Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ vs Core2 DUO 4500?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 29, 2007 12:56:48 PM

Hi, I am about to do an upgrade and am ashamed to say that I just discovered I didn't do my homework as I should.

All this time I was searching for an Intel solution until today that I actually checked and saw that the afore mentioned Core2Duo 4500 is the exact same price as the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (about 130 euros).

So, before I panic that I haven't searched for everything that I'll need to know is there a reason to go the 4500 way instead of the 6000+?

If I should in fact go with the Athlon could anyone suggest me a couple of good motherboards to check?
(BTW, if I go for the Athlon the CPU it can be from the 4800+ to the 5600+ to the 6000+, depending on how much there'll be left for the CPU to spend. Similarly, the Core2DUO would go from the 4300+ to the 4400+ to the 4500+)

Thanks a lot!!!
September 29, 2007 1:42:47 PM

Get the E2160.
It's alot cheaper than both and can outperform the X2-6000+.
September 29, 2007 2:09:45 PM

... Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the X2-6000+ outperform the 4500 which logically should outperform the 2160?
Related resources
September 29, 2007 2:12:37 PM

If you do not plan to overclock go with the X2 6000+ or any of the X2. If you're planning to play games a lot I would suggest that you choose your video card first. As for the motherboard I can only say that Gigabyte and Asus mobo are often the best you can find. I can't tell you which one exactly because I never build a X2 comp so ...
September 29, 2007 2:26:54 PM

ATI Radeon x1950 PRO 512 DDR3. I was between that and the 8600 GTS but I think this one is better...

No, probably no overclocking. And yes, problem is that I know next to nothing about chipsets so I can't know if the AMD 690 or the nForce/GeForce 430 (for instance) is better...
September 29, 2007 2:46:43 PM

Overclocking = Intel

Stock = AMD

Your Good To Go
September 29, 2007 2:50:02 PM

keeperos said:
ATI Radeon x1950 PRO 512 DDR3. I was between that and the 8600 GTS but I think this one is better...

No, probably no overclocking. And yes, problem is that I know next to nothing about chipsets so I can't know if the AMD 690 or the nForce/GeForce 430 (for instance) is better...

You should probably get the x1950, I was in a similiar debate a week or so ago, from what i read the directx 10 mid range cards are not so great, it better to go with a last gen direct x 9 card, I am now trying to decide which of them to get x1950(512mg)@140 dollars at newegg, 7900gs(256mg) 120 dollears@newegg,Or 7950gt(512mb) 166 dollars@microcenter. Any of those cards would work, just gotta figure which will offer more bang for the ****.
September 29, 2007 2:50:17 PM

Perfect. One problem though, I REALLY can't find which way to go with the chipsets, and one MSI that I thought was good doesnt' support the 6000+, only up to 5600+...

Really guys, forget the models for now, for a non Crossfire/SLi application which would be the best chipset for the 6000+?


reconviperone1 said:
I am now trying to decide which of them to get x1950(512mg)@140 dollars at newegg, 7900gs(256mg) 120 dollears@newegg,Or 7950gt(512mb) 166 dollars@microcenter. Any of those cards would work, just gotta figure which will offer more bang for the ****.


It depends, at what resolutions will you be running? If like me you won't go above 1280 then a 256MB video card will suffice and thus I think the best bang for the buck will be the 7900gs. If you need the 512 and bang for buck then go for the 1950. Personally though, if I could find the 7950 at that price point I'd get it no questions asked :p 
However here it cost's exactly double the 1950 so it's a no brainer for me...
September 29, 2007 2:56:19 PM

keeperos said:
Perfect. One problem though, I REALLY can't find which way to go with the chipsets, and one MSI that I thought was good doesnt' support the 6000+, only up to 5600+...

Really guys, forget the models for now, for a non Crossfire/SLi application which would be the best chipset for the 6000+?
Asus m2-ne 570 ultra, is in my opinion a great mobo.
a c 203 à CPUs
September 29, 2007 3:06:34 PM

What prices are you seeing for C2D E6550 & E6750?
Over here we are seeing the E4400@$125(€84), E6550@$171, X2 6000+@$170(€120) and E6750@$193.
I can only think the E4400 is going for a premium price because its so popular. Most people know its a great value if you're thinking about overclocking. €84 CPU for €210 worth of performance (E6850 3.0Ghz).

You should always check the benchmarks of the types of programs you'll be using the most. The E6550 can sometimes beat the X2 6000+ in media tasks (audio/video) and even some games. (from Xbit Labs)




Base your decision on what performance YOU will get in the APPLICATIONS/Games you use the most.
The ordinary PC tasks, internet browsing, office programs, email, etc would seem equally fast no matter what CPU you choose. Any of the CPUs you're looking at will be fantastic performers and the small differences in performance will be hard to actually notice as you're using the new system.

September 29, 2007 3:15:48 PM

Ok, here are the price points:

Athlon 64 X2 6000+: 131.99 €
Core2 DUO E2160: 84.49 € (same as the E2180 actually...)
Core2 DUO E4500: 129.00 €
Core2 DUO E6550: 153.00 €
Core2 DUO E6750: 175.00 €

The E6xx series goes for far more so it's a no go from a price standpoint...

I think the 6000+ will be best. What I cant' find is which would be the best motherboard for the money I have. Obviously you can't tell me that but if you could tell me which are the better chipsets (AMD vs nVidia) and suggest a coupel that would be great.

Thanks everyone!
September 29, 2007 4:04:16 PM

as far as MOBO, i also recomed gigabyte or asus. i have an asus M2N-E with a 6000+ on it. love it. it is the nforce 570ultra chipset. the only thing is that board only has 1 IDE port and 1 floppy port, the rest are SATA. be sure to pay attention and take that into consideration especialy if you plan on having 3 or 4 IDE devices.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

September 30, 2007 12:26:16 AM

firetatoo said:
as far as MOBO, i also recomed gigabyte or asus. i have an asus M2N-E with a 6000+ on it. love it. it is the nforce 570ultra chipset. the only thing is that board only has 1 IDE port and 1 floppy port, the rest are SATA. be sure to pay attention and take that into consideration especialy if you plan on having 3 or 4 IDE devices.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Word!
September 30, 2007 1:23:27 AM

keeperos said:
... Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the X2-6000+ outperform the 4500 which logically should outperform the 2160?


Sure,

Actually both the E2160 and E4500 both easily outperform the X2-6000+

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=311...

You can also read a number of the tests over at XBitlabs.com

September 30, 2007 2:54:23 AM

zenmaster said:
Sure,

Actually both the E2160 and E4500 both easily outperform the X2-6000+

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=311...

You can also read a number of the tests over at XBitlabs.com


the 6000+ isn't on the list.
and the processors you mention have had a 69% and a 45% (for the e4500) overclock.
don't mistake that for stock performance.
September 30, 2007 3:33:29 AM

I'm running an X2 6000+ on a Gigabyte S series GA-M57SLI-S4 with an Nvidia chipset ; as for video card I run an 8500GT with 512meg (It was all I could afford at the time and it works great.) I have had no problems with this board at all. I would agree with reconviperone1 about Gigabyte 100% as I never had a problem with their boards (I have fought with ASUS boards in the past). This board has only one IDE but I only have 1 HD and my Optical is a SATA so it's not a problem I've also found the 6000+ to be a solid performer with no problems so far.
Just my 2 cents worth :) 
September 30, 2007 3:34:11 AM

Go for Athlon X2 6000+ alot faster than Intel C2D 4500. It is also overclockble, just use liquid cooling solution. You could beat the C2D qx6600 QUAD. <-- assuming they spent the same amount of money.

Ofcouse the QX6600 can go ahead further but you need to speed more for that. It is ridiculously not important. Stocked speeds can already run all heavy programs. No need to overclock. Maybe 2 years from now.
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2007 3:52:32 AM

I'm sorry, no AMD CPU can beat the Q6600 when it comes to overclocking. The 6000+ barely beats the Q6600 at stock, and the 6000+ is already at it's Ghz limit. Meanwhile, I've seen Q6600's hit 3.6Ghz on air.

Far as the two CPU's the OP mentioned, the 6000+ is faster at stock. However, once you OC the e4500, there is no comparsion.

