• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Core2Duo E6600 or A64 X2 6000+

Philippart

Philippart

Golden Member
I can get both CPUs for about the same price, which is the fastest, most efficient?

It's for a HTPC/Server/Distributed computing box.

I've had pretty good experiences with AMD so far: 11 processors, I was very pleased with them all.
I've 2 Intel CPUs which really disappointed me.

Does the higher memory bandwidth of the AMD cpu have a noticable performance gain compared to the Intel cpu?

Thanks
 
At stock speeds, the 2 will be fairly similar. Overclocked, the X2 won't stand a chance. If the Intel CPU's you had were P4's or pentium-d's I could see why you would be disappointed, but Core 2 duo turned the tables..the core 2 duo @2.4 will use less power, run cooler, and give similar performance to the higher clocked X2, memory bandwidth is not really much of a factor, while bandwidth was important to netburst chips, these more efficient chips aren't impacted nearly as much. And it's more a latency advantage than a bandwidth advantage due to the onboard memory controler. Core 2 duo is able to outperform X2's despite the lack of the onboard mem controller. Just look at benchmarks for the 2 CPU's you are considering, and pick the one that performs best in the applications you run. If heat and power are a concern, while the X2 is far better than any pentium-d ever was, the core 2 duo is cooler and uses less power than the X2 at those speeds.
 
Originally posted by: stevty2889
At stock speeds, the 2 will be fairly similar. Overclocked, the X2 won't stand a chance. If the Intel CPU's you had were P4's or pentium-d's I could see why you would be disappointed, but Core 2 duo turned the tables..the core 2 duo @2.4 will use less power, run cooler, and give similar performance to the higher clocked X2, memory bandwidth is not really much of a factor, while bandwidth was important to netburst chips, these more efficient chips aren't impacted nearly as much. And it's more a latency advantage than a bandwidth advantage due to the onboard memory controler. Core 2 duo is able to outperform X2's despite the lack of the onboard mem controller. Just look at benchmarks for the 2 CPU's you are considering, and pick the one that performs best in the applications you run. If heat and power are a concern, while the X2 is far better than any pentium-d ever was, the core 2 duo is cooler and uses less power than the X2 at those speeds.
Click to expand...

May be hotter, but toms hardware done test 5600+ (2.8) vs e6400 (2.1) on power consumption. 5600+ uses less at idle, but more max wattage. However, over 1 hour doing different kind of tests, amd ends up using less total watts. I just thought that's kind of interesting 😛 http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/04/...#energy_requirements_over_6090_minutes
 
I guess if you are not planning on over clocking, both would do the job equally well, with perhaps a decisive factor being the lower price on the AMD AM2 mobo.

If you on the other hand want to overclock, the C2D is an easy choice.
 
Another point in favour of going with the X2 is the ability to upgrade to an X4 at the end of the year, which will almost certainly outpace - or atleast match - Intel's offering, probably at lower power consumption. If you are looking to build a stock-clocked system to last you a couple of years however, then it's a toss-up.
 
Originally posted by: Philippart
I can get both CPUs for about the same price, which is the fastest, most efficient?

It's for a HTPC/Server/Distributed computing box.

I've had pretty good experiences with AMD so far: 11 processors, I was very pleased with them all.
I've 2 Intel CPUs which really disappointed me.

Does the higher memory bandwidth of the AMD cpu have a noticable performance gain compared to the Intel cpu?

Thanks
Click to expand...


Philip, im assuming your going to use this for WCG or F@H.

Get the C2D. It KILLS the AMD in process time. IF you can get a decient overclock to about 3.375, @ 1.4V. Almost any C2D will do this, even the L640F, Your load temps while crunching 24/7 will not be extremely high and out of control. Assuming your cooler is a great cooler. Ultra120, or Tuniq Tower.

Also the C2D will process FAAH aps in about 4 hours. While the AMD will do it in about 5-6 hours.

thats the time difference i think your looking for.


Here is my secondary machine besides my Quad that crunches:

E6600 @3636 1.4V L631B120

AMD X2 @2.8ghz

X3220 Quad @ 3.375

Q6600 - To be coming soon. >:]

In order of how much fastest to slowest:
E6600@ 3636 average FAAH app time ~ 3 hours 14 min.

X3220 @ 3375 average FAAH app time ~ 3 hours 32 min.

X2 @2.8ghz average FAAH app time ~ 4 hours 30 min


Why am i using the X3220 as my main? because at quad cores 4 x 3 hours 32 min. = more credits then 2 x 3 hours 14 min. 😛


Get the E6600 /w Gigabyte p965-S3 @ mwave.
Corsair HX520
Curcial Ballastix / or even super talents are pretty cheap and doable.

That kind of setup will basically give you at least 3.375. Enough to destory any AMD.
 
Thanks to everybody for the advice!!

I'll buy a Phenom X4 this summer with a AM2+ board anyway, so the mainboard is no argument.

@aigomorla:
Any idea of Rosetta? It tends to need raw Mhz power as far as I know (my athlon xp 2600+ (stock) is crunching more ppd than a athlon 64 3000+, same L2 cache by the way)
I read at Xtremesystems that newer C2D CPUs aren't great overclockers anymore 🙁

I'm a bit scared by my bad Intel experiences (instability, overheating, mediocre quality,...), maybe I'll convince myself to forget it
 
My C2D runs two Rosetta@home files in just under 3 hours.

