AMD X2 3600+ VS. AMD x2 6000+/ AMD x2 6400+

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

cadotter

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
12
0
18,510
Hi everyone I need a little input.

I currenty am running a BIOSTAR TF7025 Motherboard. With a AMD x2 3600+ CPU. I just bought an HD3870 OC Edition for $100 at Best Buy. I am thinking I"m getting a little bottleneck out of my CPU when it comes to performance out of this card. Keep in mind I already OC'd my CPU to 2.4 GHZ (stock 1.9GHZ) I want to get a new AMD Dual Core because my motherboard doesn't support a Phenom processor and really don't want to upgrade my MOBO again. Whats your input on this? Which one should I get the 6400 or the 6000? What type of increase may I see in this? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!!!! :hello:
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
Forget the X2 6400+, its discontinued and overpriced. An X2 6000+ would be a nice upgrade if you can handle the higher power consumption from the 90nm Windsor core. You might also want to consider the X2 5400+ BE, although slightly slower per clock than the X2 6000+, it should overclock pretty well (~3.3GHz is my guess) on a decent HSF, and also runs considerably cooler.

Before upgrading, are you absolutely sure 2.4GHz is as high as your CPU will go? I've seen X2 3600+s as high as 3GHz. If yours can hit around 2.8GHz then it doesn't make sense to spend any money on a marginally faster processor.
 
C

cadotter

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
12
0
18,510
I got it up to 2.6 GHz once then it all of the sudden became unstable and reset it back to default. So all the higher I really wanted to go again was 2.4 GHz (heat issues). I do plan on upgrading to more fans and cooling to my system. But since I seen you could get a 6000+ for under $100 now I thought well hey I might as well pick it up. My CPU is also a 90nm Windsor. But I am looking at the long run here. What would be the better choice?
 
jj463rd

jj463rd

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2008
1,510
0
19,860
Yes,an upgrade is worth it.The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is dirt cheap at newegg and even comes with a heat sink and fan.Don't say dang I don't even have a credit card to buy from newegg as they even accept personal checks as payment It does take a little longer though.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773

The Athlon 64 X2 6400+ is costlier and doesn't come with a heat sink or fan.
It runs so hot that you would need a good aftermarket cooler with it
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103290

I think it would be worthwhile and cost effective to get the Athlon 64 X2 6000+
You can look at Tom's CPU charts to compare them.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008/benchmarks,16.html
 
C

cadotter

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
12
0
18,510
Ok well the Black Edition it is. I did think of that but looking at the 3.0 Ghz almost sold me I know I can overclock pretty well now that I am familiar with everything. But still a little skeptic. :ange:
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
To be honest, no dual core CPU is that 'future proof' so in the long run any X2 you upgrade to will be fairly obsolete. Upgrading to a 3GHz X2 from a 2.4GHz X2 is just delaying the inevitable, but if it prolongs the life of your current setup by 12 months then why not?

Like you said X2s are really cheap at the moment, and an X2 6000+ would be a handy upgrade if the power consumption / heat is not an issue. If you are looking to overclock, the X2 6000+ should be able to clock to 3.2 - 3.3GHz too.

If you are looking at cooler running solutions there are always the Brisbane core X2s as I mentioned earlier. Ultimately the difference between an overclocked Windsor and Brisbane is less than 5% per clock so it won't make a huge difference either way - it just depends whether you want slightly higher performance at the expense of higher power consumption.
 
M

megamanx00

Splendid
Sep 3, 2008
8,216
2
31,465
I'd go with the 6000+ only since those old windsor cores are clock for clock faster than the Brisbane. Still you should be able to overclock the 5400BE well enough and it should use significantly less power and generate less heat while being clocked higher than the 6000+. Of course that will just depend on how high you can overclock. Your millage, as they say, will vary.
 
M

mannwhite

Distinguished
Feb 11, 2007
112
0
18,680


I upgraded to a 6000+ from a 4200+ last december and I can tell you that I was really pleasantly surprised by the difference it made. I have an 8800GTS 640meg and games that I had been thinking were bottlenecked by the GPU (e.g. DiRT and NFS Pro street) suddenly took on a whole new lease on life. I would definitely go for it, you won't have the fastest CPU on the planet but you're going to see one hell of a difference. Also, I managed to take mine to 3.21GHz on air pretty easily with just a slight voltage increase, it's stable for more than 24hrs. Just make sure you've got a good air flow.
 
C

cadotter

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
12
0
18,510
Thanks for all the quick replies guys! I really appreciate. I do think I will go with the 6000+ after further research due to the fact I will be upgrading the HSF and what not. I do have a big case and already 4 fans. Plan on getting more. But one more question is the CPU I have bottlenecking my GPU? Will this 6000+ eliminate it if so? Thanks once again
 
E

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


There is an easy way to test this - drop the resolution and compare framerates from your original resolution. If its the same (or similar) then you are CPU limited. If the framerate drops significantly then you are GPU limited, not CPU limited. I'd suggest FRAPS for this purpose if you don't have it already.

IF you are CPU limited with a 2.4GHz X2, then of course a 3GHz X2 would help. Whether it would totally 'eliminate' the bottleneck depends on the game, some CPU bound games (such as RTS and flight sims) continue to scale in performance even with a 4GHz+ Core 2.
 
C

cadotter

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
12
0
18,510
But wouldn't it actually increase frame rates if I dropped the resolution? I'm a little lost now lol Because the lower resolution the better the game runs no matter what. The higher the resolution doesn't it decrease?
 
4745454b

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
Apr 29, 2006
29,241
437
93,590
It depends on where the bottleneck is. (assuming its not ram related.) Lets look at some resolutions and frame rates.

1024x768 1280x1024 1600x1200
60 58 55

Noticed that the resolution went up, but the frame rates remained mostly steady. This shows us that the video card is working fine, but it isn't being "feed" fast enough. In this case, you have a CPU (or ram) bottleneck. Now for the opposite.

1024x768 1280x1024 1600x1200
60 35 17

A little drastic, but the point can be made. Notice that increasing the resolution even a little (from 1024x768 to 1280x1024) results in nearly a 50% loss in frame rates. The same happens in the next jump, although there are a lot more pixels to draw in that case. In this case, the video card simply isn't able to handle drawing that many pixels, and the frame rates suffer because of it.

 
C

cadotter

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
12
0
18,510
OK thanks that is much better.
Therefor there is a bottleneck for sure. Time to upgrade to the 6000+ thanks everyone for helping me out on this!
 
Ananan

Ananan

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2007
646
0
18,990
+1 on the upgrade being worthwhile.

I upgraded from a 4200+ to a 6400+ a while back; it was like getting a new PC. Definitely worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom