Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

x2 5600+ vs E4300 O/C?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 21, 2007 8:32:23 PM

Hi,

I was thinking about building a new PC based on a X2 5600+ and micro ATX MB. But i've recently read that E4300 was a great overclocker. With a "simple" O/C, can it be better than the X2 5600+. What will be this O/C?
Right now, prices are similar between both CPUs. But motherboards for INTEL will be more expensive (and I guess I need a very good quality motherboard for an O/C)
So at the end, the INTEL system will be more expensive. Does it really worth it?
Just for you to know, I will probably play a little with this computer, but I'm definitely not a hardcore gamer!!!

Thanks

More about : 5600 e4300

October 21, 2007 9:31:26 PM

If you are willing to spend $139.99 for the 5600+ then don't, and don't get the E4300 either - go for the E4500 Allendale 2.2GHz instead. Right now, the only thing AMDs have going for them is price. This Intel will offer similar, if not better performance, consume less power, and generate less heat.
October 21, 2007 9:42:33 PM

You mean it will be better after an O/C? What motherboard should I buy (microATX) to have good success with htis O/C?
Thanks
Related resources
October 21, 2007 9:49:12 PM

At stock, the x2 5600 will beat an e4300 in most if not all applications. However, if you overclock the e4300, it can match and beat the x2 5600. For a motherboard, I would go with a p35 chipset one, since they've shown considerable ability in overclocking. So it basically comes down to this:
If you're willing to overclock, go with the e4300, if not, then go with the x2 5600. If you can pay an extra $30 and get the e6550 with the 4mb l2 cache, it would give you a little extra boost, but that goes back to you.
October 22, 2007 12:36:53 AM

OK, let's say I take the INTEL route with a E4500...
I'm was looking for a microATX board!!!Any recomendations to have a good success with my O/C?
Thanks
October 22, 2007 1:05:37 AM

ga965p with TR-120x can do 3.2ghz easy. i have mine running 3480.
October 22, 2007 1:19:17 AM

Is that a board reference?
October 22, 2007 1:50:21 AM

The E4400 (New Ones), E4500, and the E21xx Series of C2D chips are all built on the M0 stepping.

(No, this is not better than the G0 stepping for the 6x50, since it's a slightly different line of chips.)

You are more likely going to need more cooling for the e4500 than the e2160 at the same clock speeds since the e4500 has 4mb of L2 Cache (Only 2mb used) vs 1mb of cache for the E2160.

Both are good chips.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
October 22, 2007 2:05:32 AM

Are you going to put this into a micro ATX case? If you are, than the cooler e21xx series would be cooler, in general. If your not, than the e4xxx series would be fine. Also if your buying soon than I would recommend the Intel setup over the AMD, IF your going to OC. If your not going to OC than the AMD right now will be cheaper. Most current mobo's from Intel are about $30-$40 more (p35's I'm talking about here). AMD might work out better for you if you need to save this initial cost, but don't let that change your ultimate goal. Until Phenom comes out, I don't know if I'd build anything without some good benchmark tests. I'm hoping that AMD has something much closer to the current C2D's, so the competition will be there. If the Phenom's don't do too well, than the C2D's will continue to set the price for the market.
October 22, 2007 2:14:57 AM

I believe that you will also need higher clocked memory, such as ddr2 800 or higher with the e4300 if you are taking the Intel route.
October 22, 2007 2:15:57 AM

If you are gonna overclock.
October 22, 2007 8:12:00 PM

I’ve read an article about the E2160 (Allendale?) that was able to “easily” run @ 3.2 GHz…So it could be nice to have high performance with a $85 CPU
But my point is:
- AMD X2 5600+ ($140) and motherboard with AMD 690G($60) = $200
- D2C E2160 ($85) and more expensive motherboard ($120) = $205
So price wise, both configurations are similar!!!
The question is pretty simple: does it really worth it technically speaking, because there is no real “cost” interest (unless performances are really much better)
There are still some risks to not be able to achieve this O/C, and at the end to have a lower performance configuration than the “stock” AMD……for the same price!!!
Please give me your opinion

Thanks
October 22, 2007 8:38:57 PM

1) No need for such an expensive Mobo. There are a numer of lesser expensive Mobos that would suit you just as well.

