Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD vs Intel for no OCing

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 5, 2007 4:41:59 PM

for someone who has absolutely positively no plans to OC a computer, does the amd 6000 3.0ghz beat out or is even with the c2d 6600 2.66ghz? tia

More about : amd intel ocing

a b à CPUs
September 5, 2007 4:59:43 PM

Core2Duo E6600 is 2.4 and is faster than X2 6000 due of its larger cache ,
September 5, 2007 5:12:52 PM

The x2 6000 is OC'd at Stock, so I presume you are going to under clock it?

The reason I say this is because AMD bumped the power consumption of this CPU so it could run faster than the other X2's at lower power.

You are simply paying for a pre-OC'd CPU. Makes no sense to me.
Related resources
September 5, 2007 5:15:08 PM

Well, in defense of the OP's CPU choice... his OC'd CPU has a warranty. Also, I'm not sure the OP realizes just how ridiculously easy it is to OC a Core2Duo processor with virtually no risk. It's so easy... well, you know the rest.
a b à CPUs
September 5, 2007 5:17:08 PM

Depending on the benchmark, the X2 6000 is faster or the E6600 is faster. Check out Tom's CPU Charts to see for yourself.

As as a matter of price/performance the X2 6000 is a better choice than the E6600 at stock speeds.

September 5, 2007 5:20:55 PM

zenmaster,

your argument of the 6000 is not very logical at all. Using your logic all CPU above the absolute lowest in a model line are overclocked. We are here trying to help someone make the best decision not to try to sway someone to buy something from the company we like better.

Edit: I think I might have misunderstood your post. You are saying why buy the top line models of any of the companies if you say you don't want to OC since that is what they basically are. Rodney has a point, warranty.
September 5, 2007 5:40:40 PM

Yes, I understand Warranty.

But it would be nearly impossible to detect a fried CPU by setting the Core Voltage to a reasonable level, such as the one used by the higher end chips.

It is quite common for the lower end Intel and AMD Chips to have lower TDP even though they are identically built chips.

I'm not one for Massive voltage Increase, Water Coolers, and other extreme measures, but rather reasonable overclocks.

Example - My CPU is both OverClocked and set to UnderVoltage.
So I get a faster system that runs cooler. quiter and uses less power than a "stock" system.

If you are not going to OC, then both Intel/AMD systems are very close in performance for chips in the same price range. This would be important when buynig retail/business class computers that often do not have any OC bios features.

From the posters question of comparing on of the fastest AMDs vs a mid-range C2D (at the same price point), it becomes apparent that cost is a deciding factor and he is working within a somewhat limited budget.

Once we know this, we may also conclude that he may very well be making concessions of limits in other parts of his system.

The wonderful thing about current CPUs from both AMD and Intel is that their lower range models can easily match the performance of the top models without extreme overclocking and allow for a definite cost savings.

This cost savings can then be added to an xtra HDD for backup purposes, or perhaps a higher quality PSU so all of your parts do not fry, or perhaps a faster GPU. None of these items are far more fixed in that you can't really improve much upon what you get out of the box. The CPU is the only area in which you can do that.

My last system purchase was nearly $2000 but I only got a lower end CPU. The rest went to lots of RAM ( Virtualization requires more than most folks), lots of HDDs, multiple Nice Monitors, Quality PSU, etc.. etc... etc..

The one area I easily saved money was the CPU, but my CPU is currently UnderVolted and still as fast as the Stock Top of the line CPU from it's line.
September 5, 2007 5:43:00 PM

Note: When folks say they do not want to OC and will never want to OC, I always make a point of trying to challange that statement. The reason is that OCing today is not what OCing was a few years ago. Back in the day if you got a 10% OC you were lucky and offing pushing the system. That is no longer the case. I think many folks think of Water Cooling, Refrigeration Units, and these other extreme OverClocking measures which are indeed silly for the average person.
September 5, 2007 5:45:15 PM

If the cpu is to be run at stock speeds, I would go for the AMD 6000+, or better yet, for the 6400+ which is only a few dollars more. I say this because most of the Intel based motherboards I've seen tend to be a bit more expensive then AMD based motherboards. I have also had some problems with an Intel cpu machine that I have, though I suspect the main problem is the motherboard at this moment. I'm still trying to get that computer straightened out.
September 5, 2007 5:48:25 PM

A higher multiplier does not constitute an overclock. I'm siding with weskurtz81. What a rediculous comment to make. Aside from that, I would say go with the AMD Athlon X2 6000+.
September 5, 2007 5:59:11 PM

If you are looking for price to performance ratio then go with the 6000+ if you want the better processor imo it is the e6600, but if you are building a new system then I would say go for the e6750 with the higher FSB, Clock Speed, and lower price as well as lower power consumption and runs cooler and you will always have to possibility to OC if you so need it in the future and change your mind. It is just better than both of the options even the 6400X2 would not best this processor imo!

