Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Budget Overclocker - AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
October 22, 2007 2:16:38 PM

So why is this article so thorough and every other article is so shallow lately? Seriously, this is your guys' jobs to do this kind of journalism and you don't do it for a majority of your articles lately. I'm starting to depend on forum members in places for a thorough review of some things.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=13...

There's some thorough reviewing right there. It's become a rare occurance nowadays to find something deep enough to put some time aside to read. I just flip through these articles because there's nothing in them.

If anyone gave me some test equipment there'd be quite a laundry list of tests and comparisons done... Shame on you tomshardware!
October 22, 2007 2:24:05 PM

:non:  good game :non:  upgrade
Related resources
October 22, 2007 2:41:20 PM

Hopefully this is an indication that THG is starting to go back to it's old ways of giving complete, professional articles / reviews.

awesome job, keep up the good work
October 22, 2007 3:15:31 PM

Good read. Although I did skim through it, it sounds like AMD has a nice chip here. One I would consider building or upgrading with had I not recently build an Intel rig.
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2007 5:13:48 PM

I think this article deserves a different title. I'd suggest calling it "The official 'We're not Intel Fanboys' article"

My reasoning: Every other overclocking article since the Core 2's release favors the boys in blue, yet here is a review showing that AMD does have some decent overclocking potential on a 65nm chip. But (IMHO) it makes one ABSOLUTELY UNFORGIVEABLE ERROR, specifically I HATE this paragraph from the first page:
Quote:
"Of course there's nothing to keep you from overclocking the Intel processors included for comparison here as well. However, within this article we are considering the 5000+ Black Edition primarily as a CPU upgrade for people with existing AM2 systems, meaning that Intel processors are not an option."


Toms: Please tell me which group you think is bigger:
A) The current owners of AM2 boards, who are considering buying the 5000+ Black Edition and "intend to overclock it - and we mean really overclock it." When a few short months ago AMD's main selling point was lower cost vs Intel's performance, so how many of those buyers do you think are in the "really overclock it" crowd?
B) Everyone else who is interested in overclocking CPUs and wants to see how the new 65nm Black Edition compare to the 65nm Core 2's (or better yet the 45 nm). This includes the people that have no intention to buy anything, but just want to keep track of what's available.

If you think group A is significantly bigger then you wrote the article from the correct viewpoint. But from where I'm sitting I think the article was writen to make Tom's seem a lot friendlier towards AMD. As within a couple of months both companies will release their new CPU's, from the early numbers/reviews I've seen it looks like both will get a similar increase in clock-for-clock performance and overclocking headroom due to the die shrink. If this is the case - all the upcomming reviews will still have Intel in the lead (in both stock and overclocked performace categories). But because I've seen so many accusations on these forums that Tom's in in Intel's pocket, while this review calls this AMD CPU an "ideal choice", I think it was probably written to be cited as an example that Tom's is being fair in their reviews and not only touting Intel's products.

Yes, the pricing of this CPU is below Intel's e6xxx line, but what about the e4400/4500? They are similarly priced and have great overclocking headroom. Did all mention of the 4xxx line get forgotten because it would have moved the results in Intel's favor? What about any previous e6550 overclocking benchmarks - the stock numbers were included and I know you have overclocked benchmarks for both the e4xxx and the e6xxx lines, so why not include them?

As I've said in some other critisims on these forums, no computer hardware exists in a vacuum. So Tom's, the depth of this article is a good start in trying to recapture some of your former glory, but stop putting disclamers and doing uneven comparisons (if your going to use overclocked AMD CPU's, compare them to OC'd Core 2's). When you stack the deck like this, it only makes me question the results and why you did it like this in the first place.
October 22, 2007 5:46:15 PM

Good article.
October 22, 2007 7:19:18 PM

How they make the Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 test since it's not supported in vista, in fact, it doesn't run at all.
October 22, 2007 8:58:56 PM

Good article. Good enough to convince me to consider this over an e2140, and I never thought I'd be getting another AMD chip(well at least not until Phenom actually came out.)

Though before I make the purchase, which will give me better performance overclocked, the 5000+ or the e2140?
October 22, 2007 9:16:27 PM

Interesting article. I always thought that Tom's should have a regular cpu chart (which they do have) and an over clock chart of the the cpu's. (They could have the charts side by side) Now that would take a lot of time but am sure a lot of people would appreciate it and find it useful. You have to jump around and search and open up a couple pages if you want to try to compare oc benchmarks of cpu's because they are all in different locations and on different pages.
October 22, 2007 10:14:40 PM

Give the people what they want. Thank you, AMD.

