Neoseeker : : : : AMD Athlon 64 5000+ X2 Black Edition Review

AMD Athlon 64 5000+ X2 Black Edition Review - PAGE 1

- Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 Like Share






Get updates when we publish new articles

Comments

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
Iceguy2003 Dec 6, 07
Seems like a good overclocking AMD chip. 3.4ghz on those chips are nothing to laugh at.

But where exactly does it perform better than a C2D? The review says it is 'beating' the C2D. I do not see that. I see when they are both at 2.8ghz, the C2D is beating it by 12 - 13fps in the benchmarks as far as COD and Commanche.

Clock for clock, the C2D chips beat out AMD anyday. Sure, when the AMD chip, here, is at 3.4ghz, and the C2D is at 2.8ghz, the AMD can pull 5fps on it, in some cases. Put the C2D chips on up to around 3.2ghz, and the tables will turn.
0 thumbs!
^
Candle Dec 6, 07
only with athlon tech, these blackboxes are to get rid of the Windsor and Brisbane cores, thats all they are for. Phonem is where its at, and clock for clock they tie Intel.
0 thumbs!
^
Blackened Dec 6, 07
Candle, after reading the article below You may want to reconsider Your statement that "Phonem is where its at". That B3 stepping had better be one serious monster or AMD is going to have to sell the X4 Phenoms for <$100..

Link to "TLB Fix" performance:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13741

I just upgraded from an S939 X2 3800+ system, before that the single core 3500+, and before that an XP 3200, and before that a XP 2500 and before that a K6-400(I think it was a 400 anyway its been a long time) and when I got my money together to buy a new system last month, what do you think I bought? My E6550 is OC'd to 3.6Ghz and would have pounded every one of these CPUs into oblivion in everything except some of the synthetic memory benchmarks that AMD always wins. Now that was the best $163 I ever spent, although when I bought my X2 it was about the same price and was a damn good buy, the Intel blows it out of the water. AMD has a LONG way to go to bring back some of its old customers like me because when I go to quad, will I just buy another Intel to drop in my current system or will AMD be so goo that I scrap everything and go with AMD? Sadly, I don't think the latter will ever happen.
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Dec 6, 07
The 5000+ Black Edition is still a great chip though from a pricing and overclocking standpoint .

This message was edited by Redemption on Dec 07 2007.
0 thumbs!
^
bhenning Dec 6, 07
Hi,

The text for the comparisons was based on stock clock rate results, the simplifications below compare stock BE 5000+ to C2D E6300 - a more expensive chip.

Business Winstone: BE wins
Content Creation Winstone: BE Wins

Sandra CPU: C2D wins

Sandra Mem: BE wins BIG

RM Read: BE wins big
RM Write: C2D wins
RM latency: BE wins BIG
RM bandwidth: C2D wins

LAME: BE wins
LAME-MT: C2D wins

TMPGEnc: BE wins

POV: BE wins

CB: BE wins

COD: BE wins by 17.8fps

Commanche 4: BE wins by 14.8fps

Doom 3: BE wins by 1.8 fps

Halo: BE wins by 14fps

Jedi Knight: BE wins by 11.5fps

UT2K4 BE wins by 19.5fps


BE wins 15 times, including all the game benchmarks we ran
C2D wins 4 times

And you don't see where it performs better than a C2D???

Ofcourse a more expensive C2D will perform better, and overclock higher - but you missed the point of the the article - it is a great upgrade chip for existing AM2 systems, and it can outperform comparably priced C2D's at stock - and it overclocks very well for an AM2 (granted not as well as C2D's)

You are also ignoring that as the resolution, AA & AF are increased games are GPU bound not CPU bound, so AM2 vs C2D will make even less difference.

Hope this helps,

Bill

quote Iceguy2003
Seems like a good overclocking AMD chip. 3.4ghz on those chips are nothing to laugh at.

But where exactly does it perform better than a C2D? The review says it is 'beating' the C2D. I do not see that. I see when they are both at 2.8ghz, the C2D is beating it by 12 - 13fps in the benchmarks as far as COD and Commanche.

Clock for clock, the C2D chips beat out AMD anyday. Sure, when the AMD chip, here, is at 3.4ghz, and the C2D is at 2.8ghz, the AMD can pull 5fps on it, in some cases. Put the C2D chips on up to around 3.2ghz, and the tables will turn.
0 thumbs!
^
Iceguy2003 Dec 6, 07
Thanks for clearing up how you could actually say the AMD is better than the C2D in this case.

You compared a chip with a 1ghz advantage. 1... GHZ...

The Core 2 Duo is still a better chip. More efficient. Clock for clock, it smashes the Athlon.

Sorry for missing the point of an article... I'm not an AMD fanboy. It performs better stock vs stock (DUH), but when the overclocking comes on, the C2D is worth the extra $50.
0 thumbs!
^
bhenning Dec 6, 07
You are still missing the point.

For someone with an existing AM2 system, it is not a $50 difference - more like a $200 difference by the time you add a good motherboard.

My comparison was by price, not by raw MHZ - as the P4 proved, raw MHZ is meaningles; I personally go by price/performance.

quote Iceguy2003
Thanks for clearing up how you could actually say the AMD is better than the C2D in this case.

You compared a chip with a 1ghz advantage. 1... GHZ...

The Core 2 Duo is still a better chip. More efficient. Clock for clock, it smashes the Athlon.

Sorry for missing the point of an article... I'm not an AMD fanboy. It performs better stock vs stock (DUH), but when the overclocking comes on, the C2D is worth the extra $50.
0 thumbs!
^
Candle Dec 6, 07
there is something all of you are missing, alot of people out there do not overclock, and when the Phenom 9500 and 9600 keep up with the Q6600 and Q6700 and cost about the same its very much worth it. I overclock only when i have to, my x2 is oced because I needed some more power, now if I had a faster X2 or a Core2 I would not overclock it simply presents to much risk into the factor even for someone who knows excatly what they are doing. The Majority of people dropping alot of money on parts do not overclock them. Also AMD and Intel dont give a rats ass if the 1% of overclockers can overclock its a small market, its the OEM bussiness that they care about, and with Cheaper AMD boards/Chips that preform good AMD is doing fine. Intel sure has some nice chips, but AMD is priced very competivly with them and at stock its a tie, so if you have AM2 already there is no real reason to switch. I have AM2 and would gladly spend the 250 bucks for the Phenom x4 9500 before i dropped 150+250 for a good Intel setup. Thats the other thing good Intel Boards for the C2D and Core2Q cost alot more than AMD's. My M2N-X with the Nforce520 chipset overclocks quite well and cost's around 60 bucks, a good quality AM2 board will run 100. Now a similar Intel board as my M2N-X would run me about 120, and a top of the line around 180, its simply not worth it. Also AMD has another trick up there sleve the Phenom FX is on its way for everyone who bought SocketFX (Socket 4x4) and that means OctaCore, intel can not offer that except with Xeon based boards that arnt that great at overclocking nor offer alot of features that gamers care for. Overall AMD is still the best value for anyone on a budget.
0 thumbs!
^
Iceguy2003 Dec 6, 07
I get your 'point'. It's a good chip for an AM2 board.

But, you said throughout the review that the "AMD WINZ!! WOOT AMD!!". I was asking how you came to that conclusion, when in the benchmarks, even the e6300, which isn't in production anymore, beat it at the same frequencies. 'Winning', in this case, is a matter of opinion. Especially when a C2D chip can run 3.0ghz without touching any voltages. That's my point.

The Core 2's could have clocked much higher for the benchmarks, but it seems as if they had to be kept low enough to let the massively clocked 3.4ghz Athlon keep the lead. AMD WINZ!
0 thumbs!
^
Tweaker Dec 6, 07
Another nice review and not too bad of a processor upgrade for someone looking for updating their AM2 rig.

Anyone got over $4k for a 4ghz Skulltrail? Intel V8
0 thumbs!
^
Candle Dec 6, 07
quote Blackened
Candle, after reading the article below You may want to reconsider Your statement that "Phonem is where its at". That B3 stepping had better be one serious monster or AMD is going to have to sell the X4 Phenoms for <$100..

Link to "TLB Fix" performance:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13741

I just upgraded from an S939 X2 3800+ system, before that the single core 3500+, and before that an XP 3200, and before that a XP 2500 and before that a K6-400(I think it was a 400 anyway its been a long time) and when I got my money together to buy a new system last month, what do you think I bought? My E6550 is OC'd to 3.6Ghz and would have pounded every one of these CPUs into oblivion in everything except some of the synthetic memory benchmarks that AMD always wins. Now that was the best $163 I ever spent, although when I bought my X2 it was about the same price and was a damn good buy, the Intel blows it out of the water. AMD has a LONG way to go to bring back some of its old customers like me because when I go to quad, will I just buy another Intel to drop in my current system or will AMD be so goo that I scrap everything and go with AMD? Sadly, I don't think the latter will ever happen.
care to explain why AMD should offer there Quadcore for Sub100 when Intel's Q6600 is no faster than it and costs more? Quite honestly your being a moron.

As for this chips the E6300 does not soundly beat it at all, most of the time at stock its slower, that sure is slower, in most apps the x2 5000 wins at stock, and oh guess what at 130 bucks its worth that, considering the price of the Conroe chips right now with the E6450 costing about 150, the x2 5000 is a great buy. Also do you have any idea what the installed Userbase of people with AM2 systems is right now? Think about it this way, anyone on a budget is going AMD for a few reasons.

One the Sempron costs 35 bucks, the Atlhon 64 costs 40, and the X2 costs 60. Now in that price range you have this

CeleronD 30, CeleronL 60, Pentium Duo 80.

Now it seems to be AMD still offers a better buy, for the price of a Celeron L you can get an X2 which outpreforms it. Now The Pentium Duo is compareable to the X2 3600-4000 and those chips from AMD are priced lower than the simliar model.

Back when you got your K6-II you where aware the Pentium II killed it, and that the K6-II was not the best overclocker same as the PII. But yet you got the K6-II why? My guess is price vs preformance. At stock speeds which is where 99% of the markets likes to stay AMD offers better price vs preformance. Now another thing is this, all of the users that have AM2 Sempron and AThlon 64 boxs from the Major OEM's or even the lower end X2's might like a little more power. The Blockbox offers taht nicely and quite frankly any AMD chip offers that. I myself just bought my X2 rig a few months ago, and did you know why I went AM2 over the 775. Price vs Preformance is excatly why, im not the only one either. There are plenty of users that still buy AM2 because they can build a really good system with AMD parts right now. And can you see a diffrence of 2FPS when your already doing 150FPS? The only real battle resides with the highend models the E6700 and Q6600 and up agasint AMD. Now AMD looses the dual core, but ties the quad core race and is clocked lower even.

I do belive you need a better understanding of the market and of preformance before making any more statements of such biased information. Since the C2 came out all the Intel Fanatics came out and it was cool to be one, but then you bash AMD for offering price vs preformance and so what if AMD isnt the speed king, we dont all spend 500 bucks for a damn CPU, Id much rather spend 100 bucks on one.
0 thumbs!
^
PatrickOC Mar 12, 08
Hello,

I Have the same CPU/mobo(m2n32)/mem(DDR800). but i can egt it to 3,395GZ with stability.

Could some one give me more information about this setting ?

* manually set the HT speed to 283MHz for both the processor (ok) and the chipset (???)
* set the HT multiplier to 4x - again, for both processor (cpu-NB OK) and chipset (???NB-SB???)
* leave the Vcore alone, the automatic settings do a great job (or manually set for 1.45V) (ok)
* set the DDR voltage to 2.1V (ok)
* choose the "DDR667" memory speed setting, this will map to 849MHz with a 283MHz FSB(ok)
* set the memory timing to 4-4-4-12 (ok)
* manually force the "2T" option (ok)
I can boot windows, but fail when run prim95.


any Help ?
Patrick
0 thumbs!
^
ByRo Mar 12, 08
Set your HT Multiplier to 3 instead of 4. having it at 4 gives you an HT bus of 1132 which is to high, most AMD Comps become unstable pretty much anything over 1GHz. 3X will give you an HT of 849 (You will not notice a difference in performance from 1000 to 849, especially since your OC'ed

Your lucky to get yours that high actually..

Are you using 12X multi???
0 thumbs!
^
Patrickoc Mar 12, 08
Hello,
yes I use x12 multi.
where do i find HT speed for chipset and ht multi for chip set ?

Patrick
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
Add your comment:
Name *:  Members, please LOGIN
Email:  We use this to display your Gravatar.

Sign in with
Comment *:
(0.1002/d/web8)