The C2D's more than make up for shoddy previous Intel chips. They are excellent.

I like the C2Ds, and the only reason I said go for the AMD is if you are going to go to X4.
 
Originally posted by: Philippart
Thanks to everybody for the advice!!

I'll buy a Phenom X4 this summer with a AM2+ board anyway, so the mainboard is no argument.

@aigomorla:
Any idea of Rosetta? It tends to need raw Mhz power as far as I know (my athlon xp 2600+ (stock) is crunching more ppd than a athlon 64 3000+, same L2 cache by the way)
I read at Xtremesystems that newer C2D CPUs aren't great overclockers anymore 🙁

I'm a bit scared by my bad Intel experiences (instability, overheating, mediocre quality,...), maybe I'll convince myself to forget it
Click to expand...

lemme tell you a few things.

My Bionic stats crunching 1 day for you guys. I was reworking my main rig, and decided to give you guys a healthly boost. And see if could help you guys break that 100k mark. This is on a C2D Quad, my X3220. and its still going up:

http://stats.free-dc.org/new/userstats.php?proj=wcg&name=aigomorlaAnandtech

18k for 1 day of quadcore crunching doesnt look bad eh?


Philip, follow my advice and get those parts. If you want to experiment with a C2D, get a cheaper one like a 6420, or a 4300. But make sure you get that board, with that PSU, and that memory.

Drop a thermalright Ultra120, you can get it at heatsinkfactory.com or svc.com

You'll easily push about 3.3-3.4ghz @ 1.37-1.42V.

With a thermalright ultra, your load temps will be close to 60C not exactly 60C. Which is safe to run 24/7.

And you'll push about 6-7k points per day on bionic.

Total cost?

150 for the cpu
110 for the board
140 for the ram
100 fort he cpu

total cost: 500 dollars

Pwning any AMD machine out on the market currently: priceless 😀
 
Originally posted by: BitByBit
Another point in favour of going with the X2 is the ability to upgrade to an X4 at the end of the year, which will almost certainly outpace - or atleast match - Intel's offering, probably at lower power consumption. If you are looking to build a stock-clocked system to last you a couple of years however, then it's a toss-up.
Click to expand...

You can't really say that until the benchmarks are out there.
 
Originally posted by: Canai
My C2D runs two Rosetta@home files in just under 3 hours.

The C2D's more than make up for shoddy previous Intel chips. They are excellent.

I like the C2Ds, and the only reason I said go for the AMD is if you are going to go to X4.
Click to expand...

My C2D E6600@3.2 produces about 1000 ppd, nothing AMD has can come close to that.
 
when you guys say X4, im assuming your talking about agenda and barcelona class?

to be hoenst i hope AMD pwns Penryn. I always been a fan of the underdog.

However, if AMD did do that intel would just say:

Yorkfield meet the world. World meet Yorkfield.


mmmm 8 cores sounds very yummy.
 
Right now people are just using speculation and rumors...Personally I'd buy the best bang for the buck for usage NOW. I would not want to buy something living on the hope and prayer that the next CPU revision will be better than the alternative that I could have purchased from the start.

That's me...


Think about it this way, there is always new technology on the horizon and faster cpus around the corner. If you always play the game "but maybe the next cpu will be so good..." then you will always be waiting for the magical cpu to cook your dinner and do your laundry without ever making a purchase. Any CPU you buy today will last you quite a while unless you're rich, need the fastest thing out there for video editing/sound engineering, or you're silly.
 
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Right now people are just using speculation and rumors...Personally I'd buy the best bang for the buck for usage NOW. I would not want to buy something living on the hope and prayer that the next CPU revision will be better than the alternative that I could have purchased from the start.

That's me...


Think about it this way, there is always new technology on the horizon and faster cpus around the corner. If you always play the game "but maybe the next cpu will be so good..." then you will always be waiting for the magical cpu to cook your dinner and do your laundry without ever making a purchase. Any CPU you buy today will last you quite a while unless you're rich, need the fastest thing out there for video editing/sound engineering, or you're silly.
Click to expand...

i prefer computers over fixing up cars. I grew out of that stage at 20. Computers is also a almost complete TAX writeoff i get every year, so it makes sense either donating my old rig to my patron church in an auction, or giving them out to friends. Does that still make me silly?

 
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Right now people are just using speculation and rumors...Personally I'd buy the best bang for the buck for usage NOW. I would not want to buy something living on the hope and prayer that the next CPU revision will be better than the alternative that I could have purchased from the start.

That's me...


Think about it this way, there is always new technology on the horizon and faster cpus around the corner. If you always play the game "but maybe the next cpu will be so good..." then you will always be waiting for the magical cpu to cook your dinner and do your laundry without ever making a purchase. Any CPU you buy today will last you quite a while unless you're rich, need the fastest thing out there for video editing/sound engineering, or you're silly.
Click to expand...

i prefer computers over fixing up cars. I grew out of that stage at 20. Computers is also a almost complete TAX writeoff i get every year, so it makes sense either donating my old rig to my patron church in an auction, or giving them out to friends. Does that still make me silly?
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with what I said...nothing at all :disgust:

I'm saying that if you're always waiting for the next best thing you'll never buy. There is always something better comming out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top