Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X2 6400+ BE, C2D E6750, X2 5200+, or X2 5000+ BE

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Cooling
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 4, 2007 2:22:10 AM

Okay, I am choosing between these four CPUs:

1. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition Windsor Core (with Rosewill Z1 Cooler)
2. Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @2.66Ghz LGA 775 (with Rosewill Z1 Cooler)
3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Brisbane Core (with ThermalTake Blue Orb Cooler)
4. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition (with ThermalTake Blue Orb Cooler)

I am a AMD guy, so I really would like to stick with an AMD CPU. It is hard to CPU shop without the constant yellings about C2D procs though, so I included the E6750 in my decision. I dont like the way C2D "feel" though. Some of my friends have them and It may score good in benchmarks... but In general purpose work it seems to... lag. It really may just be my bias though. So, I will be more than happy to listen to anything anyone has to say.

The whole cooler thing is basically I have a budget and I have a Rosewill Z1 Cooler on me already. So, I can either go cheaper proc and better cooler for better Overclocking, or Standard cooling and better proc.

All suggestions and advice are welcome! Thank you!

More about : 6400 c2d e6750 5200 5000

December 4, 2007 2:44:42 AM

Out of the list of ones you have I would get the 5000 black edition... the reason is that it is cheap for one and it is 65 nm for two. The smaller manufacturer spec will allow you to overclock to the moon and back. Also it's unlocked as you may already know.

But if I were you I would get the phenom!
December 4, 2007 3:01:32 AM

The C2D. Nothing else comes close. Overclock that baby past 3Ghz and watch it scream! With decent cooling it's not hard to pass 3.6Ghz. :)  With a decent board based on an Intel chipset you'll easily be able to upgrade to a 45nm dual or quad core CPU when it suits you as well.
December 4, 2007 3:03:50 AM

Xpyrofuryx said:
Okay, I am choosing between these four CPUs:

1. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition Windsor Core (with Rosewill Z1 Cooler)
2. Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @2.66Ghz LGA 775 (with Rosewill Z1 Cooler)
3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Brisbane Core (with ThermalTake Blue Orb Cooler)
4. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition (with ThermalTake Blue Orb Cooler)

I am a AMD guy, so I really would like to stick with an AMD CPU. It is hard to CPU shop without the constant yellings about C2D procs though, so I included the E6750 in my decision. I dont like the way C2D "feel" though. Some of my friends have them and It may score good in benchmarks... but In general purpose work it seems to... lag. It really may just be my bias though. So, I will be more than happy to listen to anything anyone has to say.

The whole cooler thing is basically I have a budget and I have a Rosewill Z1 Cooler on me already. So, I can either go cheaper proc and better cooler for better Overclocking, or Standard cooling and better proc.

All suggestions and advice are welcome! Thank you!


xpyrofuryx,

I was looking at 2 procs recently, the 6000+, the E6750. When I did comparisons between those two using the tomshardware CPU charts, the differences in almost all cases was 10% or less, however the E6750 was about 46 dollars more to buy. Also when looking at motherboards, good ones, not crap ones the AMD boards generally run 20-40 dollars cheaper. So I was def not going with the E6750 mainly because I didn't think the extra 80 bucks was worth a mere 10% performance increase that I would never see. Then I just watched for the price of the 6000+ to drop until one day I saw the article on the new 5000+ BE. I was sold. When overclocked to 3.23 GHZ this processor comes very close to the performance of the 6000+ but at a price of 30 dollars cheaper. So that is what I bought. I have had it for 2 weeks and I have it running at 3.23 GHZ with the multiplier at 16 and the core voltage running .1 higher then stock. Runs great and I couldn't be happier with my system. I bought the ASUS M2N-E motherboard and 2 gig of ADATA Vitesta DDR2800 5-5-5-18 memory.
December 4, 2007 3:55:33 AM

KCSureShot said:
xpyrofuryx,

I was looking at 2 procs recently, the 6000+, the E6750. When I did comparisons between those two using the tomshardware CPU charts, the differences in almost all cases was 10% or less, however the E6750 was about 46 dollars more to buy. Also when looking at motherboards, good ones, not crap ones the AMD boards generally run 20-40 dollars cheaper. So I was def not going with the E6750 mainly because I didn't think the extra 80 bucks was worth a mere 10% performance increase that I would never see. Then I just watched for the price of the 6000+ to drop until one day I saw the article on the new 5000+ BE. I was sold. When overclocked to 3.23 GHZ this processor comes very close to the performance of the 6000+ but at a price of 30 dollars cheaper. So that is what I bought. I have had it for 2 weeks and I have it running at 3.23 GHZ with the multiplier at 16 and the core voltage running .1 higher then stock. Runs great and I couldn't be happier with my system. I bought the ASUS M2N-E motherboard and 2 gig of ADATA Vitesta DDR2800 5-5-5-18 memory.


I'm sorry, but I have to point out that this reasoning is horribly flawed. You're comparing price-to-stock performance and then overclocking. If that was your intention in the first place, an E6550, or even lesser E4xxx and E21xx would have cost the same or cheaper and have solid 20%+ performance when clocked mildly to 3Ghz+.

But I don't want to argue that. You're happy with your PC and that's all that matters.

So to the point, I personally would go with the E6750 and clock it to hell, but the 5000+ BE is still an attractive chip at its price if you really want to stick with AMD.
December 4, 2007 4:08:31 AM

Out of those it is really no comparison. I would go with the E6750. It will be better at stock, and the OC'ing will be unmatched. You will be able to reach 3.2ghz with your cooler with ease, but I anticipate you can reach higher to the 3.4 - 3.6ghz range depending on case airflow, positioning and room temp. Really no comparison imo. Also, I can promise you that your feeling of "lag" has to be your bias. I own a system with a 6000+ @ 3.2ghz and the system in the sig and their is no comparison. My system in the sig blow it out of the water in all load times, and it DEFINITELY responds to my commands much quicker. My Intel system is much more stable on the OC. @ 3.2ghz I cannot get the 6000+ to pass 24+ hours of orthos, and it runs much warmer and requires more voltage. The only reason why it is still clocked at that speed is because the system is used mostly by my roommate and he likes the number, and thinks that I am crazy for wanting a perfectly stable system...he thinks its just fine to have a few restarts here and there I guess lol. Sorry for the rant I just thought I would give my two cents. I can vouch for both systems in saying that they are both very fast, but the Intel main rig is much faster in every aspect that we use it for...mainly gaming/editing. Hope this helps.

