 5600+, X2 6000+, or FX-62. The 5600+ has the benefit of using the full 800MHz DDR2 speed, compared to the 6000+ memory speed of 750MHz (it's the divider thing). Of course, the 6000+ operates at a higher frequency than the 5600+, but does that outweigh the RAM access speed? Finally, there's the FX-62, which is unlocked. The price difference is irrelevant.

I don't mind a little overclocking, but I will always choose stable operation over screaming performance.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,

Altazi

More about : real world opinion athlon 5600 6000

August 18, 2007 3:11:18 AM

I am not trying to hammer you but if price is irrelavent then why not just go with a hign end C2d or quad? Why are you sticking with AMD if I may inquire as to your philosophy?
August 18, 2007 3:11:27 AM

What kind of person chooses the slower thing over the faster thing for philosophical reasons? Those proccesors are now expensive paperweights compared to the Core 2.
Related resources
August 18, 2007 3:29:46 AM

OK, thanks for that.

I have dealt with Intel professionally, and I have several "differences of opinion"

I am looking to build a system with a reasonable level of performance, half gaming and half engineering work. I expect to move most of these components to my wife's computer in a year or so.

Regards,

Altazi
August 18, 2007 3:32:13 AM

starcraftfanatic said:
What kind of person chooses the slower thing over the faster thing for philosophical reasons? Those proccesors are now expensive paperweights compared to the Core 2.


AMD's have better price to performance ratio on the lower end. They are still a better deal than lower end C2D offerings.

@ OP, they will all perform very similar, in certain situations the 5600+ will surpass the 6000+ due to it's even multiplier (more RAM bandwidth) but the 6000+ beats it in most situations I believe. Check the CPU charts and see which one fits best. The FX-62 is pretty much useless since your not going to get much out of it by OCing.
August 18, 2007 3:43:23 AM

turboflame said:
AMD's have better price to performance ratio on the lower end. They are still a better deal than lower end C2D offerings.

@ OP, they will all perform very similar, in certain situations the 5600+ will surpass the 6000+ due to it's even multiplier (more RAM bandwidth) but the 6000+ beats it in most situations I believe. Check the CPU charts and see which one fits best. The FX-62 is pretty much useless since your not going to get much out of it by OCing.

The 5600+ and 6000+ processors are not AMD's lower end.
August 18, 2007 3:46:17 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
The 5600+ and 6000+ processors are not AMD's lower end.


Lower end processors in general since they cost <$200, Intel's offerings in that price range aren't as good unless you OC the crap out of them and invest in a better cooler, mobo, etc.
August 18, 2007 3:46:35 AM

As an owner of a C2D cpu and someone who recognizes the superiority of the C2D CPU, I don't get why you two have so much difficulty with his simple question.

To save him the trouble, I'm going to answer both of your comments, and then his (to the best of my ability).

Little - at least you were polite. He clearly doesn't want to go with an Intel CPU, and he can answer why for himself, but I'd suggest that having a duopoly is very, very, very much preferable to an Intel monopoly. I love my blazing c2d, but I know that if it weren't for AMD I would not be able to afford such a nice cpu. Supporting the underdog is a great thing, and frankly the C2Ds are not that much better than the X2s, despite what the fanboys want to say. Yes, they are better ... once you overclock, there is no comparison. If you don't, however, or if you don't overclock much, then the difference is relatively small. Most people won't notice it - only gamers with a high end GPU or people doing very demanding CPU intensive work will notice, and even then, it won't make or break much of anything. He is willing to overclock, sure, but it really doesn't matter - he stated he isn't going for the absolute highest performance, and he said that money isn't an issue so future upgrades probably aren't out of his means.

As for starcraftfanatic, those processors are actually fairly decent, price:p erformance wise, if you don't intend to overclock. They're also much more energy efficient - most CPUs, remember, are not under load most of the time, and unless something has changed recently AMDs cpus use less power when idle (mobile's not included ... I just don't know about those). Additionally, as I stated before, supporting a company that needs support ... a company that WE NEED, for the sake of innovation and competitive prices ... at the cost of a small bit of CPU performance ... qualifies as a philosophical matter.