It is never a good idea to deliberately restrict enthusiasts from taking advantage of their ingenuity. It's taken years to get CPU manufacturers to sell chips with unlocked multipliers again.

Would Intel & AMD really have lost business not having locked multipliers to prevent overclocking? I doubt it; they probably lost sales because of it.

Another case in point: Apple with their iPhone firmware debacle. Don't play fun police on your loyal (enthusiastic) customers!
October 22, 2007 10:22:47 PM

Come on now guys.. This was a good article which gives props to AMD where it is due. It's true that Tom's has been stroking Intel a lot lately, but right now they deserve it. Up until the Core2 I was an AMD only guy mainly because their processors performed better the Intel. Now I'm running the Core2. Its faster and consumes less power, period. I am a still a big fan of AMD and the Black Box was a very creative idea which I'm sure will keep a lot of AMD customers from ditching their AMDs for Intel until they can squeeze out a more competetive processor.
October 22, 2007 11:50:07 PM

good article, but amd's offering is seemingly obsolete. essentially, you have to overclock the cpu to its max to even come close to the core 2 duo. sure its half the price of the q6600, but future quad core cpu's will eventually blow this black cpu out of its misery when more software can use its threading properly. even the triple core is a good marketing stunt, but the benchies will eventually determine marketing vs. # of cores. if amd doesn't start competing more aggressively, it will lose more than just half a billion this quarter.
October 23, 2007 12:29:24 AM

It was a good article, but I wish they would have taken an extra time to overclock the 6550 processor. On my E6300 processor, all I had to do was set the FSB to 333MHz (instead of 266), and I got an instant 25% performance boost (2.33GHz instead of 1.86). As an added bonus, my memory (PC2-5300) runs at 1:1 with the FSB. No futzing with voltages, no issues at all for the last 18 months. I don't understand the fuss about this.

This article shows the E6550 getting a 25% overclock while under-volting the processor by 20% (http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=181). Even at stock voltage, they got a 50% overclock.

Clint
October 23, 2007 1:14:28 AM

This article was paid for by AMD. It's totally biased and takes an absolute pro AMD stance. The only thing AMD processors are good for is for the trash can. In no way such a piece of garbage can beat one of Intels low cost offerings like a PD 925, let alone a core 2 duo. Tom's really went down. It's sad.

Just joking. Given the rampant and mostly idiotic fanatics of both companies roaming the forums, i find it quite interesting that this thread hasn't turned into slugfest with forum members flinging crap at each other while swinging from tree to tree - not to mention the meaningless amount of senseless posts containing nothing but rumors, hearsay, speculation and "flamebait". While I consider myself a tolerant person, it is becoming quite tiresome. Let's see how long it takes to clutter up this thread.

I liked the article, yet i hope Toms didn't write it because they thought people consider the site biased. In addition I hope the articles regarding the upcoming processors (Phenom and Penryn) will be as thorough and well written as this one.
Over the last months there were some articles that were a little off the mark. This is supposed to be a hardware site and, as other already mentioned, i'm not interested in lawn mowers or muscle cars. Lately that focus seems to shift back to where it should be and if that article is any indicator of what is to come i'm quite happy.

Other than that i wish for a big can of "fanboy" repellant - i mean christmas IS coming, right?
October 23, 2007 2:47:53 AM

If you dont have to mess with the FSB etc. to overclock this puppy, will its expected lifetime be the same as if you didn't oveclock it? From what I've read, overclocked components die quicker...... is this still the case here?
October 23, 2007 3:45:46 AM

I wonder what would have happened if they went ahead and also tweaked the FSB settings... Why not overclock it like you mean it???
October 23, 2007 3:46:03 AM

The reason is heat and increase voltage but with this cpu they oc to 3.10 on stock voltage so it's all good.
October 23, 2007 7:45:15 AM

@caamsa allthough the idea of a OC CPU chart is tempting it has one big flaw, that even chips with the same specs can overclock diffrently.

Just look at the overclocking results from diffrent hardware sites, it's seldom they reach the same speed, and there will allways be some doubt in the ability of the overclocker to get the best out of a processor so making a fair judgement would be hard.


About the article I agree with most that it's nice to see a more thorough review on Toms, I've been missing those!
October 23, 2007 8:07:55 AM

Overall, I liked this article and felt it was very thorough. I'd like to point out to people who criticize this article who say it's biased to remember that everyone is biased one way or another, including them and I highly doubt they'd write an article without any bias whatsoever.

