5000+ lifespan

[Champ]

Sup guys, I know the 5000+ BE is one of the best bang-for-buck processors you can buy. OSs, games, and gfx cards are only getting stronger. How long will the 5000+ continue to be efficient before we have to find a better standard budget processor?

 

[hat]

I'd guess anywhere between a year or two.

 

[candle_86]

already, it can't push even the 9600GT to top preformance anymore. The fastest card thats a good matchup without bottlenecking the card is either the 7900GT, x1900xt, or 8600GTS

 

[suraswami]

it depends on how fast you age and get caught up with earthly desires

just pulling your leg. It depends on what app you use and how long you want to use a PC.

2 yrs?

 

[candle_86]

well yes it does depend on what you use it for.

My moms desktop we just upgraded, we pulled the Duron 750 out and plopped in an AThlon 1400 B and another 256mb of ram. But its for email and myspace

 

[Kursah]

It depends...if you want max performance, either get a good known oc-able chip or a top-of-the-line chip...but I believe there's a point between bottleneck and just flat out improved performance from overclocked/faster bus/CPU's...I think this get's skewed some by users, but I believe there's a difference that lies here.

Sure a stock 9600GT might be faster on setup A, but may not be bottlenecked, but on Setup B it's faster since it has a faster bus, CPU and memory making the whole system faster...to me that doesn't necessarily mean bottleneck for the GPU. But the GPU will react positively to faster overall system performance...everyone has an opinion on this kind of thing, I'd say worry about it when even your best overclocks aren't cutting it anymore...if you haven't decided to upgrade before that point!

 

[candle_86]

well with PCIe the bus isn't much of a bottlneck actully. Its been the system bus connected to it on Intel that was a bottle necked it alot. With this gone the system bottleneck has been improved greatly.

 

[Kursah]

well with PCIe the bus isn't much of a bottlneck actully. Its been the system bus connected to it on Intel that was a bottle necked it alot. With this gone the system bottleneck has been improved greatly.

True but if slower AMD systems are getting a bottleneck...w/o a NB or Intely style system bus, then the bottleneck still stands imo, but like I said above, there's a limit where bottleneck stands...doesn't matter if it's Intel or AMD, and there's a point beyond that where a faster stock or OC'd system Bus/CPU/Mem where performance overall is increased and that generally only positively affects the GPU performance. Of course results may vary, and with PCI-e at 2.0, have they truly even fully utilized 1.0/1.1? I don't believe so, I think 2.0 was an easier way out instead of working harder to use what was there imo.

 

[AddSub]

As a budget processor? Impossible to predict. AMD's Phenoms or Intel quads could drop to sub $100 prices inside of a week and that would break the current measuring stick of what is considered best bang-for-buck CPU. Or both AMD and Intel could release a new lineup of cheapo budget processors a month from now or something.

There are budgets and there are budgets. Today, if you have only $25, then a single core Sempron is your best option. If you have $50 or so then low-end dual core from Intel like E2160 or E2180 would be the best choice. If you have around $100, then again more powerful Intel C2D would be the choice, anything from second hand E6xxx's to brand new low-end E8xxx's. And if you must go quad, then a second hand Q6600 is the best option since they can be picked up for around $140-$150 on trade boards.

In my opinion, considering how powerful GPU's are nowadays and how much bandwidth and raw throughput today’s platforms offer, that 5000+ BE CPU stopped being "efficient" the day it was released.

 

[candle_86]

on AMD its the CPU, not the system bus, just the CPU. The problem is CPU's are about 2 years behind GPU's

The 6800Ultra hit full preformace once the Core2 came out, and the 7900GTX hit full power once the Core 2 went 3ghz. This can be told by rez changing FPS every time from 10x7 and up. The 8800GTX will prolly fit good with nehlam and have similar results, but the CPU's are at least 2 years behind

 

[Kursah]

on AMD its the CPU, not the system bus, just the CPU. The problem is CPU's are about 2 years behind GPU's

The 6800Ultra hit full preformace once the Core2 came out, and the 7900GTX hit full power once the Core 2 went 3ghz. This can be told by rez changing FPS every time from 10x7 and up. The 8800GTX will prolly fit good with nehlam and have similar results, but the CPU's are at least 2 years behind

Possibly 2 years behind, I'd say not just that but memory and MB technology have some work to do...but GPU's as advanced as they are have lacking drivers and support which to me doesn't put them that far ahead in my mind...the whole system's gotta work as a whole, between software and hardware, I think better standard needs to be made for component communication and driver optimization...just imo tho!