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 4:28:41 AM

Out of the choices given, it comes down to the C2D E6750 and X2 5000+ BE IMO, and only because you are an AMD fan. ;) 

The E6750 is heads and shoulders above any AMD chip in regards to overclocking. You should comfortably be able to run it in excess of 3.5GHz with good cooling... some people are getting close to 4GHz on air, though it's all luck of the draw I guess.

The X2 5000+ BE is nice in that it has an unlocked multi, is relatively cheap, and I've seen these go to 3.3 - 3.4GHz on air, which is pretty good for a 65nm X2 (which, rather oddly, generally don't clock as high as 90nm, go figure...).

However, even in this price range there are better options from Intel, should you choose to explore those. The equivalently priced E4500 has a good a chance of hitting 3.4 - 3.5GHz with good cooling, which would put it ~25% faster than the X2 5000+ BE max overclock due to the IPC advantage.

Look, AMD is not a bad choice if you don't overclock due to competitive pricing, but they simply cannot compete in terms of overclocking. They run much hotter and lack the clockspeed headroom to even challenge the low end C2Ds, such as the E21x0 line, let alone the higher end E4x00 or E6x50 series.

Yes, you read that correct. Even a $75 E2140 will overclock to equivalent, if not higher performance levels than *ANY* X2, and that includes the X2 6400+ BE.

This is the hard truth from an overclocking perspective, which may not be to your liking as an AMD fan, but hopefully you are smart enough to not let your bias cloud judgement of the bigger picture at hand.
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2007 4:48:42 AM

Between the four, I'll take the E6750.
December 4, 2007 4:49:42 AM

runswindows95 said:
Between the four, I'll take the E6750.


+1
December 4, 2007 5:23:29 AM

As your "an AMD guy" then you may already have the MB and ram so get the $125 AMD 5000 BE (boxed w/3 yr warrenty) with the unlocked multi and just drop it in.
Most people get 3.2 without a voltage boost,some get 3.4 but I really can't see any rl gain with any brand CPU in games running over 3Ghz.
December 4, 2007 5:34:06 AM

Keep in mind that the 5000 is only as fast as the 6400 when its pushed to the limit or just below it.

IF!!!! You pick up the 790fx MB series floating around you can plant a 6400 on it and not have to worry about replacing your entire rig for your next update. Buy an Intel atm and you will be replacing your mb, ram, cpu and if you own the current Nvidia cards you will need a new one for the next dx10.

I dont care what anyone says. For gaming and most things common to household use a system with 4gigs, x2 6400, and one of the 3870 cards on the 790fx MBs will last a very long time. Just x-fire or plant a new cpu on it over the next 3 years. The Intel system to match those benchmarks would cost a good amount more and will be totaly usless come the next upgrade.
December 4, 2007 5:42:34 AM

jerseygamer said:
Keep in mind that the 5000 is only as fast as the 6400 when its pushed to the limit or just below it.

IF!!!! You pick up the 790fx MB series floating around you can plant a 6400 on it and not have to worry about replacing your entire rig for your next update. Buy an Intel atm and you will be replacing your mb, ram, cpu and if you own the current Nvidia cards you will need a new one for the next dx10.

I dont care what anyone says. For gaming and most things common to household use a system with 4gigs, x2 6400, and one of the 3870 cards on the 790fx MBs will last a very long time. Just x-fire or plant a new cpu on it over the next 3 years. The Intel system to match those benchmarks would cost a good amount more and will be totaly usless come the next upgrade.


Considering Phenom hasnt shown up so well I am not sure where you are getting this. 1.) I would never crossfire, so my option would be to just sell my current card and change to a newer/faster video card over the years and if phenom is what you are refering to, which I am pretty sure you are then I will just get a G0 Q6600 and run it around 3.2ghz for the next few years and be better off. Oh yea and I suppose I could spend $75 and get another 2gb of my memory.

If I was building a new system I would build one with an X38 or P35 chipset so I could 1.) run crossfire and 2.) support penryn so I could be even better off all while being able to placate to your crossfire theory as well. So...what was your point again?!?

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 5:50:24 AM

Wow... that's a lot of opinion for the original writer to not have responded yet... well... imo i'd go with the AMD and save my money!
December 4, 2007 11:00:59 AM

I might really look into the e6750, need to look at some chipsets and future proof of it. I see a lot of votes for the 5000+ BE though, shouldnt the 6400+ BE be faster? Or is the 65nm of it really important?
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2007 11:14:08 AM

The 5000+BE can easily be OC'ed to reach the 6400+ BE's speed, hence the 5000+BE being a better choice.
December 4, 2007 12:02:41 PM

If you are looking at OC'ing,

The E2160 is quite cheap and will beat the BE 5000+ and BE64000+ when they are all OC'd. The price difference more than makes up for the price difference.

If you are really concerned about performance, the E6550 oe E6750 will provide the most performance.

However, If you want AMD because you want AMD even if it costs more for less performance than the E2160 and really gets smacked around by an OC'd E6760 for a little more money, that is your choice.

For AMD, my choice would be the BE5000+ since it comes quite close to performance of the 6400+ for less money and cooler. Especially since performance is not the first priority.
December 4, 2007 12:17:56 PM

wouldn't the 6400+BE have better upgrade possibility because then I can get a better cooler down the road
December 4, 2007 1:10:03 PM

5000+ is cheaper, thus you can spend more on cooling and the upgrade doesn't really matter either way.