2) The performance from the E2160 will be significantly better. The OC'd E2160 generally outperforms the E6800 in most of the tests I have seen. At the same time, the X2 6000+ trailed the same E6800 by a significant margin.

3) While not all OC's are identical, the odds of not being able to hit a reasonably high OC are somewhat remote. The 3.0->3.2 are not aggressive OCs. If you were hoping to hit 3.4->3.6Ghz you woul start to fall into the maybe maybe not category.

Remember, the C2D are designed to run at 3.0Ghz.
The E2160 is built using a newer better process than the one on which the E6800 was built and is stock @ 2.93 Ghz.

And a Note to the poster above, DDR2-800 is not needed only DDR2-667 if you want to hit 3.0Ghz on the mentioned chips.

The AMD chips are the one's that really need DDR2-800.
They tend to be more finicky in regards to memory.

Regardless, however, I think I would get DDR2-800 anyway unless the price difference is significant where you live.

October 22, 2007 8:43:13 PM

french_guy said:
I’ve read an article about the E2160 (Allendale?) that was able to “easily” run @ 3.2 GHz…So it could be nice to have high performance with a $85 CPU
But my point is:
- AMD X2 5600+ ($140) and motherboard with AMD 690G($60) = $200
- D2C E2160 ($85) and more expensive motherboard ($120) = $205
So price wise, both configurations are similar!!!
The question is pretty simple: does it really worth it technically speaking, because there is no real “cost” interest (unless performances are really much better)
There are still some risks to not be able to achieve this O/C, and at the end to have a lower performance configuration than the “stock” AMD……for the same price!!!
Please give me your opinion

Thanks

I would suggest the E2180 for around $93, a less expensive mobo $90, and a good after market HSF for $30 should get 3.2~3.4GHz. Your more out the get the highest bin with the E2180 and the multiplier will make your choice of mobos lot less bound.

If you stay with AMD I suggest you get the X2 5000+ black edition as it can hit 3.2GHz for around $129 and a $20 HSF. At 3.2GHz tomshardware article has it matching the X2 6000+ at a much lower watt. Save you on your power bill and just about any mobo works as you can change the multiplier and run the mobo at stock speeds.

Those or my two best cost wise buy choices.
October 22, 2007 10:06:38 PM

zenmaster said:
1) No need for such an expensive Mobo. There are a numer of lesser expensive Mobos that would suit you just as well.

2) The performance from the E2160 will be significantly better. The OC'd E2160 generally outperforms the E6800 in most of the tests I have seen. At the same time, the X2 6000+ trailed the same E6800 by a significant margin.

3) While not all OC's are identical, the odds of not being able to hit a reasonably high OC are somewhat remote. The 3.0->3.2 are not aggressive OCs. If you were hoping to hit 3.4->3.6Ghz you woul start to fall into the maybe maybe not category.

Remember, the C2D are designed to run at 3.0Ghz.
The E2160 is built using a newer better process than the one on which the E6800 was built and is stock @ 2.93 Ghz.

And a Note to the poster above, DDR2-800 is not needed only DDR2-667 if you want to hit 3.0Ghz on the mentioned chips.

The AMD chips are the one's that really need DDR2-800.
They tend to be more finicky in regards to memory.

Regardless, however, I think I would get DDR2-800 anyway unless the price difference is significant where you live.

What would be a cheap mobo but still able to achieve this OC, and in microATX form?
October 22, 2007 10:24:39 PM

BTW, I saw a E2160 "Conroe" @ 77$....What is the difference with the "Allendale"?
Which one are talking about in this article?
October 22, 2007 11:58:46 PM

Please, who could indicate a good microATX motherboard? By good, I mean one with I'm 100% sure to have success with my O/C...
Thanks
October 23, 2007 11:11:32 AM

I guess it's time to replace my "old" XP 2600 Barton....And I was thinking about the microATX to have a small case, that I could sometime bring to my basement and plug it on my projector for some games like CoD, MoH, etc...I'm thinking to add a X1950 Pro video card which seams to be the best price/performance compromise today...But I'm not a hardcore gamer!!!
What do you think?
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
October 23, 2007 12:37:22 PM

1) No OC'ing (maybe the AMD 5000+ BE) I'd get the AMD setup.
2) OC'ing involved, get the Intel build.
3) If your going to put a Phenom in later, than definately get the AMD setup.
4) If you want to put in a Penryn later, than get the Intel build.

