Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 6000+ hits 3.4ghz in vista

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 2, 2008 2:27:06 AM

<a href="http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/readtimethis/?ac..." target="_blank"><img src="http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/readtimethis/34...." border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/readtimethis/my3...

With a Vcore of 1.6v and ddr2 of 2.3v my amd 6000+ booted in vista and made it at least 5 minutes into othro's iterations.

sadly it only scored a 5.6 on my vista game score all the rest of my scores were 5.9. :( 
This is on water (with an extra radiator)so it never got above 45c.

take that intel fanboysssss!!
February 2, 2008 2:42:10 AM

My Core 2 E6600 gets a 5.5 at stock 2.4 GHz
February 2, 2008 2:43:22 AM

:(  ...ill go back in my hole now.
Related resources
February 2, 2008 4:05:26 AM

So you went from 3.0GHz to 3.4GHz (13% overclock), cranked your core voltage, are glad you made it 5 minutes in a stress tool (but aren't running that 24/7), and had to use water cooling to do it?

My E8400 does 3.6 GHz (20% overclock, up from 3.0) without manually adjusting the voltage, runs Prime95 as long as I've cared to let it, scores 5.8 on the ever-accurate Vista "Windows Experience Index", and I haven't seen a temp above 41 degrees when using my Scythe Ninja. Running at 3.6GHz lets my memory (DDR2-800) run at a 1:1 ratio with the FSB. Oh yeah, and it's been running at that speed 24/7 since the day before they were officially released.

I compared my 3DMark06 CPU score with a stock AMD 6000+ just for giggles. My system, overclocked to 3.6GHz, gets a CPU score of 3217. The stock 6000+ got 2200 in the review I saw (http://techreport.com/articles.x/11886/6). At stock, I got 2600.

Not meaning to poop on your parade, but your last line ("take that intel fanboysssss!!") just asked for it. :)  Personally, I'm glad that AMD continues to try to push Intel; the competition keeps the prices down, and progress going forward.

Oh, I also noticed in that article that the 6000+ debuted at $400+... Mine was $215 Canadian.

Clint
February 2, 2008 4:09:12 AM

ok ok i was just proud of my overclock
February 2, 2008 5:03:35 AM

Like I said, I really am glad that AMD keeps churning out some competition for Intel. And I'm not really proud of my overclock; all I did was go into the BIOS and change the 333MHz FSB to 400. Not like it took a lot of skill or anything.

From what I've seen on the 6000+, getting even a 13% overclock like yours is pretty darn good (and probably took more patience, skill and possibly even luck than mine). But it's nothing compared to what virtually any contemporary Intel processor can overclock. Heck, with my old E6300, I got a 25% overclock (from 1.86 to 2.33 GHz) with the same ease as my current overclock; go into the BIOS, type in 333 instead of 266 as your FSB speed, and you're done. No mucking with voltages, no radical cooling, nothing.

So enjoy your overclock, and I appreciate you supporting AMD to keep Intel in line. I thought about getting an ATI graphics card on my last round of upgrades just to put some more dollars in their coffers, but ended up going NVidia primarily due to the crappy warranties offered by virtually every ATI partner. It's my first non-ATI card in quite some time.

Clint
February 2, 2008 5:19:33 AM

ryanthesav said:
sadly it only scored a 5.6 on my vista game score all the rest of my scores were 5.9. :( 
This is on water (with an extra radiator)so it never got above 45c.

I applaud your efforts. Fight the man :bounce: 
February 2, 2008 5:45:29 AM

ryanthesav said:
ok ok i was just proud of my overclock

Dude you should be, congrats, dont let the chest pounding get to you.
February 2, 2008 5:57:55 AM

Lol how about my OC? 3.4Ghz e6300. I usually keep it at 3.2Ghz though, because it scares me at 3.4Ghz. It tested stable for an hour in Orthos before I turned it off though.

BTW, stock clocks on this CPU is 1.86Ghz with a 7x multiplier, which I'm pushing at 485 Mhz bus. The highest I want to push it for fear of damaging stuff. I'm only using air, Scythe Samurai.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2008 10:13:09 AM

Ryan - Nice OC for a 6K! :D 
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2008 1:19:34 PM

Nice OC's all round ...

