X2 6400 feedback please

[jerseygamer]

Hi my current system is:

-X2 3800 , 939 socket(OCed to 2.6)
-3 gigs of Gskill ram
-Raid 0 10k raptors
-Asus a8n32sli-delux MB
-Asus 8800gt 512(got this on day one of release)
-XFI Plat

I am in dire need to get of this 939 socket. This winter is my time thanks to pricing. There is no 939 chip around that will keep up with current gaming. My biggest fear is I "might" bottle neck my vid card. I do not plan on running higher then 1600x1200 on my 18" or a simular wide screen res. That is high enough defonition for me. Plus I dont want to spend 500++$$$ on a display. I am perfectly ok with waiting for quad cores to settle in price for a year or so and take a decent x2. I am a big AMD fan and I dont need the absolute best just a system that runs fluid.

I am looking at picking up the x2 6400 with 4 gigs of low latency ram on an Asus MB that I have not chosen yet. I will use everything from my old system aside from obviously the MB, ram, and CPU.

Does anything see an error in my future purchase? Any tips? Oh and I have a compatible Zalman cooler already.

 

[akhilles]

You're wanting to improve gaming performance? Then a video upgrade would be in order. My 8800gt stutters at 1440x900 with all options maxed out once in a while. At your resolution, the graphics especially on the sides are trying to catch up.

Most new games would recommend a 2.0ghz cpu. So your 2.6 isn't the bottleneck. I'm sure a faster cpu or x4 will give you more fps. Not as much as a better video card.

 

[coret]

5000+ Black Edition is cheaper, and hits the same clock speeds with some very easy overclocking (though you'll need a 3rd party cooler, not a stock one) ... check out the fairly recent THG article on the 5000+ BE to see what i mean about the overclock.

If you're getting 4gigs of RAM, you're going to need a 64bit version of windows XP/Vista, otherwise (unless you're incredibly lucky) you'll only be seeing 3.25gigs of it

 

[coret]

You're wanting to improve gaming performance? Then a video upgrade would be in order. My 8800gt stutters at 1440x900 with all options maxed out once in a while. At your resolution, the graphics especially on the sides are trying to catch up.

Most new games would recommend a 2.0ghz cpu. So your 2.6 isn't the bottleneck. I'm sure a faster cpu or x4 will give you more fps. Not as much as a better video card.

Strange, the 8800GT gives similar performance to a GTX in a lot of games. Are you running with a crazy amount of anti-aliasing on? My 320mb GTS hasn't had a problem with anything i've thrown at it so far, and i'm running one res higher than you (1680*1050) with everything on max bar anti-aliasing (the res is high enough on a 20" screen that the pixels are tiny anyway ... makes jaggies less noticeable).

 

[WR]

I am looking at picking up the x2 6400

Get the Black Edition 5000+ instead. I know AMD was criticized for 65nm leakage, but reviews show this stepping at similar quality to 90nm, able to reach 3.3 GHz on less power. And it's cheaper. You'll waste much less of their die space.

The 6400+ is a Prescott. Hottest stock Athlon64 I've seen, with dismal overclock margin.

 

[jerseygamer]

Buying the new 5000 black is not an option atm. I refuse to buy new hardware that needs to be OCed out of the box. I Decided to go fanless on this rig now. So everything will be water cooled. Heat will be a non factor.

With graphics atm buying an 8800 model for 400-500$ that performs exactly the same as a 200-300$ model is pretty silly. I am not going to buy a 500++$ display to reach those resolutions. Just about every gamer I know has already bought an 8800gt and alot are using them SLI with no problems. 2 of my gamer friends replaced there GTS cards with GTs for the single slot design and lower power usage. I just got the card, its brand new and the only upgrade would be a card that costs 550-700$ and without spending alot of money on a display and 500++$ on a CPU to prevent a bottleneck along with the very best ram possible upgrading the 8800GT is a pure waste of time and would almost triple the cost of my upgrade.