All of this is up to you. I'm hopefully just giving you options, so you can make an intelligent and informed decision.
October 23, 2007 2:31:54 PM

Knowing what I want to do (transportable PC, some games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor Airborne, etc…almost FPS, with a X1950 Pro video car in mind), which config would you build?
Thanks
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
October 23, 2007 2:43:54 PM

french_guy said:
Knowing what I want to do (transportable PC, some games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor Airborne, etc…almost FPS, with a X1950 Pro video car in mind), which config would you build?
Thanks

TBH either will do it fine. Like I stated before, you can build the AMD build cheaper than the Intel one, but the Intel build will OC more, so that is the facts. I'm interested in how the Phenom will do, so I'd build the AMD right now, but that is what I'd do. Your not going to see much difference with the e21xx or the AMD build as far as the frames per second is concerned, because you'll be limited by the GPU. I just read the AMD 5000+ review here at toms and was quite impressed with how easy to OC it, and still keep everything stock and at pretty much the same temps. That one right now has me intrigued. The Intel's OC well too, but take just a few more steps to make them work, so you can decide.
Which way sounds more interesting to you?
October 23, 2007 3:08:58 PM

Thanks for your answer….I agree with you
But however, if I build an AMD platform and having in mind to reuse it later for the Phenom, shoudn’t I buy an AM2+ motherboard?
And what do you think about the video card? Any other better choices, but still in the same range price (~$150)?

Thanks again
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
October 23, 2007 4:07:37 PM

Phenom should be downward compatable with AM2 boards. Not exactly sure what you don't get, I think it's the HT3, but don't quote me on that one. AM2+ I think are supposed to fully support Phenom, but there are too many out there right now, so limited just a bit right now. The video card is a good one. The 8600gts right now is neck and neck with the x1950pro. It trades blows with it. The other thing that the 8600gts has for it, it doesn't use as much power as the x1950pro. Most people right now favor the x1950pro so that will be a more popular selection.
October 23, 2007 5:58:12 PM

If I go with the AMD route, the X2 5000+ “Black Edition” might be a better choice since I’m 99% sure to have at least the x2 5600+ performances, and probably better. Is that right? And they are at the same price…
And furthermore, with a X1950 Pro (or 8600 GTS), I won’t see any big difference vs a E2160 @ 3.2 Ghz since the video card will be the bottle neck?

BTW, I really appreciate to discuss with you, I learn a lot. I’m French and live in the US. I also chat on some French forum, but I find the discussions are….”crap”, always something like “this CPU is much better because….it’s the one I have”!!!!
Thanks again
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
October 23, 2007 10:44:09 PM

Yes your going to get around 3 gig with the 5000+ and not have to pay much for that. Nice part is you'll be able to keep the stock cooling and probably no voltage adjustments to get that result. And yes, the x1950/8600gts will be your bottleneck of the system, so which ever way is fine. Don't know what the future holds for either, so can't speculate very well on which way is better. I like either situation, just that the AMD rout (with 5000+ BE) is easier to get to 3 gig. The Intel build can do it easy too, but you have just a few more things to do to reach the 3 gig arena.
October 23, 2007 10:51:48 PM

I already asked, but no answer yet: what could be a good motherboard for an INTEL E2160 o/c in microATX form? Same question for AMD...
Thanks
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
October 23, 2007 11:04:09 PM

Here's a few to consider, it's the cheapest and probably the best for mini-ATX. There are better, but cost more.
GIGABYTE GA-P31-DS3L LGA 775 Intel P31 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Gotta go for a few, so will get you an AMD one in a bit.
!