I have a question in regards to benchmarks for this article. I vaguely remember Tom's Hardware wrote an article awhile ago contrasting benchmarking performance between Windows XP and Win Vista (when it first came out). I also remember that generally speaking, games have lower framerates in Vista than XP, thus XP is a better platform to play games. I was wondering why Tom's had to change their OS to Vista if this is the case?
October 23, 2007 8:41:27 AM

If this were a socket 939 CPU I'd consider it, but as I didn't buy into the DDR 2 frenetics (aka get same or worse performance at the price of upgrading MB + PROC + MEMORY) I really see this as a pointless gimmick. Very nice performance if all those "blackies" can reproduce the lab overclocking results, no comment on that but... I'll stick to my 939 X2 4400 mildly oc'ed to 2,5 Ghz and the OCZ 500 Mhz Platinum good old reliable DDR 1 and wait for the next thing. Really stupid move for AMD to leave behind their most successful platform. As recent history has proven they could have safely moved directly to DDR3 without sacrificing any performance at all if they would have chosen not to join the "hype".
October 23, 2007 9:13:54 AM

Overclocking various components does stress the hardware and obviously reduse the life span but in the case of the 5000+, only the CPU is OC'ed. Not the motherboard bus or RAM. Anyways, if that's the case, I've been trying to "kill" my 3800+ single core by OC for quite some time now so I can justify an upgrade to my girlfriend, but the damn dog just won't die!!!
Any ideas? hehehe :) 
October 23, 2007 9:18:00 AM

..oh, by the way, it mentions on page 30 of the article that the AMD posters are available for download from the Tom's servers. Can I get a link if possible? I'm either stupid or blind, but I can't seem to find them anywhere on the site. Thank you
October 23, 2007 1:23:11 PM

This article is about validating the hype ad that AMD put out about the black edition and what you get for the money.LOL! if you have an AMD and want an upgrade this is it.This has nothing to do about the Intel vs AMD,and all to do about validating AMDs hype.Intel fanboys you can now relax
October 23, 2007 1:43:58 PM

At the moment I have an asrock S939 board running at 3700 at FX57 speeds...

Should I get the AM2 upgrade board so that I can put a 5000 BLACK on it but use my existing DDR400 ram.

Or buy a Dual-Core Opteron 180?

I want more performance, but don't want to spend a great deal of cashola.
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2007 1:59:44 PM

It's about time Tom's put out articles like this. Overall, great article. I always did wonder how valuable of an upgrade option was the 5000+ BE for current AM2 system owners who don't want to shell out $$$$ to rebuild, but want to keep their systems till all the new CPU's launch.
October 23, 2007 2:10:29 PM

anyone else notice that they said they were using A-data ram for the test yet the pictures on page 12 showed corsair memory. Odd.
October 23, 2007 3:33:15 PM

Guess you were either too lazy or too stupid to think about putting in the results of your own "$89 Pentium Dual Core that Runs at 3.2 GHz" review. The Intel E2160, in case you forgot.

SO basically I had to look at the E6850 results to see how an $89 E2160, which I had been running at a reasonable 3 Ghz on air for months before, still blows this weak attempt by AMD at finally having an overclockable budget processor.

Once again AMD has too little too late, and once again this website misguides its readers.
October 23, 2007 5:58:08 PM

Idiot it's a article about AMD not Intel.
October 23, 2007 6:12:50 PM

Quote:
Idiot it's a article about AMD not Intel.

Who are you addressing? What is this supposed to mean anyway. Final thought... it's odd that you are complaining about an article when you can't figure out that AN is the article that precedes a word starting in a vowel.
October 23, 2007 6:45:01 PM

hairycat101 said:
The fx-62 also has an unlocked multiplier ( http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite... ). It also doesn't come with a HS/fan. Why didn't they review this as another alternative? It is priced similarly. Anyone know of a comparable review between the black box 5000 and the fx 62?


the black box uses much less power (65W VS 125W), plus the FX-62 you linked to is OEM so it doesn't have a 3 year warranty

JakeBlade said:
Guess you were either too lazy or too stupid to think about putting in the results of your own "$89 Pentium Dual Core that Runs at 3.2 GHz" review. The Intel E2160, in case you forgot.

SO basically I had to look at the E6850 results to see how an $89 E2160, which I had been running at a reasonable 3 Ghz on air for months before, still blows this weak attempt by AMD at finally having an overclockable budget processor.

