Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 6400+ vs E6750

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 22, 2007 12:41:21 AM

Which processor do you guys think is best to go with right now.
Its a completely new PC setup so everything will depend on which proc I go with..

But I cant find any reviews other than the one from Xtreview which I dont find very reliable for some reason.

Any sugestions?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000340343%201389627502%201266316752%204017&bop=And&CompareItemList=N82E16819115029%2CN82E16819103191

More about : amd 6400 e6750

November 22, 2007 12:57:02 AM

6400+: 3.2 ghz dual core, 2 x 1mb L2, 120W+, mature 90nm tech
e6750: 2.67 ghz dual core, 1 x 4mb L2, 50-60W, mature 65nm tech

At stock, the two perform very closely to each other (win and lose equally). The 6400+ runs much hotter and has no overclocking headroom. The 6750 runs cool and has ample o/c headroom (3.4-3.6ghz easily).

I'd go with e6750.
November 22, 2007 1:08:02 AM

The heat thing was the only thing that stuck out for me...
I actually like the 6400+ in terms of ease of OC because of the unlocked multiplier but I am not sure on that.

How much difference will the L2 cache size make for me is the other thing that I am looking at.
Related resources
November 22, 2007 1:29:28 AM

Or you could go Intel and get better overclocking potential. The unlocked multiplier on the 6400+ isn't very useful, because it produces a lot of heat and is already a pretty high clockspeed for a K8 based CPU. The Core2Duo on the other hand produces less heat, has better overclocking potential, and has less stock heat output.
November 22, 2007 1:39:02 AM

I have a 6000+ and it can go 3.2

I shall never cross over. Btw Phenom can be ut in the AM2board.
November 22, 2007 1:55:30 AM

Quote:
I actually like the 6400+ in terms of ease of OC because of the unlocked multiplier but I am not sure on that.

Overclocking settings are easy, but the chip simply won't run with much of an overclock. Usually people are able to get this stock 3.2GHz part to 3.3GHz but not 3.4GHz. That's a 3% overclock.

Since you mention overclocking, AMD does produce a 65nm chip that is just as easy to overclock and won't be such a power hog - the Black Edition 5000+. Stock 2.6GHz, typ. o/c 3.1-3.3Ghz.

Quote:
How much difference will the L2 cache size make for me is the other thing that I am looking at.

Don't worry about cache - it's apples to oranges. I specified cache to make sure we're on the same page. Note the 5000+ Black Edition has only 512KB of cache per core. It's not much of a performance damper compared to 1MB - some say to subtract 100MHz to get your effective speed at half cache.
November 22, 2007 1:57:04 AM

e6750 is hands down winner here
November 22, 2007 2:03:41 AM

Go intel E6750 > 6400+ in my opinion

Again it's only my opinion but there's not that much interesting CPU on AMD side right now the 5000+ Black edition 6000+ and the 6400+ are good for system CPU upgrade only

I would go anytime with Intel right now if you start from scratch.
November 22, 2007 2:15:03 AM

Hi nomad3700,
In theory, the AM2 mobo should save you a few $$ vs. an Intel mobo.
That X2 6400+ Black Edition is a nice CPU, but the E6750 is more powerful!
I can get E6750 for $199 bucks - the 6400+ is $30 more.
And the 6400+ doesn't include a cooler so there's another $30 bucks...
Get a good cooler too because the 6400+ will get hot. Also PSU - the 6400+ will require more heavy-duty PSU.
Personally, I like the X2 5000+ Black Edition :)  I have built a couple (on Asus M2N) and I run them @ 216 HTT x 14 which is 3024MHz :D  With a memory divider of 9 it runs Corsair PC2-5400 C4 @ perfect 672MHz. CPU, mobo and 2GB memory = $295.
But I would go over to E6750 if I wanted to spend more,
Regards
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2007 2:17:32 AM

E6750. Nuff said.
December 11, 2007 5:55:11 PM

The E6750 is the best overall performer here, plus it overclocks better and runs cooler...just no comparison.
December 11, 2007 6:18:46 PM

Lots of good points I would agree with.

#1 - The E6750 slightly faster at stock but not a world of difference.

#2 - The E6750 runs much much cooler.

#3 - The 6400+ has easy OC settings, but the chip is basically running at it's max speed and 100-200 Mhz is all you can gain. It should not be too hard to get 1000Mhz or more out of the E6750.

The BE-5000+ is not a bad choice if sticking with AMD, but due to less cache than the 6400+ it will not run quite as fast clock for clock and it tough to get it much higher. However, it will use much less power than the 6400+ but still more than the E6750.
December 12, 2007 12:39:41 AM

With a Zalman 9700 I have never with 2 prime95 running and cores maxed went over 39c one my 6400 at 69f room temp. I OCed it to 3.6 and sat at 43c at full load. Heat is not a problem. With proper air there is no problems with this chip. For gaming the 6400 is hands down the best out of the box and best when OCed. Taking into account the fact that almost any MB that sports an Intel chip is prone to headaches.
December 12, 2007 1:41:16 AM

Intel e21xx series overclocks any where from 3.0-3.5 easy, and blows the 6400 AMD out of the water, and the e21xx series are less the $100 usd
December 12, 2007 2:26:26 AM

jerseygamer said:
With a Zalman 9700 I have never with 2 prime95 running and cores maxed went over 39c one my 6400 at 69f room temp. I OCed it to 3.6 and sat at 43c at full load. Heat is not a problem. With proper air there is no problems with this chip. For gaming the 6400 is hands down the best out of the box and best when OCed. Taking into account the fact that almost any MB that sports an Intel chip is prone to headaches.




Ya. And lets see some screen shots. Its kinda hard to believe without proof. Possibly your using speed fan and its not working right.
December 12, 2007 2:26:35 AM

Socket 775 has an upgrade path through Nehalem. AM2 is history with AMD getting out of the high end CPU market.
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2007 2:43:49 AM

jerseygamer said:
With a Zalman 9700 I have never with 2 prime95 running and cores maxed went over 39c one my 6400 at 69f room temp. I OCed it to 3.6 and sat at 43c at full load. Heat is not a problem. With proper air there is no problems with this chip. For gaming the 6400 is hands down the best out of the box and best when OCed. Taking into account the fact that almost any MB that sports an Intel chip is prone to headaches.


LOL and an E2140 and a ASUS P5GC-MX/1333 read my temps as -2*c - your point is? No matter what clock speed your AMD can hit intel can hit a higher clock, AND perform clock for clock better.
December 12, 2007 2:47:46 AM

jerseygamer said:
With a Zalman 9700 I have never with 2 prime95 running and cores maxed went over 39c one my 6400 at 69f room temp. I OCed it to 3.6 and sat at 43c at full load. Heat is not a problem. With proper air there is no problems with this chip. For gaming the 6400 is hands down the best out of the box and best when OCed. Taking into account the fact that almost any MB that sports an Intel chip is prone to headaches.



You post a lot of BS.

Glad you have a 3.6 GHz dual core and I'm glad you're happy with it. But stop posting out of ignorance. Do you own a P35 chipset? Do you own an Intel? Stop talking about what headaches they are, you know not what you speak.
December 12, 2007 3:03:53 AM

Here is THG's 6400+ Review.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/AMD-X2-6400,review-29612....

Note: 5-10% Slower than the E6750 at Stock.
They were able to OC from 3.2 to 3.5Ghz.
Less than a 10% OC which might get it neck for neck with a stock E6750.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...
AnandTech took the E6750 to 3.7Ghz on STOCK voltage.
Remember @ 2.66 Ghz, it matches the X2-6400 @ 3.5 Ghz.

THG, Took the E6750 beyond 4.0Ghz, but I think that OC was extreme and not really something you want to really do for normal use. I gave AnandTech link because it was a more tame OC.
December 12, 2007 3:10:25 AM

cnumartyr said:
You post a lot of BS.

Glad you have a 3.6 GHz dual core and I'm glad you're happy with it. But stop posting out of ignorance. Do you own a P35 chipset? Do you own an Intel? Stop talking about what headaches they are, you know not what you speak.


There's been a lot of fanboy nonsense lately. I wonder if there should be a moderation policy against such BS. It's one thing to debate, it's another thing altogether to deliberately (or ignorantly) mislead.
December 12, 2007 3:23:35 AM

epsilon84 said:
There's been a lot of fanboy nonsense lately. I wonder if there should be a moderation policy against such BS. It's one thing to debate, it's another thing altogether to deliberately (or ignorantly) mislead.


I agree, but it was the other thread that aggrevated me. There are a couple on here that intentionally (or out of ignorance) mislead people into things. I know there are people on here that rely on this forum for information and reading that, I would think Intel is horrible.

To be fair, atleast some of the more "obvious" fan boys keep to the "tech" threads from TC and yomama and don't post stuff like this. I'm not going to tell people the 790FX is a bad chipset or that the 6400+ won't overclock.. I don't own either one and never played with them. I do know benchmarks (as stated above) on the 6400+ show it's significantly weaker than a slower Core 2. Read the other thread though, that one was just pure BS.

Edit: And so people know, I'm not saying that only AMD fan boys need to be stopped. There are people on the Intel side as well bashing the Phenom and any X2 chip. It sucks, but it's the draw backs of the forum.
December 12, 2007 3:36:23 AM

Yeah, I read the other thread as well. I'm glad there a few level headed posters here to correct the ignorant fool, otherwise I'd have my work cut out for me correctly each and every fanboy post.

December 12, 2007 3:45:09 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
Intel e21xx series overclocks any where from 3.0-3.5 easy, and blows the 6400 AMD out of the water, and the e21xx series are less the $100 usd


First of all, not that AMD sucks or anything!
I own a S939 ~ 4200x2 running 2.2GHz (200x11) OCed to 2.75GHz (250x11) @1.45V.......
and a recently purchased E2180 running 2.0GHz (200x10) OCed to 3.33GHz (333x10) @1.45V

The thing with AMD is that it is a older generation of technology........during its prime, it was the bomb!!!
But now, if you were looking for a cheap word processing / web surfing machine, YES buy the cheapest AMD dualie you can find + an all-in-one board.....it'll be very capable!

Since you are picking out performance parts, top of the line AMD dualie 6400x2, in this segment, the performance lies with Intel at similiar or lesser the cost.

All tests I've done on my E2180 OCed to 3.33GHz, is comparable to a AMD dualie at 3.6GHz if not faster!!!
My E2180 cost me $2800 NTD which is around $87.5USD........you'd have to be very very very very very very very luck to buy a AMD dualie processor for $87USD that can OC to 3.6GHz!!!

Note: I've built 4 other machines for friends using E2140 1.6GHz (200x8)......... and all hit 3.2GHz (400x8)@1.475 or less using the stock cooler. All benched and tested with Orthos for 12+ hours without a clitch!!
All 4 E2140 and my E2180 were M0 steppings, manufactured dates range from July ~ Oct, 2007.
I think they are of HIGH C/P values for anybody!!

Those are just my thoughts.....my AMD machine is running fine without a clitch as well!
But why spend the same amount of money and buy older technology???

My Intel Machine
E2180 OCed to 3.33GHz @ 1.45V
MSI Neo2 P35 FIR
2 x 1GB Trancend DDR2~800 (Micron chips)
MSI 7900GTO
2 x WD SATA 8MB cache 160GB in Raid 0

Plays Crysis / Call of Duty 4 / NFS Carbon / World in Conflict @ 1280 x 1024
Multimedia Sandra scores ~ Intel:170K Vs AMD: 58K.....TMPGEncoder is significantly faster at encoding DVD > VCDs
Word processing / web surfing are more or less the same

Bottom line is..........it's your call!!
December 12, 2007 4:29:18 AM

My e2180 is running 3.33 as well. I had it boot at 3.8 but that was with 1.5v and it got hot really fast with the stock heatsink. Idle is 41c while load temps are around 59-61c. I would like to invest in water cooling soon and see if it will run stable at 3.8. My motherboard is Asus P5k SE, and my ram is Adata pc 6400 x 2G for $48.00. I'm am very pleased with this system, as it is like three times faster then my Tablet Pc. It takes 20 minutes to burn a 9 gig DvD to my hard drive; where as on the Tablet it takes 1.5 hours for the same DvD. I use mine as a media center and I am currently backing up all my DvDs to my Hard drive so I dont need to fiddle with disks and hunt for the one I want. Now they are all alphabetized on my drive, I think its pretty sweet.
December 12, 2007 7:46:20 AM

If you wanna play games, go for an AMD system and spend the money you save by doing that on a good GPU.
The processor doesn't matter much for todays games on higher resolutions.
December 12, 2007 9:17:25 AM

Jakc said:
If you wanna play games, go for an AMD system and spend the money you save by doing that on a good GPU.
The processor doesn't matter much for todays games on higher resolutions.


Again, show me an AMD system and I will show you a comparable Intel system that will beat the pants off it once overclocked. I would consider this my opinion, but quite a few Benchmarks back me up. The only difference between an AMD and Intel system is the motherboard/CPU... That's it. I can get a P35 for $100 and an E2160 for $83. I think that's pretty good for a base consider most (I won't venture to say all) E21x0 series will do 3.0 GHz on the stock cooler.
December 12, 2007 10:10:30 AM

cnumartyr said:
Again, show me an AMD system and I will show you a comparable Intel system that will beat the pants off it once overclocked. I would consider this my opinion, but quite a few Benchmarks back me up. The only difference between an AMD and Intel system is the motherboard/CPU... That's it. I can get a P35 for $100 and an E2160 for $83. I think that's pretty good for a base consider most (I won't venture to say all) E21x0 series will do 3.0 GHz on the stock cooler.

keep in mind not everyone is interested in overclocking. the 6400+ has also come down a lot in price since this thread was started, plus you can now buy it with a cooler included. I doubt at stock 9/10 people are going to notice any difference between the two processors. some do say though AMD x2s in general seem snappier than much faster benchmarking Intel cpus for everyday tasks. perhaps due to the different memory management or it could even been the motherboards that are more responsive. If you got a 6400+ now you could always upgrade to Phenom eventually asumming AMD fixes the issues with them. Intel you can always upgrade to a newer Quad core when they come out early next year. I think Intel is switching to a new socket at the end of next year anyway though so you can't say the Intel setup is exactly future proof either. When you are talking about processors as fast as these unless you are worried about how big your epenis is going to look in benchmarks it really doesn't make jack squat difference which one you chose. Just buy what you can afford IMO.
December 12, 2007 10:28:07 AM

To OP:

How long are you planning to use the system? If you're thinking of 2~3 year range, and planning to upgrade (rather than purchase new), I would recommend an AMD dual core system, with 5000+ Black Edition. AMD's motherboards not only run less hot, it also has superior compatibility with future processors. Once quad core Phenom has major bugs sorted out, and come down in thermal a bit, you can then buy a Phenom upgrade and plug it directly onto your motherboard.

Oppositely, if you are only planning to buy a new system about 2~3 years from now, with no plan of major upgrades, E6750 + P35 will be your best bet. You can use E6750 dual core for now, and buy quad core Yorkfield upgrade later. Yorkfield not only has the same thermal as their dual core counterparts, they should also clock a lot higher. By the end of next year, you should be able to get 3.0~3.5Ghz Yorkfield at relatively cheap price. For gaming purpose, it should last you a while.

However, as someone already pointed out, gaming at high resolution (1280 x 1024 +) will generally stress video cards more than CPU. Therefore, if you plan to game at those resolutions, the performance of CPU will not be very crucial in your overall gaming experience. So you can save a bit of money by going lower end CPU (E6550 / E6420 / X2 5000+), and use most of the funds to purchase a decent graphic card.
December 12, 2007 10:50:47 AM

nomad3700 said:

I actually like the 6400+ in terms of ease of OC because of the unlocked multiplier but I am not sure on that.



Is it really much more difficult to increase FSB value from 333 to 400+ then to increase multiplier from 16 to 17? : ) I dont think so...Anyway, if you'd like to oveclock, just buy some cheaper CPU...the E2180 is a good idea, or E4500, 4600...Its always good to save money ; ) as the OCed performance will not differ too much
December 12, 2007 11:32:00 AM

j0j081 said:
keep in mind not everyone is interested in overclocking. the 6400+ has also come down a lot in price since this thread was started, plus you can now buy it with a cooler included. I doubt at stock 9/10 people are going to notice any difference between the two processors. some do say though AMD x2s in general seem snappier than much faster benchmarking Intel cpus for everyday tasks. perhaps due to the different memory management or it could even been the motherboards that are more responsive. If you got a 6400+ now you could always upgrade to Phenom eventually asumming AMD fixes the issues with them. Intel you can always upgrade to a newer Quad core when they come out early next year. I think Intel is switching to a new socket at the end of next year anyway though so you can't say the Intel setup is exactly future proof either. When you are talking about processors as fast as these unless you are worried about how big your epenis is going to look in benchmarks it really doesn't make jack squat difference which one you chose. Just buy what you can afford IMO.