February 2, 2008 1:52:53 PM

o ya, I oc'd my amd 3500 from 2.2 to 2.3 in only 4 hours! now it's like lightning in a bottle baby!!

YA COME GET SOME!
February 2, 2008 2:25:22 PM

Not bad for a 6000+. I've been trying to get my 5000+ BE to 3.4, but 3.31 has been the closest I can get stably. Good Luck!
February 3, 2008 2:35:29 AM

Nice overclock... for AMD :p ...
February 3, 2008 3:08:27 AM

All of you Core 2 users can keep on laughing when your notion of Intel's customer loyalty goes down the drain as it gains a monopoly in the x86 market. Processors will sell for $500 a pop, and you'll have a ball with your Intel Inside logo then eh?
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2008 6:34:21 AM

Harsh ... but true.
February 3, 2008 6:36:55 AM

Yeah that will totally suck. I'm really hoping that AMD can pull through and produce something to bring them back to their Athlon XP and Athlon 64 days. I go with what performs the best for the money, which right now is Intel.

I've been using AMD processors since my K6-2, up to my Slot A Athlon and then I got my 2500+ Barton (Amazing), then I purchased a 3200+ Athlon 64. I was going to get an AM2 4200 for $190 dollars 2 weeks before the Core 2 Duo launched. I'm glad I made the decision to wait, because the 4200+ is no where near as good as my e6300 with it's 3.2Ghz OC.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2008 8:06:35 AM

The E6300 would be a better gaming box than almost all current AMD offerings ... @ 3.2 ... yes.

I think a 3.4 X2 would offer similar performance ... but the E6300 would draw much less power.

One of my AM2's is a 6000+ and Iv'e pushed it a bit ... really not much point as the thermals rise quickly.

That's about the limit of 90nm AMD silicon ... rarely see anything beyond 3.4 on air ... not 24/7 stable anyway.

I had my old 3000+ XP (333 model) @ 2.6 to 2.7 using an old water cooled chiller rig ... aka drink fountain running through a standard water rig.

Condensation a real problem ... below 10 degrees.

bad ol days.

Wifey made me disconnect it as the noise of the fridge unit / fan in our lounge drove her nuts ... heh heh.
February 3, 2008 4:13:35 PM

I had a Athlon XP 1700 at bus 266. I put the bus to 400 and lowered the multiplier to keep it at 1700 rate.

My actual system is a brisbane A64 X2 4400(2.3Ghz).
I put it to 2.8Ghz bus is from 200 to 245. I lowered HT to 600 and my mems to 533 so in the raise of the bus they both reach almost 750 and 630 respectively. Using Nforce 3 here.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2008 4:26:21 PM

Do some LN2/Dry Ice cooling?
March 10, 2008 3:43:12 AM

nice overclock man, ive got mine at 3.2, i want to keep it at 3.4 but im a bit iffy. I know a guy here has his at 3.4 stable on air cooling. But the fact the abient temp in my room goes way up, when i keep my system running 24/7 so i just kick it back at 3.2

nice OC for sure.. im thinking about a liquid cooled future.. we will see.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 10, 2008 1:40:49 PM

Loser777 said:
All of you Core 2 users can keep on laughing when your notion of Intel's customer loyalty goes down the drain as it gains a monopoly in the x86 market. Processors will sell for $500 a pop, and you'll have a ball with your Intel Inside logo then eh?


Its not our fault AMD is lacking in the competition department. We have no control over AMD not having a really good product.

Its all up to AMD and their awesome engineeres(and big mouth VP's) to do that.

We just get the rewards of having the fastest possible CPU out there and get to brag.

My suggestion is to just shut up and leave it be. Whatever happens happens, and Intel wont be a monopoly for long as the US government wont allow it.