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Product...

Best,

3Ball
September 5, 2007 6:44:00 PM

i wasnt aware that the 6000 was essentially a OCed 5600. i want the warranty and i dont wanna mess around with the hardware. that simple. i compared the x2 6000 to the 6600 due the the clock speed being similar, but when OCing isnt a factor, the extremely small performance jump of the 6600 over the x2 6000 doesnt seem to be worth the extra $$$

it boggles my mind that people still tried to say i should OC. i thought "absolutely positively no plans to OC " made that clear...
September 5, 2007 6:55:57 PM

You did make it clear about no overclocking. Unfortunately, there are some people who either refuse to read or refuse to accept what is written. It does not matter whether they favor AMD or Intel, they just want everyone to do things their way.
September 5, 2007 6:57:49 PM


fishywishy said:
for someone who has absolutely positively no plans to OC a computer, does the amd 6000 3.0ghz beat out or is even with the c2d 6600 2.66ghz? tia

Ok, what part of ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO PLANS TO OC don't you people understand? He's asking a simple question to which only 2 or 3 replies have even addressed out of 12.
Look, not everyone wants to screw with OC'ing a CPU. It's relatively complicated compared to just plugging in a new CPU and turning it on. You have the added time of figuring out what your settings need to be then having to torture test the thing for x hours. I know, I know... supposedly it's just sooooo easy to OC the C2D's. Anyone who honestly sits here and says how easy it is to OC a CPU are just speaking out of your enthusiast arses. Not every motherboard will OC the C2D well. Not every C2D will handle the same OC settings. Oh, and not to mention that you have to also screw with your memory timings if you are really into it which adds yet another hassle to it.
I have a x2 6000 and I couldn't be happier because I got a great CPU at a low price that still hits 3.0Ghz STOCK. BTW: STOCK means STOCK out of the box from the manufacturer with a warranty at it's STOCK speed settings. You Intel people are starting to sound more and more like elitists everyday with your "All you have to do is OC the C2D and you'll smoke everything" statements because of the fact that most people do not overclock and have no plans to. It's just not everyone's bag. Are we poor souls losing out? Maybe. But, that's our decision to make.
The OP asks a simple question: dollar for dollar, which is the better buy? Personally, I say the 6000 just because the MOBO's don't cost $150 for an entry level model and the performance is solid for what he's willing to pay. The benches are a mixed bag between the e6600 and the 6000+, so it's really a wash performance-wise. The only real downside to the 6000+ right now is the fact that it and the 6400 are the last AM2-based CPU's, so there will be NO upgrade path short of a whole new Mobo. Then again, if you're running the 6000, you won't have to upgrade any time soon, so it's your call.
September 5, 2007 6:58:32 PM

6000+ has ~performance of e6600, is cheaper, and motherboards are cheaper for it too. 6000+ isn't overclocked 5600+.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 5, 2007 6:59:43 PM

sailer said:
You did make it clear about no overclocking. Unfortunately, there are some people who either refuse to read or refuse to accept what is written. It does not matter whether they favor AMD or Intel, they just want everyone to do things their way.

[:mousemonkey:1] So true, I could not have put better myself. [:mousemonkey:5]
September 5, 2007 7:25:35 PM

And so you now make a presupposition of the desires of the OP. He never stated anything like that. He wanted to know which of two particular cpus would be the best overall and why one would be better than the other, nothing more. Money was never listed as a limiting factor, nor speed, only the initial question about the two cpus; the AMD 6000+ and the C2D 6600. Why is it so difficult to answer his question?
September 5, 2007 7:40:43 PM

DJ,

1) The AMD 6000/6400 are not the end of the line w/o a new Mobo. The Phenom will plug into the AM2 Slot so he has an upgrade path.

