# From Athlon64 6000+ to Intel E8400



## Deleted member 38767 (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm thinking of migrating from my Athllon64 6000+ with ASUS M2N32 Sli premium Vista edition to Intel E8400 and Gigabyte P35-DS3R. Will there be any noticeable difference in performance?


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jun 23, 2008)

yes


----------



## btarunr (Jun 23, 2008)

Difference? Yes. Worth spending $190 + $130? No.

You can simply upgrade the BIOS and get a PhenomX4 9850 BE instead and end up saving $90. I'm sure the pricing-pattern is similar in the EU.


----------



## hat (Jun 23, 2008)

Eh... the 6000+ is still one hell of a cpu. If you havn't already, just play around with overclocking.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 23, 2008)

Grasshopper said:


> I'm thinking of migrating from my Athllon64 6000+ with ASUS M2N32 Sli premium Vista edition to Intel E8400 and Gigabyte P35-DS3R. Will there be any noticeable difference in performance?



im guessing you mean AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+, yes there will be a performance jump in loading times and speed my mate whent from a 6000+ to a E6850 and he was happy, don't know why but the 6000+ didnt like his ultra much


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Jun 23, 2008)

I get the MB for free so all I need is the CPU and I can get it cheap too. When I sell the old parts all will cost approximately 0.


----------



## hat (Jun 23, 2008)

Well go for it then.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

Grasshopper said:


> I'm thinking of migrating from my Athllon64 6000+ with ASUS M2N32 Sli premium Vista edition to Intel E8400 and Gigabyte P35-DS3R. Will there be any noticeable difference in performance?



no not unless you bench I have had them both. The 8400 is faster but it's not noticable for everyday use or really even gaming. If you get the 8400 to 4.0ghz and the 6000+ to 3.3ghz you will see a difference in say burning a dvd. The e8400 will be about five minutes faster. Unoverclocked you will see very little difference. In windows you will see very little difference because of the memory controller. The 6000+ is a very good multitasker and Vista was designed for to 64 line. If you were starting from scratch i would say e8400 but since you have a 6000+ it not that big of a upgrade, save your money for ram or video card.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jun 23, 2008)

trt740 said:


> no not unless you bench I have had them both. The 8400 is faster but it's not noticable for everyday use or really even gaming. If you get the 8400 to 4.0ghz and the 6000+ to 3.3ghz you will see a difference in say burning a dvd. The e8400 will be about five minutes faster. Unoverclocked you will see very little difference. In windows you will see very little difference because of the memory controller. The 6000+ is a very good multitasker and Vista was designed for to 64 line. If you were starting from scratch i would say e8400 but since you have a 6000+ it not that big of a upgrade, save your money for ram or video card.



I'm not so sure about that trt740. My last system was a AMD 64 x2 5200 which I had OC'ed to 2874mhz(not much between my OC and a stock 6000)and a giabyte GA-M57SLI-S4. I went from that to the e8400 and a EVGA 750i FTW motherboard. There is absolutely no comparing speeds between the two set-up. The e8400 system is much faster than my 5200 set-up was in every aspect. My best 3dmark06 benchmark with the 5200 system, 3 gigs ram and a 9800gx2 was 10k with everything OC'ed. With no OC on anyhting, using the same RAM and 9800gx2 with the e8400/750i motherboard, my scores jumped to over 15k. With everything OC'ed(like it was with the 5200) I've scored as high as 19870(check system specs for compare link) and at my 24/7 setting, I score just over 18k.  I know benchmarks aren't everything, but when you have a 8k gain, you definently notice the speed difference in everything. But if benchmarks aren't enough for you, when it comes to stuff like running a patch for a game, my 8400 system is easily twice as fast as my 5200 set-up was.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I'm not so sure about that trt740. My last system was a AMD 64 x2 5200 which I had OC'ed to 2874mhz(not much between my OC and a stock 6000)and a giabyte GA-M57SLI-S4. I went from that to the e8400 and a EVGA 750i FTW motherboard. There is absolutely no comparing speeds between the two set-up. The e8400 system is much faster than my 5200 set-up was in every aspect. My best 3dmark06 benchmark with the 5200 system, 3 gigs ram and a 9800gx2 was 10k with everything OC'ed. With no OC on anyhting, using the same RAM and 9800gx2 with the e8400/750i motherboard, my scores jumped to over 15k. With everything OC'ed(like it was with the 5200) I've scored as high as 19870(check system specs for compare link) and at my 24/7 setting, I score just over 18k.  I know benchmarks aren't everything, but when you have a 8k gain, you definently notice the speed difference in everything. But if benchmarks aren't enough for you, when it comes to stuff like running a patch for a game, my 8400 system is easily twice as fast as my 5200 set-up was.



That mean almost nothing in the real world once you reach 3.0ghz the cpu has very little effect on your GPU especally at higher resolutions.. It is exactly what you said a benchmark. Also not sure why patching a game would make a difference it shouldn't a 6000+ is about on par with a e6600, e6700, or e6750 in most things. Once again a e8400 is faster but I bet if I didn't tell you which chip was in the computer when you used it you couldn't tell which had the e8400 and which had the 6000+, both are very fast. The 6000+ was designed for vista and vista designed for it(cpu intruction set a design).  The memory controller is what lets a 6000+ compete. If he was starting from scratch a e8400 by all means but not when he already owns a 6000+. I would give the same advice to someone who had a e6700,e6600 etc.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

I went from an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ BE oc'ed to 3.2GHz to an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ stock 1.86GHz, and I shit my pants.  It felt WAY faster.  Now at 4.5GHz and above on an E8500, programs start before you click them


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> I went from an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ BE oc'ed to 3.2GHz to an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ stock 1.86GHz, and I shit my pants.  It felt WAY faster.  Now at 4.5GHz and above on an E8500, programs start before you click them



if you shit your pants going from a 5000+ at 3.2ghz to a e6300 at 1.83 I'm shocked because the 5000+ would be faster unless the e6300 was at 2.8ghz or so and then they would be equal. Remember the 6000+ has 2 times the on board memory than the 5000+ and that makes a big difference because of the memory controller in a AMD chip. The core2duos need alot more on chip memory because they lack a memory controller. The 64 chip are alot more efficent handling memory and apparently Intel knows this because the big N is gonna have a memory controller when it comes out next year.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

I also got faster memory speeds on my Intel systems than on my AMD system, and even my latencies were lower...

