Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon II X2 240 vs Pentium E5200 overclocking

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 7, 2009 6:26:05 PM

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
August 7, 2009 6:42:04 PM

could you squeeze the PII x2 550 and and am3 mb into your budget? If not, I would go with the 5200.
August 7, 2009 6:53:44 PM

Toms has an overclocking article involving the E5200, and it is a champ. It has the best value and runs smoothly pushed far past its stock speed.
Related resources
August 7, 2009 8:27:18 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2009 1:03:06 AM

You can run the 550 with DDR2 od DDR3.
The 550 has unlocked multiplier (easy overclock).
The 550 has 6mb of L3 Cache and its stock performance is higher then the 5200, being on par with the E7400.
And then, for just a little more than the 550 you can get a Phenom II triple core...
Out of the 250 and E5200, I think the 5200 wins. But I'd really consider the other options...
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2009 12:52:52 PM

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!
August 9, 2009 6:19:29 PM

I found an article that compares the AMD Athlon II X2 250 to the E5200: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/06/30/amd-at...
Seems the E5200 outperforms the 250, which means it should definitely outperform the 240. This build is mainly for HTPC use, mostly Netflix and Hulu. Will do some occasional gaming, perhaps Fallout 3. Going to pair it up with a Radeon HD 4670 512MB which should be enough to handle the 1280x720 resolution of my projector. I really don't need to over clock, but it seems like such a waste of power that I can tap into with proper cooling.
August 9, 2009 11:41:38 PM

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.
November 30, 2009 6:13:46 PM

Forget Intel dual core. s775 is dead and you will have no upgrade path. AMD x2 240 is the way to go.
a c 172 à CPUs
a c 197 K Overclocking
November 30, 2009 6:31:26 PM

K1ash3r said:
Forget Intel dual core. s775 is dead and you will have no upgrade path. AMD x2 240 is the way to go.

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). :( 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 30, 2009 7:01:01 PM





December 9, 2009 1:58:46 PM

Quote:
I found an article that compares the AMD Athlon II X2 250 to the E5200: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/c [...] u-review/1
Seems the E5200 outperforms the 250, which means it should definitely outperform the 240. This build is mainly for HTPC use, mostly Netflix and Hulu. Will do some occasional gaming, perhaps Fallout 3. Going to pair it up with a Radeon HD 4670 512MB which should be enough to handle the 1280x720 resolution of my projector. I really don't need to over clock, but it seems like such a waste of power that I can tap into with proper cooling.


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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 16, 2009 8:35:45 PM

jsc said:
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). :( 


You are wrong. FOlks that buy AMD's are always having more fun overclocking than Intel folks.

I've always considered AMD's the king of the mountain when it came to over clocking because they are always more challenging & entertaining to clock. Finding the right settings & methods to beat them to bits can be crazy fun. And they are more efficient on wattage as well.

Intels from my experience were simple to OC & never had anything in the same design as AMD's that sparked my interests.

Even now with the new AMDs there are already ample room for the next generation of overclockers to enjoy.

I just hooked up my little brother with 2 amd x2's and he's already grabbing himself those ice packs. He just reached 3.2 ghz. Gratz! Much a nub but sure reminds me of the first time I tried OCing:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 17, 2009 1:57:51 AM

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
a c 172 à CPUs
a c 197 K Overclocking
December 17, 2009 2:42:30 PM

Quote:
FOlks that buy AMD's are always having more fun overclocking than Intel folks.

Maybe so. But I do not overclock for fun. I overclock to squeeze more performance from my systems. Always have.
----------
Overclocking since 1978 - Z80 (TRS-80) from 1.77 MHz to 2.01 MHz
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2009 8:03:59 PM

Quote:
Cmon, you dont get have any fun getting more than you paid for?


:lol:  have to agree on that.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2009 8:41:18 PM

Quote:
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


My E8400 got to 3.6ghz on stock cooling and my friend's i7 hot-ass quad core on a cheap-ass stock HS got 3.4ghz stable. =/

Don't get me wrong, AMD's stock heatsinks to tend to be better than intel's, but you can still get a decent little OC out of them with decent temps.

And as far as OC capabilities between E5200 and the 240 X2, E5200 wins by far. Has a lower stock clock and OCs higher than the 240s max.

Hard to justify buying a 775 mobo though. :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 18, 2009 4:09:02 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 18, 2009 4:18:43 PM

jsc said:
Maybe so. But I do not overclock for fun. I overclock to squeeze more performance from my systems. Always have.
----------
Overclocking since 1978 - Z80 (TRS-80) from 1.77 MHz to 2.01 MHz


Oh but I like to torture CPU's. I won't get in trouble like torturing people :lol: 
!