2) When answering a question, I find it better to enlighten additionally. Often posters do not even know what to fully ask.

There is no such thing as a C2D 6600 @ 2.66 Ghz.
The E6600 runs @ 2.4 Ghs w/1066 FSB
The E6750 runs @ 2.66 Ghz w/1333 FSB

Anyone who answered comparing the E6600 to The 6000+ did no service to the poster if he was truly trying to make a processor decision since the E6750 is cheaper, faster, and requires less power.

3) There is not a big differnce in Mobo Pricing. Good P35 Mobos can now be had for $80 which is very close the to price of good AM2 boards.

4) The question itself is poor since the decsion between two processors is far more complex since it may require significantly different systems due what is required for a motherboard, RAM, etc.. etc. It is not so simply as Q6600 vs E6850 where little else in the system may need to be changed and two similarly priced components are compared.

As a result, to provide a meaningful answer, much more needs to be provided.

As a consultant, I am customers often come to me and say we would like to do A or B which one is better. My answer is often C. My ability to provide and execute C which the customers discover is better than A or B is why I am actually a good consultant.
September 5, 2007 7:42:00 PM

I think a big part of the problem with posting a question like this on an enthusiest forum is that you are going to get enthusiest responses.

If you are capable enough of installing a processor yourself then you are capable enough to do a small OC.
Sure there are people that I wouldn't recommed OCing to, but they are also people that aren't even going to ask questions.

It does take a fair amount of time and effort to get a high OC, but you can get a moderate OC without any problems at all and virtually no time taken.

When I was just putting a computer together for my brother the first step in the OC (e6550) was putting the RAM to 1:1 and putting the FSB to 400MHz to match the RAM. Zero adjustment to the RAM timing, RAM voltages, Northbridge voltages or CPU voltages. It took all of 1 minute to get a 20% increase in speed for the CPU without putting anything at risk or taking huge amounts of time fiddiling with voltage levels or timing.

Sure when I got done OCing I had adjusted RAM timing, bumped up RAM voltage a bit (still within spec for the modules I was using) and ended up adjusting the CPU voltage down from where the motherboard defaulted it to. I'm still probably a fair amount away from the cap of all the hardware being used but this system was for my brother and he didn't want to mess with it too much.



The point being, there is a big difference between a moderate OC, one that would likely put the e6600 beyond the AMD6000, and a very high end OC that takes a lot of fine tuning. Of course both with do moderate OCing, the assumption would be though that the one that OCs the most at the top end will also have a higher moderate OC as well.
September 5, 2007 7:45:07 PM

you can get a e6750 for about the same price and it should beat out both of those.
September 5, 2007 7:51:09 PM

About AM2 motherboards being able to support AM2+ processors, I've heard a lot of the 6400+ being the end of the line, ASUS has released a list of which of their motherboards will support the upgrade. The list can be found at http://www.asus.com.tw/news_show.aspx?id=8305 if those will there is a good chance others will as well :) 
September 5, 2007 7:58:28 PM

perhaps i shoulda asked if the x2 6000 was on par with the E6550 2.33GHz since theyre about the same price on newegg

and ur correct erloas, i did expect some people to want to chime in about OCing. that why i tried to be clear that i didnt want to do it
September 5, 2007 7:59:10 PM

Any given processor core could run at lower voltage if the frequency is reduced (up to a point). This is also true of many processors sharing the same core voltage spec but running at different speed. The voltage is kept higher than it needs to be in many cases just to simplify implemention, industry support of the product. We see the opposite with X2 6000 that it is just the next higher speed requiring higher voltage for good yields.

It's not significant, but what is significant is that to achieve roughly the same performance as the E6600, it produces substantially more heat. That translates into a noisier fan or costlier heatsink, and higher power bill. IMO, buy less than a 6000 X2 and save a few bucks, or get the E6600 instead. Right now the best AMD purchase is in the sub-$130 price range, but Intel anything above $150 or so. There's a bit of overlap but going with AMD is best to save a buck dropping down to about X2 4200 at the moment.
September 5, 2007 8:14:04 PM

im not concerned about upgradability. i upgrade about every 4 years. im still on my p4 3ghz with ati 9800. i dont leave the computer running all day so power consumption isnt a huge deal for me. the heat issues seem to be amplified when u OC, which i wont be :hello:  im not a graphics whore, so an addition 10 fps from 1 cpu to another doesnt seem worth $100. for reference, im playing day of defeat (for half life 1) on a 17" monitor. my dell warranty just expired so im counting the days :whistle: 
September 5, 2007 8:46:38 PM

If Heat is an issue, than the X2 6000+ is likely not the best choice since it runs quite warm.

