AMD vs Intel for no OCing

[fishywishy]

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

 

[Maziar]

Core2Duo E6600 is 2.4 and is faster than X2 6000 due of its larger cache ,

 

[zenmaster]

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.

 

[rodney_ws]

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.

 

[chunkymonster]

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.

 

[weskurtz81]

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.

 

[zenmaster]

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.

 

[zenmaster]

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.

 

[sailer]

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.

 

[KyleSTL]

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+.

 

[3Ball]

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?ProductCode=10005522&prodlist=pricegrabber

Best,

3Ball

 

[fishywishy]

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...

 

[sailer]

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.

 

[DJ_Jumbles]

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.

 

[Valdis]

6000+ has ~performance of e6600, is cheaper, and motherboards are cheaper for it too. 6000+ isn't overclocked 5600+.

 

[Mousemonkey]

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]

 

[shadowmaster625]

if you are not going for an overclock, it must be because you want highest possible reliability. For that, you want a lower power processor. Buy an AMD cpu marked "65W" such as this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103749 Of course it is 20% slower than your 6000 but it is under $100!

 

[sailer]

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?

 

[zenmaster]

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.

 

[erloas]

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.

 

[jwolf24601]

you can get a e6750 for about the same price and it should beat out both of those.

 

[justjc]

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

 

[fishywishy]

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

 

[I]

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.

 

[fishywishy]

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 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