BTW a Q6600 stock gets 5.9 in the Vista user index thingy. OC'ed mine to 3GHz no voltage change Prime95 stable 12 hours.
March 10, 2008 2:03:34 PM

Havnt I seen this before? Hmmm....
March 10, 2008 4:06:47 PM

Nice OC ryanthesav. I think the 5000+ are better for OCing as they probably have more headroom (better meaning you pay less and get more). The 6000 seem to have very little overhead for a "black edition".
March 10, 2008 4:49:31 PM

In my opinion the x2 6000+ is not a bad product. It's good enough to run modern games and considering it's a generation behind C2D I think that's pretty commendable performance. In THG's tests it's often up there running with the faster C2D's. I can't say the same for Phenom because I think it was a rushed product and therefore needs extra work.

I buy AMD products because I think they are value for money and they do the job I require of them. AMD also has interests in ATI-based graphics hardware, which includes developing some very nice IGP's complete with HD acceleration (on a lower fabrication process than Intel currently uses).

In certain respects AMD's products are better by design. Intel's current products don't house an onboard memory controller and their quad-core parts are not monolithic. Also unlike AMD, Inter-core communication between processors has to go via the relatively slow FSB instead of a dedicated communication channel. All AMD products have these features as standard.

This is one of the reasons why the University of Texas decided to build one of the fastest super-computers available today, using AMD-based quad-core processors. This immensely powerful system houses 15,000 quad-core processors to achieve an effective 64,000 core capacity. So in certain scenario's where memory and inter-core latencies have to be kept to a minimum AMD does I feel have a superior edge.

I do concede that generally Intel C2D is faster (including the mobile variants), but it took immense resource to manufacture - one could say it was an act of desperation on Intel's part. Without AMD there would be no C2D and prior to this product I was buying AMD because they were faster in a lot of tests and ran much cooler. For example my A64 3200+ (2.0GHz) was faster in most tests than an Intel Pentium 4 running at 3.2GHz. It also ran much cooler and overclocked like a charm (2.6GHz on stock cooling and Vcore).

All of a sudden Core 2 Duo is released and apparently AMD is rubbish..well, by that measure so are previous Intel products. It gets a bit drawn out after a while. If either of these platforms do the job you want them to do and for the price you are willing to pay, I'd say neither are a failure, it just comes down to personal choice. I prefer to concentrate on the software now rather than extol the virtues of each platform, as Vista can make a pig's ear of either ;) 
March 10, 2008 5:04:01 PM

I disagree with a lot you said Wild.

Over-engineering something doesn't make it better. What matters is results, and on the desktop side that is what Intel delivers, and AMD delivers but in smaller quantities.

You say that without AMD there would be no Core 2, but don't forget that the relationship is two-way. Without Intel I'm sure we'd all be touting how fast our Socket-A processors were.

Core 2 wasn't an act of desperation, Phenom was. Core 2 spanked everything that both AMD and Intel had out on the market. Phenom, the rushed, buggy product with no headroom is more likely to be seen as an act of desperation.

AMD has to get its act together!
March 10, 2008 6:04:05 PM

Hi TC, and thanks for your reply.

Quote:
Over-engineering something doesn't make it better. What matters is results, and on the desktop side that is what Intel delivers, and AMD delivers but in smaller quantities.


I don't believe I said that. The 6000+ and 6400+ are merely the last of the A64 line, allowing AMD to draw revenue in advance of a replacement.

I also conceded that generally Core 2 is faster. AMD is able to deliver on price vs. performance ratio, especially at the low end for instance in HTPC scenario's using low-power, low-noise products with HD support integrated into the chipset.

Quote:
You say that without AMD there would be no Core 2, but don't forget that the relationship is two-way. Without Intel I'm sure we'd all be touting how fast our Socket-A processors were.


I don't dispute that without Intel there would be no AMD. Competition is good and at the end of the day it's the consumer who benefits. Historically I had to use AMD because of the virtual Intel monopoly, and with the advance of the superior Alpha bus as used in the Athlon range, I stuck with AMD for the most part.

A lot of people I have spoken to have frowned upon the use of AMD products without looking at the bigger picture. Just because something is faster doesn't automatically mean it's better. You can buy the fastest quad-core component from Intel and achieve negligible gains if all you want to do is browse the web or make use of applications that do not scale well on more than two cores.

Quote:
Core 2 wasn't an act of desperation, Phenom was. Core 2 spanked everything that both AMD and Intel had out on the market. Phenom, the rushed, buggy product with no headroom is more likely to be seen as an act of desperation.


Prior to Core 2 Intel was loosing out; AMD products were out-performing their relatively expensive and somewhat warm, Intel counterparts. Sometimes by a considerable margin. It doesn't mean Intel are bad. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. But I did mention that generally C2D is faster.

I also expressed the view that Phenom is a rushed product and that if AMD is really bad, then effectively so are Intel products prior to the release of Core 2 Duo.

Quote:
AMD has to get its act together!


Well for quite a long time that appeared to be the case with the advent of the A64. It's horses for courses..sometimes one is faster, sometimes the other. Sometimes I am asked to supply C2D systems, other times a client will want AMD. Both are able to make use of cheap, off-the-shelf memory, hard drives and graphics cards and I can't find a bad system between either. It's like comparing two fast cars..one may be faster than the other but it doesn't mean to say the other is a slouch and there is more than one criteria on which a particular selection is made. If I sell someone an expensive C2D system on the premise that 'it's faster' then from a systems design perspective I'd call that a bad move because I haven't taken all criteria into account.

Bye.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 10, 2008 6:25:54 PM

wild9 That chipset was just released and was planned on by ATI for relase with both Intel and AMD. But now its AMD only.

Also Core2 is technically older than K8. Core2 is based off of the Pentium M which is based off of the Pentium III which draws its roots from the Pentium Pro.

But the X2 series in cost is cheap yes but they are not going to keep up for long. After a few more years they will become almost useless in some arenas as there will be more demand for multiple cores and power efficiency beyond what they can even offer.
March 10, 2008 6:38:37 PM

I agree and disagree with a few things the both of you said. Without Intel, AMD would never have been the copycat x86 company they were. The relationship IS 2 way. However AMDs "over engineering" was just good engineering plain and simple. The bus technology is something Intel is simply forced to do to advance technology. AMDs scale extremely well in server situations because of it. As far as desktop performance goes, Intel is #1 for now because they perform better. Next year it may be AMD, we don't know. AMD is #1 in innovation plain and simple. Intel is #1 in implementation.

TC, AMD has it's act together. Any company that can survive what they have gone through with C2D and the TLB fiasco is doing something right internally. AMDs CPUs are not slow! Intels CPUs are fast. Phenoms do 3 instructions per cycle, Intel C2Ds do 4 instructions per cycle. Do the math.

Also I would like to point out Intel's overclocking dynasty may end come their monolithic design and huge cache in Nehalem. Time will tell but overclocking shouldn't be the measure of a good CPU. Nehalem will most likely not clock worth a damn (it's die size is ginourmous) but it will remain the performance king simply because it will do more instructions per cycle than any AMD.
March 10, 2008 6:45:56 PM

Dumb thread.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 10, 2008 7:00:07 PM

wingless said:
I agree and disagree with a few things the both of you said. Without Intel, AMD would never have been the copycat x86 company they were. The relationship IS 2 way. However AMDs "over engineering" was just good engineering plain and simple. The bus technology is something Intel is simply forced to do to advance technology. AMDs scale extremely well in server situations because of it. As far as desktop performance goes, Intel is #1 for now because they perform better. Next year it may be AMD, we don't know. AMD is #1 in innovation plain and simple. Intel is #1 in implementation.

TC, AMD has it's act together. Any company that can survive what they have gone through with C2D and the TLB fiasco is doing something right internally. AMDs CPUs are not slow! Intels CPUs are fast. Phenoms do 3 instructions per cycle, Intel C2Ds do 4 instructions per cycle. Do the math.

Also I would like to point out Intel's overclocking dynasty may end come their monolithic design and huge cache in Nehalem. Time will tell but overclocking shouldn't be the measure of a good CPU. Nehalem will most likely not clock worth a damn (it's die size is ginourmous) but it will remain the performance king simply because it will do more instructions per cycle than any AMD.


I disagree with you one a few things. AMD is not the #1 in innovation. Truly there is none. Don't try IMC as Intel had that along with a integrated GPU on die. Both companies have made huge strides for the CPU arena. But in truth neither company can top eachother in CPU innovation as each one has had something great each generation and yes that includes Netburst.