I don't worry too much as long as my games play smooth and look good...I don't really care how far behind what is, or what's unoptimized as...if it only gets better...who cares! Not me!

 

[robal]

Things are accelerating like hell.
A decent PC today is obsolete tomorrow

I hope that Deneb line will have some budget, multiplier unlocked variant.
It seems that Deneb will be quite fast and overclockable.

 

[candle_86]

not true, it takes about 3 months before all your parts are obsolete, they just loose 2% of there value every day

 

[JC316]

The problem with the AMD platform is that the AM2 socket is damn near obsolete, so no chip is going to last long for it. It would be a better option to get a 775 board and an E1200, which still outperforms most of the X2's and be ready for a better chip.

 

[candle_86]

not true JC, a Celeron dual core preforms worse than all but the X2 3600 and maybe the x2 3800

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-e1200_8.html#sect0

You need at least an E4500 to beat the x2 5200 @ stock

 

[JC316]

not true JC, a Celeron dual core preforms worse than all but the X2 3600 and maybe the x2 3800

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-e1200_8.html#sect0

You need at least an E4500 to beat the x2 5200 @ stock

Overclocking is what I am talking about. I know for a fact that it did better than my old Brisbane@ 3.05GHZ

 

[yogurt_21]

Overclocking is what I am talking about. I know for a fact that it did better than my old Brisbane@ 3.05GHZ

which is nice and all, but the 5000+ BE hit 3.5GHZ which you'll need a core2 duo that'll hit 3.2 or above to beat it.

 

[Wile E]

As far as the bottleneck argument, it doesn't matter in gaming. With my 8800GT, there was a 1fps difference in Crysis between 3.2GHz and 2GHz on my X2 6400+ rig @ 1440x900. In COD4 it was anywhere from 3-5frames. Both games had the exact amount of playability at both settings. Raise the resolution or LOD even higher, and the difference becomes even less. Lower the res or LOD, and yeah, you'll see a more significant difference, but here is the kicker, you'll already have so many fps in today's games, that there will be no difference in playability anyway.

The cpu just isn't super important for most of today's games (there are exceptions of course, like SupCom), it's the gpu that makes the biggest difference. The cpu really only effects benchmark scores most of the time.

If gaming performance is the primary concern, that cpu is likely good for another 2yrs, if you upgrade the gfx in the interim. If, however, you do a lot of encoding or rendering, or if benchmark scores are important to you, it's already obsolete.

 

[JC316]

As far as the bottleneck argument, it doesn't matter in gaming. With my 8800GT, there was a 1fps difference in Crysis between 3.2GHz and 2GHz on my X2 6400+ rig @ 1440x900. In COD4 it was anywhere from 3-5frames. Both games had the exact amount of playability at both settings. Raise the resolution or LOD even higher, and the difference becomes even less. Lower the res or LOD, and yeah, you'll see a more significant difference, but here is the kicker, you'll already have so many fps in today's games, that there will be no difference in playability anyway.

The cpu just isn't super important for most of today's games (there are exceptions of course, like SupCom), it's the gpu that makes the biggest difference. The cpu really only effects benchmark scores most of the time.

If gaming performance is the primary concern, that cpu is likely good for another 2yrs, if you upgrade the gfx in the interim. If, however, you do a lot of encoding or rendering, or if benchmark scores are important to you, it's already obsolete.

I seem to notice alot more performance loss in games if I am under 3GHZ. It could be that the ram is clocked less too, but it just seems to slow down alot to me. I will say that Quads and the sort are unnecessary by todays standards.

 

[Jeffredo]

I have an X2 6400+ BE at stock speeds, which is about what your 5000+ should do OC'd with a good HSF. It's paired with an 8800 GTX and Win XP. Its playing today's games quite nicely. Not out of the park great, but most quality options maxed. I notice its dipping to around 25-35 FPS around crowds of NPCs or in brightly lit areas. Still, its pretty good overall. I figure I'll be happy with it for another year - two at the absolute maximum.

 

[Wile E]

I seem to notice alot more performance loss in games if I am under 3GHZ. It could be that the ram is clocked less too, but it just seems to slow down alot to me. I will say that Quads and the sort are unnecessary by todays standards.

I didn't downclock my ram. Just lowered my cpu multi at a stock fsb. But I did stick to only even multis, as the odd multis would've given me 750Mhz ram, and I wanted to take ram out as part of the equation.

 

[ShiBDiB]

e8400>all

the 8400 and 7200 r the best bang for the buck cpu's out there