I don't know what it means but in the 5000+ vs 6000+ discussion are some links to other sites about the performance of the 2xxx intel chips. Better look at it too.
December 4, 2007 1:30:56 PM

what about maybe going for the e2160 or e4400 with a monster cooler?
i also already bought my ram, is crucial ballistix ddr2 800mhz enough to keep up with the OCing of these C2Ds?
December 4, 2007 1:31:38 PM

Xpyrofuryx said:
wouldn't the 6400+BE have better upgrade possibility because then I can get a better cooler down the road


The 6400+ BE is a 90 nm CPU, while the 5000+ BE (which I own) is a 65 nm CPU. The temp differences are dramatic. The OC possibilities are about the same. If you choose an AMD CPU, go for the 5000+ BE.
December 4, 2007 2:17:12 PM

zenmaster said:
If you are looking at OC'ing,

The E2160 is quite cheap and will beat the BE 5000+ and BE64000+ when they are all OC'd. The price difference more than makes up for the price difference.

If you are really concerned about performance, the E6550 oe E6750 will provide the most performance.

However, If you want AMD because you want AMD even if it costs more for less performance than the E2160 and really gets smacked around by an OC'd E6760 for a little more money, that is your choice.

For AMD, my choice would be the BE5000+ since it comes quite close to performance of the 6400+ for less money and cooler. Especially since performance is not the first priority.


I have seen others bring the E2160 up as well as other C2D procs. The problem with this is you have to buy a 150+ dollar MB to be able to overclock this chip and have it be stable. I have read the reviews and they say "You should be able to do this with a 100.00 motherboard, however we went with this board that cost 160.00" Look people there is a reason why they went with the 160.00 board, because they know it is required to have it run stable. I'm not about to trust that you "Should be able to do it with a 100 Mother board" Intel has been the overclocking king lately until AMD put out the G2 stepping 65nm 5000BE. That is a overclockers dream, unlike the intel chips you don't have to touch the FSB, pushing in many cases your RAM and Video BUS up which can cause instability issues. The price of the 5000BE at 100 or under in some cases makes it a serious choice. Oh and that E6750 isn't going to blindly run circles around my 6000+ or 5000+BE overclocked, yeah it's faster, 10-15%, hmmm lets see thats like 6-10 FPS higher in a game that say I'm getting 60 FPS in and you get 66-10 FPS, big woop...you can't see a difference with the naked eye at anything over 35 FPS anyway. I'm cool with people that like Intel, I seriously considered going to the C2D, but I have been buying AMD for 10 years now and have been very happy, and i have to tell you my Pentium D (Fake Dual core) at work SUCKS balls bad. My AMD systems run flawlessly and rock solid.

Also I would like to point out that if AMD dies and gos the way side, guess what everyone is going to be paying a serious premium to Intel for chips and life will suck.
December 4, 2007 2:31:56 PM

My dear,...tech freaks,....Intel really does have the upper hand on the cpu market,....but by no means,...does that mean that their,....processors are ample in value!....if yr a gammer,...unless u have yr,...HD 2900XT 1gb x2 fired up,....u can forget about using the entire bandwidth of whatever processor u have hocked up,....unless that is,......its a p4 (piece of crap),...! If u want to see yr games,...nice,...and ready to impress yr parents,....buy a simple,...5200 black edition,...and spend a bit more on yr video card,...! Oh and don't forget the raptorx,.....essential for any gamers system!
December 4, 2007 2:48:17 PM

Would Go With The E6750 Nice Cpu Oc's Well
December 4, 2007 3:12:55 PM

so what if I go with the x2 5000+ BE with a $40-50 zalman or thermaltake cooler OCd to like 3.2ghz and coupe it with a ati 3870 and eventually dual crossfire 3870s
December 4, 2007 3:16:54 PM

Xpyrofuryx said:
Okay, I am choosing between these four CPUs:

1. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black Edition Windsor Core (with Rosewill Z1 Cooler)
2. Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @2.66Ghz LGA 775 (with Rosewill Z1 Cooler)
3. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Brisbane Core (with ThermalTake Blue Orb Cooler)
4. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition (with ThermalTake Blue Orb Cooler)

I am a AMD guy, so I really would like to stick with an AMD CPU. It is hard to CPU shop without the constant yellings about C2D procs though, so I included the E6750 in my decision. I dont like the way C2D "feel" though. Some of my friends have them and It may score good in benchmarks... but In general purpose work it seems to... lag. It really may just be my bias though. So, I will be more than happy to listen to anything anyone has to say.

The whole cooler thing is basically I have a budget and I have a Rosewill Z1 Cooler on me already. So, I can either go cheaper proc and better cooler for better Overclocking, or Standard cooling and better proc.

All suggestions and advice are welcome! Thank you!


If you are going to overclock and cost is not an issue get the E6750. If cost is an issue and you are not going to overlcock I would get this chip.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz Socket AM2 65W Processor


December 4, 2007 3:18:15 PM

That is a nice system. Yes, Intel has the upper hand right now, but you will be able to play demanding games on that system. Just make sure your motherboard supports Cross Fire.
December 4, 2007 5:04:28 PM

KCSureShot said:
I have seen others bring the E2160 up as well as other C2D procs. The problem with this is you have to buy a 150+ dollar MB to be able to overclock this chip and have it be stable. I have read the reviews and they say "You should be able to do this with a 100.00 motherboard, however we went with this board that cost 160.00" Look people there is a reason why they went with the 160.00 board, because they know it is required to have it run stable. I'm not about to trust that you "Should be able to do it with a 100 Mother board" Intel has been the overclocking king lately until AMD put out the G2 stepping 65nm 5000BE. That is a overclockers dream, unlike the intel chips you don't have to touch the FSB, pushing in many cases your RAM and Video BUS up which can cause instability issues. The price of the 5000BE at 100 or under in some cases makes it a serious choice. Oh and that E6750 isn't going to blindly run circles around my 6000+ or 5000+BE overclocked, yeah it's faster, 10-15%, hmmm lets see thats like 6-10 FPS higher in a game that say I'm getting 60 FPS in and you get 66-10 FPS, big woop...you can't see a difference with the naked eye at anything over 35 FPS anyway. I'm cool with people that like Intel, I seriously considered going to the C2D, but I have been buying AMD for 10 years now and have been very happy, and i have to tell you my Pentium D (Fake Dual core) at work SUCKS balls bad. My AMD systems run flawlessly and rock solid.

Also I would like to point out that if AMD dies and gos the way side, guess what everyone is going to be paying a serious premium to Intel for chips and life will suck.


You are wrong on so many fronts I don't know when to start. First of all, who says you need an expensive mobo to overclock? There are budget P35 boards under $100 that overclock just as well as a $200 mobo, but lack high end features such as Firewire or RAID support.

The X2 5000+ BE is under $100 now? It's $130 on Newegg still, do you have a link of sub $100 prices?

Actually, the E6750 heavily overclocked WILL run circles around your 'mighty' X2 6000+. Perhaps not in games, as they tend to be more GPU limited at higher resolutions, but in anything CPU intensive the E6750 will dominate. It's not even close.

OK, so Pentium D sucks, I agree, we all know that, but who said anything about Pentium D? Why even bring it up?

All your post proves is that you are another blind AMD fanboy who refuses to face the truth.
December 4, 2007 5:21:48 PM

epsilon84 said:
You are wrong on so many fronts I don't know when to start. First of all, who says you need an expensive mobo to overclock? There are budget P35 boards under $100 that overclock just as well as a $200 mobo, but lack high end features such as Firewire or RAID support.

The X2 5000+ BE is under $100 now? It's $130 on Newegg still, do you have a link of sub $100 prices?

Actually, the E6750 heavily overclocked WILL run circles around your 'mighty' X2 6000+. Perhaps not in games, as they tend to be more GPU limited at higher resolutions, but in anything CPU intensive the E6750 will dominate. It's not even close.

OK, so Pentium D sucks, I agree, we all know that, but who said anything about Pentium D? Why even bring it up?

All your post proves is that you are another blind AMD fanboy who refuses to face the truth.


LOL, spoken like a true intel drone. Talking out of of the lower region just makes you sound stupid. No one over clocks(to any serious degree) using cheap boards because you run into stability issues not to mention the lack of some over clocking features like unlocked PCI bus so you can over clock your FSB without affecting other devices on the board.

I don't disagree that the E6750 is faster then the 6000+ or 5000+BE, I have never said that it wasn't. My point is that the difference in performance for that extra 80-100 dollars after the motherboard and Processor is not that significant. Have you actually ready any reviews or do you just utter nonsense because you think it sounds impressive.

Sure the E6750 can be pushed to close to the same level of performance as the X6800 Conroe, but to do so you have to increase both CPU voltage and FSB which would require a higher end motherboard to ensure stability between FSB, Video Bus and memory Bus. This would also require more expensive after market cooling as testing this over clock on an open air system, as the review I read did, doesn't equal real life where you have you motherboard mounted in a enclosed case where air flow is much tighter and heat doesn't exit the area so fast. Keeping in mind that this would also mean shortening the life of the hardware more so then with the 5000+BE. All that said you are going to see 10-20% gains over the 5000+BE over clocked. Is that worth the extra cost? I guess that is up to the individual. I personally don't think it is. If I was made of money then sure I would be out there buying a QX6850 and dual 8800 GTX Ultra's, but unfortunately like most people money doesn't fall off of trees at my house.
December 4, 2007 5:28:28 PM

Oh I forgot to comment on your remark regarding the price of the 5000+BE..two weeks ago tiger direct had one with a free PC game call of Juarez for 108 shipped. I saw another site that offered it for 99.00. Those deals are no good now, and yes currently at newegg it is 129.00 shipped. Sorry I haven't looked at the price in the last two weeks because I bought mine already and didn't need to pay that much attention, point being that obviously there are deals on and off right now for this processor so chances are you can get it for close to 100 dollars.

have a nice day
December 4, 2007 5:34:41 PM

will man bear pig hurt me if I get 2 HD3870's in crossfire mode ????

December 4, 2007 5:39:08 PM

KCSureShot said:
hmmm lets see thats like 6-10 FPS higher in a game that say I'm getting 60 FPS in and you get 66-10 FPS, big woop...you can't see a difference with the naked eye at anything over 35 FPS anyway.


You are incorrect. It is actually 60 FPS+ that you cannot tell the difference with the naked eye. If you cannot tell the difference then you are in need of glasses. Also, remember what I told you earlier. I am aware that me paying ~$100 my mobo was a good deal, but it is still under $150 and their are several under $150 that are more than capable of OC'ing these chips to the high speeds and keep them VERY stable. The fact that you say that you need a $150+ mobo is just play wrong. Sry if this hurts, but I know of no other way to put it...please stop spreading this filth.

P.S. I thought I would mention. (Know that I own BOTH a 6000+ @ 3.2ghz and my current rig in the sig, BOTH with the same video card and 2gb of ram) sure my 30% faster proc may only present me with much faster loading times, 10 - 15 max FPS on a game that I am getting 60+ in already, but where it counts is my percentage difference of more FPS that I am getting over the other in the MINIMUM FPS area, which is what really counts. Its great that in Crysis I can run @ 60 + FPS in a building, but when I go outside and my min FPS drops to around 30. It is much better to have that 30 fps than say 20 - 25 fps. The lower you go in fps...the more of a difference 1 frame makes in smoothness of gameplay. If you don't understand this then all arguments are negated and hopefully no one will attempt to explain this to you any more because you flat out will not understand, whether it be by choice or not.