Now outside of the CPU arena Intel is a huge innovator. AMD hasn't been but may change now that they have ATI. But that will be something we have to wait to see.
March 10, 2008 7:58:39 PM

Quote:
Also Core2 is technically older than K8. Core2 is based off of the Pentium M which is based off of the Pentium III which draws its roots from the Pentium Pro.

That's not true... getting me confused!

The K8 core (2003) is a close derivative of K7 (2000). Core 2 (2006), however, was a ground-up redesign borrowing ideas from both Pentium 4 (2000) and Pentium Pro/Pentium III/Pentium M (1996/1998/2001?). And unfortunately, the K10 core (2007) is still a pretty close derivative of K8. I hope you understand that's why I keep saying that Phenom is outdated at the core. There is a strong K7 signature in some of the K10 performance benches; I surely couldn't say the same of PIII's in Core 2 benches.

The above concerns the cores themselves. On the architecture side, there is a nice history of leapfrogging. In the late 90s, Intel had a plain FSB. AMD brought the double-pumped FSB from Alpha to the K7. Then Intel moved straight to a quad-pumped FSB. Later, AMD introduced Direct Connect. Now Intel is poised to release a faster version of direct processor interconnects.

Definitely a two-way thing going on in the architecture side. I only wish it were like that on the cores, but it seems incredibly difficult to design a good core. AMD takes all these baby steps, and Intel has multiple competing design teams as if there were a problem guessing the properties of the final design.

Quote:
Also I would like to point out Intel's overclocking dynasty may end come their monolithic design and huge cache in Nehalem.

I don't see how. Die size and cache die size may impact yield, which might indirectly slow overclocking, along with a more complicated design, but none of these are showstoppers on a mature process. Nehalem will still use bulk CMOS with the HK/MG materials adjustment for 45nm; you've seen the o/c potential of this process in its infancy.

What's happened with A64 overclocking may be two-fold:
1) AMD's process is SOI, which is known for hard frequency ceilings,
2) AMD has less process R&D and design integration, which leads them to exploit their headroom much harder than Intel does, leaving less apparent o/c room.

By the way, quad-core Penryn is 820 million transistors, and Nehalem is around 730 million. Also, the Nehalem die is apparently smaller than the Barcelona die. Barcelona overclock limitations are frequently attributed to a weak ("defective") third core, along with the obvious growth in architectural complexity from K8 to K10.
March 10, 2008 8:42:29 PM

wild9 said:
It's horses for courses..sometimes one is faster, sometimes the other.



Thanks for your response Wild. It's nice to see someone argue the AMD point of view without throwing insults (Ms. Bytch).

I agree that it WAS neck and neck, however, AMD was supposed to best Core 2 when they release K10, but they failed to do that. That means that Intel will probably be the next one to come out with a new arch that will just stomp AMD.

That's the issue with the K10 launch, that was their response to Core 2, and they've used all their headroom and still can't touch even a Q6600.


I do agree that AMD has more offerings in the low-end, which makes them very appealing. If I wasn't into overclocking and was looking for a dual-core, a 6000+ would be very tempting.
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2008 9:19:54 PM

oooooohhhhhhhhh..........

I have a Celeron D 315 @3.6Ghz (60%OC) and runs at 55C under full load (got to admit, that system is literally screaming, I would say about 35db). Runs Prime 95 for ~6hrs. :ouch:  :sol: 

Care to guess how I did it?

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=272070


Btw, How come Intel doesn't have those ridiculously high multipliers now?
March 10, 2008 9:28:49 PM

Quote:
In certain respects AMD's products are better by design. Intel's current products don't house an onboard memory controller and their quad-core parts are not monolithic. Also unlike AMD, Inter-core communication between processors has to go via the relatively slow FSB instead of a dedicated communication channel. All AMD products have these features as standard...

...Just because something is faster doesn't automatically mean it's better.
Interesting, Core2 being faster than anything AMD has out now doesn't make it automatically better. And at the same time AMD's IMC is automatically better than chips that rely on the slow (and old) FSB technology. Even though the FSB is "fast enough" on the desktop.

Quote:
This is one of the reasons why the University of Texas decided to build one of the fastest super-computers available today, using AMD-based quad-core processors. This immensely powerful system houses 15,000 quad-core processors to achieve an effective 64,000 core capacity. So in certain scenario's where memory and inter-core latencies have to be kept to a minimum AMD does I feel have a superior edge.
I'm not 100% positive, but I think there is a slight difference between a desktop computer and a supercomputer.
March 10, 2008 10:13:41 PM

Shadow703793 said:
oooooohhhhhhhhh..........

I have a Celeron D 315 @3.6Ghz (60%OC) and runs at 55C under full load (got to admit, that system is literally screaming, I would say about 35db). Runs Prime 95 for ~6hrs. :ouch:  :sol: 

Care to guess how I did it?

Photoshop? :kaola: 
March 11, 2008 1:59:36 AM

After you hit 3Ghz it does not matter which company makes your CPU....all home/small office and game software is -still- P4 rated.

Extra CPU/GPU stats are jusk bragging rites and mean nothing in the real world.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2008 2:51:44 AM

ZOldDude said:
After you hit 3Ghz it does not matter which company makes your CPU....all home/small office and game software is -still- P4 rated.

Extra CPU/GPU stats are jusk bragging rites and mean nothing in the real world.


Tell that to the charts for Supreeme Commander. 3GHz E8400 vs 3GHz 6000+.



A little thing called IPC changes a lot. In fact the whole thing that AMD had during the K8 days was price/performance/per watt and it was due ti higher IPC at the same clock vs Intel.
March 11, 2008 6:11:41 AM

Zolddude is right for games that are played at higher resolutions; the cpu seems to play little role in frame rating. I currently have a 24" monitor with a resolution of 1920x1200. The frame rating power is strictly dependent on my graphics card. Therefore overclocking my 6000+ to 3.4 was just for fun and very little for function.
March 11, 2008 6:17:24 AM

ZOldDude said:
After you hit 3Ghz it does not matter which company makes your CPU....all home/small office and game software is -still- P4 rated.





:lol:  What game are you playing, Wolfenstien 3D?
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2008 7:32:53 AM

ryanthesav said:
<a href="http://s63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/readtimethis/?ac..." target="_blank"><img src="http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/readtimethis/34...." border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/readtimethis/my3...

With a Vcore of 1.6v and ddr2 of 2.3v my amd 6000+ booted in vista and made it at least 5 minutes into othro's iterations.

sadly it only scored a 5.6 on my vista game score all the rest of my scores were 5.9. :( 
This is on water (with an extra radiator)so it never got above 45c.

take that intel fanboysssss!!


LOL my Q6600 sits at 3.4ghz 1.4250v air cooled, 39*c - 59*c temp range, maxes out every vista score, *shrugs* nothing special, just wanted to keep the vcore down.
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2008 7:47:33 AM

Loser777 said:
All of you Core 2 users can keep on laughing when your notion of Intel's customer loyalty goes down the drain as it gains a monopoly in the x86 market. Processors will sell for $500 a pop, and you'll have a ball with your Intel Inside logo then eh?


LOL when AMD gets off there a$$ and brings out a faster processor at the right price i might concider buying it, untill then, im riding with the blue side.

Nice bulldozer btw ;) 
March 11, 2008 8:26:45 AM

wild9 said:

A lot of people I have spoken to have frowned upon the use of AMD products without looking at the bigger picture. Just because something is faster doesn't automatically mean it's better. You can buy the fastest quad-core component from Intel and achieve negligible gains if all you want to do is browse the web or make use of applications that do not scale well on more than two cores.

How amusing, I made a very thread about that a few weeks back (with regard to the K10 vs. Core 2 architecture). I was pretty much flamed by all of the Intel fanboys, even though I was just trying to point out teh design of the AMD core was better, implementation less so... :lol: 
Oh well, what can you do!
March 11, 2008 9:23:51 AM

CNeufeld said:
Not meaning to poop on your parade, but your last line ("take that intel fanboysssss!!") just asked for it. :)  Personally, I'm glad that AMD continues to try to push Intel; the competition keeps the prices down, and progress going forward.

Clint


Nowadays, the X2 6000 CPU's are like Presslers compared to the C2D. I can't see bothering with them. That said, I'm an AMD fan who's waiting for a Phenom 9750 on an AMD Crossfire board that will also accept the 45nm Deneb 3.0 or 3.2's when they arrive.

When I get a new LCD monitor for 1680 x 1050 this weekend, I'll see if I'm still CPU limited, but this X2 is the last one I'll buy. Phenom may not be perfect but it's a better CPU per core than any Windsor or Brisbane.

LukeBird said:
How amusing, I made a very thread about that a few weeks back (with regard to the K10 vs. Core 2 architecture). I was pretty much flamed by all of the Intel fanboys, even though I was just trying to point out teh design of the AMD core was better, implementation less so... :lol: 
Oh well, what can you do!


I want to play games, watch DVD's and (soon) Blurays; watch unlicensed anime fansubs and just basically not have slowdowns in games while Kaspersky and Azureus run in the background. I don't mind being a second class CPU citizen because I'd rather buy one new motherboard in May for the 9750 and then not have to buy a new motherboard and RAM next year for Deneb (I'm sure Deneb will work on AM2+ and not require AM3; AMD's not Intel in that department :lol:  ). I don't overclock and AMD's motherboard and CPU prices work for me better than Intel's.
March 11, 2008 9:34:37 AM

LukeBird said:
How amusing, I made a very thread about that a few weeks back (with regard to the K10 vs. Core 2 architecture). I was pretty much flamed by all of the Intel fanboys, even though I was just trying to point out teh design of the AMD core was better, implementation less so... :lol: 
Oh well, what can you do!


Well, I'm a practical sort of person. The design may be good, but if the implentation sucks, then that's the bottom line, isn't it? Things in this world aren't won or lost on paper, but on execution.

When you actually get down to the stuff that matters, AMD has worse thermals, worse clock for clock performance, and WAY worse overclockability (the killer for me). People with 9600 BEs get excited if their chip reaches 2.7GHz on air, Q6600 users laugh at such a pitiful overclock.

The only way AMD is better is that it is a 'native' quad core. Apparently AMD fanboys prefer whoppers to double cheeseburgers. To each their own. :lol: 
March 11, 2008 9:43:13 AM

epsilon84 said:
Well, I'm a practical sort of person. The design may be good, but if the implentation sucks, then that's the bottom line, isn't it? Things in this world aren't won or lost on paper, but on execution.

When you actually get down to the stuff that matters, AMD has worse thermals, worse clock for clock performance, and WAY worse overclockability (the killer for me). People with 9600 BEs get excited if their chip reaches 2.7GHz on air, Q6600 users laugh at such a pitiful overclock.

The only way AMD is better is that it is a 'native' quad core. Apparently AMD fanboys prefer whoppers to double cheeseburgers. To each their own. :lol: 

Indeed, I particularly liked your last point! :lol: 
Indeed, Intel vs. AMD is just a case of swings and roundabouts, a couple of years ago (and for the preceding 2/3 before that) AMD were on fire with their CPU's, and they seemingly became complacent over the design (much like I think Nvidia have now) and Core 2 was obviously a big shock for them.
Anyhow, back to your comments. I would have been quite happy to hear that as a response to my thread that I started regarding K10 & Core 2, but as I said, most responses were just flaming-blinkered-fanboy crap... The funniest ones being where I was told my opinion was wrong! :lol:  :lol:  Brilliant, can't beat the 10 year old's for trying! :lol: 
March 11, 2008 9:57:08 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Don't try IMC as Intel had that along with a integrated GPU on die.


I believe you're referring to the Northbridge part a motherboard's chipset. Current Intel processors do not contain an IMC.
March 11, 2008 1:36:00 PM

sence every one is posting their O/C. I've got 2.9GHz.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2008 1:42:02 PM

wild9 said:
I believe you're referring to the Northbridge part a motherboard's chipset. Current Intel processors do not contain an IMC.


Um no. I mean Intels Timna. It started development in 1990 if I remember correctly and was also supposed to have a GPU in the CPU package. But it was cancelled. But still Intel had an IMC in it before AMD ever did.
!