As for the reference to my 2.6 not being the bottleneck... Well its an x2 3800. The cache sucks. It makes a hudge difference. My 3dmark scores with even the 5000 black would blow away this current chip. Speed is not always everything. In this case it means nothing. Keep in mind that on a 939 socket MB with a locked multiplyer I am forced to kick the tail out of my MB and ram in order to reach 2.6 from a 2.0. Its not healthy. My bud has the exact same PC with an FX totaly OCed and the CPU is holding me up hardcore. This CPU is literaly the bottom of the multi core barrel.

I have decided on the x2 6400 for the CPU. I am getting an Asus MB for free that is just as good as anything else they make but does not offer some fluff or SLI. Free being the key. With water cooling I should have no problem OCing the hell out of this chip next year if AMD keeps dropping the ball. I looked around at alot of builders sites and talked to a friend localy that builds gaming rigs and is very popular and it turns out that the x2 6400 at stock speeds is a perfect match for the 8800gt. The 4 gigs of ram is for my upgrade to vista 64 when MS gets it together. At the resolutions I like to run the 8800gt and the x2 6400 seem to be a perfect match. The CPU being slightly greater then the GT and that is always a good thing when making a gaming machine.

Am I missing anything?

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

I am looking at picking up the x2 6400

Get the Black Edition 5000+ instead. I know AMD was criticized for 65nm leakage, but reviews show this stepping at similar quality to 90nm, able to reach 3.3 GHz on less power. And it's cheaper. You'll waste much less of their die space.

The 6400+ is a Prescott. Hottest stock Athlon64 I've seen, with dismal overclock margin.

agreed with 5000+ BE

 

[ragemonkey]

I really don't suspect your x2 3800+ running at 2.6 is being that much of a bottleneck. Switching sockets is not going to get you much besides more memory bandwidth.

With the hardware you have I suspect it will chew up and spit out just about most anything with your 18" widescreen lcd. Your maximum resolution is going to be 1440x900. Your 8800GT is more than adequate for that. I agree that spending $400+ for more graphics oomph is not going to be beneficial here. I am running the following on Vista Ultimate with no problems whatsoever.

X2 6400+ BE (running the stock 3.2) + Zalman 9700 cooler
4 Gigs G-Skill DDR2-800
Abit Fatal1ty AN9-32X
eVGA 8800GTS 320
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Benq 24" Widescreen monitor running at 1920x1200
2 WD Raptopr 74GB (OS and program volume) + 500GB WD PMR (Data volume)

I haven't bothered benching this system because I put no weight into numbers but rather look and feel. This system has not bogged down on me yet. Gaming gets a bit jittery every so often but that is because I use rather high resolutions. And although it may take 3 minutes to encode a video stream as opposed to 2 like a core2 duo, I step away to grab a cup of coffee anyway so I really don't care.

I tend to update my rig all the time, and have gone from a x2 3800 to 4800 on 939, then 6000 to 6400 on AM2. Over the past year all I ever kept track of was using Vista's built in ratings system, so this is what I got...

My old socket 939 x2 3800 oc'd to 2.5 showed a 5.0 on the vista scale. I then upgraded it to a x2 4800+ oc'd to 2.9 that showed a 5.2

A stock 5000+ BE shows a 5.0 (a recent build for my g/f), when OC'd to 2.8 shows a 5.1. When oc'd to 3.0 shows a 5.3

A am2 6000+ shows a 5.3. My current chip, a 6400, rates a 5.5

 

[coret]

True ... 6400+ doesn't need overclocking "out of the box" ... but then neither does the 5000 BE, by your own admission it would knock the socks off your 3800. However, if you do decide to overclock the 5000 BE, all it needs is a grand total of two bios settings to be change ... vcore to +0.1v above normal, and multiplier to 16x. And lets be honest here, the 5000BE isn't going to limit your lone 8800gt even at stock speeds.

What you do get from the 5000BE is the following:
- lower consumed power = less heat = lower electricity bill
- lower cost
- same effective performance at 6000+/6400+
- overclocking potential in the future

By that last comment, I don't mean just upping the multiplier. The BE's "standard" overclock suggestion *is* just upping the multi, as that way no motherboard components are stressed during the overclock. However, if you combine a higher multiplier with a higher front side bus (which should be achievable since you mentioned you have watercooling for the system) then you could get an ever better system than with a 6400+

Plus, the lower outlay for a 5000BE now means at some point when we have some cheap phenoms around, you can just drop a quad core phenom in the AM2 socket, and then you *definately* won't have your CPU limiting your GPU.