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 5:46:06 PM

jnava121 said:
will man bear pig hurt me if I get 2 HD3870's in crossfire mode ????


No, he will become your computers protector from all evils that may intend to destroy such a masterpiece. lol

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 5:55:18 PM

3Ball said:
You are incorrect. It is actually 60 FPS+ that you cannot tell the difference with the naked eye. If you cannot tell the difference then you are in need of glasses. Also, remember what I told you earlier. I am aware that me paying ~$100 my mobo was a good deal, but it is still under $150 and their are several under $150 that are more than capable of OC'ing these chips to the high speeds and keep them VERY stable. The fact that you say that you need a $150+ mobo is just play wrong. Sry if this hurts, but I know of no other way to put it...please stop spreading this filth.

P.S. I thought I would mention. (Know that I own BOTH a 6000+ @ 3.2ghz and my current rig in the sig, BOTH with the same video card and 2gb of ram) sure my 30% faster proc may only present me with much faster loading times, 10 - 15 max FPS on a game that I am getting 60+ in already, but where it counts is my 10 - 15 more FPS that I am getting over the other in the MINIMUM FPS area, which is what really counts. Its great that in Crysis I can run @ 60 + FPS in a building, but when I go outside and my min FPS drops to around 30. I it is much better to have that 30 fps than say 20 - 25 fps. The lower you go in fps...the more of a difference 1 frame makes in smoothness of gameplay. If you don't understand this then all arguments are negated and hopefully no one will attempt to explain this to you any more because you flat out will not understand, whether it be by choice or not.

Best,

3Ball


Glasses wouldn't make a difference since were not talking about clarity here but video lag. Sure some people may notice very subtle differences between 30 and 60 FPS and that is in cases where people have high DPI gaming mice that run them at ultra high sensitive rates so they move the mouse and the screen has to redraw super fast. In these case I would agree that you want to be over 50 FPS to avoid video lag. In normal gameplay 30 FPS is more then sufficient. I am talking AVG 30FPS, not High.

Every over clocking article I read both on tomshardware and Anandtech always test over clock using more expensive boards usually 130 dollars and up. You may get lucky and find one that works well for less. I will admit it is possible.

As for the min and max FPS in games like Crysis, you are correct. However you will find that CPU affects these numbers in very minimal ways, your GPU is going to make the difference there. Point in case, I just upgraded from an Athlon FX-55 single core proc running at 2.6 GHZ to a 5000+BE overclocked to 3.23GHZ and I had my 8800GT in the system on both of them. My frame rates went from AVG 28 FPS at 1680X1050 with 3/4 settings on high and a few on medium in Crysis to just right around 33 FPS AVG. My lows only fluctuated 2-3 FPS as well.
December 4, 2007 6:09:49 PM

KCSureShot said:
Glasses wouldn't make a difference since were not talking about clarity here but video lag. Sure some people may notice very subtle differences between 30 and 60 FPS and that is in cases where people have high DPI gaming mice that run them at ultra high sensitive rates so they move the mouse and the screen has to redraw super fast. In these case I would agree that you want to be over 50 FPS to avoid video lag. In normal gameplay 30 FPS is more then sufficient. I am talking AVG 30FPS, not High.

Every over clocking article I read both on tomshardware and Anandtech always test over clock using more expensive boards usually 130 dollars and up. You may get lucky and find one that works well for less. I will admit it is possible.

As for the min and max FPS in games like Crysis, you are correct. However you will find that CPU affects these numbers in very minimal ways, your GPU is going to make the difference there. Point in case, I just upgraded from an Athlon FX-55 single core proc running at 2.6 GHZ to a 5000+BE overclocked to 3.23GHZ and I had my 8800GT in the system on both of them. My frame rates went from AVG 28 FPS at 1680X1050 with 3/4 settings on high and a few on medium in Crysis to just right around 33 FPS AVG. My lows only fluctuated 2-3 FPS as well.


So now your are lowering it to $130. That is understandable and I believe $130 is a reasonable price for any motherboard as I have paid over that one time in my life and didn't feel that the value of the board was any better than my $100 - $130 motherboards bought for years.

As for the FPS. I and I am willing to bet that most people here. If possible will play with settings to try to ge their average FPS to be around or greater than 60 fps. When I play UT3...I can literally see and feel the difference between 55 and 60 fps and it affects my ability to play the game greatly as I need to be fast and accurate. In crysis, it probably wouldn't affect my actual performance as much, but none the less I can see the slowdown and blurriness that is less than 60 fps.

That is unfortunate that you saw such a small change in frames from one processor to the next. I do not have personal experience on my rig, hence my speed has not altered nor have the parts, but on my friends rig that I built. He had it clocked @ 2.4ghz (stock) on his E6600 and his min FPS granted was on 1680x1050, 2x AA, and all high were around 25 fps. I bumped his CPU speed up to 3.2ghz, stabilized the system and he was running @ 35fps on his minimum frames. I would consider that a HUGE boost and would change the game completely for me.

Now I didn't mean to single out Crysis in my original example, it was just that...an example. This is across the board in nearly all games, but mostly applies to people with high end GPU's such as most enthusiasts who hang around these forums.

Case and point: C2D > A64 X2 while OC'ed in all levels and in several stock as well. There are many clear situations where one is better than the other and many that are not so clear. You are trying to make the not so clear go in favor of one company and make it seem clear when in fact it is not. 1.) A64 x2 is not always better for the money and in many cases not all that much better for the money. (if someone can argue that the performance difference isn't that much to justify cost, I can also argue that the performance difference is enough to justify cost and in many cases can be supported by fact, but comes in the end to what makes up your personal preference, which I will respect.) 2.) Price to performance ratio is not everything in life.

