# Core 2 Duo E6300 vs AMD Athlon 64 6000+



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

Ok, I have been very discouraged about my recent computer parts order. I have built many computers before, but I have never seriously overclocked before. From what I have read on this forum, everyone seems to be recommending the E6300 because, "it beats any AMD Athlon 64 chip after being overclocked." How is it possible that the E6300 is so much better? Should I  send my AMD Athlon 64 6000+ and new mobo back and order the E6300? My plan was to play games. I also ordered an 8800 GTS (360MB) video card. I don't know...I have spent a lot of money on my new build and I want to be happy with it for a while.

Edit: I am interested in overclocking my new build.


----------



## erocker (Apr 17, 2007)

Keep your AMD and be proud man!  That is a fine chip that won't produce as much as a hiccup while playing games.


----------



## anticlutch (Apr 17, 2007)

Keep your 6000+. Although I love my Core2Duo, I doubt the RMA process is worth it (if you happened to buy your parts from Newegg, returning items will cost you extra money). 

If you don't mind paying the restocking fee and return shipping, the E6300 is a bit better after being overclocked since it isn't as dependant on memory timings as the 6000+ is.


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

Thanks man. Is that cpu easily overclocked? I ordered this mobo: 

see below...


----------



## erocker (Apr 17, 2007)

Heck, I would say ditch that and go with a cheaper Brisbane core to keep some cash.  I actually prefer gaming on an AMD over and Intel.  My music recording system has a Core2Duo in it and I wouldn't use anything else.


----------



## erocker (Apr 17, 2007)

Your link is for a nVidia 8800 Video Card.


----------



## anticlutch (Apr 17, 2007)

Heh you sent a link for the graphics card instead


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

opps. here it is:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813188016


----------



## anticlutch (Apr 17, 2007)

Looks good... you'll probably need to change the fan on the mobo since it'll probably get really loud and annoying though


----------



## erocker (Apr 17, 2007)

Actually that is a pretty sweet board. And very new.  I know the Intel variation has had some great success and some temperature issues.   I'm in the process of getting the $99 Asus 570 Ultra off of Newegg: 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16813131022, I don't plan on using SLI.


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

yeah. i ordered this cpu fan. what do you think:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118223


----------



## anticlutch (Apr 17, 2007)

Excellent choice! I have that and I couldn't be happier with the way it performs and looks


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 17, 2007)

Well if you want the absolute best overclocked performance you can get then send the 6000+ back.  Even the $140 E4300 hits 3.6GHz on air easily with a good motherboard, the 6000+ would never hit that speed on air, and even still clock for clock the E4300 outperforms the 6000+.  So even if you could get the 6000+ up to 3.6GHz it would still be outperformed by the E4300 and the E4300 costs a good $100 less.

Just the price difference in the processor alone should cover the restocking fees, but how much is the hassle worth to you?  A good motherboard is going to cost you atleast $130 though, but in the end you should still come out spending less money and getting better performance.

It is up to you though, the 6000+ is certainly a very nice processor, and will do everything you want it to just fine for years to come, but there are better options out there.


----------



## technicks (Apr 17, 2007)

How would you compare a AMD and Intel both at 3.6
That is no comparisation imo.


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

Ok. I'm a newbee to this forum.

What does "imo" mean?

And...

What do you mean by "there is no comparison." I'm guessing you mean that the Intel chip is much better.?.?


----------



## technicks (Apr 17, 2007)

pcgolfer85 said:


> Ok. I'm a newbee to this forum.
> 
> What does "imo" mean?
> 
> ...



Lol. Imo means ''i my opinion''
No the Intel chip is not better. The clock frequency are diferent from eachother. A 3 gh Intel can not be compared to a 3 gh AMD


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

It's interesting to hear what everyone has to say about AMD and Intel. This forum has really helped me make my computer purchasing decisions. Thanks technicks!


----------



## Frick (Apr 17, 2007)

technicks said:


> How would you compare a AMD and Intel both at 3.6
> That is no comparisation imo.



It's easy to compare them. I mean, a 3Ghz c2d will do things faster than a 3Ghz A64.

AMD's CPU's are still good though, it's just that c2d is faster.


----------



## ktr (Apr 17, 2007)

6000+ is just slighty under the c2d-6700


----------



## Ketxxx (Apr 17, 2007)

On the score of performance, the E6300 once OCd will beat a AMD system. If your like me and have the future in mind, then a C2D is deffinately the way to go.


----------



## technicks (Apr 17, 2007)

But if you look at it on stock speeds. Not everyone overclocks his sytem. 
Would a C2D E6300 be faster then lets say a AMD 5400 dual core?


----------



## Ketxxx (Apr 17, 2007)

Probably about even.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 17, 2007)

technicks said:


> But if you look at it on stock speeds. Not everyone overclocks his sytem.



stock speeds don't matter here because he is looking to overclock his system

this isn't a discussion of intel vs. amd in situations that apply to people that aren't pcgolfer85

you can go have that discussion somewhere else, it has no place in this thread


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

How much success will I get overclocking the AMD Athlon 64 6000+ chip?


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

What do you guys think of this?

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/463/12/

They were able to get Athlon 64 X2 6000+ to run at 3.4ghz.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 17, 2007)

yeah, but it wasn't stable and the load temps got over 70C


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 17, 2007)

True. I don't know. I just thought it was interesting. I might be able to get it to 3.2ghz


----------



## erocker (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeah the 6000 isn't the best overclocker for the buck, but you don't really need to overclock it anyway.  Stability is nice... right?


