urge to move to the darkside.. rising..

[SilentAces]

i've posted before
it's a x2 series cpu clocked at 3ghz using 90nm fabrication process

thought those were the windsors? i've lost track of amd then..lol..

 

[Joshmcmillan]

The 5600+ X2 is still cheaper then the E6300 and the 5600+ beats the E6300 by even more in benchmarks then the 5000+. A 5600+ fully overclocked to highest stable and an E6300 with the same cooler overclocked to highest stable should be fairly even.

 

[Joshmcmillan]

thought those were the windsors? i've lost track of amd then..lol..

Windsow is the low powered X2 series... I think... because I know mine is a windsor and it's one of the low powered series ones.

 

[pt]

The 5600+ X2 is still cheaper then the E6300 and the 5600+ beats the E6300 by even more in benchmarks then the 5000+. A 5600+ fully overclocked to highest stable and an E6300 with the same cooler overclocked to highest stable should be fairly even.

c2d wins seeing that it can get 3.5ghz (usually) and has a higher "performance per clock rate"

http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13076,00.html

 

[Joshmcmillan]

AMD wins coz it's better at stock for ppl that don't wna make there CPU get hotter and less stable so it doesn't last as long.

 

[Joshmcmillan]

Let's not start an AMD vs Intel fight though. I like whatever is best for me at the moment which is AMD and whoever made this thread(can't remember) will decide which ever suits him.

 

[pt]

AMD wins coz it's better at stock for ppl that don't wna make there CPU get hotter and less stable so it doesn't last as long.

i like amd too, no fighting,(see sys specs) i was talking about overclock
at stock it's pretty much the same, intel uses a bit less power

 

[Pinchy]

Let's not start an AMD vs Intel fight though. I like whatever is best for me at the moment which is AMD and whoever made this thread(can't remember) will decide which ever suits him.

AMD isnt the best at the moment , its intel, with their c2d

 

[newtekie1]

AMD isnt the best at the moment , its intel, with their c2d

He said "best for me" not "the best". Everyone has different needs and budgets. AMD is really a good option if you are on a small budget and looking to spend under $130 on a processor.

 

[tkpenalty]

Josh, sorry if this breaks your heart but you cant compare a high end AMD to a low end. The core 2 duo can take 3.0Ghz without a sweat. Thats only one of the many benchmarks... quite frankly, the other ones, AMD gets owned.

The price cuts intel made are not in effect yet in Australia for some reason, the price cuts that AMD made are. Other benchmarks show that the AMD is slower. Look at how lowly clocked the E6300 is! Once clocked to the same speeds (Core 2s can run at stock voltages at 3Ghz and be 100% rock solid stable, only thing is u need good RAM), its much faster than what you have. Ketxxx has already decided to buy it.

 

[Joshmcmillan]

Were those benchmarks on that page wrong? Or is the 5000+ better then the E6300? Or does the 5000+ cost more then the E6300 in other countries there for needs to be compared to somthin like the E6600??

 

[JC316]

Hell Ket, get a Brisbane. They clock like bats outta hell and are dirt cheap. You can probably get MORE for your 3500, that or you would only have to pay bout 20 bucks.

 

[Pinchy]

He said "best for me" not "the best". Everyone has different needs and budgets. AMD is really a good option if you are on a small budget and looking to spend under $130 on a processor.

lol touche

Damn morning scim reading

 

[Tatty_Two]

The 5600+ X2 is still cheaper then the E6300 and the 5600+ beats the E6300 by even more in benchmarks then the 5000+. A 5600+ fully overclocked to highest stable and an E6300 with the same cooler overclocked to highest stable should be fairly even.

I am afraid you are a bit out there, I am an AMD fanboi but clock for clock the C2D (any C2D) is 15-20% faster than any AMD offering. So, as I have said before, at stock speeds there are a few AMD chips that can beat C2D in many benches, mainly because they are clocked higher at stock, if you want a real comparison find a review of the Opty 165 at stock versus the E6300 that are close at stock speeds, I cant find the one I read that was from the week the E6300 was released but in all benches the 6300 was averaging 23% faster (slightly higher stock speeds), both had 2MB L2 cache. Once you decide however to overclock any AMD or C2D to near its limits generally you are talking a 30-40% speed difference.

As I again mentioned before, look on these forums at the SuperPI 1M thread, the fastest AMD I have seen hits around 25Secs (I think it might be my 4000+ @ 3.27Gig, or it was at one time), the fastest C2D I have seen is slightly under 14 seconds, by my reckoning thats around 43% quicker.

For the record, 1st Gen Windsors with 2 x 1MB L2 Cache were the high end chips in the 4400, 4800 and Opty x2's (although in some they appeared as Denmarks, same chip really), Windsors have moved on to 2nd Gen with 2x 512KB L2 (now supporting the low powered 90Nm process), although they are still making some 2 x 1MB Caches for 5600 and 6000, Manchesters were the slightly lower end 3800, 4200, 4600 with 2x 512MB, recently the 65nm Brisbanes added to that, again with 512KB x2 L2 cache with the half multiplier (Apart from the 5000 @ 2.6 confusingly) as there is also a low powered Windsor at 2.6Gig.

AMD is only manufacturing Brisbanes and Windsors currently (as far as I am aware)in their desktop market sector, all with 2 x 512KB L2, the top of the range 6000 is a Windsor core I beleive, I may have the odd thing in there wrong (dont think so tho) but generally thats the score.

 

[Tatty_Two]

The 5600+ X2 is still cheaper then the E6300 and the 5600+ beats the E6300 by even more in benchmarks then the 5000+. A 5600+ fully overclocked to highest stable and an E6300 with the same cooler overclocked to highest stable should be fairly even.

5600 cheaper than 6300?????

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/124915

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/112704

 

[Joshmcmillan]

5600 cheaper than 6300?????

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/124915

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/112704

This is the site I use (Australian Currency)

5600+:
http://umart.net/au/product_info.php?cPath=47_361&products_id=109284

E6300:
http://umart.net/au/product_info.php?cPath=48_295&products_id=106404

 

[tkpenalty]

Ket don't care about price, he only cares about performance.

 

[Joshmcmillan]

Ket don't care about price, he only cares about performance.

If he doesn't care about price he can go and get a Core 2 Quad or somthing.

 

[Tatty_Two]

This is the site I use (Australian Currency)

5600+:
http://umart.net/au/product_info.php?cPath=47_361&products_id=109284

E6300:
http://umart.net/au/product_info.php?cPath=48_295&products_id=106404

Was not picking on you! So are you changing the statement to something like "sometimes the 5600 is cheaper than the 6300"

Edit: And the E4300 is even less than that!

 

[Joshmcmillan]

lol ok sometimes... I never thought too look at other sites then the one I use.. sorry.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Ket's a student,,,,he's not as rich as me!

 

[Ketxxx]

I'm rich enough the riches morph into beer tokens tho As it stands I will deff get a C2D system, purely because I want a mobo and CPU that should have a good 2 year lifespan, even after that time, I dont see a clocked C2D being significantly outperformed.

mobo: Abit AW9d MAX
CPU: E4300 or, for the sake of £10 I may get the E6300, but the higher milti is somewhat more appealing vs. higher FSB. Beyond a certain point higher FSB is utterly useless. If you have decent RAM, then it doesnt even matter about a lower FSB, there are many other factors to consider than all out frequency, such as latency times.

 

[Tatty_Two]

lol ok sometimes... I never thought too look at other sites then the one I use.. sorry.

No need to apologise, you naturally used an Oz site, me a UK one.