Actually ... screw most of the above ... wait a week or so and just drop a phenom straight in. Even a lower clocked part will meet your needs happily.

 

[kingoftherings]

You could always wait for Phenom, which comes out this week I think.

If the Phenom prices are too high, it may lower all the old CPU prices at the very least.

 

[zenmaster]

Phenom will be cheaper than tossing a decent Water Cooling on that thing.

And WaterCooling will only take that X2 Chip so far.
It's Factory OC'd to start with massive heat problems.
You will need a VERY expensive water system to get it much past that.

At this point, upgrading to the X6400 just makes little sense with Phenom shipping. Word has it that AMD will be shipping dozens and dozens of the chips to suppliers around the world in the next couple days.

 

[techgeek]

Don't flame if you don't like Intel, but since your changing platforms anyway (939>AM2), why not consider a C2D. For the money that the X6400+ will cost, you could get a E6750 which should have no problem handing the X6400+ it's ass. I know you said that you don't buy something that has to be OC'd (and the E6750 doesn't), but it's now officially a crime not to OC C2D's, Intel has given them soo much headroom. You could hit at least 3.3GHz on air and since your considering going to water, 3.6 shouldn't be out of the question. You can forget trying to get a that kind of OC on a X6400+.

Anyway that's my two cents.

 

[cruiseoveride]

isnt the 3800+ a 1.8ghz cpu? and you oc'ed it to 2.6? wow

could you post your settings for the overclock,
I have a 4200+ with a 1kg zalman sink, and i struggle to get anything more than 300mhz.

 

[jerseygamer]

No its a 2.0 stock x2 3800. I will go into bios and check my voltages. I use a modified version of the AI booster from Asus. I just tell it how fast I want it and it adjusts everything. The multi I would have to set manualy.

 

[jerseygamer]

The problem with going Intel for me is in this range of CPU that I am looking at the 6400 beats the pants off of Intel for gaming. I dont encode anything. The idea of not gaming while at my PC is not something that happens. So for my needs spending less on the AMD and getting better performance in my range is lovely.

I am waiting for the phenom chips to ship though and crossing my fingers.

The problem with the 5000 black is that it is in fact not enough cpu to take advantage of everything my 8800 offers. I would have to OC it. Its looking more and more like a waiting game. It sucks because this x2 3800 is a dog and its killing my hobby heh.

 

[epsilon84]

The problem with going Intel for me is in this range of CPU that I am looking at the 6400 beats the pants off of Intel for gaming. I dont encode anything. The idea of not gaming while at my PC is not something that happens. So for my needs spending less on the AMD and getting better performance in my range is lovely.

???

The E6750 beats the X2 6400+ in most gaming benches, although to be honest it hardly makes a difference either way, as both CPUs are already very fast, and your gaming performance will be likely GPU limited anyway.

 

[MU_Engineer]

The problem with going Intel for me is in this range of CPU that I am looking at the 6400 beats the pants off of Intel for gaming. I dont encode anything. The idea of not gaming while at my PC is not something that happens. So for my needs spending less on the AMD and getting better performance in my range is lovely.

I am waiting for the phenom chips to ship though and crossing my fingers.

The problem with the 5000 black is that it is in fact not enough cpu to take advantage of everything my 8800 offers. I would have to OC it. Its looking more and more like a waiting game. It sucks because this x2 3800 is a dog and its killing my hobby heh.

Here are a few options:

1. Get an X2 6000+ or 6400+ and an AMD 700-series chipset AM2+ board. In 6 months to a year, swap the 6000+/6400+ for a Phenom.

2. Get a Core 2 Duo E6750 and a P35 board that is compatible with the Yorkfield 45 nm CPUs. Use the E6750 for a year or so, then drop a 3+ GHz Yorkfield in when the Nehalems ship as the Yorkfields will be inexpensive by that point- and the Nehalem will require a new board, RAM, etc.