I realize some people have bias, and I am not saying that you do. But it is only fair to look at each side of the equation and see it for what it truly is and not what every review site or bias tech person has to say about it. I have personally compared the 2, (which is the best way to find out information between 2 products) and the C2D is flat out a better processor and leads to a better overall platform.

I will vary rarely recommend a lesser and older platform or just processor to someone unless the price difference is almost double that of the performance percentage difference...If they can afford it, if not, and the budget is low. Then we look to see what will best meet their needs at best cost. This is the best way to evaluate a situation, make a plan, and execute it in order to see that someone you know or yourself receive the very best product that they can.

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 6:22:23 PM

3Ball said:
So now your are lowering it to $130. That is understandable and I believe $130 is a reasonable price for any motherboard as I have paid over that one time in my life and didn't feel that the value of the board was any better than my $100 - $130 motherboards bought for years.

As for the FPS. I and I am willing to bet that most people here. If possible will play with settings to try to ge their average FPS to be around or greater than 60 fps. When I play UT3...I can literally see and feel the difference between 55 and 60 fps and it affects my ability to play the game greatly as I need to be fast and accurate. In crysis, it probably wouldn't affect my actual performance as much, but none the less I can see the slowdown and blurriness that is less than 60 fps.

That is unfortunate that you saw such a small change in frames from one processor to the next. I do not have personal experience on my rig, hence my speed has not altered nor have the parts, but on my friends rig that I built. He had it clocked @ 2.4ghz (stock) on his E6600 and his min FPS granted was on 1680x1050, 2x AA, and all high were around 25 fps. I bumped his CPU speed up to 3.2ghz, stabilized the system and he was running @ 35fps on his minimum frames. I would consider that a HUGE boost and would change the game completely for me.

Now I didn't mean to single out Crysis in my original example, it was just that...an example. This is across the board in nearly all games, but mostly applies to people with high end GPU's such as most enthusiasts who hang around these forums.

Case and point: C2D > A64 X2 while OC'ed in all levels and in several stock as well. There are many clear situations where one is better than the other and many that are not so clear. You are trying to make the not so clear go in favor of one company and make it seem clear when in fact it is not. 1.) A64 x2 is not always better for the money and in many cases not all that much better for the money. (if someone can argue that the performance difference isn't that much to justify cost, I can also argue that the performance difference is enough to justify cost and in many cases can be supported by fact, but comes in the end to what makes up your personal preference, which I will respect.) 2.) Price to performance ratio is not everything in life.

I realize some people have bias, and I am not saying that you do. But it is only fair to look at each side of the equation and see it for what it truly is and not what every review site or bias tech person has to say about it. I have personally compared the 2, (which is the best way to find out information between 2 products) and the C2D is flat out a better processor and leads to a better overall platform.

I will vary rarely recommend a lesser and older platform or just processor to someone unless the price difference is almost double that of the performance percentage difference...If they can afford it, if not, and the budget is low. Then we look to see what will best meet their needs at best cost. This is the best way to evaluate a situation, make a plan, and execute it in order to see that someone you know or yourself receive the very best product that they can.

Best,

3Ball


I agree 100% that people should look at both sides. I mainly will express the AMD side because I prefer them over Intel, not because they outperform intel as I have stated all along Intel does have the faster processors, but because in every case that I have been looking to upgrade, which is usually once a year, I have found that the price/performance advantage has been on the AMD side of things. I also am approaching all of this from the budget builder perspective. Also understand that other then Video Cards, I rarely will buy the latest greatest. I'm usually buying last years high end stuff, simply because I can't afford to keep up with the new stuff out there. But again like I said when it comes to video cards like the 8800GT I will go for that because, a computer builder I may be, but a gamer I am first and foremost.

P.S as to your FPS point in online gaming, I totally agree, I was approaching this argument from an average gamer's perspective, IE someone that might play Half Life 2 or Crysis on their local machine, not online. I like to max my FPS as well, again though I'm also using a Logitech G9 3200 DPI gaming grade mouse so I like my FPS to be able to keep up with my quick mouse movements. But back in the early days of Counterstrike when I played with a 1st generation GeForce card I was owning people the same as the last time I played Counterstrike(I dont' play this hack fest game now) with my Radeon 9800 Pro and my FPS were twice as high. Of course todays games demand much more power from the old machine to be playable.
December 4, 2007 6:27:08 PM

While we're on the subject I figured I ight ponder this too. Would it be worth it to throw up the extra cash to get a Quad-Core system? I don't wanna be left behind liek I was with my last build. The only thing I see now is finding one at an "acceptable" price meaning like $250 or under. Also would I now have a bottleneck with my GPU? At first im going to have only one HD3870.
December 4, 2007 6:27:22 PM

Everybody is going nuts...

The 5000+ is the best bet hands down... First off if you want to play games the spyder platform is a gamers dream. Why wouldnt you get a system that has every part made by the same person... no worrying about compatability and instability. Get yourself a 790FX board and a 5000+ black and overclock to the moon and you'll be very happy. Especially when in January you can get the ATI x2 card and a faster quad core from AMD.

Yeah intel might have faster processors but they charge MORE! The E6750 cannot run circles around the 6400+ either... They are about the same in all benchmarks... look at toms charts. They both overclock well too. They are both good choices. The E6750 may be a tad faster but once again it's a tad more expensive!!!