The X2 5600+ TDP is 89w while the 6000+ is 125w.
These chips are the same exact design with the exception of the 6000+ clocked higher by default and set to use more watts to get the extra bit of power.

For most people the extra Wattage is not so much energy cost, but the extra cost in cooling or extra noise associated with cooling.

It's not likely you would notice the difference in gaming and may be able to put the funds to a better graphics card.

The TDP of the E6550, E6750 & E6850 are 65w.
Hence, You could clock the E6550 to E6850 and still stay inside the 65w envelope which is about half of the X2 6000+ at stock.

Again I realize you don't want to OC, but since your assumptions are based upon incorrect reasons it is only proper to correct those assumptions.
September 5, 2007 8:51:30 PM

Go with the 6400+! It doesn't even have a heatsink so you don't need one!

j/k about not needing one.
September 5, 2007 8:54:36 PM

RYANTHESAW-MASTER! -very, very short, and clear.
Don't ask on the forums which cpu to buy. There are too many fanboys, and they all got reasons for buying cpu like their own. Look at the cpu chart, see what is your priority (games, video,...), and buy what you think is better choice.
I know my opinion won't have effect on your decision, but i vote for AMD-Better choice under 150-200$. Anything above 200$-Intel.
September 5, 2007 9:38:22 PM

I don't think the question was phrased correctly for you to get a good answer, fishywishy. This is like saying "Which is better a steak or a strawberry cheesecake?". There's no real answer to that question, only opinions. What is the end result you want? What would you like to do with your computer? I think zenmaster has it right that no one is giving you good answers because they don't have enough information to form a good recommendation. Please elaborate and I believe we can help you.

And to everyone else, STOPPING FORCING THE OC ISSUE.

Fishywishy, I (and others like me) would like to help you. Please list your wants and we can give you good advice.
September 5, 2007 9:49:16 PM

fishywishy said:
for someone who has absolutely positively no plans to OC a computer, does the amd 6000 3.0ghz beat out or is even with the c2d 6600 2.66ghz? tia


The Athlon X2 6000 is faster, slower, and about the same as a C2D 6600, depending on the application. The question is, will you notice the difference, and/or care if it is small? Personally, I don't think the performance difference between an X2 4200 and an X2 6000 is worth the $100+ price difference, even though it is large in some cases. But that's just me; if you feel justified in paying for the X2 6000 or the C2D 6600, then by all means, buy whichever one is cheaper, or gives you more satisfaction or bragging rights, whatever floats your boat. It's not worth getting worked up over the performance differences.
September 5, 2007 9:50:22 PM

I agree. AMD is the better deal and performs about the same. Even if the E6600 is better, the AMD is much cheaper.
September 5, 2007 9:59:41 PM

But again, you're leaving out the E6x50 series processors which are cheaper and higher clocked than their E6x00 counterparts. Please consider all your options.
September 5, 2007 10:31:21 PM

You could also look at it in terms of total cost of ownership. Which has been brought up in several different ways in this thread.

The Intel chip costs a little more to start out with (the E6750 is a better choice then then E6600 especially if you aren't OCing since it is a little faster and a little cheaper). What motherboard you have to use with each is another question though, depending if you want RAID or Firewire or Wi-Fi or SLI or Crossfire then the board cost isn't the same as if you just want the cheapest you can find.

Then there is the idea that is already covered in that the Intel chips are rated at a lower power disappation which means cheaper to run and cheaper to cool. Even if you don't run your computer all the time if you are running this computer for 4 years then that cost could more then make up for the price difference in the processor prices.

In terms of reliability and which one will last longest, I haven't read anything that gives either the advantage. I know plenty of people that have been running chips from both manufacturers for years, well past when the chip is useful in terms of performance. I don't think either has any issues with long term reliability.