3. Wait a few weeks and buy a Phenom and an AMD 700-series chipset AM2+ board.

4. Wait a month or two and buy a non-extreme-edition Yorkfield Core 2 Quad and a suitable motherboard.

The first option will be the least expensive and gives you a boost in performance RIGHT NOW while keeping a good upgrade option for faster chips open in the future. #2 would also be a good option as well, albeit a more expensive one than the first. #3 isn't bad, especially since you do not want to overclock. However, the Phenom X4s that will be shipping soon are more expensive and not a whole ton faster if not slower in most games than the 6000+/6400+/E6750. #4 has the most performance potential but will require you to wait the longest and also will be the most expensive.

If it were me, I'd choose between #1 or #2 or wait a few months and buy a Phenom or a Yorkfield. Getting new, hot-off-the-presses CPUs generally carries a bit of the "early-adopter tax" as well as running hotter than the later steppings, particularly at high speeds. A few months should solve those issues, but you have to gut it out and wait if you do that. The X2 6400+ and E6750 perform roughly in the same league and the X2 6400+ setup will be less expensive but run much warmer than the E6750. I suppose your decision comes down to whether you want a less-expensive setup that runs hotter or are willing to pay more for one that runs cooler.

 

[reconviperone1]

Buying the new 5000 black is not an option atm. I refuse to buy new hardware that needs to be OCed out of the box. I Decided to go fanless on this rig now. So everything will be water cooled. Heat will be a non factor.

With graphics atm buying an 8800 model for 400-500$ that performs exactly the same as a 200-300$ model is pretty silly. I am not going to buy a 500++$ display to reach those resolutions. Just about every gamer I know has already bought an 8800gt and alot are using them SLI with no problems. 2 of my gamer friends replaced there GTS cards with GTs for the single slot design and lower power usage. I just got the card, its brand new and the only upgrade would be a card that costs 550-700$ and without spending alot of money on a display and 500++$ on a CPU to prevent a bottleneck along with the very best ram possible upgrading the 8800GT is a pure waste of time and would almost triple the cost of my upgrade.

As for the reference to my 2.6 not being the bottleneck... Well its an x2 3800. The cache sucks. It makes a hudge difference. My 3dmark scores with even the 5000 black would blow away this current chip. Speed is not always everything. In this case it means nothing. Keep in mind that on a 939 socket MB with a locked multiplyer I am forced to kick the tail out of my MB and ram in order to reach 2.6 from a 2.0. Its not healthy. My bud has the exact same PC with an FX totaly OCed and the CPU is holding me up hardcore. This CPU is literaly the bottom of the multi core barrel.

I have decided on the x2 6400 for the CPU. I am getting an Asus MB for free that is just as good as anything else they make but does not offer some fluff or SLI. Free being the key. With water cooling I should have no problem OCing the hell out of this chip next year if AMD keeps dropping the ball. I looked around at alot of builders sites and talked to a friend localy that builds gaming rigs and is very popular and it turns out that the x2 6400 at stock speeds is a perfect match for the 8800gt. The 4 gigs of ram is for my upgrade to vista 64 when MS gets it together. At the resolutions I like to run the 8800gt and the x2 6400 seem to be a perfect match. The CPU being slightly greater then the GT and that is always a good thing when making a gaming machine.

Am I missing anything?

I was gonna recoomend intel, but since you are getting a free am2 motherboard, i would go with the x2 5600, mine is overclocked to 3ghz, and is very fast.

 

[runswindows95]

I also have to go with the 5000+ BE suggestion as well. It will easily OC to 3Ghz and is way cheaper than the 6400+.

 

[Evilonigiri]

If you are gonna oc the hell out of the 6400+, why not do it with the 5000+ BE? I mean even with water-cooling the 6400+ can only reach 3.4Ghz at the highest.

 

[zenmaster]

Here are a few options:

1. Get an X2 6000+ or 6400+ and an AMD 700-series chipset AM2+ board. In 6 months to a year, swap the 6000+/6400+ for a Phenom.

