BF2S Forums AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ CPU

Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:

Would that be $USD?

Indeed it would be.

koool... expensive...

Stormscythe wrote:

<grins>
I don't know how well this 600$ piece overclocks, but assuming that an E6300 runs more than 3GHz on air easily and even has the 2MB cache shared and not seperated (though linked) I really really wonder who'd ever buy a 6000+ for that price. Lol.

Ok it will reach the same level after OC'd 1.2 GHZ. And the 6000+ would reach even higher. Sorry but thats a fail.

It also performs at the same level as an FX-74 but uses the AM2 socket.

Anyway the great thing about AMD is compatibility with CPU's however you gotta be retarded to buy that. I mean you could get an FX-62 OC it 200mhz and it will be better for -100 dollars.

Last edited by spray_and_pray (2007-01-28 04:26:26)

Or maybe those who want the best CPU for there current set up, just saying go C2D is not a great help, buying new mobo's RAM etc would quickly drain away the apparant cost effectiveness of the intel option.  Still those of you who are buying new systems, just go intel.

Martyn

spray_and_pray wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

<grins>
I don't know how well this 600$ piece overclocks, but assuming that an E6300 runs more than 3GHz on air easily and even has the 2MB cache shared and not seperated (though linked) I really really wonder who'd ever buy a 6000+ for that price. Lol.

Ok it will reach the same level after OC'd 1.2 GHZ. And the 6000+ would reach even higher. Sorry but thats a fail.

It also performs at the same level as an FX-74 but uses the AM2 socket.

Anyway the great thing about AMD is compatibility with CPU's however you gotta be retarded to buy that. I mean you could get an FX-62 OC it 200mhz and it will be better for -100 dollars.

Any experience on how far you can really overclock that 6000+? I mean, it's still a 90nm chip, so it's probably gonna suck quite some power and produce heat, for these are relatively high clock speeds for an AMD cpu.

The#1Spot wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

Ok it will reach the same level after OC'd 1.2 GHZ. And the 6000+ would reach even higher. Sorry but thats a fail.

It also performs at the same level as an FX-74 but uses the AM2 socket.

Anyway the great thing about AMD is compatibility with CPU's however you gotta be retarded to buy that. I mean you could get an FX-62 OC it 200mhz and it will be better for -100 dollars.

Any experience on how far you can really overclock that 6000+? I mean, it's still a 90nm chip, so it's probably gonna suck quite some power and produce heat, for these are relatively high clock speeds for an AMD cpu.

it only uses 89 watts

That's pretty high... won't OC too much IMO. Conroes are running at around 65watts.

spray_and_pray wrote:

Anyway my point being was it will out perform an E6300 lets not be stupid even a lower then that AMD can beat an E6300. However that CPU is just a waste of money, its for the retards that have too much money and not enough brains.

You find me an AMD CPU, short of a FX-62 that can beat an E6300 OCd on air. I'll be very suprised. I've tried with a X2 4800+ and all I got was lots of instability at high clocks. There is no proper headroom on AMD CPUs for hard OCs.

An E6600, which is the same price, is a much better piece of hardware. AMD are finished. (The 6300 can often outperform the 6600 though, depends on the individual chip, FSB tolerances on the 6300 give a lot of high speed tolerance)

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-28 10:24:52)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

There's no point to buying anything other than C2D right now. AMD needs to get their act together.

There is really no point in buying anything until the true Quad Cores hit the market later this year.

next iam getting an intel quad core extream edition before! that will be in like 6 months thow

Well I hope all the doom and gloom about AMD is premature. It would certainly be a seller's market if there is only one major manufacturer. But I suppose we can all buy Macs when Intel charges an arm and a leg for a CPU.

Last edited by cospengle (2007-01-29 03:47:11)

spray_and_pray wrote:

If you buy an AMD chipset you have opened a path for expansion AM3 can be used in an AM2 socket. Whoever said AMD is done hasn't heard of the Barcelona CPU's coming out. If the 6000+ is like the FX-74 (isnt that AMD's quad core CPU which beat the C2D's?) I wouldn't be worrying about it. Intel just built their CPU's in a bad way they just stuck as much cache as possible instead of going forwards more into the future and giving em memory.

spray_and_pray, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I highly suggest that anyone in the market for a new CPU ignore his posts. Back in the days of the P4 and Athlon XP/64 (first generations), Intel CPUs had very poor core architecture and had to make up for it with insanely high core clocks. AMD's core clocks were far lower, yet continued to compete because they were able to handle more operations per clock cycle than P4s. At this time, AMD chips were the best bang-for-the-buck out there. Because of this, AMD was able to compete with Intel despite their small market share.

Now, the roles have been reversed. The C2D architecture is FAR superior than anything AMD has out, or will have out in the foreseeable future. So, AMD is now trying to crank up their core clocks as high as possible to try and compete with Intel's superior C2D architecture. The result? A more expensive CPU with INFERIOR performance.

The Conroe, and its successors to be released this year, from a completely unbiased consumer perspective, is the beginning of the end for AMD. AMD does not have a competing product anymore. Their CPUs are inferior in both price and performance. And, as it historically has been, AMD still only retains a small share of the CPU market. Without a "bang-for-the-buck" CPU that kept them alive during the P4 era, AMD is surely doomed. That said, I hope AMD comes out with a competing product soon, because a monopoly would be extremely bad for the consumer.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2007-01-29 12:58:09)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

If you buy an AMD chipset you have opened a path for expansion AM3 can be used in an AM2 socket. Whoever said AMD is done hasn't heard of the Barcelona CPU's coming out. If the 6000+ is like the FX-74 (isnt that AMD's quad core CPU which beat the C2D's?) I wouldn't be worrying about it. Intel just built their CPU's in a bad way they just stuck as much cache as possible instead of going forwards more into the future and giving em memory.

spray_and_pray, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I highly suggest that anyone in the market for a new CPU ignore his posts. Back in the days of the P4 and Athlon XP/64 (first generations), Intel CPUs had very poor core architecture and had to make up for it with insanely high core clocks. AMD's core clocks were far lower, yet continued to compete because they were able to handle more operations per clock cycle than P4s. At this time, AMD chips were the best bang-for-the-buck out there. Because of this, AMD was able to compete with Intel despite their small market share.

Now, the roles have been reversed. The C2D architecture is FAR superior than anything AMD has out, or will have out in the foreseeable future. So, AMD is now trying to crank up their core clocks as high as possible to try and compete with Intel's superior C2D architecture. The result? A more expensive CPU with INFERIOR performance.

The Conroe, and its successors to be released this year, from a completely unbiased consumer perspective, is the beginning of the end for AMD. AMD does not have a competing product anymore. Their CPUs are inferior in both price and performance. And, as it historically has been, AMD still only retains a small share of the CPU market. Without a "bang-for-the-buck" CPU that kept them alive during the P4 era, AMD is surely doomed. That said, I hope AMD comes out with a competing product soon, because a monopoly would be extremely bad for the consumer.

Oh really go study up on AMD AM2 sockets and come back proving me wrong. AMD will not die "sigh" im slightly biased towards them but not enough to show total ignorance. Of course the C2D's are better because of their high Cache sizes and better architecture. What you are referring to is the P4 netburst architecture (peice of shit) and I think I read somewhere that in the name 3000+ etc it was saying its performance compared to a P4. 3000+ being the same as a P4 3.0GHZ. Someone correct me if im wrong here I read that when I had my 2500+ (supposedly an overclocking beast I could only put it up 100MHZ (shit mobo). For every new CPU intel releases they make a new socket. C2D is 775 you P4 is _____ the P3 is ______ the P2 is_____ that reminds me the CPU placement in a P2 mobo is funny as those big ass heatsinks crack me up.

Ive had a P2 PC and that was the last Intel computer I ever bought. That was like in '99 or so it ran half life good . Maybe you should learn what you are on about, i doubt you can be taken seriously after all your bullshit posts. Enjoy.