I wouldn't normally interject like this and answer for someone else, but it just galls me that he asked such a simple question, and that he asked sooo clearly to leave Intel out of it, and yet the first two posters (who are, with regards to the superiority of the C2D, correct) ignored what we could easily argue to be the most important part of his very concise and simple question.
And I hate fanboys for any company, be they the fools who denied the superior performance of the C2Ds even after it was evident that the benchmarks were no hoax, or the fools who insist that AMD X2 cpus have nothing to offer or that they are outdated, simply because they aren't the best (the fx-60 is better than the lower end C2Ds ... are those C2Ds paperweights if you don't overclock them? Or perhaps you are a fanboy ... I say "you" in a general sense. The sad thing is, the "you" to whom I am referring doesn't know that I mean him/her).

As for the original posters question, I'm not the most qualified to answer it, but I will offer this:
Running the memory in time with the CPU is good, but increasing the memory speed, independent of other factors, still yields some performance increase, according to the tests that I have read. Increasing the CPU speed, independent of the memory speed, also increases performance. If you aren't going for the greatest performance, I'd say you should go with 5600+ - you wont notice a huge stability difference, or any at all I should think, between those CPUs. Unless, of course, you plan on operating them at high ambient temps - then get the fx cpu and underclock and undervolt it.
I also doubt you will notice a big difference in performance between the 5600 and the fx cpu, but we'd really need to know what your plans for this computer are. Do you plan on playing games using a high end GPU? Get the fastest you can, in that case, and then overclock a little more (you may still end up bottlenecking your GPU).
If I were only willing to go with AMD, I'd get the 5600 today and a Barcelona CPU in a couple months. I certainly wouldn't worry much about using a 1:1 ratio, if performance is not absolutely vital.

Oh, and sorry if I was a little harsh, little_scrapper. You may not have answered his question, but you aren't obligated to - you just wanted to know why. I thought the phrasing of starcraft's post was a little abrasive, that's all.
August 18, 2007 3:48:33 AM

I would recommend the 6000+, because when socket AM2 came out, Tom's Hardware did a benchmark comparing a Socket 939 Processor using DDR 400 , and an AM2 processor using DDR2 533 and DDR2 800. The difference in performance was negligible. So I don't think you'll see a difference between DDR2 750 and DDR2 800.
August 18, 2007 3:49:36 AM

altazi said:
OK, thanks for that.

I have dealt with Intel professionally, and I have several "differences of opinion"

I am looking to build a system with a reasonable level of performance, half gaming and half engineering work. I expect to move most of these components to my wife's computer in a year or so.

Regards,

Altazi


"Perfect is almost good enough." and you want to go with AMD. Your logic is absurd.


August 18, 2007 4:02:49 AM

Hey Altazi... I've been looking at those processors for months and waiting for the prices to fall.

I'd go with the 6000+ if you want pure performance... on Newegg its $10 more than the 5600+, so why not?

If you want less power consumption, the 5600+ will be a bit better and might run cooler since it uses less juice. It does give the extra 50mhz in ram. Honestly the ram speed difference would be nominal. One thing to consider, I'm sure the next generation is right around the corner? Both are very fast... in my opinion...

I've been happily running my 2700+ (built Feb 2003) into the ground... I'm waiting for the next generation of AM2 sockets with the new PCI-Express socket to come out first. That could change things between the Intel vs AMD since AMD isn't rushing their new products but rather developing them fully. Intel has had a slight edge as long as I remember... but AMD has been the best value all round which why I've preferred them for 7 years. ;-)
August 18, 2007 4:06:43 AM

Quote:
Gh0stDrag0n,

Your logic is flawed, because you do not have all of the information. In this case, "Perfect" doesn't necessarily equate with "screaming performance". Your comment is unhelpful and inflammatory - ultimately unwelcome, and you merely expose yourself as a fool

Altazi


Excuse me.
Burning your money on a lower performing CPU is foolish IMO.
Why not get the 6400+ Black Edition http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33341/135/?

August 18, 2007 4:46:03 AM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
Untill TH starts listing prices for the processors, that chart is worthless. The E6750 can be had anywhere from $198.50 to $241.99 on http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box/m/43369636/ what price did TH use?


Probably the tray prices, since the e6750 is so much higher than an e6600 which costs around $220.

You are arguing with a chart, now who's being illogical?


August 18, 2007 4:55:13 AM

Tray prices would be nice. But read the intro "In addition, the price/performance index enables you to find the best performance for your buck. This chart is updated daily with the latest product prices from TG Stores." What stores? Retail or OEM? Tray?... the charts are too grey to be treated as gospel. BTW nice link :) 
August 18, 2007 5:02:38 AM

hey, i've seen that picture before, but instead, it relates to religion and science instead of fanboys and science
August 18, 2007 5:03:57 AM

rammedstein said:
hey, i've seen that picture before, but instead, it relates to religion and science instead of fanboys and science


Yeah, 2 minutes in mspaint changed that.
August 18, 2007 5:14:04 AM

rammedstein said:
hey, i've seen that picture before, but instead, it relates to religion and science instead of fanboys and science

I have also seen it before, hence the gospel reference. ;) 

August 18, 2007 5:16:33 AM

turboflame said:
Yeah, 2 minutes in mspaint changed that.

WOW 2 minutes :ouch:  , you need to build a new system. :lol: 

August 18, 2007 5:34:18 AM

It's amazing how some can't abide by the simplest, most direct request.
August 18, 2007 5:37:47 AM

altazi said:
It's amazing how some can't abide by the simplest, most direct request.


Get the 6000+.
August 18, 2007 6:10:51 AM

altazi said:
It's amazing how some can't abide by the simplest, most direct request.


Yeah, you picked a good question. I second the 6000+. The unlocked multiplier on the FX-62 isn't worth the extra scratch.
August 18, 2007 7:02:12 AM

i just bought the 6000 as an upgrade, i lowered the multiplier to 12 and raised the bus speed to 250 which sets cpu to 3ghz and my corsair 800 mhz cas 4 2x1 gb ram to 1000 mhz. i'm using as5 and an artic freezer 64 idle 29 C load 55 C. i have no problem recommending this processor it's the best 170 dollar upgrade i've ever bought
August 18, 2007 7:05:27 AM

I hate to be a dick, and I personally dont think I am being one. As an owner of the 6000+ and the owner of the system you see in the sig and a previous owner of a 5600+ I will tell you go to with the 6000+ because you are unable to go with an Intel for whatever reason that you could never possibly get me to understand. I honestly believe that if a rep at Intel tried to have me killed and in the process killed my one true love, and then the next day they released the fastest processor available and I was building a system I would order 3 of them just to be sure. That is just how I am, but w/e. This question should have never been asked...if you have to go with something from one company and Intel is no option what so ever then you just buy the fastest one from that company that you can get. Simple as that. Now if you had asked something like should I get an e6600 or the 6000+ then I would have been more than happy to answer the question and explain why one would be better than the other, but in this case you have no competing products. You just get the fastest one you can from that company. Just like my roommate did (he is an AMD fanboy)...he just bought the AMD 6000+ because Intel is not an option even though he knew that my C2D system destroys my A64 system with the exact same processor in it. I am currently on a 1.83ghz C2D T5600 and I can honestly say that I prefer to play my games on that over the 6000+ because I when I play the same games on my laptop it runs much smoother and more consistent. My max frames are not as high no, but my min frames are much higher and my game runs smoother. No benchmark can compete with what I have seen for myself. It is just plain better. But I encourage you to root for the underdog because someone needs to. I prefer to root against them because I hate to see the underdog win and I would have gladly paid $500 for my processor if that is the tray price that Intel had asked for it and it were the processor that I wanted. Not everything in life is about price to performance ratio...I leave you with those thoughts!

Best,

3Ball
August 18, 2007 7:29:54 AM

your wasting money with higher end one since they all over clock to same speed 3ghz
August 18, 2007 8:05:39 AM

spet3r said:
Hey Altazi... I've been looking at those processors for months and waiting for the prices to fall.

I'd go with the 6000+ if you want pure performance... on Newegg its $10 more than the 5600+, so why not?

If you want less power consumption, the 5600+ will be a bit better and might run cooler since it uses less juice. It does give the extra 50mhz in ram. Honestly the ram speed difference would be nominal. One thing to consider, I'm sure the next generation is right around the corner? Both are very fast... in my opinion...

I've been happily running my 2700+ (built Feb 2003) into the ground... I'm waiting for the next generation of AM2 sockets with the new PCI-Express socket to come out first. That could change things between the Intel vs AMD since AMD isn't rushing their new products but rather developing them fully. Intel has had a slight edge as long as I remember... but AMD has been the best value all round which why I've preferred them for 7 years. ;-)

Thanks for the response, spet3r. I have considered waiting, but I have already been in the "waiting trap" for a while. I built an Athlon X2 4400+ / ATI X1900XT system a little more than a year ago, but then gave it to my son in a moment of weakness :( 
I waited for the R600 graphics boards (HD 2900XT), and then waited for the drivers to get a bit better. . . I'd be possibly willing to wait a little while for the next level of technology, but my 2600+ is getting a little long in the tooth.

Regards,

Altazi
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2007 8:07:33 AM

altazi said:
OK, thanks for that.

I have dealt with Intel professionally, and I have several "differences of opinion"

I am looking to build a system with a reasonable level of performance, half gaming and half engineering work. I expect to move most of these components to my wife's computer in a year or so.

Regards,

Altazi


Who cares about either company, as a consumer, Intel and AMD are my slaves and fight to make a better product for ME, if Intel can offer me a cpu that is cheaper and faster then i buy Intel, as i would AMD - i aint going to stick with a brand name, they can fight for my money!
August 18, 2007 8:09:45 AM

I agree 6000+
and i put my money where my mouth is.
August 18, 2007 8:39:37 AM

Personally, I would buy the 65W version of the 5200+ and overclock to 3.2 GHz to get the speed, and the 1:1 with the ram. BUT if you really want to get one of those three processors then I would go with the 5600+ and OC to 3.2. If you are comfortable with a little overclocking then I think you should go with the lower GHz processors and OC up to a 1:1 ratio with your DDR2 800. If not, then I say try to get the 6000+ and and do what WGfalcon said. your best option is to overclock price/performance wise.
August 18, 2007 1:57:40 PM

altazi said:
Greetings kind opinion-givers,

I am selecting AMD over Intel for philosophical reasons, so Intel supporters please don't hammer me.

I am looking for real-world opinions on which CPU to choose, the AMD Athlon X2 5600+, X2 6000+, or FX-62. The 5600+ has the benefit of using the full 800MHz DDR2 speed, compared to the 6000+ memory speed of 750MHz (it's the divider thing). Of course, the 6000+ operates at a higher frequency than the 5600+, but does that outweigh the RAM access speed? Finally, there's the FX-62, which is unlocked. The price difference is irrelevant.

I don't mind a little overclocking, but I will always choose stable operation over screaming performance.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,

Altazi


Philosophy can be a very strong word, you could have said personal and avoid a lot of questions. Get a 6000+ or wait for 6400+
August 18, 2007 2:18:51 PM

turboflame said:
AMD's have better price to performance ratio on the lower end. They are still a better deal than lower end C2D offerings.

@ OP, they will all perform very similar, in certain situations the 5600+ will surpass the 6000+ due to it's even multiplier (more RAM bandwidth) but the 6000+ beats it in most situations I believe. Check the CPU charts and see which one fits best. The FX-62 is pretty much useless since your not going to get much out of it by OCing.

also with AMD you can get higher end MB / chipsets for the same price as lower end intel MB.
August 18, 2007 2:56:41 PM

Go for the 6000+. Or as someone else said overclock the 5600+ to 3ghz with a 1:1 ratio. If like you say money isnt a problem then just get the 6000+. The FX-62 is outdated, overpriced and no better at overclocking.
August 18, 2007 3:06:38 PM

altazi said:

I am looking for real-world opinions on which CPU to choose, the AMD Athlon X2 5600+, X2 6000+, or FX-62. The 5600+ has the benefit of using the full 800MHz DDR2 speed, compared to the 6000+ memory speed of 750MHz (it's the divider thing). Of course, the 6000+ operates at a higher frequency than the 5600+, but does that outweigh the RAM access speed? Finally, there's the FX-62, which is unlocked. The price difference is irrelevant.

I don't mind a little overclocking, but I will always choose stable operation over screaming performance.


Back to the original question. If price doesn't make a difference, get the FX62. The multiplier is unlocked and the cpu generally is better tested for performance, meaning it will overclock more reliably and give you more options when overclocking.

Comparing the the 5600+ and 6000+, the 5600+ can be overclocked to the same speed as a 6000+, so that combined with its lower price makes it a better value. While overclocking, you can get around the odd multiplier thing of the 6000+, but it takes some work. As someone else pointed out, you could also wait a bit and get a 6400+m which will be better yet as far as factory clocks go. No one yet knows how the 6400+ will respond to overclocking. It all depends on your timeframe.

And I would ignore the Intel fanboys. They live in a world of intolerance, where anybody's choice that is other than their own is put down. They're kind of like "Big Brother" in the book "1984". They don't want to allow anyone to so much as have a thought, much less a choice, that is different than thiers.
August 18, 2007 3:49:55 PM

altazi said:
OK, thanks for that.

I have dealt with Intel professionally, and I have several "differences of opinion"

I am looking to build a system with a reasonable level of performance, half gaming and half engineering work. I expect to move most of these components to my wife's computer in a year or so.

Regards,

Altazi

This system is half for gaming so what GPU are you going for? The reason I ask is you may do better with cheap and highly over clockable X2 3600+ brisbane. The X2 3600+ can hit 3GHz which would compare to a X2 5400+ to X2 5600+. The X2 3600+ is about 80~$100 cheaper than your suggestions. The extra money saved may get you a screaming 8800 or 2900 GPU.
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2007 4:10:21 PM

@Altazi I'm with sailer, I know I'm posting this from my first ever (in twelve years of self builds) Intel rig which will soon sport a Q6600 and a 7300GS/GT, but in my defence it's just a workhorse that will have nothing but abuse and crap heaped upon it until such time as it can take no more, my gaming fun is still had on a 939 Sli rig. [:mousemonkey]

P.S 1 more vote for the FX62 (I would go Sli too, but that's just me, maybe)
August 18, 2007 4:40:50 PM

decripple said:
Personally, I would buy the 65W version of the 5200+ and overclock to 3.2 GHz to get the speed, and the 1:1 with the ram. BUT if you really want to get one of those three processors then I would go with the 5600+ and OC to 3.2. If you are comfortable with a little overclocking then I think you should go with the lower GHz processors and OC up to a 1:1 ratio with your DDR2 800. If not, then I say try to get the 6000+ and and do what WGfalcon said. your best option is to overclock price/performance wise.
I agree with this guy, I am actually trying to convince a friend of mine to order the 65 watt x2 5200, and i will give him my x2 5600, the x2 5600 is powerfull processor, but i love energy efficiet processors.
August 18, 2007 4:48:53 PM

I have used neither processor, but from everything I have heard, the 5600+ would be preferable. It is only 7% slower than the 6000+, and it sits at an 89W rating as opposed to the 6000+'s 125W rating. Money may be no object one time; but if you're paying an electric bill, and you run that system hard a lot, you'll likely appreciate the power savings. Of course, if you plan to OC it anyway, screw it, get the 6000+.
August 18, 2007 4:55:55 PM

If you will overclock, i vote 5600+ (i just like simple integer numbers with memory, frequency and multipliers)
If you don't overclock i vote 6000+
August 18, 2007 5:30:01 PM

altazi said:
Greetings kind opinion-givers,

I am selecting AMD over Intel for philosophical reasons, so Intel supporters please don't hammer me.

I am looking for real-world opinions on which CPU to choose, the AMD Athlon X2 5600+, X2 6000+, or FX-62. The 5600+ has the benefit of using the full 800MHz DDR2 speed, compared to the 6000+ memory speed of 750MHz (it's the divider thing). Of course, the 6000+ operates at a higher frequency than the 5600+, but does that outweigh the RAM access speed? Finally, there's the FX-62, which is unlocked. The price difference is irrelevant.

I don't mind a little overclocking, but I will always choose stable operation over screaming performance.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,

Altazi


For $160 boxed the 6000+ is a good deal even at it's stock 3Ghz speed.
Alot of people run them @ 3.5Ghz and you don't -have- to run them with those odd 1/2# multi's.

If you don't have the MB and RAM yet I would look at socket 939 with a Optron 175 ($150) as you can OC them to about the same speeds,A DFI Expert ($80 if you search around) and some G.Skill 4000-HZ.
This setup even though it is "older" DDR1 ram...in real life data transfer in Read/Write/Copy benchmarks...blows the doors off the fastest OCZ/Corsair DDR2 that they try to sale for $600-700 a set.

Z

EDIT: Look at the rig I myself use (in system config icon)...50% OC on air with a $69 server CPU. Yes that ram is the stuff that puts DDR2 $700 ram to shame.
August 18, 2007 5:35:22 PM

Quote:
Comparing the the 5600+ and 6000+, the 5600+ can be overclocked to the same speed as a 6000+, so that combined with its lower price makes it a better value.



The 5600+ and the 6000+ are virtually the same price! ($150 for the 5600+ $160 for the 6000+)-- thats a pretty good value considering the top of the line a year ago would go for $300+.

Like a previous poster said its all about power savings since both are pretty powerful... I didn't realize until late last night that that 6400+ is to be released next week... (Thanks Ghost). That processor will be a tad better and might use less wattage, not 100% sure on that but thats the usually trend. Might want to consider that one over the 6000+... I would. Agree with another previous poster, seems like AMD boards are a better value versus Intel boards. Thats why I usually pick them.

As far the waiting... its all about the socket types and how they are messing around with motherboard layouts. One thing to definitely consider is the new AM2+ socket type (later this year?) and the AM3 socket type (next year?) which is suppose to be released and the new PCI-Express socket type-- I forget what its called... it'll have an impact on upgrading. Thats how I keep my computers running for eons shoveling the least amount of cash as I can into the computer parts black hole. Know exactly how you feel on that 2600+... My 2700+ is definitely at the end of its gaming days as its beginning to choke on some of these higher end games in all genres (first began noticing in BF2)... and Photoshop 3, forget it... lol.
August 18, 2007 6:21:14 PM

Ok skipping all the blabla from the others.

5600+ is what you need.
The difference between the 5600 and 6000 is minimal and like you mentionned you'll be able to match the RAM speed (800). As for the FX-62 :
FX-62 TDP : 125W
5600+ TDP : 89W
so with the 5600+ you should be able to keep your system cooler.
You won't need overclocking unless you absolutly want the few fps/seconds it could give you.

I'm no expert about AMD (nor Intel) but that's my opinion.
August 19, 2007 6:18:19 AM

Many thanks to those who positively contributed their comments.

After reading the responses, I am left wondering if I should wait (a bit?) Do any of you kind people have any good ideas as to what will be forthcoming from AMD in the near future?

Again, thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,

Altazi
August 19, 2007 7:41:37 AM

altazi said:
Many thanks to those who positively contributed their comments.

After reading the responses, I am left wondering if I should wait (a bit?) Do any of you kind people have any good ideas as to what will be forthcoming from AMD in the near future?

Again, thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,

Altazi


That in itself is a good question.

Phenom is suppose to release at the end of year, but I would see how the Barcelona launch looks before determining that guess. With a good AM2+ or AM3 (if it apprears) chipset, you should be able to run Phenom or something close for a bit. Not sure how a 6400+ or 6000+ would fit in your needs, but a 5600+ should be good enough to keep you satisfied until Phenom arrives.