Far as mobo's go, I would go with Asus or Gigabyte.
September 30, 2007 4:56:10 AM

zenmaster said:
Sure,

Actually both the E2160 and E4500 both easily outperform the X2-6000+

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=311...

You can also read a number of the tests over at XBitlabs.com
The X2 6000+ is almost on the same level as the E6600. :\

And the E4500 is much, much slower than the E6600. And don't even try to pass off the E2160 as faster than the X2 6000+
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2007 6:22:43 AM

What games do you play? For example, if you play stalker, then you do NOT want an x1950 pro :lol: 

@zenmaster: the 6000 isn't even in those charts.
October 1, 2007 10:57:11 AM

Right now, I play nothing. I just finished Neverwinter Nights 2 and awit for MotB expansion. At that price point there is no alternative, the 8600 GTS costs far more and performs far less, and I cant' even dream of affording the 8800...

I ordered the 6000+ (and just in time as it seems they're being phased out here) and the 1950 PRO (again, jsut in the nick of time).

I also found the GB GA-M57SLI-S4 at a good price.

Now all that's left is to find which DDRs to go with that.

Do the Athlon X2s have the same problems with ram MHz as the Core2 DUO? (the C2D need the ram to be at their FSB or they have performance losses...)
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2007 11:51:14 AM

Just make sure you get DDR2 800mHz for the AMD CPU. Any slower and you can have a performance hit. Not sure on the numbers, but I've been hearing this for quite some time. I'm sure someone has a link to the performance difference, so you can see for yourself.
October 1, 2007 11:59:43 AM

Got it, now another thing, is there a substantial difference between a twinmos/goodram solution and a Kingston/OCZ with CL4? Because there is in price (82 vs 110-120) and I don't know if it's worth it...
October 1, 2007 12:17:07 PM

sirrobin4ever said:
Overclocking = Intel

Stock = AMD

Your Good To Go

Brave Sir Robin said all that you need to know.
October 1, 2007 12:45:30 PM

Guys, I'm not arguing whether I could OC an Intel (4500 or otherwise) to make it run faster than the 6000+. It's also quite obvious to me that the 6000 could only be OCed to 6400 (3000 to 3200) max and with the right MoBo and knowledge.

However I neither have the knowledge nor the intention of going for a small extra bang for the buck by risking shortening the life of the CPU.

I mean, my current CPU is an Athlon XP that I got at 2003 or 2004.
I am not one to upgrade very often...

In any case, I already ordered the 6000+ so that's that really...
Now, concerning the issue of RAM:
Is it worth it getting a Kingston/OCZ with CL4 for 120 euros versus a simple twinmos/goodram (I'm guessing CL5) solution at 82?
October 1, 2007 3:54:51 PM

what i did with my 6000+ was lower the multiplier from 15 to 14 and raise the FSB from 200 to 214. 214x14=2996.
that way i have ddr2-856 and still have 3ghz.
everything still is as nice and cool on stack parts as it would be otherwise, (33C cpu temp right now)
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2007 4:19:09 PM

keeperos said:
Guys, I'm not arguing whether I could OC an Intel (4500 or otherwise) to make it run faster than the 6000+. It's also quite obvious to me that the 6000 could only be OCed to 6400 (3000 to 3200) max and with the right MoBo and knowledge.

However I neither have the knowledge nor the intention of going for a small extra bang for the buck by risking shortening the life of the CPU.

I mean, my current CPU is an Athlon XP that I got at 2003 or 2004.
I am not one to upgrade very often...

In any case, I already ordered the 6000+ so that's that really...
Now, concerning the issue of RAM:
Is it worth it getting a Kingston/OCZ with CL4 for 120 euros versus a simple twinmos/goodram (I'm guessing CL5) solution at 82?

I wouldn't pay $40 Euros more for CAS4 RAM! The CAS5 DDR2 will work fine, it won't OC as high as the CAS4, but you've already stated that your not wanting to OC, so that selection should be fine for that kind of price difference. We're seeing about $5-10 price difference here in the US between the CAS5 and CAS4 (after MIR's).
October 1, 2007 5:24:34 PM

firetatoo said:
the 6000+ isn't on the list.
and the processors you mention have had a 69% and a 45% (for the e4500) overclock.
don't mistake that for stock performance.


