Athlon II X2 240 vs Pentium E5200 overclocking

Since the Athlon is new I can't find much comparing these where over clocking is concerned. I plan to overclock as much as I can using a $30 air cooler. I'm guessing the E5200 will win here. What do you guys think?

Respectfully
John

could you squeeze the PII x2 550 and and am3 mb into your budget? If not, I would go with the 5200.

I'm trying to stay away from the x2 550 because the e5200 with a cooler is still cheaper than the 550, so for the price of the 550 I can have allot more power. I don't want DDR3 since it is so expensive right now.

I'd forget the cooling and spend the 25 bucks on a E6300. 3.5ghz on stock, no problem. The thing really wants run at a 1333 bus speed. AMD's stock speeds are still on the warm side and their 45 nm process isn't quite up to Intel's yet.

The E5200 is really hit or miss, there are many bad samples out there.

I'd be more worried about my MB/RAM than my CPU holding out if you aren't able to spend money. Though a CPU with unlocked multipliers would help. If you are going to game, it might be worth it to spend money on the vid card.

The 550 can only compete with the E7400? With those specs it should compete with the E8600!

For HTPC I would definately suggest the E5200. If you are going to do only some light gaming I think that maybe you wouldn't have to OC the cpu much if at all. Keep it at stock speed and you will have a little bit of power savings.

You know, I hear that a lot.

But I notice that people who buy economy versions of AMD CPU's and motherboards generally do not later upgrade with a more expensive CPU. They generally get a better CPU and a more powerful motherboard.

oldsoldier, I have a system running an OC'd E5200. Mine is one of the slower ones - 3.78 GHz (315 MHz X 12).

mm what are you talking about?

"At their out of the box frequencies, the AMD Athlon II X2 250 is faster than the Intel Pentium Dual Core E5200, and often by quite a margin. The faster core clock and oodles more memory bandwidth play a key role in making this an excellent product for very little money."

Athlon II 240 is the clear winner.

Don't let Intel fool you with that price.
You can get an AMD X2 240 up to 3.2 without even breaking 40 C using its STOCK HEAT sink. The AMD new designs are all aimed at less heat & quality. Less requirements for a pricey heat sink means you save more This saves a lot of money really. 58 + 0 heatsink = 55 bucks. And if you topped it off with a nice HeatSink, who knows how far you can push the new AMD chips.

Intel on the other hand would be 40 + 60 for the heatsink and that totals out to be = 90 bucks.

AMD 3.2 Ghz stable at $58 bucks vs Intel 3.2+ Ghz unstable without an expensive HeatSink

Now who wins again? AMD obviously. Everytime Intel tries they lose out on either cost, performance or stability.

This is the reason people will always agree AMD is the gamers choice for cheap, quality data, & cost effective CPU's that benefit it's users effectively, economically, quality wise.

Oh *** I typed all that? Damn!
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/887293.png

have to agree on that.

That's not true
I got 3.5 GHZ on my X2 without breaking a sweat and it's on stock heat sink. I could push for 4.0 but my memory is "cheap".

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/888233.png

My friends got 3.8 - 4.0 so it's not true at all that E5200 is better.
The higher 3.0 version clock even farther and HIGH pass 4.0 GHZ!!!
The black edition's are even more clockable than E5200 and open for upgrades.
The Triple & Quads overclock even higher than x2's or E5200. So the arguement was x2 vs E5200. But since you mentioned QUAD Lets bring in the AMD quads and obviously AMD's ahead again.