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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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???