On Newegg the 6400+ is the same price as the E6750. I'd agree with yomamafor1 on this one about a 5000+ BE. Only problem there is you are hinging on AMD to get better performance out of their K10 Phenoms.

I think it's funny you say Benchmarks are just for epeen. For games just about any processor will do. When it comes to F@H SMP or anything like that, benchmarks do matter, as does clock speed.

Also, you WILL notice a difference between an E6750 and 6400+ in games like Microsoft Flight Simulator X. You'll notice it even more by moving to a quad core and then even more by overclocking the quad core.

Anyways.. I agree with yomama, as I said. 5000+ BE on a 790 FX. Wait until B3 comes around with decent thermals or even 45nm Phenoms.

I was kind of looking forward to Quad FX Phenoms. I really wanted to get the Quad 790FX platform with 2 BE Phenoms. Great price compared to the Intel equivalent. Now the only reason I'll consider AMD is because the Q9450 has an 8x multiplier... That basically killed Penryn for me. If AMD can get a decent clocking Phenom I'd be all over a Black Edition.
December 12, 2007 12:02:25 PM

cnumartyr said:
You post a lot of BS.

Glad you have a 3.6 GHz dual core and I'm glad you're happy with it. But stop posting out of ignorance. Do you own a P35 chipset? Do you own an Intel? Stop talking about what headaches they are, you know not what you speak.


I sit in a room with 4 other people for 5 hours every night building computer after computer. I am no hardware pro by any means. My understanding of hardware is a 5 at best when compared to the people who make the gear. I am forced to work with advanced tech people as well when it comes to repairs. I will say this== Just about every MB model you can plant an intel on has problems. The controlers love to go poof. When building a gaming rig we always build AMD simply because out of the box they are the most dependable systems with the lowest RMA rates in the industry. If you set down and bench any of the C2D 2 core chips against the 6400 they Intel are beaten over and over. Yes stock cooling is ok on the Intels but a good cooler takes the 6400 out of the heat race with a good application of greese.

I can say I have "owned" more systems then anyone on this page most likely. I have to burn every rig I put together and I am the last person to touch it before it goes to get boxed up. When it comes to $ to $ performance any idiot with a calculator can see AMD is ahead. Last year we stopped building with MSI, EVGA, BFG, and crossed almost 80% of the possible Intel MBs off the list because of RMA numbers. On top of that even now venders are refusing to support the new Intel on its way on the older boards saying that it is physicly impossible to do it and if done it would create big performance problems. So go ahead suggest to the public that they buy a chip that sits on a MB that is never upgradable in over 50% of the cases. Tell them to OC it as well and join the hudge pile of Intel OCers that have stacks of burnt hardware. From a person that builds for a living I would NEVER tell anyone to buy any Intel hardware at this point. The venders are slacking hardcore on support over the next year and there is no reason for me to have someone buy something that is already yesterdays trash with next to no upgradability.
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2007 12:31:42 PM

JerseGamer either you are just messing around or you are truly have no clue what you are talking about. I feel bad for anybody that buys or listens to people like you.

You actually said the 6400 beats ANY C2D in benchmarks.

You should go look at the benchmark charts.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

the 6400 isnt in the charts so i used the 6000 instead againts a 6750.

The rest of the pure crap you posted itsnt worth the time to counter ever line of BS
December 12, 2007 12:37:22 PM

JerseyGamer,

Please try and support some of your claims?

If Intel mobos are such a problem, why are the boards not littered with posters if the problems are great as you claim?

Trust me, when hardware goes belly up, people complain.

Even the reviews at NewEgg with folks who are clueless don't have any problems.

Why do review sites not find the same results you do?

Why does AMD themselves say they are not competing in the performance category? Why have they slashed all prices?

Where is the burnt hardware? Why would it burn?
Do you understand that both the CPUs and Chipsets are designed to operate within both a temperature and voltage range?

Do you undertand these reviews and reviewers stay within that range?
Do you understand the AMD chips require FAR MORE power to run?
Do you understand the OC'd Intel chips use much less power than the x6000 at stock?

Do you know anything?
December 12, 2007 12:57:25 PM

When you say you stopped building with MSI, EVGA, and BFG that just makes me laugh
December 12, 2007 1:01:04 PM

I say.... flip a coin. Heads for AMD, Tails for Intel.

<-- flips the coin..

:pt1cable: 

Okay, best 2 out of 3.

:heink:  . o O (Err..)

Okay, best 4 out of 5.

:oops: 

All in all.. we need both company's to compete in the market. So basically, as long as you have a comparable processor, like what people are asking E6750, or 6400+... just get what you want.

I don't think its really fair to say you should get an Intel all the time... let some people get AMD, and try not to bruise their ego. I mean, AMD does need to stay in the market.... right? It's a dirty job, but somebody gotta buy their products. :cry: 

Edit:

And on a side note, if people are not going to find info on products, in whats the best, then its their fault, even if they take someones word for it, without looking. So that is the main reason why I say... just get what you want.

Edit:

What???? I'm an ancient poster now???? Gawd, I feel old(er) now. :cry: 
December 12, 2007 5:41:04 PM

jerseygamer said:
I sit in a room with 4 other people for 5 hours every night building computer after computer. I am no hardware pro by any means. My understanding of hardware is a 5 at best when compared to the people who make the gear. I am forced to work with advanced tech people as well when it comes to repairs. I will say this== Just about every MB model you can plant an intel on has problems. The controlers love to go poof. When building a gaming rig we always build AMD simply because out of the box they are the most dependable systems with the lowest RMA rates in the industry. If you set down and bench any of the C2D 2 core chips against the 6400 they Intel are beaten over and over. Yes stock cooling is ok on the Intels but a good cooler takes the 6400 out of the heat race with a good application of greese.

I can say I have "owned" more systems then anyone on this page most likely. I have to burn every rig I put together and I am the last person to touch it before it goes to get boxed up. When it comes to $ to $ performance any idiot with a calculator can see AMD is ahead. Last year we stopped building with MSI, EVGA, BFG, and crossed almost 80% of the possible Intel MBs off the list because of RMA numbers. On top of that even now venders are refusing to support the new Intel on its way on the older boards saying that it is physicly impossible to do it and if done it would create big performance problems. So go ahead suggest to the public that they buy a chip that sits on a MB that is never upgradable in over 50% of the cases. Tell them to OC it as well and join the hudge pile of Intel OCers that have stacks of burnt hardware. From a person that builds for a living I would NEVER tell anyone to buy any Intel hardware at this point. The venders are slacking hardcore on support over the next year and there is no reason for me to have someone buy something that is already yesterdays trash with next to no upgradability.


Thanks man, I had a long day at work and needed a good laugh.
December 12, 2007 6:02:43 PM

I'm biggest AMD Fanboy, but in that comparison i'd go with intel. Only reason ist temperature of 6400. You'll have to get zalmann 9700 or equal, to make him over 3,6 (like i did), but thats too much money. I'd better go for 5000 BE, which work at 3,5 ghz on 60oC. Trust me, 6400 makes my whole comp much more "warmer".
December 14, 2007 3:42:26 AM

To Jerseygamer...where's this shop you work at? Cause I gotta let all my friend know not to buy anything from you!!
Your AMD 6400 x 2 will beat any C2D?? Are you absolutely 1000% sure?

This is a Sandra Arthimetic comparison of my E2180@3.15GHz Vs AMD 6400 x2 / AMD 6000 x2 / Intel X6800 / Intel Q6300


This is a Sandra Multimedia comparison of my E2180@3.15GHz Vs AMD 6400 x2 / AMD 6000 x2 / Intel X6800 / Intel Q6300


Given that they are just benchmark scores........but it does indicate that a 3.15GHz C2D with only 1MB cache is beating an 3.2GHz AMD 6400 x2!!!
For Multimedia ~ Intel @ 3.15GHz is almost 3 times the score of a 3.2GHz 6400 x2!!

I'm not saying dont buy AMD, I just think if you are in it for gaming........there's no need to get a high end CPU but rather put the money into getting a good graphics card
!