Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I grab an AMD 6400+ while they're still on the shelves?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Should I grab an AMD 6400+ while they're still on the shelves?

Total: 29 votes (3 blank votes)

  • Go for it.
  • 50 %
  • Get something else (specify)
  • 39 %
  • Wait for ____ (specify)
  • 12 %
April 2, 2008 11:30:54 PM

I'm going to upgrade my oldschool AMD 3500+. I'll sell my old rig, so I'm not tied to my old AM2 mobo. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6400+ are going to be gone in the next few weeks, and I'm thinking of ordering one before they're gone. I know they suck for overclocking, but I'm not worried about that. I just want to run it at stock. Should I pick one up? Or should I get something else? The $170 price tag of it fits my budget just nicely. Is there anything else within my budget that would be better? Should I grab an e8400 instead? (I would wait a few weeks for the price to go down to retail of ~$185)

More about : grab amd 6400 shelves

April 2, 2008 11:35:25 PM

Well, you would see a very noticable difference. What do you use your computer for?
April 2, 2008 11:40:09 PM

I will be using my computer for gaming on 1680x1050 res (new monitor). Apart from that I will be compiling maps (just compiled one and it took 14 hours... wtf? Definitely need to cut that down a bit.), converting full DVDs in Linux, Video, audio, and graphic editing, et cetera.
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2008 12:04:24 AM

Well it depends on your budget. I think you'd be upgrading to a better CPU, but you might need to upgrade your GPU if you want a better gaming experience. Now for the compiling, I'm not sure if the application that your using is geared for more than 1 core, so going to 2 cores will help but to what extent I don't know. If you want to spend the least, I'd stick with your rig and just upgrade the CPU/GPU to improve gaming/compiling. If you want to start from scrach, that would be a different story. It's up to you.
April 3, 2008 12:20:52 AM

I just upgraded from a 4800 x2 939 slot to a 6400 x2 and am very happy with the way my games have responded.
Might be the upgraded ram though. Less studering in games like pro street and unreal tournament 3.
I only upgraded because my stupid motherboard blew and I couldn't get one i liked in a 939.
April 3, 2008 12:22:12 AM

Heh, well I'm already obligated to sell my rig right now unfortunately... and I bought a whole bunch of corsair PSUs, RAM, and crap because I'm getting lots of $$ in rebates from them. Also, my old mobo was from right when AMDs first AM2 CPUs came out, meaning that it does not support dual core processors. So upgrading as is is outta the question.

For map compiling, I will be using Hammer editor (vvis,vrad, etc.). I will be using others, but I don't recall what they are at the moment, though Hammer will be the most used.... for video converting I use JetAudio, and for ripping I use Linux AcidRip. Neither of the video crap is important.

Well I'll be getting $300-ish when I sell my old rig (RAM, Mobo, Monitor, CPU, Case, PSU, some of the DVD drives...) and then maybe $100 for my graphics card which I will sell later.

I know the AMD 6400 is pretty old tech, but I will be putting it in an AM2+ mobo, and probably use it for 2-3 years. AM3 processors will work in there too, so I'm ready for when Bulldozer comes out.

I am aware that the 7900GS is going to be a major weak point of my system, and will upgrade it to a 8800 GTS 512MB a month or so after I get my new rig and stuff. Right now I'm just looking for the best processor I can get.
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2008 12:48:19 AM

I'm tempted to get the 5000+ Black Edition and overclock it. (to a x2 6400+ at least-seems to be the norm). Smaller die size (65nm) instead of the 90nm for the 6400+.
April 3, 2008 2:48:34 AM

if you want to go cheap id recommend the 5000+ BE for $84

overclock it to 3.2ghz like computertech82 said, and you'll basically have a 6400+ for half the price
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2008 3:07:43 AM

Another vote for the 5000+BE and a good aftermarket cooler.
April 3, 2008 3:17:18 AM

but that would still cost $84, plus $60 (Zalman cooler plus shipping) = $140. Sure it's $30 cheaper, but it wouldn't be as fast. Overclocking does not add cache, and when I'm doing serious workloads that take 10+ hours to complete, the heat given off by it would be ridiculous.
April 3, 2008 3:27:33 AM

I agree on the 5000+ BE and OC it to 6400+ speeds reallly simple. I own the 6000 clocked at 3.3 stable no probs with nitrogon HSF. as for ur HSF get Artic Cooler for less than half the cost of the zalman http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835185125

and u should be one happy dude!! U wont reget it
I dont think heat will be much of an issue once u use a proper after market HSF. my 6000+ @ 3.3 has never hit 60 underload after lil more than 12 hours but i have 133 CFM fan blowin on it. I didnt use AS5 i used MX-2
April 3, 2008 4:03:16 AM

Wait, with a good cooler, couldn't I at least get the AMD 6400+ to at least 3.4 or 3.5? Obviously the 5000+ overclocks better, but wouldn't I still get mileage with the AMD 6400+
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 3, 2008 4:27:54 AM

I think you have to get a good chip to OC that high. It's probably possible, but there is no guarantee. You would need to be lucky and have a good mobo/chip to reach 3.5GHz. That said, if you feel like getting the 6400+, get it! It does have the bigger cache, correct? It should be a little faster c for c than a brisbane.
April 3, 2008 4:35:10 AM

Sorry, but I don't know much about OC'ing :p . I have no idea if 4.0 Ghz is possible, or 3.4 ghz is possible. The highest I've ever overclocked is like my 2.2 GHz AMD 3500+ to 2.21 ghz :D . Do you think if I had a good CPU fan, like the Zalman 9500A, and a good cooling on my graphics (8800GTS has good cooler), 2 120MM case fans and a 140 MM case fan... you think I could hit 3.5?
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2008 4:59:32 AM

I'd be going for the 5000+ BE and $25 cooler for $60 cheaper than the 6400+. All you have to do is turn up the muliplier to get to 3-3.1 ghz and no voltage adjustement. Your temperatures are going to be cooler, since your at stock voltage and are also running a 65nm chip over the 90nm chip that the 6400+ is built on. You could even go with a cheapy cooler and still do 3-3.1 ghz on the 5000+ BE. I'd just make sure you get a AM2+ mobo that will accept the Phenom and you should be fine. You could take the extra $60 difference and use that towards other parts. That is what I'd do if I were in your shoes.

$25 shipped!!
ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 64 Pro 92mm CPU Cooler - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
April 3, 2008 5:12:12 AM

the 6400+ will outperform an oc'd 5000+ BE, but only sightly
id recommend an aftermarket cooler for either of them, as the 6400+ runs hot even at stock speeds, i know i have one.
as for max oc'ing potential, iv had my 6400+ BE up to 3.6ghz stable, but with the vcore it needs to stay that high i dont recommend it. i also heard of a few people oc'ing their 5000+ BE upwards to 3.4ghz, but most settle for 3.2ghz
April 3, 2008 5:20:40 AM

Hmmm.... I'll think about it.... good advice. Thanks.
April 3, 2008 10:12:14 AM

What motherboard are you getting? I recommend a 780G. It's the best budget chipset out there. It would take any X2 you want, and you might want to consider a cheaper B3 for compiling. The big thing is it will be ready for Deneb come December.

You might want to be tied to an Nvidia motherboard, because of your card choice, but if you can wait a couple of months, the 4870 will be out. It's expected to reach 3870x2 performance with just one GPU. There will also be a 4870x2 as well.



April 3, 2008 11:47:12 AM

Get the e8400 its much better!
Don't listen to what these people say just google all the facts yourself!
April 3, 2008 11:50:12 AM

I got the freezer64 cooler for my 5000+. Temps are reading in the low 40C on a 1.5v OC. The cooler is $20 but is huge!. Also 3.2ghz is not that easy to get on the 5000+. It needs the right touch.
April 3, 2008 11:58:18 AM

It's slightly out of your price range, but I would find out if your software supports Quad Cores. Then when the Intel Q6600 price drop hits on April 20th, pick one up.

I was lucky enough to grab one for $179 last week but usually its gonna be closer to $240 unless you find a good sale.
April 3, 2008 12:46:25 PM

I would recommemd a Q6600 if you can get one cheap. Especially for the job, more cores is more preferable. Or a B3 stepping Phenom (yes thats right I recommended Phenom). Both are over your budget but worth the extra.

I don't believe AM3 cpu's will be AM2+ compatible. The idea behind AM3 is the use of ddr3. AM2+ uses ddr2. If I remember correctly the IMC cannot switch between the 2. The IMC has to be set to use either ddr3 OR ddr2 it cannot do both. Hence the 939 to AM2 switch. So I wouldn't base any descision to go with AMD on that.
a c 129 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b À AMD
April 3, 2008 1:00:39 PM

I would wait until next week. The 6400 is old-tech. Wait another week for AMD's next offering and see how it affects prices (Intel's too). Since gaming isn't the only thing you do, I would suggest avoiding anything more stressful than a mild o/c. Next week, no matter what you choose, you will get something way better than your old 3500+. You can wait forever, of course, but Intel is also about to drop its prices, I think on 4/20. If you can wait that long, you might be able to get something a notch or two better than will fit your budget right now.
April 3, 2008 6:13:20 PM


gpippas wrote :


I would recommemd a Q6600 if you can get one cheap. Especially for the job, more cores is more preferable. Or a B3 stepping Phenom (yes thats right I recommended Phenom). Both are over your budget but worth the extra.


I don't believe AM3 cpu's will be AM2+ compatible. The idea behind AM3 is the use of ddr3. AM2+ uses ddr2. If I remember correctly the IMC cannot switch between the 2. The IMC has to be set to use either ddr3 OR ddr2 it cannot do both. Hence the 939 to AM2 switch. So I wouldn't base any descision to go with AMD on that.


AM3 CPUs will be compatible with AM2 boards, but AM2 cpus will not be compatible in AM3 boards. AM3 chips have memory controller for DDR2 and DDR3, but AM2 boards have their memory controller on the Northbridge I believe....

Wikipedia Says!:

AMD has confirmed that AM3 processors will work in AM2 motherboards; however, AM2 processors will not be compatible with AM3 motherboards. This is because AM2 chips lack the proper memory controller for DDR3 memory (since current generation AMD chips have the memory controller directly on the processor itself, instead of on the Northbridge), and AM3 processors will have a memory controller that supports both DDR2 and DDR3 (though it lacks the capability of running both at the same time).

I was thinking of getting the e8400, but it's $40 more. I'm definately going to wait until April 20th to see what Intel does price wise... but we'll see. Just for my info, does the e8400 OC well? How about the Q6600? Also, will the overclock stay within Linux? Or will it only work under Windows? (I obviously know nothing of overclocking.) The 4 cores will definately be nice for video encoding and such. I fail to understand why the Phenoms do not at least perform closely to the Q6600. The Phenom 9600 is only .2Ghz less then it.
April 3, 2008 6:35:49 PM

Not only is Phenom Slower Clock for Clock, it will not OC nearly as high.
This will result in a very significant clock difference.

In many cases raw CPU power may not be a big deal, but if you have processes taking many many hours to complete now, it is clear that serious processing power is very important.

OC's should work just as well in Linux as Windows.
It's not really OS Related.

Do you have a MicroCenter or Fry's Near you?
They tend to have good In-Store Only sales on the Q66000.

April 3, 2008 6:58:17 PM

Unfortuantely there are no Mircocenters in Washington as far as I know, and the nearest Fry's is way out there. It would cost more gas then the money I would save.
April 3, 2008 7:04:24 PM

You might want to take a look at e6750 with a P35 mobo. It will be right about even , maybe a little faster than the 6400x2. It definately has higher overclocking potential too.

April 3, 2008 7:27:51 PM

doomsdaydave11 said:

... AM3 chips have memory controller for DDR2 and DDR3, but AM2 boards have their memory controller on the Northbridge I believe.....

Nope, AM2 chips have a builtin DDR2 memory controller.
April 3, 2008 7:28:57 PM

The e6750 is about the same as the 6400x2, but it's $20 more. Intel has pretty sucky motherboards in my opinion though. I think I'm just going to wait until April 20th until some price drops occur. If the e8400 goes down to its retail price (~$185), then I'll probably buy it. I'll get it with a stock ($10 extra from OEM isn't much), and then when I feel I need more power, I'll upgrade it to a Zalman. The e8400 is currently the second fastest dual core processor out there right now, so I think I'll be happy.... now to find a motherboard.
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2008 7:51:57 PM

Gigabyte DS3R/Abit IP35/Asus P5k are the ones that I'd look at. There are all around the $130 price range, which is very common for Intel based mobo's. You could go with their cheaper sibilings around the $100 price range.
April 3, 2008 8:13:09 PM

If you have a Fry's near you check the newspaper for the weekly CPU/MB combo sales.
I bought a few 6000+ combo's for $154....put the CPU in the trunk of the car and went back in to return the MB.
The CPU ends up costing $111 USD and OC's to the same place the 6400+ does and with stock volts.
The 6000+ is basicly the same as an Optron.

The benifit is you can use the old MB and ram rather than buy all new stuff.
The -OEM- E8400 is $199 at Newegg (+ Tax and shipping) and $219 at Tigerdirrect (no Tax but shipping).
Both CPU's are dual core and stock 3Ghz...but the 6000+ saves you $80-110 on the CPU alone.

After you hit 3Ghz with a modern CPU it does not matter what company made it in real life.
It may in benchmarks but not in real life usages...at 3Ghz no GFX card is held back by the CPU.

You can use the same method with Intel combo's from Fry's if you wish and get your Intel CPU far below any online price.
April 3, 2008 10:52:38 PM

ZOldDude said:
...put the CPU in the trunk of the car and went back in to return the MB.

Thanks for the tip - I didn't realize you could do that, so I tend to make "throwaway" PCs out of the ECS MBs and spare parts lying around and sell them on Craigslist.

ZOldDude said:
..
After you hit 3Ghz with a modern CPU it does not matter what company made it in real life.
It may in benchmarks but not in real life usages...at 3Ghz no GFX card is held back by the CPU.

However, for non-gaming CPU intensive apps, the Intel CPUs show substantial advantages. Also, if you want to do a proper apples-to-apples comparison, you need to overclock the Intel CPU, too. In that case, you may end up find that an e2180 is the 6000+'s true peer.


April 3, 2008 11:22:54 PM

Not totally sure if this is relevent to the ops post but i did find a site where they studied a 5000 BE against a 6400 and the extra cache on the 90nm 6400 did make a difference in synthetic benchmarks...which in a way points against the posts saying a 5000 BE can be OC'd to a 6400 and be exactly the same....but the 5000 BE (65 nm) did murder the 6400 (90 nm) in power usage.

On the other hand if you're buying from scratch it'd definately be intel right now for power users except i'd question the consideration of quad core unless you're currently using software that can use 4 cores or are building a rig that you plan to hang onto for quite a while...if you are then quad core is a safe bet...if you arn't then you'll get more power for your dollar (or pound) by retaining dual core and probably get better results (software issues considered)

Carod
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2008 2:26:15 AM

The bigger bonus from an AMD build is the mobo selection. I believe that the AMD boards (in general) have more options on their mobo's for less $ than a good % of Intel boards, in the same price range. I'd still consider 1 of 2 options if OC is considered. The 5000+ BE is probably the smartest 2 core chip right now for AMD based systems, IMHO. Especially since all you have to do is change the multiplier to get to 3 ghz. The other option, in a 2 core setup, is the e2160/e2180 and OC it close to if not at 3 ghz. This is a little more involved, but not by too much. Both systems I'd still use CAS 4 DDR2 800mHz RAM for, so you can take any advantages you can get with them. If you want a Quad core system than the q6600 isn't a bad choice, but will generally run fairly warm on stock cooling. Phenom is an option, but right now seems to be a budget quad core at best. For gaming I'd probably stick with a 2 core system to get the minor FPS that you'd get over most Quad based systems. This of coarse is all dependant on which games you intend to play. Some games take advantage of the Quad cores, but there are only a few right now that do. If you plan on upgrading in 12-18 months I'd stick with a 2 core CPU and upgrade to a quad later. I'd definately wait for the price drops and see if you want to consider going that way or not. These Intel price drops will affect AMD's prices too, but not sure by how much. You can decide which way you want to go.
!