2. Get a Core 2 Duo E6750 and a P35 board that is compatible with the Yorkfield 45 nm CPUs. Use the E6750 for a year or so, then drop a 3+ GHz Yorkfield in when the Nehalems ship as the Yorkfields will be inexpensive by that point- and the Nehalem will require a new board, RAM, etc.

3. Wait a few weeks and buy a Phenom and an AMD 700-series chipset AM2+ board.

4. Wait a month or two and buy a non-extreme-edition Yorkfield Core 2 Quad and a suitable motherboard.

The first option will be the least expensive and gives you a boost in performance RIGHT NOW while keeping a good upgrade option for faster chips open in the future. #2 would also be a good option as well, albeit a more expensive one than the first. #3 isn't bad, especially since you do not want to overclock. However, the Phenom X4s that will be shipping soon are more expensive and not a whole ton faster if not slower in most games than the 6000+/6400+/E6750. #4 has the most performance potential but will require you to wait the longest and also will be the most expensive.

If it were me, I'd choose between #1 or #2 or wait a few months and buy a Phenom or a Yorkfield. Getting new, hot-off-the-presses CPUs generally carries a bit of the "early-adopter tax" as well as running hotter than the later steppings, particularly at high speeds. A few months should solve those issues, but you have to gut it out and wait if you do that. The X2 6400+ and E6750 perform roughly in the same league and the X2 6400+ setup will be less expensive but run much warmer than the E6750. I suppose your decision comes down to whether you want a less-expensive setup that runs hotter or are willing to pay more for one that runs cooler.

I think this guy as missed the last two years of benchmarks :>

 

[Noya]

I think the OP is half retarded.

 

[boner]

wait for the spider plataform

 

[boner]

hell yeah im getting that thing yo

 

[MU_Engineer]

I think this guy as missed the last two years of benchmarks :>

Uh, no. I'll use Tom's charts for reference:

AMD CPU: X2 6000+ (no 6400+ on there), NF590, DDR2-800 @ 750 MHz
Intel CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750, P35, DDR2-800 @ 800 MHz

1. 3DStudio Max 9 Dragon character. E6750: 1:16, X2 6000+: 1:27. (+14.4%)
2. 3DStudio Max 9 CPU. E6750: 2385, X2 6000+: 2231. (+6.5%)
3. 3DStudio Max 9 Graphics. E6750: 10365, X2 6000+: 10182. (+1.8%)
4. AVG AntiVirus 8 GB folder scan. E6750: 1:11, X2 6000+: 1:21. (+14.1%)
5. Cinema4D "Water drop at a Rose." E6750: 4:05, X2 6000+: 4:05. (even)
6. CloneDVD T2SE transcode. E6750: 7:38, X2 6000+: 7:46 (+1.7%)
7. Deep Fritz 10. E6750: 3580 knodes/sec, X2 6000+: 3506 knodes/sec. (+2.1%)
8. DivX 6.6.1 T2SE transcode. E6750: 1:48, X2 6000+: 2:12. (+22.2%)
9. Blu-Ray playback. E6750: 39.0%, X2 6000+: 41.0% (+5.1%)
10. iTunes 7.1.1.5 53 min CD. E6750: 1:14, X2 6000+: 1:17 (+4.1%)
11. Lame 3.98b3 53 min CD. E6750: 2:42, X2 6000+: 3:03. (+3.0%)
12. Mainconcept H.264 24 sec 1080p. E6750: 1:46, X2 6000+: 1:57. (+10.4%)
13. MS PPT 2007 PPT -> PDF. E6750: 2:01, X2 6000+: 2:40. (+33.2%)
14. PCMark 2005 CPU. E6750: 6835, X2 6000+: 6158. (+9.9%)
15. PCMark 2005 Memory. E6750: 4147, X2 6000+: 4153. (-0.1%)
16. Photoshop CS3 filter. E6750: 1:52, X2 6000+: 2:06. (+12.5%)
17. Pinnacle Studio 11 Plus. E6750: 1:32, X2 6000+: 1:42. (+10.8%)
18. Premiere Pro 2.0 24 sec. 1080p. E6750: 3:57, X2 6000+: 4:24. (+11.4%)
19. Prey demo, SXGA+. E6750: 117.7 fps, X2 6000+: 107.7 fps. (+8.5%)