Once again AMD has too little too late, and once again this website misguides its readers.


The article stated that the point was to show how people with existing AM2 platforms could upgrade to the BE and get good results. In case you forgot, AM2 came out before C2D.
October 23, 2007 6:52:36 PM

stupid question... How do you get the quote thing to look like that? Side note... The reason I brought up the FX-62 is that for the money, the warrenty really isn't that big of an issue. If it lasts the burn in time, its good enough. If you blow it apart from OC'ing it too much, the warrenty doesn't matter anyway. Also the wattage doesn't matter that much to most people (provided it doesn't heat the room like a heat-burst chip).
October 23, 2007 7:55:27 PM

DDR 800 is pretty cheap right now {with all those crazy rebates}

the BE 5000 just seems like a good quality, lackluster part.

X2 5000+ BE + $30 fan vs. X2 6000+ {well if your going to buy the fan anyways you could save $30}

waiting on something new AMD...

October 23, 2007 11:38:53 PM

Very good article. It seems like this would be a very nice upgrade for anyone on the AM2 platform that happens to have a less-than-spectacular processor.
October 24, 2007 3:14:14 AM

JakeBlade said:
Guess you were either too lazy or too stupid to think about putting in the results of your own "$89 Pentium Dual Core that Runs at 3.2 GHz" review. The Intel E2160, in case you forgot.

SO basically I had to look at the E6850 results to see how an $89 E2160, which I had been running at a reasonable 3 Ghz on air for months before, still blows this weak attempt by AMD at finally having an overclockable budget processor.

Once again AMD has too little too late, and once again this website misguides its readers.



This is a perfect upgrade for a person who owns an AM2 socket board and is going from a single core to a dual core or even from a slower dual core AM2 processor. That said (actually look at the benchmarks) This chip performs quite well ever at stock speeds for "old" technology. You need to consider the cost of the Intel system VS the AMD system to figure out if it is worth it one to one........but if you have an existing AM2 system why would I then get rid of that system and then build a system around the lowest end Intel chip and then over clock it????

If building a new system from the ground up just go for a intel quad core set up. The chip is $195.00 more than the E2160 but is a no brainer for some one with the extra cash.

BTW: Most people do not over clock their CPU's, some buy a computer from Dell or HP and in that case the computer with a E2160 is not a stellar perfomer. You only get the performance increase when over clocking......so yes some of your agrument is valid to a point.
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2007 8:15:07 AM

You know, hairycat is right. You can clearly see it's Corsair RAM on page 12 even though in hardware setup on page 11 it says and shows they will be using A-Data. Ah well, still a good article.
October 24, 2007 11:36:23 AM

What about the GPU specs on the top of each 3d game chart that lists an 8800GTX 512MB? Is there a GTX 512?
October 24, 2007 5:01:53 PM

prolfe said:
What about the GPU specs on the top of each 3d game chart that lists an 8800GTX 512MB? Is there a GTX 512?


No, there isn't a 8800 GTX with 512mb. What you are seeing, along with Hairycat and Runswindows95, is a bit of editorial sloppiness. Most video cards have been classed in ranges of 64, 128, 256, and 512 mb. So the guy writing the article probably automatically thought in the term of 512 mb instead of the correct number. Similar with the Corsair memory vs A-Data. The errors probably are just sloppiness and lack of proof reading.

As for the costs and performance of the 5000+ Black Edition, I saw some sale adds this morning and figured out that it would cost me about $500 to switch my old 939 machine over to this chip. That included $125 for the CPU, $254 for 2x2 gig of Corsair ram, and $120 for a mobo. That seems makes for a cheap upgrade to a machine that would undoubtedly perform better than the old 939 4400+ powered machine. It does seem tempting.
October 24, 2007 7:22:58 PM

sailer said:

As for the costs and performance of the 5000+ Black Edition, I saw some sale adds this morning and figured out that it would cost me about $500 to switch my old 939 machine over to this chip. That included $125 for the CPU, $254 for 2x2 gig of Corsair ram, and $120 for a mobo. That seems makes for a cheap upgrade to a machine that would undoubtedly perform better than the old 939 4400+ powered machine. It does seem tempting.