If performance isn't the biggest issue either then there are plenty of other choices from both that are cheaper and will give good enough performance in just about everything.
September 5, 2007 10:57:48 PM

+1 for AMD !!!
I was thinking about buying Intel e6850 or Q6600 becouse they seem to be more efficient that current AMD's but after ASUS posted that the AM2 mobos will support the next AMD quad core by just updating bios to AM2+ settings im actually thinking about buying AMD 6400 3.2Ghz with the best ASUS AM2 motherboard. I will be good for next year or so and then buy that quad core after prices drop and it will fit my mobo too.
AMD was always better for gaming if that what you are going to use that CPU for.
September 6, 2007 12:39:23 AM

Well here was a simple thread that was destroyed.
The OP asked a simple question, and the opinions came out, with only a few folks pointing out the facts. To those who did point out the facts, thankyou. In support of those who did point out the facts:
- benchmarking shows the X2 6000 and E 6600 to have negligable differences across the board.
-In terms of value the X2 6000 is signifiantly cheaper making it the better short term choice
-In terms of hardware, you can get a quality motherboard for a X2 6000 a little cheaper (little being a relative term) than an decent 775 board.
-The AM2 series is much more sensitive to ram speed than the C2D, meaning to not suffer a significant performance loss (~18%) you must use the PC6400 (800) ram. This offsets the cost of the cheaper mobo, -- While the more costly ram offsets any savigs ealized with the motherborad, the CPU cost itself still makes the X2 6000 the better value for stock speeds.
-In terms of future upgradability, while AM2 motherboards will take AM2+ CPUs, they will not make full use of all the improvements the AM2+ CPUs will offer, meaning to bet the full benefit of an AM2+chip, you will have to upgrade the motherboard to an AM2+ board as well
-To the few who pointed out the 6x50 series, while that was not part of the question, those were good points.
September 6, 2007 2:34:11 AM

DJ_Jumbles, I sure hope you included me in those 2 or 3 people that answered it correctly because I was damn near perfect. If he is building a new system, then the e6750 is his best bet imo. Also, he NEVER mentioned that he wanted best price to performance ratio and im not sure where you came up with that. I did not suggest OC'ing I said that if he ever needed extra speed that it would be attainable. Your response to everyone else was absolutely rediculous and you need to calm down.

To the OP, once again if you want best price to performance ratio the 6000+ is your way. Since you are deciding between AMD and Intel I can only assume you are building a whole new system in which I would recommend the e6750 as it is $20 or so less than the e6600 and is faster than both the e6600 and 6000+ hands down.

Also, many people have said similar responses as my first post. They gave their opinions on what was better or worse and for what situation and then evaluated alittle more in order for you to have more information, which ultimatley leads to a more informed decision. You asked a question and it has been answered.

Best,

3Ball
September 6, 2007 3:14:51 AM

Buy my Pentium III 666mhz Celeron! No, for the money with no o/c, I'd get the x2 6000+ since it is cheaper and right about the same performance as the e6600, especially if you plan on keeping this build until its time to start a new build from scratch.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2007 4:19:00 AM

The phenom chips that will soon be available will fit the AM2 socket so the 6000+ and the 6400+ is not the end of the line, only seems to be for now.

The new socket type is supposed to be called AM2+. I have heard that a simple BIOS flash update should fix any compatibility issues. That is if your motherboard manufacturer is up on their game.

The 6000+ will serve you well. I have it and I upgraded from the P4 3.2 Prescott and theres a world of difference. My old P4 was lucky to break 2000 on the futuremark 06 benchmarks but after getting this system together I hit 11000 easily.

Antec 900 Gaming Case
Antec 700 Watt PSU
Gigabyte GA M55SLI-S4 Rev.2 mobo
AMD 6000+ AM2 CPU
4G OCZ 6400 800Mhz SLI Memory
EVGA 8800GTX ACS3 768MB Video Card
250G & 200G SATA WD HD
2 Sony DRU 710A DVD Drives
1 Sony DRU 835A LS DVD Drive
Media Center 2005 OS
September 6, 2007 5:02:48 AM

Haha yea that is a hell of an upgrade englandr753.

Best,

3Ball
September 6, 2007 5:17:49 AM

englandr753 said:

The new socket type is supposed to be called AM2+. I have heard that a simple BIOS flash update should fix any compatibility issues. That is if your motherboard manufacturer is up on their game.