Throwing out the highest and lowest score, the E6750 has a mean percentage advantage of 8.7%. The X2 6400+ has a 6.7% clock speed advantage over the X2 6000+ as well as being able to run its memory at a full 800 effective MHz rather than 750 as with the 6000+. X2 6400+ benchmarks are hard to find, but Xtreview has benched the X2 6400+ versus the X2 6000+ as well as the E6750 and E6850. http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3115-view-Athlon-64-X2-6400+-review-and-benchmark.html Their results follow:

1. 3Dmark05. E6750: 16062, X2 6400+: 16849 (-4.9%)
2. 3Dmark06. E6750: 10935, X2 6400+: 11183 (-2.3%)
3. PCmark 05 overall. E6750: 7608, X2 6400+: 7468 (+1.8%)
4. PCmark 05 graphics. E6750: 13508, X2 6400+: 13814 (-2.3%)
5. PCmark 05 CPU. E6750: 6623, X2 6400+: 6428. (+2.9%)
6. PCmark 05 memory. E6750: 5601, X2 6400+: 5671 (-1.2%)
7. Cinebench 9.5 1 CPU. E6750: 447, X2 6400+ 475 (-6.3%)
8. Cinebench 9.5 2 CPU. E6750: 836, X2 6400+: 881 (-5.4%)
9. ScienceMark 2.0 overall. E6750: 1559.19, X2 6400+: 1669.31 (-7.1%)
10. SiSoft Sandra 2007 ALU. E6750: 24336, X2 6400+: 23296 (+4.3%)
11. SiSoft Sandra 2007 SSE3. E6750: 16936, X2 6400+: 19710 (-16.4%)
12. SiSoft Sandra 2007 Integer. E6750: 147751, X2 6400+: 60455 (+59.1%)
13. SiSoft Sandra 2007 Float. E6750: 79634, X2 6400+: 65709. (+17.1%)
14. SiSoft RAM BW Int. E6750: 5965 MB/sec, X2 6400+: 7238 MB/sec. (-21.3%)
15. SiSoft RAM BW float. E6750: 5951 MB/sec, X2 6400+: 7268 MB/sec. (-22.1%)
16. Mainconcept H.264. E6750: 185.16 sec, X2 6400+: 185.13 sec (virtually even)
17. Windows Movie Maker. E6750: 145.19 sec, X2 6400+: 158.08 sec. (+8.9%)
18. Photoshop elements 5.0.2 album creation. E6750: 38.82 sec, X2 6400+: 38.74 sec. (-0.2%)
19. MS Excel 2007. E6750: 11.39 sec, X2 6400+: 28.41 sec (+149.4%)
20. MS Word 2007. E6750: 47.64 sec, X2 6400+: 44.21 sec (-7.2%)
21. Doom 3 FPS. E6750: 196.7 fps, X2 6400+: 171.6 fps. (+12.8%)
22. Far Cry FPS. E6750: 124.72 fps, X2 6400+: 113.32 fps (+9.1%)
23. F.E.A.R. FPS. E6750: 267 fps, X2 6400+: 232 fps (+13.1%) this is 640x480 most likely...
24. Company of Heroes DX10 FPS. E6750: 45.8 fps, X2 6400+: 45.6 fps. (+0.4%)
25. Serious Sam 2 FPS. E6750: 199.2 fps, X2 6400+: 186.3 fps. (+6.5%)

These results are much more over-the-map as the tests contain a bunch of synthetic benches (such as the Sandra integer test and memory bandwidth tests) that put a tremendous standard deviation in the scores. The scores for the X2 6000+ are in that review as well. The end-of-the-day result is that the X2 6400+ would have performed almost identically to the E6750 if it had been benched alongside the E6750 in Tom's tests.

So no, I have NOT missed the last two years of benchmarks.