AMD 64X2 Dual Core 6000+ vs Intel Core 2Quad Q6600

[WoodPeckr]

Which is better?
Read a review of this AMD 6000+ tested against a Intel Core 2Quad Q6700 and the AMD almost kept up with the Q6700 so that means it beat the Q6600 along with being cheaper than the Intel Quad Q6700!

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3694&Itemid=40

So which one do you think is better, going with an AMD 6000+ or the Q6600?

 

[cypherpunk]

I understand AMD is about to release their 65nm process CPUs and Intel is shortly releasing their new CPU family. Might be some good deals available on existing stocks soon. Otherwise the new procs might offer some decent performance improvements and overclocking potential.

Woah there. AMD has been shpping 65nm processors for over a year now and Intel isn't going to release a new family any time soon.

Anyway, any $50 processor is more than enough for general computing. Any X2 processor is more than enough for gaming (that should change this year). The E6600 burries the X2 6000+, and any Q6x00 obliterates any X2 chip if you're using three or four cores. The only thing that's really competetive with Intel is AMD's Phenom chips, which should be re-released real real soon now. My advice? Go with the Q6600 with the G0 stepping.

 

[cypherpunk]

This claim isn't supported by detailed benchmark testing performed in either article, the E6600 is only about 2-5% faster. Besides the 6400+ would be a fairer comparison and at ~$195, it's $55 cheaper and about 5-7% faster than the E6600.

Detailed benchmarking should include power consumption, heat generation, and overclocking for a complete picture. A 6400+ runs about 50W more than an E6600 under load, doesn't it? I reckon even the Q6600 eats less than that.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Wrong link? I didn't see a reference to the Q6700.

Just found the correct link from a couple days ago:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933
It made it look like the AMD 6000+ fared very well against the Intel E6600 and E6700.

It does point out the Intel Core2 line, is more efficent than AMD. The main plus for AMD seemed to be it was cheaper and almost as powerful and fast as the Intell E6600 and E6700.

Am still leaning towards the Intel Quad Core 2 Q6600 figuring to get the best longevity out of it for years to come.

 

[thirdtime]

How overclockable is the AMD 6000+?
I've had my E6600 (stock 2.4 GHz) running at 3.11 GHz for over a year.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Not sure.
From reading up on the AMD a couple articles made it look like AMD just took the 5600+ @ 2.8GHz and overclocked it up about 10% to make it a 6000+ @ 3.0GHz.

AMD FSB is 2000 vs Intel FSB 1066.
While a 2000 FSB looks impressive, does it help performance that much?

 

[cypherpunk]

AMD FSB is 2000 vs Intel FSB 1066.
While a 2000 FSB looks impressive, does it help performance that much?

Yes. In fact, it's AMD's only major design win at the moment. It doesn't show much unless you're using four or more chips, though.

 

[cypherpunk]

can someone explain for me whats the improvement from a computer like mine pentium4 to these kinds? how much better is it?

If all you're doing is web surfing, email, and watching DVDs, it's not going to make much of a difference. If you do anything like Photoshop, video editing, or gaming, the difference could be more than 100%. As dated as the P4 is, it's still plenty fast for a lot of things.

 

[thirdtime]

3.11GHz is not bad! What cooling and MB are you using? From some of the articles (below) 3.2GHz seems to be the upper reasonable limit (very dependent on the processor itself, many early E6600s couldn't get to 3GHz). I use a water cooling kit (Gigabyte) and try not to crank up the CPU voltages much, so I get lower numbers.

Asus P5W DH Deluxe motherboard
No liquid cooling, just air with a Thermaltake Big Typhoon 6-heat pipe CPU cooler.
I could run it higher if I played with it a lot, but it's been running stable like this for a year.