Could you please provide a link to where you've seen that, as all the info Ive seen says it will require a new chipset to access all the features of the AM2+ cpus
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 6, 2007 11:41:17 AM

piagio said:
scroll up, it was already mentioned here ..
http://www.asus.com.tw/news_show.aspx?id=8305

I interpret that as a BIOS flash to recognize the chip, it says nothing about accessing any of the newer features of the AM2+ CPU. [:mousemonkey:2]
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2007 11:50:16 AM

i already posted that in a topic
September 6, 2007 4:02:36 PM

3Ball said:
DJ_Jumbles, I sure hope you included me in those 2 or 3 people that answered it correctly because I was damn near perfect. If he is building a new system, then the e6750 is his best bet imo. Also, he NEVER mentioned that he wanted best price to performance ratio and im not sure where you came up with that. I did not suggest OC'ing I said that if he ever needed extra speed that it would be attainable. Your response to everyone else was absolutely rediculous and you need to calm down.

How was it ridiculous? Should I cater to morons and idiots who can't understand written English? The OP asked a simple question: which CPU was the better performer. Not which one would take a larger OC or which one you just liked better for whatever reasons. Opinions are like a**holes... you know the saying.
About the price/performance ratio: it's underlying his whole statement. Obviously, he has x amount of dollars to spend or wants to spend that much money (being around $160-180 from the CPU's he's listed) and is looking for the best performace for that amount of money. If it wasn't the underpinning of his question, then why did you suggest another product instead of just answering the question? Once again, we have to reiterate for those who don't understand English that that performance is based on STOCK speeds, not OC overhead potential because as the OP said on the first line of his post: he's not ever going to overclock the thing.
I really think that you were right to steer him towards the 6750 since it is in the same price range and does have better performance than the e6600 and the 6000+. I don't think that he had realized that he could get the newer chip at the lower pricing, so in that respect, yes... you were on my list of 2 or 3 good posts at that point.
But, then you had to go and say something like this:
3Ball said:
I did not suggest OC'ing I said that if he ever needed extra speed that it would be attainable.

Ummm.. ok... maybe I'm just stupid, but how else would he get ANY extra speed out of this CPU if he doesn't OC it? So how is he supposed to squeak that extra performance out? Your statement in and of itself is exacty the type of divisive, convoluted, and self-deceiving statements of which I speak of on this thread.
"I know that you said that you will never overclock it, but if you want to you can!" No kidding? He can overclock a 6000 if he wants to 3.3ghz on water, or the 6750 to 3.66 or more on water so what's your point? He said specifically: I am not and will not OC the CPU, so which is better? How do you figure that your OC statement benefits him in his decision in the least if he ABSOLUTELY will not OC the chip EVER?
Answer: it doesn't. But, since you're so smart, you think that you have to re-affirm that he can if he changes his mind, right? Because that's what SMART people like you do, right? That's just the elitist enthusiast attitude coming out instead of listening to what he's saying (as seems to always be the case on these threads most days) QUICK!!! Save the morons buying computer parts because THEY don't know what they want or what they are talking about!!!
Like I said: you were right to suggest the 6750, you were wrong to even talk about the OC potential of any of the chips because it wasn't germaine to the decision from the OP's POV.
Thus endeth the sermon.
September 6, 2007 10:17:42 PM

piagio said:
scroll up, it was already mentioned here ..
http://www.asus.com.tw/news_show.aspx?id=8305


Thanks for pointing that out.
Thats a brand new motherboard and according to the press release the very first to support AM2+, meaning no help to current AM2 owners who apparently will still need a new mobo(chipset) to access all the features of the AM2+.

Guys, put yourselves in the position of the people asking advice.Would you like it if someone told you you could upgrade a CPU with only a BIOS flash, only to spend the money then find out you really have to spend more to buy a new motherboard? Not cool.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 6, 2007 10:22:47 PM

I read that link wrong, my bad. [:mousemonkey:4]
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2007 12:01:23 PM

fishywishy ... dj and valdis are correct.

I'd tend to go the 6000+ providing you get an AM2+ mobo ... which will supposedly support the new phenom cpus which are quad core.

The mobos for the E6600 cpu will also support the Intel quad core.

I'd tend to go a Q6600 Intel quad core if you have the extra bucks ... and think there is good value there.

I second turpit's remark ... I believe the info I saw suggests a new chipset is required to fully address the Agena X4 cpu.