IMO I would say that your current system is just fine. Either try to over clock or upgrade your video card. At this point.....if AMD does release their new desktop cpu's soon then and you would rather stick with AMD just wait for Phenom. It is ashame 939 was put out to pasture so soon..............
October 25, 2007 5:46:04 PM

I've been working with one of these X2-5000 Blacks, currently in the second of three mATX motherboards ranging from "does NOT overclock at all" to "very good overclocker". I'll also be dropping it in a performance ATX board later, to see what she really tops out at. Lastly, I'll be loaning the chip to a local enthusiast who will drop it in an Asus M2N32SLI Deluxe with some sub-zero cooling, and see where he can take it.

I am posting this mostly because of the comment early in the article about this steppings low voltage requirements and hence low temperatures. There is also reference as to using stock HSFs, and again at the end of the article a statement about buying a new cooling solution is unnecessary:

Quote:
Thus, thanks to the low thermal power dissipation, you don't need to spend extra money on a complex cooling solution.


I'd like to quickly point out that this product does not come with a HSF solution. So unless you already have an AM2 compatible heatsink and fan, you will be buying a new one.

Something else I don't recall seeing in this review, is the stickers that AMD includes in the package. Like the posters, they are nice tribal-like lineart renditions of a scorpion, spider, snake and bat. Pics of these can be seen in the link I'll post below.

My particular sample may run hotter than the one reviewed here, and additionally, there may be some variance in reported temperatures through different motherboards and BIOS versions. Keep this in mind when reading my following statements! ;) 

While my sample does run quite cool at lower speeds, she heats up a lot when in the 15x and 16x multiplier range, even with only 1.4volts on the CPU Core. I'm currently using a Scythe Samurai, and still passing 50C under dual prime Orthos load at 3ghz with the 15x multi and 1.375 Vcore. If I were running a stock AMD cooler, I'm sure we'd be in the 60's. The speed of this particular chip would be limited by heat, and not motherboard or voltage, if it were under a stock HSF - I have very little doubt of this.

Spending extra money on a complex cooling solution may not be necessary if you define this as high end air, water, peltier or phaze change. You will have to spend extra money on some type of cooling as the processor does not come with a HSF. While the Blacks should all be cherry picked CPUs, unless you get a golden sample, you will be wanting a very decent air solution at the least. The Scythe Samurai isn't up to this task when under load, yet a Ninja might be.

Generally, this is an extremely good buy when you compare dollars to mhz/performance, easily keeping up with an E6600 and E6700 (albiet the intel's at stock speeds).

My Results

Using an ASRock AM2NF6G-VSTA with it's VCore max'd at 1.4 volts, my cpu was stable with a 15X multiplier for 3ghz. That's the fastest AM2 ASRock I've ever seen! It was able to boot to the desktop with a 16x multiplier for 3.2ghz but was unstable and failed Super-pi 32M and Orthos -- yet was able to complete any other benchmark I threw at it.

Using an Abit NF-M2 nView motherboard which has all the BIOS controls of a full size performance motherboard, it is quite stable with 15x multi for 3ghz at 1.35Vcore. With 1.4Vcore the 16x multi was more stable than the ASRock, but still needs another tick or two to pass Super-Pi or Orthos. I'll revisit this one later, as I am first testing it in all the boards with a maximum of 1.4V.

Needless to say, judging from initial results I should easily be able to stablize 3.2ghz with the 16x multi and only 1.425 vcore. Beyond that is still unknown, it'll depend on how well it scales with voltage.

You can visit my work log and view pictures at Hardware Canuks, here:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/member-reviews/290...

Since I'll probably be working on this for another 3-4 weeks, I'd be pleased to have any response or suggestions.

Overall, I liked this review, and especially liked the charts that included so many of the other CPU offerings which gives one a very nice picture of where this cpu falls in relation to it's competition. Job well done!


.
October 26, 2007 2:35:50 AM

I think when the author is mentioning a stock HSF he means if you are upgrading which this whole article is encompasing

I am actually going to pickup a very similar setup to the one in this review

Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe/Wireless Edition
OCZ (OCZ850GXSSLI) GameXStream 850 Watt Power Supply
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition Dual-Core Socket AM2,
OCZ DDR2 PC2-6400 800MHz Reaper HPC Edition 2GB (2x1024MB) EPP
Zalman CNPS-9700NT HSF

I already have an 8800 GTS 640MB and 37" HDTV as my monitor

I currently have a 939 opty 148 which is great but it is time for me to move into the dual core era. the nice thing about the socket AM2 is you will be able to drop in a quad core upon thier release (with a BIOS upgrade I'm sure) which means this system will be able to hold me over until the FX-86 comes out and put one of those in.. sure I won't get the power saving features but, I don't care if my PUC bill is +10$ a month (if it even goes up that much) [PUC = electricity company]

the software is not quite up to par with the hardware so I am not worried about spending 2000$ on a Quad core system just yet
(I was going to go with the QuadFX with 2x FX-74 or the q6600)
performance gains are not worth the price (for me anyway)

100FPS Vs 150FPS at 60hz still only means 60 true fps
October 26, 2007 3:13:08 PM

Compared to an e2160, overclocked to 3.2GHz, how does this chip stand up in the price/performance standings?

