# AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E6400



## cjoyce1980 (Feb 25, 2007)

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E6400

very simple, i need a new pc and these processors are in my price range.  been reading lots of benchmark review and these processors seem to be be on about par.

your views


----------



## WarEagleAU (Feb 25, 2007)

C2D will win hands down, but you cant go wrong with AMD.


----------



## pt (Feb 25, 2007)

cjoyce1980 said:


> AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
> 
> very simple, i need a new pc and these processors are in my price range.  been reading lots of benchmark review and these processors seem to be be on about par.
> 
> your views



what are the rest of the system specs yo're thinking?


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 25, 2007)

dont forget you can overclock the c2d A LOT.


----------



## pbmaster (Feb 25, 2007)

I've always had good results with AMD. My friend had a Core 2, and he loves it. It's really whatever you want. Both are good at this point.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Feb 25, 2007)

i know the core 2 is faster....but you will have a much better choice of motherboards if you go amd


----------



## pt (Feb 25, 2007)

AthlonX2 said:


> i know the core 2 is faster....but you will have a much better choice of motherboards if you go amd



??
you're kidding right?
you have lots of good intel boards
evga i680
abit awd9-max (or something like that)
asus commando

amd has it good ones too, but intel has their share of them


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Feb 25, 2007)

intel is also more complicated when u go to upgrade later on.....


----------



## Jadawin (Feb 25, 2007)

What? What about AMD running through 754, 939 and now AM2? Why should Intel be more "complicated"? You even have a much wider selection of chipsets.

You either upgrade the components, then it doesn't matter if it's Intel or AMD. Upgrading the CPU should be no problem with AM2 and with LGA775 (with a new chipset like 965,975,680i). The intel boards run with quadcore and if the existing AM2 ones can do that remains to be seen.


----------



## cjoyce1980 (Feb 25, 2007)

pt said:


> what are the rest of the system specs yo're thinking?



965 for the intel and a nforce 510 for amd, the rest of the specifications dont really matter getting good reviews and views on those wasn't a problem, it was just the CPU that i wasn't to sure about.

most say the E6400 is the better cos overclocking and etc...  whats the X2 5000+ like for overclocking?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2007)

The X2's don't generally go as far as Core2's. Even if you did get the same clocks out of both, the Core2 would outperform it.


----------



## cjoyce1980 (Feb 25, 2007)

Wile E said:


> The X2's don't generally go as far as Core2's. Even if you did get the same clocks out of both, the Core2 would outperform it.



what benefits does the X2 have over the C2D?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2007)

cjoyce1980 said:


> what benefits does the X2 have over the C2D?


Better memory performance, and in some cases, lower power usage and heat output. That depends on the specific model of X2, however.


----------



## pt (Feb 25, 2007)

i would save money going with a e6300 or x2 3800+ and overclock since they will overclock almost the same as their older brothers


----------



## magibeg (Feb 25, 2007)

I'ld say C2D would definately be my top choice. But as was said earlier get the E6300 instead and save some money (if you plan on overclocking that is). Even if you up the E6300 to even 2.4ghz which is easy as pie you'll be smacking around even a heavily oc'd 5000+.


----------



## JC316 (Feb 26, 2007)

magibeg said:


> I'ld say C2D would definately be my top choice. But as was said earlier get the E6300 instead and save some money (if you plan on overclocking that is). Even if you up the E6300 to even 2.4ghz which is easy as pie you'll be smacking around even a heavily oc'd 5000+.




Not so sure it is THAT definitive, but it does out perform big time. Plus in real world gaming, the gap is not as large as some would say.

That being said, the C2d still kicks ass because it's cheaper than AMD in most cases. Cheaper+more performance= C2D FTW.


----------



## Protius (Feb 26, 2007)

c2d all the way


----------



## cjoyce1980 (Feb 26, 2007)

thanks guys. but now you have confused me???

other than price what is the benefit of choosing the E6300 over the E6400? if i choose to overclock the CPU wont the E6400 overclock further?


----------



## pt (Feb 26, 2007)

cjoyce1980 said:


> thanks guys. but now you have confused me???
> 
> other than price what is the benefit of choosing the E6300 over the E6400? if i choose to overclock the CPU wont the E6400 overclock further?



nop
about the same overclock 
good thing it has a higher multi, but still the same overclock


----------



## Pinchy (Feb 26, 2007)

It depends on your board/chip.

If your board cant take up to a certain FSB, the e6400 is better because you dont have to hit such a high FSB to get such a high OC.

Put it this way,

You overclock to 300FSB on the E6300 and E6400. It is basically the same thing, but the E6400 is at 3.2Ghz, while the E6300 is still at 3.8Ghz.

But again, it depends on the specific chip and mobo.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 26, 2007)

i would have to say c2d,and my 6300 will do 3.5ghz with 1.325vcore(whitch is nary a twitch up).at 3.5ghz it will beat ANY current amd chip.

like the others have said,the advantage with the 6400 is higher multi,so if your board/ram wont oc so high you can get the 6400 which because of the higher multi,does'nt need such a high fsb/mem speed.

definately c2d tho'.


----------



## Pinchy (Feb 26, 2007)

didnt yours do 3.9 tig?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Feb 26, 2007)

it will but that 3.5ghz is a safe 24/7 oc.3.9(560fsb) is more ya suicide run(nearly) which is maxxing out my mem just about at 560.

3.5 is nice and stable with the ram at 500(1000) 1:1,and "only" 1.325vcore


----------



## Pinchy (Feb 26, 2007)

ahhh ok 

Still, MAD OC


----------



## cjoyce1980 (Feb 26, 2007)

Pinchy said:


> It depends on your board/chip.
> 
> If your board cant take up to a certain FSB, the e6400 is better because you dont have to hit such a high FSB to get such a high OC.
> 
> ...



Was going to get the Gigabyte GA-965GM-S2 MoBo as it was a 965 chipset and the reviews have been quite positive, plus again its in my price range


----------



## PuMA (Feb 26, 2007)

seems ur going for a nice upgrade, considering what u have now, hope all goes well dude =D


----------

