AMD 6000+ 3.0GHz w/2MB L2 or 6000+ 3.1GHz w/1MB L2

[clex]

Newegg has these 2 processors on their site for sale. What's the better processor? 100MHz more in clock speed or the extra megabyte of cache. I'm buying the processor for a 780G based HTPC. So, I won't be overclocking anything. I was gonna go with the 4850e, but I'd like a little more punch.

6000+ 3.1 1MB L2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103272

6000+ 3.0 2MB L2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103233

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The 6000+ with 2MB of L2 cache is going to be a little faster, but for your purposes the 3.1 GHz 6000+ is the better solution because it uses less power and produces less heat; and overall the processors are pretty equal in performance. Since this will be an HTPC, and you seem to plan to play videos, you should consider a Phenom:

8450: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103254

 

[clex]

So, will a triple core 2.1GHz phenom beat out the dual core 3.0 for a HTPC?

 

[daveybrat]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
The 6000+ with 2MB of L2 cache is going to be a little faster, but for your purposes the 3.1 GHz 6000+ is the better solution because it uses less power and produces less heat; and overall the processors are pretty equal in performance. Since this will be an HTPC, and you seem to plan to play videos, you should consider a Phenom:

8450: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103254

Both of the processors he linked consume 89watts....so i'm sure how one 'consumes' more than the other.

I would definitely go with the 2MB cache version personally. I'd rather have double the cache anyday over 100mhz increase.

 

[error8]

Since you are using it only for HTPC, both cpus there seem a bad choice. They have high TDPs and they're not suitable for HTPC. Get the 4850e or any other 65W dual core cpu you can find. If you are not gaming on this pc, then there is just no need for "a little more punch".

 

[edplayer]

yea

The other day I was watching Iron Man on my HTPC. It has a 4850 cpu, not the e version. All I could think about during the movie was how the cpu was likely using about 10 to 15 more watts than the e version and how it wasn't suitable. It seemed to be a bad choice. So save yourself the worry/nightmares/money and get a lower power version so you too can call your PC an "Official" HTPC (not just some power hungry wannabe)

P.S. "Punching" is wrong. We have to learn to use words.


Edit: Actually I have the X2 4800+, there is no 4850 "non e" version

 

[coolpurplefan]

http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...ideo-Playback,834.html

There are no X2s on there so it's hard to tell. But, what does this benchmark measure exactly. There's a score there but a score of what?

Seems strange here the E8600 beats some quads like Q6600 but the X4 Phenoms far outpace the X3s.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: daveybratBoth of the processors he linked consume 89watts....so i'm sure how one 'consumes' more than the other.

I would definitely go with the 2MB cache version personally. I'd rather have double the cache anyday over 100mhz increase.

TPD and power consumption are not the same thing, although I would certainly like to see the power benches of both of these "new arrival" processors. One is 90nm and the other is 65nm, after all.

Originally posted by: clex
So, will a triple core 2.1GHz phenom beat out the dual core 3.0 for a HTPC?

In AT's review of the 780G platform, they stated that a Phenom processor allows the use of more advanced image filtering for HD video playback, so in a sense it would be better. If you plan to add a dedicated video card in the machine, like an HD4550, then either a Phenom or Athlon X2 would work just as well.

As far as performance goes, a 2.1 GHz Phenom will be a bit slower than a 3.0 Athlon X2 in single or double threaded applications. In heavy multitasking and multithreaded applications the X3 will be much, much faster than an Athlon X2.

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...ideo-Playback,834.html

There are no X2s on there so it's hard to tell. But, what does this benchmark measure exactly. There's a score there but a score of what?

Seems strange here the E8600 beats some quads like Q6600 but the X4 Phenoms far outpace the X3s.

Looks like the scores are probably the amount of CPU usage, in %, while performing the specified task.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
TPD and power consumption are not the same thing, although I would certainly like to see the power benches of both of these "new arrival" processors. One is 90nm and the other is 65nm, after all.

Yes

Some people assume the TDP rating represent the maximum power the cpu will use, some think it means the actual power used (all the time). From my understanding, it is neither. It is AMD's rating on what they think is an "average" measure of power consumption. So it can definitely be higher and lower than the TDP rating.