No, I'm not mistaking "Stock" vs "Performance".

I'm comparing "reasonably configured" vs "Reasonably" configured.

Both the 1.8Ghz and the 3.0Ghz Intel C2Ds are manufactured on the same basic process so it's
not that tough to get the 1.8Ghz to run @ 3.0Ghz w/o adjusting voltage or changing the stock cooler.

Both the low-end and top-end C2D have the same TDP so once you get the 1.8Ghz Chip to 3.0Ghz it will still be using under 89w.

However, all of the X2's below the 6000+ have a far lower TDP.
The 6000+ had it's raised to 125w! because AMD has to basically factory OC the chip and raise voltages to make it operate.

And While the X2-6000 is not on the chart, it should not be hard to extrapolate from the OC'd 5200+ which has close to 6000+ numbers. The 6000+ is very difficult to OC at all since it is already factory OC'd to get it to that level.

And the "Knowledge" to OC the chip to this level is simply limited to "Set Memory Multiplier to 1:1" and "FSB" to 333.
Anyone who is building their PC should have at least a minimal understanding of their BIOS.
This would be one of the simpler tasks of setting up the computer.

Also, this OC does not threaten or potentially harm the CPU in any way since it is operating within design specs for voltage, speed, and temperature. Nor is there a penny spent on a non-stock cooling, which should be recommended for the X2-6000+ at stock speeds.

My "Stock" 1.8Ghz CPU is running at 3.0Ghz 24x7x365 and normally doing various CPU intensive tasks so it usually is running between 50-99% CPU utilitization. But it's whisper quiet because I was even able to reduce the power usage from stock by decreasign the voltage in the bios from the default stock value. This is possible because the CPU is not being pushed in the least since it is running well within design specs.

October 1, 2007 6:19:55 PM

rodney_ws said:
Brave Sir Robin said all that you need to know.


Yeah, I have taken to posting as briefly and exactly as possible. If they want more info, they can GOOGLE IT!!! :ange: 
October 1, 2007 11:45:28 PM

Let me be blunt about it.

Ok, you MAY (we'll see in 2 or 3 years) have your cpu running in top condition but what did it cost you to get to that point (knowledge wise)? 2, 3, 5 fried CPUs that you conveniently called defects at the on-line dealer you got them from?

In theory I could OC my Athlon XP 3000+ (2100 MHz) to 2300, 2500 even.
I have actually, for about 15 minutes, just for the fun of it. But don't fool yourself. If it were to stay that way it would have worked better but for far less.
And if I f-ed up then I wouldn't be as able to name it a defect and be done with it.

Bottom line, at that price point getting the 6000+ was the better choice for me and I'm not in the least interested in you telling me otherwise.

That said, I appreciate you calling me ignorant and a fool for not being risky about my money but if that's all right with you I'll leave the experimentations to guys like you.

I want to thank everyone that helped me come to these decisions, including the CL4 vs CL5 ram thing.

Thanks guys!
October 2, 2007 4:19:09 PM

keeperos said:

Let me be blunt about it.
...
But don't fool yourself. If it were to stay that way it would have worked better but for far less.
And if I f-ed up then I wouldn't be as able to name it a defect and be done with it.


Let me be blunt about it.

You don't seem like you know what you're talking about. You heard some nonsense about CPUs lasting only a couple years if overclocked so you're scared of doing it. Well yeah, it is nonsense. You say that, but I have never seen any proof. If you have any proof of someone correctly overclocking something and not lasting more than a couple years then feel free to show it. If not, then please stop spreading the nonsense. I don't believe it whatsoever.

My stock 2.0GHz A64 has been overclocked to 2.6GHz for the past 2.5 years and still works perfectly fine! I've never seen a failure due to correctly overclocking.
October 2, 2007 5:14:52 PM

Skipping the blablabla and going right to your memory : since you're not overclocking go with the cheapest CL4 800Mhz module you can find. CL5 should be fine too you won't notice any difference (in real world app).

Edit : Ok I should have read lunyone.

Let us know how your new system is running once you get it :) 
October 2, 2007 6:22:20 PM

Check on the ram, today I got the 1950 pro, still waiting for the cpu and MoBo (on back order).

Guys, I really dislike such tones in a public forum so let's at least try to keep the aggressiveness down a little.

I'll have you know that I'm more knowledgeable than 3/5 of the opinionated non-professionals that post around here. Perhaps even you.
I've assembled/set up, taken apart, repaired and fixed up way more systems than what I care to count. In more than one occasions I (pro bono) got the job done in 10 minutes flat when "professionals" from large industry leaders and small well respected local shops alike were scratching their heads. However I always take into consideration what I call calculated risk (that which enthusiasts seem to forget in favor of their elitists approach to computing).

You said it yourself. "Correctly". But what does correctly mean? Are there rules that apply to all cases or every cpu (even different steppings or even different batches of the same) needs unique configuration? And yes, I've seen many guys that at least appeared as confident and knowledgeable as you (usually with Athlon XPs and early 64s) cry how after 2,3 or 6 months of perfect operation their cpus suddenly gave out. Their OC wasn't "correct" but it sure as hell seemed like it was at the time, at least to them.

And I'm pretty damn sure that the experience and knowledge of the ones that actually do it right has come from either the direct or indirect frying of cpus past and that is sth I'm not willing to risk.

Perhaps 2-3 years down the road when I could afford pushing an aging cpu and I'm pretty confident that my exact case has been covered, yes, but not to a brand new cpu.

You can keep doing it for as long as you like and I sincerely hope you'll never come to regret it.
Me, I'm simply not willing to take the chance. Call it fear, ignorance or whatever. I call it avoiding an unnecessary risk.
October 2, 2007 7:41:03 PM

keeperos said:
today I got the 1950 pro


Thats a good buy. I have one myself and I'm sure you will not be disappointed. IMHO, the best price/performance card right now. Enjoy.


keeperos said:

You said it yourself. "Correctly". But what does correctly mean? Are there rules that apply to all cases or every cpu (even different steppings or even different batches of the same) needs unique configuration? And yes, I've seen many guys that at least appeared as confident and knowledgeable as you (usually with Athlon XPs and early 64s) cry how after 2,3 or 6 months of perfect operation their cpus suddenly gave out. Their OC wasn't "correct" but it sure as hell seemed like it was at the time, at least to them.

And I'm pretty damn sure that the experience and knowledge of the ones that actually do it right has come from either the direct or indirect frying of cpus past and that is sth I'm not willing to risk.

Perhaps 2-3 years down the road when I could afford pushing an aging cpu and I'm pretty confident that my exact case has been covered, yes, but not to a brand new cpu.

You can keep doing it for as long as you like and I sincerely hope you'll never come to regret it.
Me, I'm simply not willing to take the chance. Call it fear, ignorance or whatever. I call it avoiding an unnecessary risk.



I agree with most of your points. There is no 'correct' way to overclock a CPU, you are correct. However, there are several proven methods to overclock which will lower the risk of failure. Basically, if the overclock is moderate, there is very little chance of premature failure. For some people, the risk of overclocking is too high for their likes. I can respect this. I once had an Athlon XP that died. I take full responsibility for its death, however. I pushed it too far, and at too high temperatures. I was angry at first, but eventually accepted the fact that I KILLED IT. If you can avoid doing this, your overclock will be sucessful. On that note, enjoy your extremely fast and reliable PC.

@everybody else:
Leave keeperos alone! I agree that overclocking is usually worthwhile, but can't you respect his opinion? This kind of thing would never happen at my new forum. (web address is blocked on this site :fou:  )
October 2, 2007 8:17:12 PM

... now I feel like Britney Spears, you being my personal Chris Crocker guy, or just plain Seth Green :p 

(for whomever doesn't know what I'm talking about go here and enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc )

Seriously man, I do get that nowadays it is much more worthwhile than what it used to be. I strongly believe that a few years down the road it will be so easy and relatively risk free that almost everyone and their grandmas will be able to do it (ok, granted these will have to be some very special grandmas but you get the point ;) ).
I'm not ruling out doing it myself on this very cpu a few years from now, when I'm prepared to replace it with a new that would give me stock the performance I would try to get out of it OCed, but not sooner.

Really, thanks guys!
October 2, 2007 10:01:48 PM

cooooool...looking good!!!
!