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 17, 2007)

you know it is possible to overclock and have stability


----------



## theonetruewill (Apr 17, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> you know it is possible to overclock and have stability



I think he means not needing to worry about making sure its stable.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Apr 17, 2007)

I have a AMD Athlon X2 4200+ I could never.....ever be happier, my first AMD processor too Intel has done me good but I could honestly care less about the core2duo right now you should feel the same, that 6000+ is great dont regret buying it.

    * Higher overclocking will run your batteries down faster.
    * Higher overclocking generates more heat
    * If the CPU (DSP) gets too hot, it may shut down. You'll have to wait for it to cool off before turning it back on. (Speculation - I haven't seen it do this yet.)

Dont worry about overclocking.......ever, build another computer, then over clock the old one if you want but if it can run games with no problems then I myself don't see a reason to do it, which is why Im most likely never going to do it


----------



## Darren (Apr 17, 2007)

pcgolfer85 said:


> Ok, I have been very discouraged about my recent computer parts order. I have built many computers before, but I have never seriously overclocked before. From what I have read on this forum, everyone seems to be recommending the E6300 because, "it beats any AMD Athlon 64 chip after being overclocked." How is it possible that the E6300 is so much better? Should I  send my AMD Athlon 64 6000+ and new mobo back and order the E6300? My plan was to play games. I also ordered an 8800 GTS (360MB) video card. I don't know...I have spent a lot of money on my new build and I want to be happy with it for a while.
> 
> Edit: I am interested in overclocking my new build.




Let me lay down some small facts. 

In general the Core 2 Duo series can outperform an Athlon X2. however the Athlon X2 6000+ is a high end processor where as the Core 2 Duo E6300 is a budget processor. 

Please dont listen to fan boys. The Athlon X2 6000+ will outperform an E6300 both at stock and overclocked. The Athlon X2 6000+ is comparable with an Core 2 Duo E6700. Anyone that tells you different is a fanboy.

In certain benchmarks the X2 6000+ is known to eliminate an Core 2 X6800 with ease. Check the benchmarks yourself! http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/02/22/amd_athlon_64_x2_6000/6.html


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 18, 2007)

dunno they never posted the benches.
I will say that my fx reaches 3.1 on air 300MHZ oc and 3.3 on water. meaning you might be able to hit 3.3 on air if the % stay the same

but really it's whether or not you want to hassle with the replace, vs the extra performance.

the 6000 has plenty of performance for gaming and normal usages, but if you're looking for a cpu benchmark buster, thats the conroes.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 18, 2007)

Darren said:


> Let me lay down some small facts.
> 
> In general the Core 2 Duo series can outperform an Athlon X2. however the Athlon X2 6000+ is a high end processor where as the Core 2 Duo E6300 is a budget processor.
> 
> ...



There's no fanboyism here. When you overclock, The core 2 wins hands down. He already said he wants to overclock. A core 2 at 3GHz will destroy an AMD X2 6000+ in EVERY benchmark. It's not fanboyism, it's proven fact. Couple that with the fact that most Core2 cpus will overclock to a higher speed than the 6000+ will, and there simply is no comparison. Many users here are hitting 3.6Ghz with their 6300 and 6400 on air. Getting a 6000+ to just 3.4 will most likely require water cooling.

And eliminate a X6800 with ease? Please, it won a single benchmark. The Call of Duty test, by a whopping .3 fps. Sadly those differences can be chalked up to mobo differences. Put those Core 2s in a better mobo, and see what happens.

This is not to say that the 6000+ is a bad cpu. It's a very good cpu, but since he has't actually built the computer yet, Core 2 is a better buy.

BTW, I own an AM2 setup, so I'm no Intel fanboy.


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 18, 2007)

Darren said:


> Let me lay down some small facts.
> 
> In general the Core 2 Duo series can outperform an Athlon X2. however the Athlon X2 6000+ is a high end processor where as the Core 2 Duo E6300 is a budget processor.
> 
> ...



QFF, Athlon X2 6000+ Gets beaten as soon as the E6300 is lightly overclocked, even worse at the same speeds. There is only like a small margin between each one anyway. We aren't fanboys and seriously, we just want to choose the best. What you are trying to say obviously is "Im a fanboy look at me INTEL SUCKS"-thats trolling. You also cant compare a high end proccy to a low end... do I have to stress that? At the same price frame, the E6300 doesnt have a match.

Another problem with what you said is, is that that is only one benchmark, AMD stays on top, realise that AMD recently has been frantically trying to stay on top, by pumping up the clockspeeds. Making them higher than Intel, well if the processors were overclocked to the same exact speed (A very easy thing to do, stock cooler + normal RAM), you would see huge improvements, E6300 clocked at 3.0Ghz is much faster than a +6000 and its cheaper, +6000 is a high end chip its also expensive.

AMD until K10 is in hell atm because they cant keep up...



Wile E said:


> There's no fanboyism here. When you overclock, The core 2 wins hands down. He already said he wants to overclock. A core 2 at 3GHz will destroy an AMD X2 6000+ in EVERY benchmark. It's not fanboyism, it's proven fact. Couple that with the fact that most Core2 cpus will overclock to a higher speed than the 6000+ will, and there simply is no comparison. Many users here are hitting 3.6Ghz with their 6300 and 6400 on air. Getting a 6000+ to just 3.4 will most likely require water cooling.
> 
> And eliminate a X6800 with ease? Please, it won a single benchmark. The Call of Duty test, by a whopping .3 fps. Sadly those differences can be chalked up to mobo differences. Put those Core 2s in a better mobo, and see what happens.
> 
> ...



QFT. C2D to 3.2Ghz = stock cooling


----------



## largon (Apr 18, 2007)

Stock:
6000+ (3GHz, 120W) wins in overall performance, but consumes >2x the wattage of a E6300 (1.86GHz, <50W).

Overclocked: 
E6300 does 3.2 - 3.4GHz (~90W) 24/7 stable on on air cooling and stock voltage, 6000+ will only go upto 3.1 -3.2GHz (~130W) and likely needs a bump in vCore and high end HSF. 

E6300 beats the 6000+ by upto 15-30% once OC'ed.


----------



## Chewy (Apr 18, 2007)

yogurt_21 said:


> but if you're looking for a cpu benchmark buster, thats the conroes.



 You meant to say faster right?  Im not going to waste my time looking for benches on this since, I already found it before and know in my head. e6300 4 months ago beat any amd cpu out when overclocked... even the fx64, now they have fx74 out.. Im not sure if the e6300 overclocked can beat that one when its overclocked aswell but for a 180usd chip thats pretty good if overclock (no stability probems, oc'in is safe) and you want a super fast chip for ~200.

 The 6000+ is an excelent chip as I said before and he did great picking it in my books, its fast enough for a long time... and when he needs to he can overclock it. I like overclocking my chip because I convert movies to my ipod and this does it very fast for the price I paid.


----------



## Joshmcmillan (Apr 18, 2007)

6000+ IS WAY BETTER THEN E6300!! At stock the 5000+ is as good as the E6300, but TKpenalty says that if you overclock the E6300 is becomes way better.


----------



## Chewy (Apr 18, 2007)

Joshmcmillan said:


> 6000+ IS WAY BETTER THEN E6300!! At stock the 5000+ is as good as the E6300, but TKpenalty says that if you overclock the E6300 is becomes way better.



couldnt agree more Josh.

 I'm to lazy to check/research how much faster a c2d 2mb 1066fsb @ 3.2 than a 3.0 amd6000 both I think would be very safe overclocks. I guess its only about 20% according to what someone said... but the majority of customers do not overclock therefore thier better off getting an amd chip. ofc overclocking can have risk if you dont know what your doing.


----------



## Joshmcmillan (Apr 18, 2007)

I don't overclock that's why I have an AMD(besides the fact there cheaper), if an Intel was the same price I wld probebly get it. lol.


----------



## largon (Apr 18, 2007)

Joshmcmillan said:


> I don't overclock that's why I have an AMD(besides the fact there cheaper), if an Intel was the same price I wld probebly get it. lol.





> Originally Posted by *pcgolfer85*, the OP
> I am interested in overclocking my new build.


Thus, for the original poster a Core 2 Duo would be the smarter choice.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 18, 2007)

Chewy said:


> couldnt agree more Josh.
> 
> I'm to lazy to check/research how much faster a c2d 2mb 1066fsb @ 3.2 than a 3.0 amd6000 both I think would be very safe overclocks. I guess its only about 20% according to what someone said... but the majority of customers do not overclock therefore thier better off getting an amd chip. ofc overclocking can have risk if you dont know what your doing.


But you are missing the entire point of this thread. The thread starter DOES want to overclock. In that case, Core2 is the way to go. And if you research more benchmarks, the ones posted earlier in this thread are NOT the norm. There's an average of a 20% increase in performance with a Core 2, when both cpus are the same speed. Some tests it proves to be up to 40% faster. Hmmm, let me think. $180 for a Core 2 overclocked to 3.2Ghz, or $230 for an A64 X2 6000+ overclocked to 3.2GHz (which still loses, btw)?


----------



## Chewy (Apr 18, 2007)

Wile E said:


> But you are missing the entire point of this thread. The thread starter DOES want to overclock. In that case, Core2 is the way to go. And if you research more benchmarks, the ones posted earlier in this thread are NOT the norm. There's an average of a 20% increase in performance with a Core 2, when both cpus are the same speed. Some tests it proves to be up to 40% faster. Hmmm, let me think. $180 for a Core 2 overclocked to 3.2Ghz, or $230 for an A64 X2 6000+ overclocked to 3.2GHz (which still loses, btw)?




 nice man dident know exactly how much faster it would be.. this thread is done really he has his chip and already has all the info he needs.. just some people *cough* Yogert *cough* think amd is better for gaming even when both are overclocked... even though hes a "tech" and owns a store... not that I doubt him to much, damm I should open a store... if he can do it anyone can. he says hes mature yet look at the barcelona k10 news article.



yogurt_21 said:


> the 6000 has plenty of performance for gaming and normal usages, but if you're looking for a cpu benchmark buster, thats the conroes.


 hes pretty much saying the c2d is only a benchmark buster. yeah no doubt the 6000 is GREAT for gaming elc but the c2d is more than just a benchmark buster.. its faster in gaming and doing everything besides sp2000.. well before I turn this into a flame thread.. I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Joshmcmillan (Apr 18, 2007)

5000+ scores more at stock benchmarks then the E6300. The 6000+ should be compared to the E6600 or E6700, going off the benchmarks I've seen.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 18, 2007)

Joshmcmillan said:


> 5000+ scores more at stock benchmarks then the E6300. The 6000+ should be compared to the E6600 or E6700, going off the benchmarks I've seen.


The thread starter WANTS TO OVERCLOCK!

No offense to you Josh, or anyone else, but please read the whole thread before you post. Stock vs. stock comparisons do not matter, only overclocked performance matters.


----------



## LonGun (Apr 18, 2007)

thanks for the info guys. I've taken all of them down for future use. Anyway, so the conclusion is I guess: The original poster wasn't planning to overclock in the beginning, and have bought an AMD 6000+, and Motherboard, etc.. He should just keep them and build himself a new system. Don't regret because it is a good choice and will does what he asks for (handle games greatly for a while.) Don't overclock for now because that chip can do the job very well, no need for faster speed for awhile. Hope he wasn't confused.


----------



## new_rez (Apr 18, 2007)

If I were you I would go for the e6300, they overclock like beasts, mine is running at 3.4Ghz, 100% stable and the temps are 44'c/55'c with air cooling (Thermalright ultra 90). It can even do 3.5Ghz (Gets to hot for me though) 
I've always been under the impression that AMD chips don't seem to overclock to much, thats what has always put me off buying them (even if the performance is there).

Go for the e6300, you won't be dissapointed! You could go for the e6320 for the same price (give or take a couple of £/$). They have the same clock but a 4mb cache instead of 2mb. I want to get one, they were released here in the Uk today.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2007)

Darren said:


> Let me lay down some small facts.
> 
> In general the Core 2 Duo series can outperform an Athlon X2. however the Athlon X2 6000+ is a high end processor where as the Core 2 Duo E6300 is a budget processor.
> 
> ...




A fanboi?  I am an AMD fanboi that has just ordered an E4300.  To be honest the subject of C2D versus AMD and more specifically the E6300 versus the 6000 is becoming repetative.  If I may start by saying my last 6 CPU's have been AMD to re-enforce my "fanboi" status you may be surprised to see me say that yes at stock speeds the 6000 beats even the E6600 in some benches/apps, thats because it stocks at 3Gig and a C2D will not match it until the C2d gets to around 2.6+gig at which point they are pretty even, why?........ fact......clock for clock any C2D is 15-20% faster than any current AMD offering.

So, if you overclock the answer is fairly simple, go C2D if you can afford it, if not overclocking well its up to you, bear in mind the E4300 is cheaper than the 6300 and 6000.  If you would like first hand proof to support my views as far as overclocked performance .....Please......simply go to the SuperPI 1M thread in these forums and check yourselves, the fastest time posted for an AMD used to be held by me and it was something like 25.090secs for a 4000_ Sandy at 3.27Gig, I dont think the 6000 will go any faster on air than that, the fastest E6300 is I think 14 and a bit seconds.....speaks for itself, I reckon thats over 40% speed increase.

Anyone that says that if an individual overclocks they will still get more out of a 6000+ I am afraid is talking utter nonsense based on the fact that probably the average overclock for a 6000 is 3.2 - 3.25Gig and the average overclock for an E6300 is 3.4-3.6Gig.  

Please remember that in this specific thread, the origionator is hoping to overclock so if your going to provide honest links, show not just the stock benches but overclocked ones also, it is pretty easy to find the right review to support an argument if you try hard enuff, like I could show you in STOCK benches in pure CPU intensive instructions how even at stock the 6300 beats the 6000 despite AMD's higher stock speeds, thats why the C2D is so efficient!

jusat for the record, those bemnches are below, although we know in reality that things are not quite as straightforward as that hence my point about being un-biased and posting all the relevant facts.

I am not having a "pop" at you specifically but I just like balanced argument, I am by no means always right but I do like to be un-biased


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 18, 2007)

I have been doing some more research online about overclocking the core 2 duo processor. I have found a lot of information which says that when you overclock the core 2 duo, your performance may be a lot better than other processors (amd) but the life of the processor gets cut down dramatically. Also, because I have had minor experience with overclocking, I am too afraid to mess something up permanently. After reading this LOOOONNNNGGGG discussion and doing some of my own research, I am not willing to take the chance of destroying a core 2 duo when I can have a lot of fun for a long time with my trusty amd. Thanks for all your responses.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2007)

pcgolfer85 said:


> I have been doing some more research online about overclocking the core 2 duo processor. I have found a lot of information which says that when you overclock the core 2 duo, your performance may be a lot better than other processors (amd) but the life of the processor gets cut down dramatically. Also, because I have had minor experience with overclocking, I am too afraid to mess something up permanently. After reading this LOOOONNNNGGGG discussion and doing some of my own research, I am not willing to take the chance of destroying a core 2 duo when I can have a lot of fun for a long time with my trusty amd. Thanks for all your responses.



I hear what you are saying but providing you have an adequate cooler and you do not apply excessive voltages there is actually little or no risk involved.  When articles talk about reducing the life of a CPU, often they are talking about a 20 year life span perhaps reducing to 16 or 17......very few people keep a CPU for that amount of time.

I can only speak from personal experience and I have never had a problem, with a C2D, if you wanted to be really safe just dont go above 1.45 volts and keep idle temps to below 40C, that way you can be as sure as possible that the CPU is fine and that should still give you 3.4Gig!  

Think of it this way, the 6000+ is a 90nm chip against the C2d's 60nm, the C2D runs cooler on lower volts and therfore technically issafer in mild overclocks than the 6000+ is at stock, some may argue that point by saying the 90nm chips by design are rated to take the extra heat but in fact the max core temps for safety on each chip are very similar.


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 18, 2007)

I may wait until the new Core 2 Duo get released (Well...maybe in like 6 months...) then I will start to overclock. I am excited to try it. Will the new Core 2 Duo's use the same socket type? Anyone recommend a good mobo?


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2007)

pcgolfer85 said:


> I may wait until the new Core 2 Duo get released (Well...maybe in like 6 months...) then I will start to overclock. I am excited to try it. Will the new Core 2 Duo's use the same socket type? Anyone recommend a good mobo?



Yes same socket 775, there are a vast amount of motherboards out there now and how much you spend on one will depend on the features you need and the amount you wish to overclock, some good overclockers are the Asus P5B deluxe and variations, the gigabyte 965p's either DS3 or DS4 versions and if you are thinking of going SLI for example in the future, the Asus P5N_E NForce 650i SLI is pretty good, there are also a few of the fairly new 680i Sli boards available now that are very high end, most have had some teething issues that are being ironed out now but most of them are serious money, for value and overclockability most would probably say the Gigabyte DS3 or DS4, the Asus P5B Deluxe or for Sli the Asus P5N-E.  As I said there are too many to mention but those are worthy of note, best to jst check an E Tailer for boards within your price range, and google reviews on them and ask questions in here.


----------



## largon (Apr 18, 2007)

I have a Gigabyte DS4... 
If I was bying a board now or in near future, I would get _Abit QuadGT_ or _DFI "Dark" P965-S_. 

DS4 can be _incredibly_ annoying. 
The board _is_ stable and OC's great, but sometimes it just get's jammed in an infinite rebooting loop.


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 18, 2007)

My 4 C2D builds all resulted in very dissapointing gaming results, although the benchmark scores were outstanding.  I just sold off all my Intel gear to go back to AMD as I feel, in my opinion, they are the winner for gaming.  I will not try to say that C2D is not the king, but they are the mathematical kinds, not 3D.  Even most benchmark tests on the web show that in 3D, the AMD CPU's stay within the reach of the C2D, but in anything mathematical, of course the C2D rules. 

A 6000+ will do well against a C2D, but not in benchamrks.  It is all about what you consider important.  For me, I cannot resist any longer and I am going back to AMD since my "old" Opteron 165 X1800 Crossfire rig outgamed ANY C2D rig I built.  My last C2d was a E6600 with 7900GTO SLI and while it was insane for benching, it just had issues ingame that my Opty rig did not.

Am I a fanboi?  Of course I am.  We all are.  I say keep the AMD stuff because I don't think Intel will make you happier.  To each their own.  I know AMD will make me happy, but it will not make the majority of people happy when they want the fastest thing possible.  That is my $.02.


----------



## techbuzz (Apr 18, 2007)

Thanks b1lk1!

My computer components should arrive today...


----------



## largon (Apr 18, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> My 4 C2D builds all resulted in very dissapointing gaming results, although the benchmark scores were outstanding.


Please elaborate. 
How were your results dissapointing? 

What gaming issues were there on your C2D that the Opty didn't experience?


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 18, 2007)

largon said:


> Please elaborate.
> How were your results dissapointing?
> 
> What gaming issues were there on your C2D that the Opty didn't experience?



I get stuttering and longer load times.  I have tried every driver known to man for all my combos and I tweaked everything possible.  I am still always impressed with AMD's much higher memory bandwidth numbers and I feel that is the main reason I have issues.  Plus I game @ 1680X1050 which puts more strain on everything.  As I said, my views are mostly my opinion, but every benchmark everywhere on the planet keeps the AM2 within 20% of any C2D in performance.

C2D winds hands down in performance tests, and they encode video like monsters.  That is why my HTPC will be a C2D E6600 machine.  But I am just not blown away by Intels gaming performance and my fanboy love of AMD kicked in.  Even the worst case scenario, my new OC'd AMD system will game just as well as a mildly OC'd C2D.  If I get lucky, Barcelona will work as well as they hope and actually compete on a level playing field.  Quads are unnecessary right now no matter who makes them, so I still have a viable upgrade path on both my PC's.

No matter how you look at it, they are both killer platforms, just one outclocks/benchmarks the other.  In my world, benchmarks don't always rule.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> I get stuttering and longer load times.  I have tried every driver known to man for all my combos and I tweaked everything possible.  I am still always impressed with AMD's much higher memory bandwidth numbers and I feel that is the main reason I have issues.  Plus I game @ 1680X1050 which puts more strain on everything.  As I said, my views are mostly my opinion, but every benchmark everywhere on the planet keeps the AM2 within 20% of any C2D in performance.
> 
> C2D winds hands down in performance tests, and they encode video like monsters.  That is why my HTPC will be a C2D E6600 machine.  But I am just not blown away by Intels gaming performance and my fanboy love of AMD kicked in.  Even the worst case scenario, my new OC'd AMD system will game just as well as a mildly OC'd C2D.  If I get lucky, Barcelona will work as well as they hope and actually compete on a level playing field.  Quads are unnecessary right now no matter who makes them, so I still have a viable upgrade path on both my PC's.
> 
> No matter how you look at it, they are both killer platforms, just one outclocks/benchmarks the other.  In my world, benchmarks don't always rule.



Fair point!  At the end of the day, personal expereince rulz, as I said, this will be my first Intel rig I am putting together and I pray that I am not dissapointed!  I agree completely in what you have said, one of the reasons I am going C2D tho is because currently, there is no AMD rig that would not bottleneck 2 x 8600GTS's in SLi mode, as well as really, I could do with a change.  I am an AMD fanboi thru and thru and I reckon that next year with K10 or whatever I will prob be going back there!


----------



## Gam'ster (Apr 18, 2007)

Yeah, your 6000+ is very nice indeed, as nearly everyone here as said it will keep u happy for a while to come, ive only had my amd system for a few months ( 4200+ ) and its does me fine for gaming, burning dvds and cd's. Yes the c2d is very very nice im tempted every so often to sell what i have now ,  but amd will do the job for for another year or 2 and it does it very well, u need not worrie  

Nice gfx card btw and there pretty cheap too, anyway have fun with ur new build hope it goes well for you


----------



## largon (Apr 18, 2007)

*b1lk1*,
Never ever have I heard of similar problems. 
Due to the fact that I have the same board as you had (DS4 and DQ6 are practically the same) and never have experienced anything like that, the only explanation is there was something wrong with your software, _not hardware_. 

I tried looking into your post history on several forums for any threads about your problem, found no posts from you about the issues. Based on your posts you were quite happy with your C2D (?).

Is there a thread about the issues somewhere?


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 18, 2007)

no see us amd fanboys just cant be explained lol. the fx-62 cost me 400$ I could ahve gotten a 6600 for less than that and had better performance. but hey some of us are wierd. lol


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 18, 2007)

i personally think it is nothing but stupidity to pay more money for less performance just to stay loyal to a company that has done nothing but take your money(and actually rip you off for that matter)


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> i personally think it is nothing but stupidity to pay more money for less performance just to stay loyal to a company that has done nothing but take your money(and actually rip you off for that matter)



Your right but people do it all the time.....I have in the past so I aint gonna be a hypercrite now and say different, I am comfy with AMD, I would consider myself an advanced overclocker with them but am just a novice with intel, thats one of the reasons I am changing actually.....I like a challenge!

The kit has arrived by the way, damn its hard not to start putting it all together but I am going to wait until the weekend if it kills me!  I have heard some say that the intel stock cooler is more or less as good as most aftermarket coolers, all i can say is that this Skythe Infinity is HUGE, like 3 times the size of the stock, I cant see anyway that the stock would match it.


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 18, 2007)

largon said:


> *b1lk1*,
> Never ever have I heard of similar problems.
> Due to the fact that I have the same board as you had (DS4 and DQ6 are practically the same) and never have experienced anything like that, the only explanation is there was something wrong with your software, _not hardware_.
> 
> ...



No, there are no threads because the things that bother me I don't consider a huge deal.  As I said, my experiences and feelings are not the status quo.  I definitely am not trying to slam any hardware with my posts, I just have not had a warm fuzzy experience with C2D so it is time for me to go back to what I like.



Eric_Cartman said:


> i personally think it is nothing but stupidity to pay more money for less performance just to stay loyal to a company that has done nothing but take your money(and actually rip you off for that matter)



I think it is stupid to post useless unhelpful drivel like that in a thread where noone cares what is the ub3r 1337 bestest hardware.  Ever hear of the concept of shutting up when you have no useful info to add?  Troll elsewhere.


----------



## anticlutch (Apr 18, 2007)

Cartman is right fyi. Brand loyalty is stupid especially if the only thing that happens is the company taking your money. Be it computer parts, cars, sports equipment, whatever, at the end of the day the company that you bought an item from wins. So instead of all this fanboyism and stuff, it's much better to 'go with the flow'. If C2D is the king of performance, buy that. If the upcoming K10's are the kings of performance, go for that. IMO the more loyal to a brand you are, the less judgement and rational thinking you are capable of. That being said, if the original poster WANTS to overclock a lot, then yes, a Core2Duo will serve you better. If you want to keep it stock, AMD wins in that category.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 18, 2007)

anticlutch said:


> Cartman is right fyi. Brand loyalty is stupid especially if the only thing that happens is the company taking your money. Be it computer parts, cars, sports equipment, whatever, at the end of the day the company that you bought an item from wins. So instead of all this fanboyism and stuff, it's much better to 'go with the flow'. If C2D is the king of performance, buy that. If the upcoming K10's are the kings of performance, go for that. IMO the more loyal to a brand you are, the less judgement and rational thinking you are capable of. That being said, if the original poster WANTS to overclock a lot, then yes, a Core2Duo will serve you better. If you want to keep it stock, AMD wins in that category.



Yes but you are quoting opinions and views, we are all entitled to them, we can all choose our own path, I think the point is that it's a personal choice what we go for and that choice should be respected and not always criticised because it is not the same as someone elses.  I would not choose a Hyundai over a Mercedes just cause it was a bit quicker even if it is cheaper


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 18, 2007)

anticlutch said:


> Cartman is right fyi. Brand loyalty is stupid especially if the only thing that happens is the company taking your money. Be it computer parts, cars, sports equipment, whatever, at the end of the day the company that you bought an item from wins. So instead of all this fanboyism and stuff, it's much better to 'go with the flow'. If C2D is the king of performance, buy that. If the upcoming K10's are the kings of performance, go for that. IMO the more loyal to a brand you are, the less judgement and rational thinking you are capable of. That being said, if the original poster WANTS to overclock a lot, then yes, a Core2Duo will serve you better. If you want to keep it stock, AMD wins in that category.



Cartman owns a Pentium D 805.  That means he bought it when we all know ANY low end X2 would stomp it into the ground for the same price. 

C2D is not the be all end all.  The AMD CPU's stay right up to them up to 2,8GHz or so and there is no game out there that takes advantage of the extra speeds.  AGAIN, I am not telling everyone they should sell their C2D's because AMD is better.  There is nothing worse than every thread that someone starts with "AMD" in the title gets spammed by C2D fanboys.  Especially when noone is disputing the highest speeds.  THe OP wanted th know what to do with his choice and that has been decided.  Any further conversation of C2D in this thread is stupid.

I did not decide to go back to AMD because I love AMD as a company.  I went back to AMD because their in game performance was better TO ME.  I don't need the highest GHz and benchmark scores to sleep at night.  I just want what I like and that happens to be AMD products.  Fanboyism, yes.  Illogical, no.  That is the wonderful thing about free thinking and choice.  We all get to have what we want.


----------



## TheCrow (Apr 18, 2007)

I personally have no experience with the C2D's but put together my new system a couple of months ago. To be honest I didn't read up too much on what i was buying and got a AMD X2 5200+ thinking that AMD were still kicking intels arse in performance.

Since joining this forum i've found it pretty obvious that they are not however. But my cpu is great and does the job for me, i can use photoshop, burn cds, listen to music, max out my 10mb broadband downloading all at the same time. And the pc doesn't miss a beat.

I can even play games ok, such as Test Drive Unlimited, etc. 

As long as your not going to be wanting to overclock to like 4ghz and set the fastest time in SuperPi then i see no reason why the AMD is not suitable.

And as for overclocking, well I didn't have a clue at first either. But my cpu is 2.6ghz stock and i have it running at 2.8ghz rock solid, my temp never goes above 35 on idle and its never gone above 41 on full load. I've had her boot at 3ghz but she was unstable, but on my mobo i cant raise the vcore so maybe that has summits to do with it?

Hope i have been of some help!


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 19, 2007)

AMD systems DO kick ass.  That is what everyone forgets.  Without a doubt C2D's are superior number crunchers and overclock further, but there is nothing it can do that a AMD system cannot.  At the end of the day, it is what makes you happy.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 19, 2007)

uh oh this is starting to look familiar.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 19, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> Cartman owns a Pentium D 805.  That means he bought it when we all know ANY low end X2 would stomp it into the ground for the same price.



actually i bought it when amd didn't have a dual core processor on the market that could match the 805 in price.

i didn't care that more money would get me better performance, i just wanted the cheapest dual core processor i could get, look at my system specs and ask yourself: "is he a gamer?"

no, obviously i'm not playing many games with an x300se, i wanted a dual core processor to allow me to do the things i do but didn't want to/couldn't pay out the ass for one

at the time a socket 939 x2 3800+ would have cost me more than twice as much as the 805(yes i have had the 805 since the 939 days when am2 was just a rumor and no one was talking about the 3600+)

if i could have afforded an x2 3800+ at the time i would have gotten it, but i couldn't so the 805 was the next best option, i was hoping to put it on water cooling and get it up to 4ghz, but never got the funds, which is why i am sitting here at 3ghz on the crappy intel cooler


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 19, 2007)

b1lk1, I have a hard time believing a word you say.  There isn't a single thing my Core 2 Duo system doesn't outperform my Athlon X2 system in, including games.  Never once has my system stuttered in a game unless I set the graphical setting higher than the cards could handle, in which case that isn't the processors fault, it is the graphics cards fault.


----------



## Joshmcmillan (Apr 19, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> b1lk1, I have a hard time believing a word you say.  There isn't a single thing my Core 2 Duo system doesn't outperform my Athlon X2 system in, including games.  Never once has my system stuttered in a game unless I set the graphical setting higher than the cards could handle, in which case that isn't the processors fault, it is the graphics cards fault.



Pffft of coarse an E6600 will out perform a 4400+ X2, but if you had a 6000+ X2 or a 5600+ X2 it wld wld be a different story.


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 19, 2007)

Cartman, you yourself said it is stupid to buy something weaker when there is a clear performance winner.  Yet it is OK you did.  I am not trying to bust your balls, but you yourself did what alot of AMD guys are doing and yet it is OK to call them stupid. 

Newtekie1, I really should have mentioned I run 1680X1050 res and that does put additional strain on an entire PC.  My games all run super fast and I don't expect miracles from the AM2, but it sure can't hurt to get one.  Bare minimum I will still get the exact same experience while gaming since my LCD will stop showing over 60FPS.  In 3D and gaming, the AM2 keeps right up with C2D's, just look around at the benchmarks.  C2D kills the AM2 in mathmatical work, encoding, Super PI.  Either way, I can't lose with an AM2 the way I am looking at it.

A E6400 and 6000+ are equal in performance, stock clock for stock clock.  Up to I think it is 2.6-2.8GHz on the C2D the 6000+ can overclock and keep up to it.  The C2D can just overclock so much further it is obviously going to pull away eventually.  I just don't understand how people think they can outperform a AMD X2 so much that the X2 doesn't feel fast.  They are the original super fast chips.  The C2D just goes a step further.


----------



## kwchang007 (Apr 19, 2007)

look at the super pi 1 million threadhttp://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=15868 my stock 2 ghz c2d beats a 3700+ @3 ghz and is barely behind a 4000+ at 3.093 ghz.  how can you call the c2d slower clock for clock?  it's pleanty faster clock for clock (and im also on a 667 mhz fsb)


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Apr 19, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> Cartman, you yourself said it is stupid to buy something weaker when there is a clear performance winner.  Yet it is OK you did.  I am not trying to bust your balls, but you yourself did what alot of AMD guys are doing and yet it is OK to call them stupid.



where did i say that?  i'm not trying to bust your balls, but i never said that at all, you came up with that on your own


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 19, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> we're talking about am2's beating c2d's?  it's the opposite way around, look at the super pi 1 million threadhttp://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=15868 my 2 ghz c2d beats a 3700+ @3 ghz and is barely behind a 4000+ at 3.093 ghz.  how can you call the c2d slower clock for clock?  it's pleanty faster clock for clock (and im also on a 667 mhz fsb)



Where in the world do you see anyone saying the Conroe is not faster, especially in PI?  Slower clock for clock?  That is ludicrous.  My E6600 HTPC will do 21s PI times stock speeds and I will have to push it to the ends of its life to get 27-28s with a X2.


----------



## kwchang007 (Apr 19, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> Where in the world do you see anyone saying the Conroe is not faster, especially in PI?  Slower clock for clock?  That is ludicrous.  My E6600 HTPC will do 21s PI times stock speeds and I will have to push it to the ends of its life to get 27-28s with a X2.



oh shoot i read something wrong, my bad, i should go and change that, sorry again.  (idk why but im off today on everything)


----------



## b1lk1 (Apr 19, 2007)

Don't feel bad, I think alot of people are misunderstanding my motives as well.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 19, 2007)

b1lk1 said:


> Newtekie1, I really should have mentioned I run 1680X1050 res and that does put additional strain on an entire PC.  My games all run super fast and I don't expect miracles from the AM2, but it sure can't hurt to get one.  Bare minimum I will still get the exact same experience while gaming since my LCD will stop showing over 60FPS.  In 3D and gaming, the AM2 keeps right up with C2D's, just look around at the benchmarks.  C2D kills the AM2 in mathmatical work, encoding, Super PI.  Either way, I can't lose with an AM2 the way I am looking at it.



You could have mentioned that, but it wouldn't have changed my statement any since all my games are run at 1680x1050(except for the select few that don't support that resolution of course).  The higher resolution puts more strain on the graphics cards, but not really the rest of the computer.

There isn't really a game out right now that would even max out my x2 4400+@2.8GHz, but I am looking to the future.  Even the straight game benchmarks show the Core 2 Duos easily beating the Athlon X2s when clocked the same.


----------



## tkpenalty (Apr 19, 2007)

Stuttering in gaming usually is to do with the motherboard... nothing to do with the proccy. You guys are all liek "You're gay" then "You're gay too" times infinity. Calm down...

There is no such thing as "Gaming performance is different to encoding" Encoding is simple to the processor, wheras gaming puts a huge amount of stress. Thing is if ur proccy is good at Encoding, it has to be good at Gaming as well, however this is mainly based on what GPU you use and what motherboard. Many Hardcore fanboys don't realise that! They ignore that fact and set unfair criteria when benchmarking. 

You can't accuse people of being a hippocrite when they purchased the part before the AMD Dual Core CPUs came out!!! Its simply unfair and unjust, I would have done the same.


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 19, 2007)

I just read a review and the X2 3800 is faster at stock speeds

X2 3800 > E6300

which just made me rethink my Intel system I was thinking about.


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 19, 2007)

WEll that first review I read was clearly wrong looking at this
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=11


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 19, 2007)

> WEll that first review I read was clearly wrong looking at this



obviously lol I've yet top see the 3800 x2 get near the performance of a 6300, and I'm an amd fanboy lol.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 19, 2007)

DaMulta said:


> I just read a review and the X2 3800 is faster at stock speeds
> 
> X2 3800 > E6300
> 
> which just made me rethink my Intel system I was thinking about.



Faster in what? It really depends on the test/bench, I posted at the end of page 2 I think some rendering benches that had the E6300 beating the AMD 6000+ both at stock, it's fairly immaterial TBH, I overclock so I know my AMD's wont get near what will be my new C2D. 

As I said earlier, stock or not, there are still some benches that AMD's process remain very strong at and C2D struggle to compete, I think the point is that there are not many of them which is why OVERALL, clock for clock, stock or not, the C2D is 15-20% faster, when you get to 3.6Gig, well you aint running an AMD, not on air anyways.


----------



## Joshmcmillan (Apr 19, 2007)

There is higher then 3.6ghz AMD's at stock..lol


----------



## TylerZambori (Apr 20, 2007)

erocker said:


> Heck, I would say ditch that and go with a cheaper Brisbane core to keep some cash.  I actually prefer gaming on an AMD over and Intel.  My music recording system has a Core2Duo in it and I wouldn't use anything else.



Why is that?  Is the Core2Duo more stable? Sounds like you use AMD for fun
but for more serious work you want Intel?  I'm trying to decide myself.


----------



## strick94u (Apr 20, 2007)

I have a 6300 and a 3600 x2 and feel both are great chips got just under 4900 on 3d mark06 
with a single 7900 gs on the amd so the cpu @ 2200 mhz is doing one hell of a job. was going to sell it now maybe not. I would like to see the numbers on that 6000 when you finnesh it bet it kicks ass 














i


----------