Again, this is all speculation on how Barcelona is received. If Barcelona is panned, Phenom might not be released at any higher clock speed than Barcelona (don't wanna make a desktop CPU look better than a server CPU...more $$$ at server level). If Barcelona looks good, Phenom will be pushed as the next best thing since sliced bread, in my opinion, and AMD should do that, anyway.

If you wait, you might be rewarded, or be regulated into paying more money for a CPU that you could've gotten cheaper (why? cause if Barcy doesn't live up to the hype, I see the higher clocked AMD setups being more expensive). With your distaste of Intel, you'll be left with a choice of getting an inferior CPU (again, speculation, don't start the flames, AMD fanboys/fanbois), or a damn good CPU (speculation, don't flame me, Intel fanboys/fanbois)

If you need a system now, and AMD is your only choice, overclocking is something you need to mention if your going to do or not. Not think about, but do. If so, then the 5600+ is a better choice over the 6000+. If not, then the 6000+ or the 6400+ (when availabale) are good choices.
August 20, 2007 12:36:26 PM

starcraftfanatic said:
What kind of person chooses the slower thing over the faster thing for philosophical reasons? Those proccesors are now expensive paperweights compared to the Core 2.


Expensive :??:  where have you been looking at AMD prices? last time I looked they were excellent value for money.

The OP asked for AMD processor buying advice and specifically stated they didn't want Intel. The Poster didn't ask for the Intel Fanboy club to start bashing AMD and then recommend a CPU they are not interested in buying (C2D)

To the OP:
I would recommend the 6000+ CPU because it's not that much more expensive then the 5600+ X2. The 6000+ CPU has been proven to be a solid performer in benchmarks.
August 20, 2007 5:38:41 PM

Here are the rest of the system components I am considering: PC&C Silencer 750 Quad, HD 2900XT, Crossfire mobo, WD Raptor 150, minimum 2GB 800MHz DDR2, Antec 900 case (already have), and optical drive, etc. My monitor is a 23" LCD 1920 x 1200.

I want to be able to play games like Oblivion, F.E.A.R, etc., and achieve high-quality images without the frame rate dropping to the point it looks like a slide show.

I figure that I will move the CPU & mobo to my wife's computer sometime in 2008, and take a step up AMD's technology ladder.

Regards,

Altazi
August 20, 2007 8:06:55 PM

cpburns said:
I have used neither processor, but from everything I have heard, the 5600+ would be preferable. It is only 7% slower than the 6000+, and it sits at an 89W rating as opposed to the 6000+'s 125W rating.


The new 6000+'s are 89W as well, only the 6400+ is 125W now. This is why newer 6000+'s are OC'ing better. This 6000+ at newegg has an 89W TDP

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773

However, if you're just gonna fill in the gap until Phenom arrives, get a 5600+ or 5200+. Hell, the top of the line brisbane performs decently @ 2.6 GHz and is only $119, if you care about heat and power at all.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103780
August 20, 2007 9:32:43 PM

Actually jwlangs you are mistaken! The 6000+ is a 125w processor.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

They do not OC all that great, so im not sure where you got that they are OC'ing better because I own one and sure I can post windows @ 3.48ghz, but I cant get anything stable (and by stable I mean 24+ hours on orthos, not this 6 - 8 hours crap that I see other people doing) over 3.2ghz and it requires relative high voltage and the temps are ridiculous! Also I am not seeing anything on neweggs website from that link you posted about the TDP. So I posted it straight from AMD's for you!

Best,

3Ball
August 20, 2007 11:19:01 PM

That PC Power & Cooling Power Supply is a bit steep on the price, $200? Doesn't look extra ordinary compared to OCZ, Enermax, or Thermal take power supplies for $100 less with about the same efficiency. Honestly, 750watts might be overkill? When it comes to power supplies, its about efficiency and amerpage... The system shouldn't demand more than 350-380 watts unless you have more than a few of those raptors and SLI with two 8800GTXs.

If I were building your same system I'd get a power supply similar to this Enermax Liberty... but its your call, I'd rather have more to spend on the components.

Would agree with previous posters... 6000 is 125w.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest