AMD version of e8400

[banytoshbot]

Ok i know nothing of AMD, at all...
simple question - i am building a comp soon and thinking of getting the e8400 3.0 duo by intel... however i am wondering if AMD's equivalent is better/cheaper. What is AMD's equivilent to this processor, and is it better?
Thanks for reading

 

[speedbird]

The Highest Dual core AMD currently offer is the 6400+ X2 that runs at a Clock speed of 3.2Ghz, but don't let the higher clockspeed fool you. The 6400+ X2 is slower and less energy efficient than the E8400.

 

[doomturkey]

Slower, yes. But if you buy an X2 5000+ BE, ($90), you can bump up the multi and easily achieve 3.0 - 3.2ghz for a fraction of the cost of the E8400. Sure, clock for clock its not as fast or efficient as the E8400, but it costs half as much. Hope that helps.

 

[zenmaster]

AMD does not have an equivalent.

 

[banytoshbot]

yea makes sence, thanks for the info =D

 

[zenmaster]

The E2160/E2180 can had for under $70 and will easily OC to provide performance in excess of the X2-6400 and maintain lower temps/power usage.

 

[royalcrown]

Slower, yes. But if you buy an X2 5000+ BE, ($90), you can bump up the multi and easily achieve 3.0 - 3.2ghz for a fraction of the cost of the E8400. Sure, clock for clock its not as fast or efficient as the E8400, but it costs half as much. Hope that helps.

yeah, but it still won't be close even oc'ed.

 

[Ycon]

The equivalent would be some Angina... sry, Agena processor, when multi-threaded apps are taken into consideration as well; when talking single-thread only, no AMD processor can beat Intels CPUs.

 

[sailer]

Right now, I'd say the 5000+ BE is the best dual core from AMD that can be bought. Its probably better than any of the AMD quads for that matter, at least when it comes to gaming. All that said, unless money is an issue, the Intel e8400 is way better than the 5000+ BE can hope to dream of. Just my opinion of things as they now stand.

 

[rwayne]

I recently purchased an AMD 64x2 5000 and Oc'd it to 2.9GHz which probably puts it on par with a AMD Brisbane 64x2 5600.

AMD does not have an equivlant to an E8400 or anything even remotely close to it especially on a performance per watt scale.

AMD's fastest chip the 64x2 6400 (which runs at 3.2GHZ while eating 125Watts) is about equivlant to an Intel Core2Duo E6550 or E6600 which runs at 2.33GHZ & 2.4GHz respectively at a much more reasonable 65Watts. Intel is by FAR a better chip. And that is a very unbiased opinion because it is coming from an AMD owner (myself).

If you got the money get a E8400 or E8300.

If you want to save money go with an E2160 or an AMD 5000BE and overclock them or have a friend help show you how to overclock them.

But again, of the two Intel is still the better purchase.

 

[kpo6969]

Slower, yes. But if you buy an X2 5000+ BE, ($90), you can bump up the multi and easily achieve 3.0 - 3.2ghz for a fraction of the cost of the E8400. Sure, clock for clock its not as fast or efficient as the E8400, but it costs half as much. Hope that helps.

X2 5000+ BE = 1mb L2 cache
E8400 = 6mb L2 cache

If someone would be building a new system (like the OP) I could not recommend that. It may save you $ now, but down then line .......

 

[rwayne]

I agree with kpo6969. If you are doing a new build then an e8400 is almost a MUST.

I only went with a 5000 Black Edition because I already had a AM2 board.

If I was building from scratch I would get an e8400 and not think twice about it.

 

[pauldh]

AMD does not have an equivalent.

+1 to that.