If you are an AMD fan boy than stick with AMD. You are getting what you pay for and that definitley isnt a bad thing. AMD is priced to sell. If I was building a system right now it would be all AMD. I would get the 790FX and phenom paired with 2 3870s.
December 4, 2007 6:30:12 PM

KCSureShot said:
I have seen others bring the E2160 up as well as other C2D procs. The problem with this is you have to buy a 150+ dollar MB to be able to overclock this chip and have it be stable. I have read the reviews and they say "You should be able to do this with a 100.00 motherboard, however we went with this board that cost 160.00" Look people there is a reason why they went with the 160.00 board, because they know it is required to have it run stable. I'm not about to trust that you "Should be able to do it with a 100 Mother board" Intel has been the overclocking king lately until AMD put out the G2 stepping 65nm 5000BE. That is a overclockers dream, unlike the intel chips you don't have to touch the FSB, pushing in many cases your RAM and Video BUS up which can cause instability issues. The price of the 5000BE at 100 or under in some cases makes it a serious choice. Oh and that E6750 isn't going to blindly run circles around my 6000+ or 5000+BE overclocked, yeah it's faster, 10-15%, hmmm lets see thats like 6-10 FPS higher in a game that say I'm getting 60 FPS in and you get 66-10 FPS, big woop...you can't see a difference with the naked eye at anything over 35 FPS anyway. I'm cool with people that like Intel, I seriously considered going to the C2D, but I have been buying AMD for 10 years now and have been very happy, and i have to tell you my Pentium D (Fake Dual core) at work SUCKS balls bad. My AMD systems run flawlessly and rock solid.

Also I would like to point out that if AMD dies and gos the way side, guess what everyone is going to be paying a serious premium to Intel for chips and life will suck.


KSure,

It appears as if you have very little understanding in what is required to OC the 2xxx Series of CPUs.
These chips ship so that the default FSB for the Motherboard is 200Mhz compared to 333Mhz used for the E6750 and higher chips. Exteme Overclocks usually involve taking the motherboard to very hight speeds such as 500+.

Now, the Actual Chipsets used in the "Less Expensive" and "Extremely Expensive" motherboards are the same exact chipsets. What may vary is the inclusion of additional features such as FireWire, Built-in Wireless, etc.. etc....

If I were to set the the FSB of one of these boards to a the Std FSB of 333Mhz, the E2160 is already running at 3.0Ghz. I could increase the FSB a very minimal 10% more and have my chip runnnig at a comfortable 3.3Ghz.

However, I share your concern about AMD going under.
That is why instead of asking posters to buy slower AMD chips for more money than the faster 2xxx seriers chips,
I have started a Website asking that anyone who buys the E2xxx chips to send money to the "SaveAMD" fund.
This money will be used to assist in proping up AMD until they are able to release a new chip that is competitive.

http://SaveAMDNOW.Org/Donate.html

December 4, 2007 6:31:03 PM

KCSureShot said:
I agree 100% that people should look at both sides. I mainly will express the AMD side because I prefer them over Intel, not because they outperform intel as I have stated all along Intel does have the faster processors, but because in every case that I have been looking to upgrade, which is usually once a year, I have found that the price/performance advantage has been on the AMD side of things. I also am approaching all of this from the budget builder perspective. Also understand that other then Video Cards, I rarely will buy the latest greatest. I'm usually buying last years high end stuff, simply because I can't afford to keep up with the new stuff out there. But again like I said when it comes to video cards like the 8800GT I will go for that because, a computer builder I may be, but a gamer I am first and foremost.

P.S as to your FPS point in online gaming, I totally agree, I was approaching this argument from an average gamer's perspective, IE someone that might play Half Life 2 or Crysis on their local machine, not online. I like to max my FPS as well, again though I'm also using a Logitech G9 3200 DPI gaming grade mouse so I like my FPS to be able to keep up with my quick mouse movements. But back in the early days of Counterstrike when I played with a 1st generation GeForce card I was owning people the same as the last time I played Counterstrike(I dont' play this hack fest game now) with my Radeon 9800 Pro and my FPS were twice as high. Of course todays games demand much more power from the old machine to be playable.


Well it appears we have come to somewhat of an agreement and the only way we can even everything out is for me to pwn you in some online gaming festivities. lol, well at least its nice to see someone else seeing it for how it should be. Touche Sir! I suppose its back to my own personal problem at hand...I cant seem to find a way to fix the economy as a whole...damn finals are starting to kick my ass. Oh and if you or anyone else finds me a 3870 let me know...I needz it! lol

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 6:43:27 PM

I get my HD3870s from Best Buy, VisionTek 512mb HD3870 for $214.99. My brother works at Best buy so I get them for about $160 (not exactly sure of price yet, but huge discount) and I actually get them lol
December 4, 2007 6:45:33 PM

zenmaster said:
KSure,

It appears as if you have very little understanding in what is required to OC the 2xxx Series of CPUs.
These chips ship so that the default FSB for the Motherboard is 200Mhz compared to 333Mhz used for the E6750 and higher chips. Exteme Overclocks usually involve taking the motherboard to very hight speeds such as 500+.

Now, the Actual Chipsets used in the "Less Expensive" and "Extremely Expensive" motherboards are the same exact chipsets. What may vary is the inclusion of additional features such as FireWire, Built-in Wireless, etc.. etc....

If I were to set the the FSB of one of these boards to a the Std FSB of 333Mhz, the E2160 is already running at 3.0Ghz. I could increase the FSB a very minimal 10% more and have my chip runnnig at a comfortable 3.3Ghz.

However, I share your concern about AMD going under.
That is why instead of asking posters to buy slower AMD chips for more money than the faster 2xxx seriers chips,
I have started a Website asking that anyone who buys the E2xxx chips to send money to the "SaveAMD" fund.
This money will be used to assist in proping up AMD until they are able to release a new chip that is competitive.

http://SaveAMDNOW.Org/Donate.html


BIOS is what contains your settings for what you can and cannot change my friend. The other factor on stability does directly have to do with the quality of the components on the motherboard. If the motherboard is built using cheaper components like capaciters then their tolerance levels are much lower. There is a reason, why more expensive boards are more expensive, you pay for higher quality components IE electrical parts on the board. Of course you also pay more for chipset features like SLI but in that same realm IE SLI chipsets you can see price differences in Motherboards ranging in the 100 dollar range, why is that? I have already answered above. I'm sorry I really don't want to rip you but when you accuse me of having little understanding of OCing and the commence to speak ignorantly....

try to be more like 3Ball, talk with some knowledge.

oh 3Ball, my gaming name in Day of Defeat Source and Team Fortress 2 is DD*SureShot. Battlefield 2 and 2142 it's GWS*eatmesureshot...

Always like to play other gamers.


December 4, 2007 6:54:17 PM

Xpyrofuryx said:
I get my HD3870s from Best Buy, VisionTek 512mb HD3870 for $214.99. My brother works at Best buy so I get them for about $160 (not exactly sure of price yet, but huge discount) and I actually get them lol


Wow that is one hell of a deal if you ask me. lol, Talk about "bang for your buck!"

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 6:57:33 PM

3Ball said:
Wow that is one hell of a deal if you ask me. lol, Talk about "bang for your buck!"

Best,

3Ball


Ha, yeah, thats cheaper than a HD3850 lol. Anyway what do you guys think about Quad-Coring it?
December 4, 2007 6:59:44 PM

KCSureShot said:

oh 3Ball, my gaming name in Day of Defeat Source and Team Fortress 2 is DD*SureShot. Battlefield 2 and 2142 it's GWS*eatmesureshot...

Always like to play other gamers.


I will add you when I get home...I am having some real problems with trying to dissect this, what appears to be doctorate level economics paper, which we need to know and understand for the final. I really cant wait to be done with this since I will have my minor in economics completed and be done with it for the rest of my life...(eco classes anyways!) lol

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 7:02:48 PM

Xpyrofuryx said:
Ha, yeah, thats cheaper than a HD3850 lol. Anyway what do you guys think about Quad-Coring it?


Are you talking about going quad crossfire or something like a Q6600. lol, a Q6600 is something out of the price range of what we have been talking about (but none the less I would take it over all the other choices), but I would wait and see what the scaling is like of the Quad Xfire once they have drivers to support them. To my understanding the current drivers dont have support, but that may have changed in the 7.11's...im not sure. Anyone know? If so it would be interesting if we could find a review for those, since you can get the cards for so cheap...if the scaling is good and you have the cash...I would say go for it. If for nothing else...bragging rights lol, I know I would be envious.

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 7:26:49 PM

3Ball said:
Are you talking about going quad crossfire or something like a Q6600. lol, a Q6600 is something out of the price range of what we have been talking about (but none the less I would take it over all the other choices), but I would wait and see what the scaling is like of the Quad Xfire once they have drivers to support them. To my understanding the current drivers dont have support, but that may have changed in the 7.11's...im not sure. Anyone know? If so it would be interesting if we could find a review for those, since you can get the cards for so cheap...if the scaling is good and you have the cash...I would say go for it. If for nothing else...bragging rights lol, I know I would be envious.

Best,

3Ball


Well at first I meant like a Q6600, but now that you mention it I should seewhen i get a mobo if I can get a motherboard with the Quad-Crossfire capabilities to it, because with my low price tag to a HD3870 it should be good for when games start requiring more I can pop a second, then a third, then a fourth and by the time I need a 5th ill be ready for a new rig.

But I meant basically is a Quad-Core chip worth shoving out the extra money. It will make me have to wait till Christmas to finish the PC all the way (CD drives, ect.) but would it be worth it? Last rig I built I decided to go with a fast single-core instead of the Dual-Core, I regret that decision because Dual-Cores are now the ****.
December 4, 2007 8:53:07 PM

Xpyrofuryx said:
Well at first I meant like a Q6600, but now that you mention it I should seewhen i get a mobo if I can get a motherboard with the Quad-Crossfire capabilities to it, because with my low price tag to a HD3870 it should be good for when games start requiring more I can pop a second, then a third, then a fourth and by the time I need a 5th ill be ready for a new rig.

But I meant basically is a Quad-Core chip worth shoving out the extra money. It will make me have to wait till Christmas to finish the PC all the way (CD drives, ect.) but would it be worth it? Last rig I built I decided to go with a fast single-core instead of the Dual-Core, I regret that decision because Dual-Cores are now the ****.


Well I think you basically answered you question in this response. I feel the same thing will happen with your dual core that happened to the single core (though maybe not at as fast of a rate). If I had the cash at the time when I bought this proc I would have gotten the Quad. Despite what other people may say the Quad core does give you benefits even if the game doesn't support quads as dual cores did when games didn't support that. On top of that games are starting to support it and from here on out I would expect them 2. So if that is an actual plausible option then I would definitely go with it.

P.S. I was also burned by the fact that I did not get the X2 3800+. I went with the 3700+ San Diego because of how well it OC'd. Later when the prices of the 3800+ X2's dropped and I was able to grab one I was very upset that I didnt get one to begin with since even at 200mhz slow my OS ran better and my games that didnt even support dual core ran better as well. Live and learn I suppose!

Best,

3Ball
December 4, 2007 8:58:10 PM

Hmm, Okay. I'll have to recalculate my budget and see if I definately can, but I think I'll try that if my budget allows. Would be really nice to have a full Spider system. 790FX mobo, HD3870 GPU, and Phenom X4 CPU. Now just to decide wether Phenom or Q6600...
December 4, 2007 9:30:17 PM

Personaly, if I would be short on cash and want the best bang for the money, AMD is the best choice (especially if you arent OC person). If money isnt the issue, Intell all the way. You pay extra but get the best performance at the moment.
December 4, 2007 9:33:52 PM

GEt the phenom 9500... you can upgrade to an FX later!

Trust me when I say this... YOU want a spyder platform. Also get the MSI platinum 790FX. I belive you'll be able to go quad crossfire.

I dont think that the Q6600 is any different in price/performance. It's like 13% faster and only 13% more expensive... Once again you are getting what you pay for with either chip. Intel doesnt have the market people... Just because AMD isnt in the green doesnt mean people arent buying their stuff.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!