The intel Q works as it is ...
September 7, 2007 12:37:55 PM

Actually DJ, you are making a number of false assumptions about the poster.

He asked "for someone who has absolutely positively no plans to OC a computer, does the amd 6000 3.0ghz beat out or is even with the c2d 6600 2.66ghz? tia"

He apparently was referencing the Athon X2 6000+.
However, there is no such thing remotely resembling a "c2d 6600 2.66ghz".
There is a chip called the E6600 but it does not run that close to 2.66ghz.
There is a chip that runs at 2.66 Ghz, but the name is E6750 which is quite a bit different in name.

Both chips vary in price and performance.
I'm not where you got this idea of price from his initial post.

If we are to analyze his later posts, we realize that cost does play a role.
We also realize that thermal output is likely more of an issue than raw performance.

The whole point of the discussion is to help educate the poster.
Clearly I hope he is competent enough to lookup a CPU chart on these forums.
Since we will assume he is moderately competent and can do so, we will assume he is seeking more info.

The other assumption that can be made is that he was not attempting to gather any information whatsoever.




DJ_Jumbles said:
How was it ridiculous? Should I cater to morons and idiots who can't understand written English? The OP asked a simple question: which CPU was the better performer. Not which one would take a larger OC or which one you just liked better for whatever reasons. Opinions are like a**holes... you know the saying.
About the price/performance ratio: it's underlying his whole statement. Obviously, he has x amount of dollars to spend or wants to spend that much money (being around $160-180 from the CPU's he's listed) and is looking for the best performace for that amount of money. If it wasn't the underpinning of his question, then why did you suggest another product instead of just answering the question? Once again, we have to reiterate for those who don't understand English that that performance is based on STOCK speeds, not OC overhead potential because as the OP said on the first line of his post: he's not ever going to overclock the thing.
I really think that you were right to steer him towards the 6750 since it is in the same price range and does have better performance than the e6600 and the 6000+. I don't think that he had realized that he could get the newer chip at the lower pricing, so in that respect, yes... you were on my list of 2 or 3 good posts at that point.
But, then you had to go and say something like this:

Ummm.. ok... maybe I'm just stupid, but how else would he get ANY extra speed out of this CPU if he doesn't OC it? So how is he supposed to squeak that extra performance out? Your statement in and of itself is exacty the type of divisive, convoluted, and self-deceiving statements of which I speak of on this thread.
"I know that you said that you will never overclock it, but if you want to you can!" No kidding? He can overclock a 6000 if he wants to 3.3ghz on water, or the 6750 to 3.66 or more on water so what's your point? He said specifically: I am not and will not OC the CPU, so which is better? How do you figure that your OC statement benefits him in his decision in the least if he ABSOLUTELY will not OC the chip EVER?
Answer: it doesn't. But, since you're so smart, you think that you have to re-affirm that he can if he changes his mind, right? Because that's what SMART people like you do, right? That's just the elitist enthusiast attitude coming out instead of listening to what he's saying (as seems to always be the case on these threads most days) QUICK!!! Save the morons buying computer parts because THEY don't know what they want or what they are talking about!!!
Like I said: you were right to suggest the 6750, you were wrong to even talk about the OC potential of any of the chips because it wasn't germaine to the decision from the OP's POV.
Thus endeth the sermon.

a b à CPUs
September 7, 2007 12:54:57 PM

I'm with you guys, once the chip is out (the higher end one) I don't think I will entrust that the BIOS flash will do the trick. A new AM2+ socket motherboard will be gotten at the same time.

It doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to patch and wonder if it's working correctly.
September 7, 2007 2:04:02 PM

the basis of my question was that it seems most are recommending the intels because u can overclock them a lot more then the equivilant stock speed of the amd. but when someone had no plans to overclock, is it still worth the extra $$$ to get the intel over the amd

i merely took the amd 6000 because its the fastest amd x2 (excluding the 6400 which is way too much) and the 6600 2.4 because on some charts they seem to be about even in performance

its just confusing to see data where the intel beats the amd buy 10 seconds on divx encoding or 8 fps in a game and then read here that intel stomps amd and the extra $80 is worth that performance upgrade

if u saw my last post ud see this would be a replacement for a computer that currently is used for 5 year old games. yes i want to get new hardware thats up to date, but not pay a premium for features that i wont use
!