I was just as shocked as you are...


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> I also got faster memory speeds on my Intel systems than on my AMD system, and even my latencies were lower...
> 
> I was just as shocked as you are...



There was something wrong with your system because it is not faster. Even at stock a 6000+ would kill a e6300 at stock and it wouldn't be close. A 4200/4400 would match a e6300 at stock. The e6300 would pull away when overclocked but not a ton.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm not saying I benched them against each other.  I'm saying it FELT faster.  There was nothing wrong with my system.

May I also say that I convinced a buddy to move from a 6400+BE to an E8400, and he has NEVER been happier.  He now runs 4GHz 24/7


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> I'm not saying I benched them against each other.  I'm saying it FELT faster.  There was nothing wrong with my system.
> 
> May I also say that I convinced a buddy to move from a 6400+BE to an E8400, and he has NEVER been happier.  He now runs 4GHz 24/7



I'm not trying to be mean but what your saying is simply not a fact. In the real world at stock you would not see very much difference for sure between a 6400+ and e8400 it is only when you overclock. The 6400+ performs very close to a E6850 at stock. Since only about 10 percent overclock and 2 percent extreme overclock. The average person couldn't tell.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

FEEL is subjective, not objective...

Also, he (my buddy) wanted to move to a 9850BE, but he says the E8400 even @ stock handles multiple applications much better than his 6400+BE, and he now won't need a quad for another few years.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> FEEL is subjective, not objective...
> 
> Also, he (my buddy) wanted to move to a 9850BE, but he says the E8400 even @ stock handles multiple applications much better than his 6400+BE, and he now won't need a quad for another few years.



Well if it makes him feel better.  I just built a system with a 6400+ and Vista ultima edition using only two gb of ram DDR2 800 and I tried to get it to slow down. I burned a dvd, scanned the hardrive for viruses, surfed the internet, while play a music file and it didn't slow it down. Thats very good multitasking as far as I know. We all know the core 2 duos are faster but if a AMD chip is lightening fast and a Core 2 Duo is lighting fast plus 20 percent who really can tell.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2008)

i went from an FX-62 (3GHz AM2) to a 2.4GHz Q6600 - in dual core apps they were perfectly matched. In quad capable apps, obviously the intel had the lead.

Luke (user name on this forum) recently went from a 2.75GHz athlon64 (939) to an E2160 (OC'd to 2.4GHz) and he noticed a difference. He then went to an E6600 (2.4GHz OC'd to 3GHz) and its a world apart in CPU power.

Intel ARE faster than AMD. This is direct experience from seeing people upgrade (as i helped build the systems) and there hasnt been one complaint yet.

The 8400 should OC very well, and a lot easier than any AMD will. 
AMD's at 3GHz are rarer than intel 45nm's at 4GHz. - on average, intel is about the same speed as AMD when 400MHz slower. SO you can see that in the high end especially AMD just lose out.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i went from an FX-62 (3GHz AM2) to a 2.4GHz Q6600 - in dual core apps they were perfectly matched. In quad capable apps, obviously the intel had the lead.
> 
> Luke (user name on this forum) recently went from a 2.75GHz athlon64 (939) to an E2160 (OC'd to 2.4GHz) and he noticed a difference. He then went to an E6600 (2.4GHz OC'd to 3GHz) and its a world apart in CPU power.
> 
> ...



and we all knews this  the question was was it worth a upgrade and to go from a 6000+ to at Q6600 is a different story. Thats not what he asked. Also a 4000+ is faster than a E2160 because the Intel lower end chips with one mb on chip memory cannot compete with the AMD memory controller, That is a fact when multitasking those chips are a dog.
Now a e6300 for example would be faster than a 4000+ but it has 2mb of on chip memory. This topic is not about whos faster it was about will you notice a difference between a 6000+ and a e8400 and if you take the e8400 to 4.0ghz you will see a difference but not much to the average person against a 6000+ at say 3.4ghz and most will now do 3.5ghz


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

Well, I'm willing to bet that my old e6300 OC'ed to 3.15GHz was faster than any AMD dual core...


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2008)

trt740 said:


> and we all knews this  the question was was it worth a upgrade and to go from a 6000+ to at Q6600 is a different story. Thats not what he asked. Also a 4000+ is faster than a E2160 because the Intel lower end chips with one mb on chip memory cannot compete with the AMD memory controller. That is a fact.
> Now a e6300 for example would be faster than a 4000+ but it has 2mb of on chip memory.



if an E2160 is faster than a 2.75GHz AMD, that gives an indication there. I do not have the chips he mentioned, but i have enough information to educate the OP in the field of AMD vs intel.

Luke went from a 4200+ (2.2GHz to 2.75GHz) to the E2160, OC'd the 2160 (1.6Ghz to 2.4) and the E2160 was faster. He then went an E6600 which blew it away due to the extra cache - you should check out JrRacingFan, he has a core 2 celeron with even less cache, and his system absolutely owns.

My point is that even lesser models than an E8400 can beat AMD's in the range he asked about. A q6600 using only two cores (so an E6600, more or less) beats an FX62 (3GHz AMD) so that logically implies that an E8400 (more cache, 45nm) is going to beat a 6000+ for sure.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> Well, I'm willing to bet that my old e6300 OC'ed to 3.15GHz was faster than any AMD dual core...



Okay but I will bet it wouldn't beat my old 6000+ at 3.6ghz and I know it wouldn't. However my chip at that time did cost alot more than a E6300 and once again this is not based on fact it is turning into a AMD against Intel thread fanboy thing. The fact is the 6000+ is still more than adequate for gaming, vista and video editing etc. There are faster chips out there example my Q9450 at 3.8ghz would destroy a 6000+ in video encoding and several other areas , bechmarking including. That not what this topic was about was it.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> if an E2160 is faster than a 2.75GHz AMD, that gives an indication there. I do not have the chips he mentioned, but i have enough information to educate the OP in the field of AMD vs intel.
> 
> Luke went from a 4200+ (2.2GHz to 2.75GHz) to the E2160, OC'd the 2160 (1.6Ghz to 2.4) and the E2160 was faster. He then went an E6600 which blew it away due to the extra cache - you should check out JrRacingFan, he has a core 2 celeron with even less cache, and his system absolutely owns.
> 
> My point is that even lesser models than an E8400 can beat AMD's in the range he asked about. A q6600 using only two cores (so an E6600, more or less) beats an FX62 (3GHz AMD) so that logically implies that an E8400 (more cache, 45nm) is going to beat a 6000+ for sure.




Again who didn't know this , but that wasn't his question. thats like asking will a 9800gtx beat a 8800gt yes it will by about 15 percent when overclocked but a 8800gt is more than adequate and lets face it a 9800gtx would be a waste of money. The same goes for a 6000+ to a e8400. If you want to see drastic improvement going from a 6000+ to a Q9450, Q6600, Q6700, X3210, x3220 etc would be the right thing to do. I have owned a 2160 and a e6400 and just about every chip out in the last 3 years no joke. The e2160 cannot hold any and of the AMDs chips jocks multitasking the lack of on chip memory plus a lack of memory controller makes it slughish as hell. Even at 3.7ghz I hated me E2160. it would bench higher but that means nothing in the real world sometimes.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2008)

trt740 said:


> Okay but I will bet it wouldn't beat my old 6000+ at 3.6ghz and I know it wouldn't. However my chip at that time did cost alot more than a E6300 and once again this is not based on fact it is turning into a AMD against Intel thread fanboy thing. The fact is the 6000+ is still more than adequate for gaming, vista and video editing etc. There are faster chips out there example my Q9450 at 3.8ghz would destroy a 6000+ in video encoding and several other areas , bechmarking including. That not what this topic was about was it.



well in gaming, the most CPU intensive game there is imo - supreme commander. The game speed varies based on your CPU, and i had a MASSIVE boost going from an FX-62 (3GHz or 3.2GHz, i OC'd it sometimes) to an E6750 and then the Q6600. while the AMD's are fine for everyday use you cannot argue that the intels are not faster - your 3.6GHz chip was a fluke, seriously that is a great OC that is very, very rare... OCing intels fast enough to beat that is not.


the upgrade would not be a waste of money. it would make gaming a lot faster, depending on what he plays.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> well in gaming, the most CPU intensive game there is imo - supreme commander. The game speed varies based on your CPU, and i had a MASSIVE boost going from an FX-62 (3GHz or 3.2GHz, i OC'd it sometimes) to an E6750 and then the Q6600. while the AMD's are fine for everyday use you cannot argue that the intels are not faster - your 3.6GHz chip was a fluke, seriously that is a great OC that is very, very rare... OCing intels fast enough to beat that is not.
> 
> 
> the upgrade would not be a waste of money. it would make gaming a lot faster, depending on what he plays.



Well that is simply not true for a dual core in supreme commander a quad yes. Also most every expert says at 3.0ghz with higher resolutions, it's more about gpu than cpu. the same would be true going from a 6000+ to a Quad AMD chip in that game, since its multi threaded. A faster GPU would make a even bigger difference, but thats not the topic. It's been fun guys. The e8400 is a great chip. That I know since I've had 8 wofies but the 6000+ is no chump either. Keep your chip, overclock it to 3.4ghz and buy a better GPU. Thats my advice as unpopular as it is. 


 P.S even a Fx 62 chip is physically different than a 6000+(the 6000+ and 6400+are modified toledo core chips not  true windsors) little secret a AMD rep told me back in the day.

heres a good thread to read http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62462 kinda off topic but relevant


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2008)

trt740 said:


> Well that is simply not true for a dual core in supreme commander a quad yes. Also most every expert says at 3.0ghz with higher resolutions, it's more about gpu than cpu. the same would be true going from a 6000+ to a Quad amd chip in that game, since its multi threaded. A faster GPU would make a even bigger difference, but thats not the topic. It's been fun guys. The e8400 is a great chip. That I know since I've had 8 wofies but the 6000+ is no chump either. Keep you chip overclock it to 3.4ghz and buy a better GPU. Thats my advice as unpopular as it is.



supreme commander is not very quad threaded. its implementation is actually very poor, as the AI thread gets stuck and cant split to others.

of the supreme commander players i am the only one with a quad core in the local LAN events here. i built the systems so i know all the specs, we all use the same samsung ram and everyone has a 9600GT or 8800GT. In the games speed test it shows your speed in the game from a range of -10 to +10, zero being the normal score.in a recent game (damn i wish i took a screenie) the CPU power went very close to this

Q6600 @ 3.6GHz (me)  +3
E6750@ 3.2GHz (avarice) +1
E6600 @ 3GHz (luke) +0 to +1 (it flickered fairly rapidly)

In the game before that, lukes AMD system was involved.  late game it was stuck at -4 and he was forced to quit. if an AMD system at 2.75GHz has 4 to 5 units of speed diffference, whereas 400MHz and two extra cores has only a 2 point difference... i find the game relies on CPU a lot more than video card, and that AMD severely lack in performance there.

YES it is an extreme example. YES it is just the one game - but my point stands that games WILL benefit from the extra power a core 2 has over an AMD.

P.S your 3.6GHz comment is actually rather laughable. yeah you may have had one awesome 6000+, but its VERY rare to see that. Most people cant break 3.2GHz on AMD, my FX62 couldnt even with unlocked multis. stock vs. stock they may be close, but the E8400 is going to obliterate any AMD when overclocked.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> supreme commander is not very quad threaded. its implementation is actually very poor, as the AI thread gets stuck and cant split to others.
> 
> of the supreme commander players i am the only one with a quad core in the local LAN events here. i built the systems so i know all the specs, we all use the same samsung ram and everyone has a 9600GT or 8800GT. In the games speed test it shows your speed in the game from a range of -10 to +10, zero being the normal score.in a recent game (damn i wish i took a screenie) the CPU power went very close to this
> 
> ...




The Fx62 was and is inferior to a a 6000+ they are not the same chip and most 6000+ will do 3.4 to 3.5ghz most FX62 chips will not do 3.0ghz. Those chips are physically different. Hwbot say 3.387Ghz on 6000+ 3.581ghz for 6400+. The Fx62 was a 89 watt chip the 6000+ and 6400+ are 125watt they are supposed to move to 89watt but haven't yet.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

If he has the money to get a Wolfdale, it is going to outperform ANY AMD dual core by leaps and bounds even when only mildly OCed.  Besides, the GB P35 OC's like a beast.  I say he go for it.


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Jun 23, 2008)

a 9800 series card is nothing but a waste right now. a overclocked 8800gt series card will still do really good when yourn talking in terms of performance to the dollar, the 88 series is way better.

I'm weary of the 45nm series CPU from intel, my friend had a 8400 overclocked to 3.8GHz and it died after 3 months, At my suggestion he went out and got a 6850 and overclocked that to 3.8 and it has been fine ever since. I think the 45's can't handle the overclocks well, or maby he just got a boink chip.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> supreme commander is not very quad threaded. its implementation is actually very poor, as the AI thread gets stuck and cant split to others.
> 
> of the supreme commander players i am the only one with a quad core in the local LAN events here. i built the systems so i know all the specs, we all use the same samsung ram and everyone has a 9600GT or 8800GT. In the games speed test it shows your speed in the game from a range of -10 to +10, zero being the normal score.in a recent game (damn i wish i took a screenie) the CPU power went very close to this
> 
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2008)

pepsi71ocean said:


> a 9800 series card is nothing but a waste right now. a overclocked 8800gt series card will still do really good when yourn talking in terms of performance to the dollar, the 88 series is way better.
> 
> I'm weary of the 45nm series CPU from intel, my friend had a 8400 overclocked to 3.8GHz and it died after 3 months, At my suggestion he went out and got a 6850 and overclocked that to 3.8 and it has been fine ever since. I think the 45's can't handle the overclocks well, or maby he just got a boink chip.



its voltage. people have learned the hard way they really dont like voltages above 1.40v, even if the temps are acceptable.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 23, 2008)

fx-62 at stock vs q6700 at stock with 2 cores disabled, benches were the same, load times and boot time were slower on the q6700 (same memory) due to the weak ass memory controller intel uses. stock to stock the memory performance easily counters with the cpu boost. 

oced to oced is a bit different for one thing the intel memory controller doens't allw my mem past 1100MHZ where as I hit 1250MHZ on the fx-62. (again same memory) but, my fx-62 peaked at 3.4GHZ whereas I can hit 4GHZ + on the quad. making up for the drop in memory performance per clock and loss of memory clock speed. 

the thing most peoper aren't listening to trt on is that the op won't notice any boosts unless he overclocks and runs benchmarks. he won't gain any frames (unless he's gaming at 800x600 in which case an extra 100 frames when you're at 800 to start with isn't anything to write home about lol) 

but in everyday computing, he won't notice at all as I've said the memory performance drop will offset the cpu boost. making 90% of what the op does, not change at all in performance.


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Jun 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> its voltage. people have learned the hard way they really dont like voltages above 1.40v, even if the temps are acceptable.



that can explain that, i know that he hasn't had any problems since he switched to a 65.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

65nm won't degrade (or die) with the same voltage as quick as a 45nm will.  You've got to be careful with those wolfies.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> fx-62 at stock vs q6700 at stock with 2 cores disabled, benches were the same, load times and boot time were slower on the q6700 (same memory) due to the weak ass memory controller intel uses. stock to stock the memory performance easily counters with the cpu boost.
> 
> oced to oced is a bit different for one thing the intel memory controller doens't allw my mem past 1100MHZ where as I hit 1250MHZ on the fx-62. (again same memory) but, my fx-62 peaked at 3.4GHZ whereas I can hit 4GHZ + on the quad. making up for the drop in memory performance per clock and loss of memory clock speed.
> 
> ...



intel memory controller entirely depends on motherboard, not CPU. just thought i'd point that out. i can do 1100MHz on here, but then my ram craps out (high stock MHz, useless OC beyond that)

i'm arguing the counter that he WILL notice gains. I did when i upgraded my lan system from the FX62 to the E6600/Q6600. supreme commander was the most extreme one, so i merely used that as an example. Most modern systems are CPU limited as opposed to video card limited.


----------



## rampage (Jun 23, 2008)

to get back to the first post and what was origionaly asked



Grasshopper said:


> I'm thinking of migrating from my Athllon64 6000+ with ASUS M2N32 Sli premium Vista edition to Intel E8400 and Gigabyte P35-DS3R. Will there be any noticeable difference in performance?



+ "I get the MB for free so all I need is the CPU and I can get it cheap too. When I sell the old parts all will cost approximately 0."


yes, if it will be basicaly a free upgrade then yes i would go the E8400, i dont have the chips and i havent played with them before but all i can think is why is the percentage of gaming pc's intel, it has to be this for a reason, hell if the gemeral population thought AMD had the better cpu's (performance per mhz) all my pc's would be AMD and so would eveybody elses

also i think evidence of this is right here in this thread some people who support sticking with AMD have intel cpu's them selves, why go intel if amd was so good i ask? (in the nicest possible way)


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

rampage said:


> to get back to the first post and what was origionaly asked
> 
> 
> 
> ...



benching and keeping up with the jones. If it will cost you nothing then by all means E8400 and remember this is a overclockers forum the general population has AMD 30 to 40 percent of the time in home gaming machines. If Intel had put a memory controller on it's cpu we wouldn't be having this discussion. Thats why the big N is gonna kill everything currently out even the Qx9770. It might be 50 percent faster and I'm betting more.Current core 2 duos handles memory very badly right now. The big N will be a giant combination of Intel and AMD innovation.


----------



## rampage (Jun 23, 2008)

ok cool, ty trt740, i just wanted to get things back on track for the origional post, so its a free upgrade then YES go for it


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

rampage said:


> ok cool, ty trt740, i just wanted to get things back on track for the origional post, so its a free upgrade then YES go for it



Oh yes for sure. If you can get a Q6600 for the same price get it instead it's even better. if you cannot most e8200 will match a e8400 and it will save you some money. They have the same on chip memory 6mb and us a 8 multipler which is what most e8500, e8400 and E3110 users use anyways to overclock their chips. They almost all do 4.0ghz aswell. I know several people with p35 boards that have e8200 over 4.0ghz the average of over 900 cpus on HWbot overclocked to 4.320 for benching. That means they almost all match e8400 here is the link. http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=CPU_1514&name=Core+2+E8200+(2.67Ghz)+(993)


----------



## flyin15sec (Jun 23, 2008)

I have to agree with trt740. You won't notice any "Noticable" difference.

I've been switching between E8200@3100ghz(Asus P5N-D 750i), E2180@3100ghz(EVGA 650i Ultra) and 5400+@3100ghz(MSI K92ACF-F), using EVGA8800GTX. I also use EVGA Precision to keep eye on FPS during game play.

There was no "obileration" or "massive" increase. Real world gaming @1680x1050, WoW, Sins of a Solar Empire, CO. of Heroes, Unreal Tournment, all ran within avg. frame rates of each other.

The only time I saw a difference was running 3Dmark06 basic on Vista 64. E8200 score in high 11000's, while the E2180 and 5400+ scored in the mid 10K range.

But if OP is getting E8400 for basically free, take it.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

Gaming won't be huge in graphics intensive games.  Day to day tasks will be faster.  Opening programs at 4GHz+ is almost instantaneous.  It's not going to jump your frames up on a game that can run fine with a lower-end processor.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 23, 2008)

opening at 4ghz+ wont be faster unless you have the ram to back it up
whats the point in owning a 4ghz intel quad or dual if all you can do is open a few programs in vista sometimes it dosnt matter id rather keep some green rather than go all out and buy the top of the line

my x2 5000+ BE is perfectly fine for gaming and day to day tasks
its clocked to 3.25ghz and soon as i get my new hard drive im going to try and push it harder (currently without a new hard drive i cant use my pc old ones busted)

i game with a 8800gt 512mb and a x2 5000+black edition and id call that slightly better than medium for today's spec

my BE cost me £35 and that was going from a x2 4600+ clocked at 2.7ghz

the assumption that any dual core amd would get owned is wrong if you have the board and the ram a cheap upgrade is to get a higher amd cpu rather than a new system

the quad core phenom 9850 black edition is a good cpu for anyone who owns an amd motherboard it dosnt get owned in any benchmarks it just gets beat, owned would be a full quarter to a half more powerful


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 23, 2008)

Because with 45nm, my E8500 consumes less power than your BE @ 3.25...


----------



## flyin15sec (Jun 23, 2008)

This thread just keeps going, even after the OP's question was answered.

Going from point A --> point B. You got a BMW and a Toyota. Sure, getting to point B in the BMW means you will probably get there a little faster, have better climate control, more security and safety features and definitely the ride will be smoother. However, the Toyota can get you to point B also, minus some of the said features. In the end getting to the destination is what really counts. So buy and use what you can afford.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 23, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> Because with 45nm, my E8500 consumes less power than your BE @ 3.25...



why does that matter at all.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm sorry but I never saw in his question where he asked about overclocking and the difference between 3.0GHz and 4.0GHz. Maybe he's not aiming for bragging rights but maybe a few more FPS? In which case, all he needs is a new video card and/or RAM. Worth going to a completely new system? No. I've priced boards and an E8500 and RAM because I was thinking of the move, but it's not logical to spend over $500 (CPU and Board alone, nevermind DDR3..) for a new system. Also, if you're going to 1333MHz FSB chip, what would be the point in a board with DDR 800/1066?


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Jun 23, 2008)

In addition to my prior post, he is using an 8800GTS 320. Moving from the 320 to the GTS 512 makes a world of difference. I've experienced that on an AMD rig. His rig is fine, he just need a new video card which can be had for less than the price of an E8500. Even an 8800GT. Also, we don't even know his temps, or if he's overclocked. If he has a decent aftermarket cooler and pushes to 3.4GHz, and grabs a new video card, he'll be fine for a while depending on what he's doing.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 23, 2008)

If Mr. Grass can sell his 6000 set and get the 8xxx Intel then yes go for it.  If he is going to spend extra then like TRT says keep 6000.

Hey my 5600 with 1MB cache per core owns any 5000 BE at same speed in cpu benchmarks.

One more thing I don't understand.

How will a DVD or CD buring be affected by a cpu (not talking about very slow ones).  Unless it is Video encoding I don't see any difference.  DVD/CD data or music burning is totally dependant on the writer, not on the cpu.  For burning a DVD/CD, my 5600 @3.3 doesn't even go more than 5% usage.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Jun 23, 2008)

suraswami said:


> If Mr. Grass can sell his 6000 set and get the 8xxx Intel then yes go for it.  If he is going to spend extra then like TRT says keep 6000.
> 
> Hey my 5600 with 1MB cache per core owns any 5000 BE at same speed in cpu benchmarks.
> 
> ...



Same. My 5600+ hits 3.5GHz on air, just unstable to game or bench with. Although the memory latency is super low and bandwidth is through the roof... Read, Write, Copy, all above 11,000mb/s.. Stable at 3.42GHz.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 23, 2008)

I can easily go to 3.45 @ 1.45v stable, but I am unfortunately running that chip in a Ultra MicroFly case which is not the best in airflow, But still at 3.3 it runs cool in that case.  Also i am running the chip on a $40 board which clocks extremely well.  so I am happy.


----------



## Deleted member 38767 (Jun 24, 2008)

Oh, my God, what have i done? This thread have become a monster. 

As i said before: I have the MB for free and after I sell my stuff the migration will cost virtually nothing. I'll be using my old video card and RAM for the time being. The RAM can be OC (it runs 4-4-4-12 on stock voltage) and I'm thinking of going for ATI 48XX later this year.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 24, 2008)

go for q6600 with g0 nothing better


----------



## Mussels (Jun 24, 2008)

hayder.master said:


> go for q6600 with g0 nothing better



well... i cant say they're bad, but the latest batches are known to not OC past the 3.0 to 3.4GHz range compared to early models that reached 3.7-3.9 (mine do 3.8, but they run very hot)


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jun 24, 2008)

tell you what Grasshopper, try this with your 6000, if it can do it, maybe it's not worth making the change. This is what my e8400 can do real world performance wise-



> I just wanted to pass this experience along to everyone else. Last night, I had someone hit me up on MSN asking me about what I thought of my 8400. So instead of just saying the usual "the cpu is a beast, it should handle whatever you want it to", I decided to put it to the test.
> 
> So while running windows XP with sp3 and none of the "services" turned off, I booted up mechwarrior mercenaries 4, I booted up ArmA Combat Operations Demo, I started to install BF2, and then booted up COD4 and started to play COD4. I didn't have the first bit of lag, NONE. Granted, my CPU's temp went up(as I expected it to), but the damn thing wasn't bogged down in the slightest bit. The only performce hit I did noticed was loading maps in COD4 took alittle longer to do(a matter of a few seconds). This thing is a awsome performing CPU, I couldn't be happier, thx to all who advised me to get it over the q6600 when I was putting this system together. You and it rocks!



http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=60989

That's one game started, 1 game demo started, 1 game installing, all while playing COD4 with at 1920*1200 at max graphics settings.

And don't worry about our argueing, we do it all the time.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 24, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> tell you what Grasshopper, try this with your 6000, if it can do it, maybe it's not worth making the change. This is what my e8400 can do real world performance wise-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



multitasking like that isnt as CPU intensive as it might seem, its actually more ram related. I multitask a lot (for example, i play supreme commander and mass effect at the same time, alt tabbing between them. i pause one and move to the other) ram performance (and overall amount of ram) seems to matter just as much, if not more when multitasking like that.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jun 24, 2008)

Mussels said:


> multitasking like that isnt as CPU intensive as it might seem, its actually more ram related. I multitask a lot (for example, i play supreme commander and mass effect at the same time, alt tabbing between them. i pause one and move to the other) ram performance (and overall amount of ram) seems to matter just as much, if not more when multitasking like that.



I realise it has to do with more than just the cpu, but with the same RAM I have now, and the same GX2 I have now, my x2 5200 could not have done that as smooth and flawlessly as my e8400 does. I still have access to my old 5200, I sold it to a friend. Hell, we've even compared how fast the 2 systems can install windows. The e8400 beats the 5200 everytime(granted, the 5200 isn't OC'ed now).


----------



## Mussels (Jun 24, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I realise it has to do with more than just the cpu, but with the same RAM I have now, and the same GX2 I have now, my x2 5200 could not have done that as smooth and flawlessly as my e8400 does. I still have access to my old 5200, I sold it to a friend. Hell, we've even compared how fast the 2 systems can install windows. The e8400 beats the 5200 everytime(granted, the 5200 isn't OC'ed now).



ok, well thats a good and easy comparison. sorry if i tried to make it sound like a bad one, i just know that 4GB of ram makes this system so much more reposnsive for multi tasking than my other quad core system, which is mostly the same hardware.

So far almost everyone has said intel is the way to go, except a few die hards.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 24, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I realise it has to do with more than just the cpu, but with the same RAM I have now, and the same GX2 I have now, my x2 5200 could not have done that as smooth and flawlessly as my e8400 does. I still have access to my old 5200, I sold it to a friend. Hell, we've even compared how fast the 2 systems can install windows. The e8400 beats the 5200 everytime(granted, the 5200 isn't OC'ed now).



nice 4GHZ oced on the intel vs 2.6GHZ stock ont he amd cause that's a fair comparison 

lol but yes if the op plans on ocing and benching then by all means go for the wolfdale. if he plans on gaming and running apps he wont notice. to me it doesn't matter if I have a faster cpu is I don't notice it, to the op it might matter. so I dunno.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jun 24, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> nice 4GHZ oced on the intel vs 2.6GHZ stock ont he amd cause that's a fair comparison
> 
> lol but yes if the op plans on ocing and benching then by all means go for the wolfdale. if he plans on gaming and running apps he wont notice. to me it doesn't matter if I have a faster cpu is I don't notice it, to the op it might matter. so I dunno.




First time I installed windows on my e8400(which was when the compaison was done), it was stock 3 gigs.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 24, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> First time I installed windows on my e8400(which was when the compaison was done), it was stock 3 gigs.



so how many minutes it took at 3 Ghz vs 5200 at 2.6 Ghz?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't remember the actual amount of time both took, but the 8400 was over 8 minutes faster if I remember correctly.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Jun 25, 2008)

Just keep the 6000, overclock it, and upgrade later when more new stuff is out, and prices are lower.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 26, 2008)

Grasshopper said:


> I'm thinking of migrating from my Athllon64 6000+ with ASUS M2N32 Sli premium Vista edition to Intel E8400 and Gigabyte P35-DS3R. Will there be any noticeable difference in performance?



Honestly man I don't see why you would "upgrade" at this time. I use an 4200+ X2 on a 939 board and I run everything with the exception of crysis at max settings. Unless your a bench junkie as it stands now there is no realistic reason to upgrade from what you have.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 26, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly man I don't see why you would "upgrade" at this time. I use an 4200+ X2 on a 939 board and I run everything with the exception of crysis at max settings. Unless your a bench junkie as it stands now there is no realistic reason to upgrade from what you have.



i have a 4200+ in my new media PC, and i can say its utterly incomparable... i am dead serious when i tell you that upgrading will really, really bring out the power of your video card.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 26, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i have a 4200+ in my new media PC, and i can say its utterly incomparable... i am dead serious when i tell you that upgrading will really, really bring out the power of your video card.



Im sure I would see a huge difference. My CPU and board are both ancient. Thats not the point. My point is I can run every game currently out at max settings. And thats with a VERY playable frame rate. I can only imagine having a 6000+.

Dont forget all the overlocking and hardware in the world cant make up for a "non-optimized" OS. I currently have 36 processes going at any given time. A friend of mine got a damn HP Blackbird and he had well over a 120 processes running. Was he faster than me? Sure was but not enough to justify the money he wasted on that thing and his user habbits.

Bottom line is if a 4200+ can run eveything at max settings currently why would I upgrade now? Nevermind a 6000+


----------



## Mussels (Jun 27, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Bottom line is if a 4200+ can run eveything at max settings currently why would I upgrade now? Nevermind a 6000+



i guess my opinion of everything, and max settings must differ greatly to yours. i cant even run everything at max (which is 16xAA on my video cards), so definately, our versions of 'max' differs.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Jun 27, 2008)

It all depends on the game, the monitor, and the GFX cards. Grass is running a GTS 320, which unfortunately doesn't really have all that much power behind it, a GTS 512 is a different story. If he upgraded to a GTS 512 and OCed his GTS and CPU 200 to 400MHz, he would see quite a jump in frame rates. I've still yet to hear what you are playing, and what settings and resolution, and also current FPS...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 27, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i guess my opinion of everything, and max settings must differ greatly to yours. i cant even run everything at max (which is 16xAA on my video cards), so definately, our versions of 'max' differs.



Well max settings in the game itself. Depending on the resolution I don't think anyone could tell the difference between 16xAA and 8xAA. I don't remember even playing a game that offers 16xAA never the less need it. Let me give you an example. I currently play COD4 at 1680x1050 with 4xAA and everything in the game itself set to max. The game at a minimum runs about 40fps. If I lower the resolution a notch my frame rate skyrockets. Now could I use a CPU upgrade? Sure! Do I NEED one? No. But the question was does he need to upgrade from a 6000+. Again No. Why should he upgrade if my CPU can do half of what his can and its still more than most games require to run at the recommended settings.


----------



## aj28 (Jun 27, 2008)

Just a thought, but I think everyone in this thread needs to go ahead and start ending all their posts with a big fat IMO, because that's about all this nonsense and squabbling amounts to. Here, I'll start - IMO, yes, you will notice a performance difference, although if it were me and my money, I'd stick with what I've got, overclock the living hell out of it, and rebuild the whole thing at the end of the year when processor and chipset options are more plentiful and the new-gen graphics chips have come down in price...


----------



## cossiedavedree (Sep 2, 2008)

my two cents. i've had amd systems all my life, from k62 500 - skt 939 x2 4400.

I had a 8800 gts 320, with an asus a8n32 sli and x2 4400 skt 939,
2x1 gb ddr corsair 500mhz ddr1. I Could only overclock the toledo to 2.6 ghz.
And on aquamark3 it managed 105 fps.
I bought crysis and was dissapointed by how the game ran on my system.
medium settings 1024x768 no aa = 38 fps.

 So for the first time in my life I went Intel.
Bought a xfx 650i, 2x1gb ddr800, and an e2140. i use my gts 320 in this system.
overclocked e2140 @ 3.2 ghz, ram standard 800 mhz.
Aquamark3 managed 154fps.

However in crysis at medium settings 1024x768 no aa = 39 fps.
Its been said time and time again that the graphics card is the greatest upgrade. Ok benchmarks showed the intel has better benchmark performance. But the money i spent to build the intel system just wasnt worth the effort. I know its only a cheap e2140 and in my opinion anything over 2.8 ghz is wasted as i feel the lack of cache cant keep up.
The memory performance on lavalys at 3.2ghz for read is 9000+mbs
but the write is in the 6000+. If i was to buy a e8400 now i would no doubt see an improvement but once again is it worth spending another £120+ or should i just make do with what i got.     my amd system dealt with multitasking far better than my current intel e2140, but some apps do load quicker than the amd... However if i copy say 3 gigs over from 1hardrive to my other,, i cant multitask at all. where as the amd you could carry on doing other things. If you have a powerful amd am2 2.8ghz 2mb cache, then i wouldnt bother going core2 duo.
if you were starting from scratch then yer of course go core2 duo.


----------



## trt740 (Sep 2, 2008)

cossiedavedree said:


> my two cents. i've had amd systems all my life, from k62 500 - skt 939 x2 4400.
> 
> I had a 8800 gts 320, with an asus a8n32 sli and x2 4400 skt 939,
> 2x1 gb ddr corsair 500mhz ddr1. I Could only overclock the toledo to 2.6 ghz.
> ...




buy a e7200 for 119.00 and sell you current chip for 30.00, and the upgrade will be 89.00 most e7200 will do 3.8ghz and with triple the onchip memory you will see a giant increase in cpu performance , which will un bottleneck your gpu. I'm not sure what gpu you have but i'm guessing it is higher end.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 2, 2008)

Luke sold me his old AMD system which ran at 2.75GHz (max OC) w/ 2GB ram and went to an E2160, and the E2160 (at 3GHz, nowhere near its max) utterly crapped all over the AMD for gaming

Its pretty sad, but intel do have a massive advantage once OC'ing is brought into it.


----------



## johnspack (Sep 2, 2008)

I don't know,  I've checked my in game fps and compared to oced intel systems,  and seem about the same.  I almost went with an e8500 and new mobo,  but now I'm just going to get a 280gtx.  Both cost about the same and I'll bet I get higher fps going this route!


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Sep 2, 2008)

I'm willing to bet a gtx280 wont give much of a performance because of the bottleneck your amd cpu is gonna create. I have to have my e8400 OC'ed to 3.8 for it to not be a major bottleneck


----------



## Mussels (Sep 2, 2008)

my brother complained about his GTX280 being limited on his 3.2GHz quad core, so he went a 4GHz dual core.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Sep 2, 2008)

Mussels said:


> my brother complained about his GTX280 being limited on his 3.2GHz quad core, so he went a 4GHz dual core.




my point exactly


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 2, 2008)

Are you sure?  I think I saw a tests on tomshardware, all the games tested gain 2-4FPS when OCed the CPU from 3GHz->4GHz.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 2, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> Are you sure?  I think I saw a tests on tomshardware, all the games tested gain 2-4FPS when OCed the CPU from 3GHz->4GHz.



it entirely depends on screen resolution, AA/settings used, etc.

My bro has a 22" 1680x1050 and a 42" 1920x1080, i am unsure which one he used when talking about this.


----------



## johnspack (Sep 2, 2008)

Well,  I'll be posting my vantage score ect when I get it.  I'll bet my vantage score is up there.  And I'll probably do well in a few of the other benchmark threads as well...  and I'll bet anything I get much better than I do on my 9800gtx!  In 3dmark 06 I won't do as well because it's very cpu limited,  I don't bench,  I game!


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 2, 2008)

3DMark shows you if your CPU limited or not.
After the tests, you can go to futuremark website and compare your score with people having the same cards with different CPU.

My Phenom 9750 @2.7GHz is enough for my 8800GT's in SLI, I got 10k GPU score, and It's similar to other system with 8800GT's in SLI.


----------



## ChromeDome (Sep 2, 2008)

AMD 5600+ at 3.0ghz

it rocks 


just sayin'


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Sep 2, 2008)

johnspack said:


> Well,  I'll be posting my vantage score ect when I get it.  I'll bet my vantage score is up there.  And I'll probably do well in a few of the other benchmark threads as well...  and I'll bet anything I get much better than I do on my 9800gtx!  In 3dmark 06 I won't do as well because it's very cpu limited,  I don't bench,  I game!




my last system had a x2 5200 and was OC'ed to 2874 mhz. I got my gx2(which is equal to a gtx280 performance wise) and my 3dmark06 score went from 8k(with a 8800gts 320 meg) to 10k(gx2). Then I got my e8400 and 750i motherboard and my score went to 15k. When I OC'ed my 8400 as high as I could get it to go(about 4250mhz) I scored 19870. From what I've observed in my experiences, you need equivalent to a 3.8 gig intel core2duo cpu to keep up with todays high end gfx cards and to unleash all thier power(which AMD does not offer).


----------



## ChromeDome (Sep 2, 2008)

so are you saying you didn't get better performance while gaming with the GX2? hell i get 10881 3DMarks on my system. are you saying if i upgraded to an ATI 4870 or a GX2 my 3DMark wouldn't go up much? 

how about my gaming? the GX2 or w/e would perform on par with my 8800GS in the real world (outside of synthetic benchmarks) because of my processor? i find that hard to believe. 

i had a 9800GTX in my modest rig for a couple of weeks and it ran great. FPS through the roof. don't know about 3DMark because i didn't have it then. but then again i don't play 3DMark, i play games.

 an ATI 4870 or 9800GX2 would probably be wasted on my processor. and of course a more powerful processor means higher fps and better performance. that goes without saying. but my 5600+ does great with a 9800GXT and i'll be getting a 4850 at some point. and those are fairly "high end." although not the very highest. the 5600+ may not be able to perform like a 3.8ghz intel. of course not. but it has more then enough juice to benefit those cards. more then enough


----------



## mithrandir (Sep 2, 2008)

Wow! I'm feeling left behind.

I feel my Opty 146 @2.8ghz is pretty nippy. I think an upgrade would blow my socks off!


----------



## kyle2020 (Sep 2, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> I went from an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ BE oc'ed to 3.2GHz to an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ stock 1.86GHz, and I shit my pants.  It felt WAY faster.  Now at 4.5GHz and above on an E8500, programs start before you click them



same with my story - went form a 5000+BE (one hell of a chip) to my Q6600. Even at stock it outperformed my dually. I think the performance increase will be similar with an intel dual core too.


----------