The e2160 costs less than $80 and when the prices of the q6600 drop, you can install and OC a q6600 on the same MB.

Will we be as lucky with AMD MBs?

Not an Intel fanboy. I have both systems. I am getting ready to build another system and having the ability to upgrade to the q6600 without replacing the MB is a plus.

October 26, 2007 3:34:25 PM

This is a rough comparrison, its six one way and a half dozen the other. In some cases, an Intel CPU will be a bit cheaper than an AMD for the same performance, but an AMD motherboard will be cheaper than the Intel, so they seem to balance out. Often the cheaper AMD motherboard makes the overall package cheaper on the AMD side, but the Intel has the ability to overclock better and, as you note, be able to take a quad core CPU in the future.

Unfortunately, though several of the current AMD motherboards are able to handle a quad core with a BIOS flash, they will not support all the features of the coming AM2+ CPUs. On top of that, there are no true AM2+ motherboards out yet, so a consumer can't buy one in anticipation of the upcoming AMD quad core. The result is at the moment, someone going to the Intel side has some future protection while someone on the AMD side is at the end of the line. Depending on the performance needs, a person might do very well with an AMD 5000+ Black Edition for some time yet, but an all out performance addict would be better off with Intel inside. Of course, if AMD does come out with the Phenom/Agena line of CPUs next month, this could change. That's both an unknown and, given AMD's recent habit of delaying chips and giving paper launches, it could be closer to 6 months before we see any real hardware out of AMD.
October 29, 2007 5:24:14 PM

mlhm5 said:
Compared to an e2160, overclocked to 3.2GHz, how does this chip stand up in the price/performance standings?

The e2160 costs less than $80 and when the prices of the q6600 drop, you can install and OC a q6600 on the same MB.

Will we be as lucky with AMD MBs?

Not an Intel fanboy. I have both systems. I am getting ready to build another system and having the ability to upgrade to the q6600 without replacing the MB is a plus.


I've got some comparrisons for you below. The two are fairly close when the 2160 is at 3ghz (don't seem to have any saved at 3.2 or 3.4, I know it wasn't stable at those speeds but I thought I did some quick benches). Anyways, the two trade top slots depending on the test, and overall the 2160 wins due to price and the X2-5000 Black wins due to unlocked multi. If I had 3.2 or 3.4ghz benches saved, I am pretty sure the 2160 would clean-sweep top score.

I know what you are saying... and no, you won't be as lucky. On the other hand, you won't be getting an Intel chip with an unlocked multiplier for what, $130? There is a lot of fun to be had with that multi even if you have a great mobo and don't need the multiplier control!

The real attraction for this part is for people that are already in an AM2 system and looking for a quick and easy, and CHEAP upgrade without having to buy a new motherboard to take an Intel chip.

Here are a bunch of Everest's benchmark suite saved scores, I deleted everything except the E2160 and some various X2-5000.

Note: The Unknown for the motherboard in the E2160 scores is an XFX 650i Ultra.





















.

October 30, 2007 8:08:32 PM

lol don't trust AMDs website... download CPUz or even better Everest I don't belive that CPUz can identify the steping on the 5000+BE

please let us know because I am currently working on building a BE system and I am unable to find any stores with ADO5000IAA5DS. and it wouldn't be the first time AMD gave misinformation on their site.

so yeah, Please verify! :) 
October 31, 2007 3:11:38 AM

Thanks for the links! Good find!

I wouldn't worry about it, you get what you get! They are hard enough to find in stock as it is, can't be picky about revision codes! :pt1cable:  :D  They are all cherry-picked anyway!

Some of the stats in the G1 rev look better imho, higher thermal TCase max and a much lower range on Vcore. I'll be trying mine at 1.25v now that I've seen this, I think 1.3v is the lowest I've had it so far. I had no idea AMD lowered the vcore this much recently -- been out of touch I guess, with intel systems.

.
October 31, 2007 3:12:38 PM

Awesome that AMD is making CPUs with the purpose of being overclocked. They remember one of the things that was popular with the old Celerons.
!