Dell Build AMD X2 5000 VS Intel E 6420

[shadowofthesun]

I can't really answer your question about the IMC on the Athlon X2's... I don't really have enough info. A quick google search should turn up results, though...
4GB of ram would probably be beneficial, especially in photoshop, although in most applications short of gaming you will notice little improvment. You have to do some pretty serious multitasking to bring memory usage even up to 2 or 3 gigs.
If you are using Windows Vista, which I assume you are, make sure to get x64. If you do, 4 Gigs will generate significant improvement using Superfetch. I can't really give you much more information, seeing as I am running linux primarily.

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

Originally posted by: shadowofthesun
In addition, upgrade considerations are irrelevant for two reasons:
1) AM2+ is not fully backwards compatable with AM2, so your HTT bus will run at the lower AM2 speed. AFAIK, AM3 is not backwards compatable with AM2 at all.
2) Dell systems are notoriously upgrade-unfriendly. Whether you go with Intel or AMD, plan on sticking with that chip for a long time.
Best of luck with your system purchase.

AM2+ is fully backwards platform, and all K10 chips are fully functional in AM2 motherboard. Check Anandtech, and what AMD says.
Before you accusing me of misleading please check your own statement and facts before making such claim.

@sayNOtoFSB: It is not a "known fact" that x-bit labs is in line with Intel. Also, it is absolutely misleading to compare 3DMark scores, or any other benchmark scores, across multiple reviews. Different test beds, different quality drivers, and different Windows installs (relative levels of cleanliness) will all create an unacceptable margin of error across mutiple reviews. Even ignoring that, it seems odd that "Intel's Marketer thugs" would purposely release a review with high 3DMark scores associated with an AMD chip. Please support your claims with facts, instead of suspicion and opinion.

I remember Xbitlab had written an article about their relation with AMD (not good).
In regard to 2 different reviews that showed 2 different benchmarks- it is very relevant since both reviews use C2D and AM2 chips that used compatible hardware.

 

[shadowofthesun]

"Current platforms only support HyperTransport 2.0, while the new + platforms will enable HT3.0 which brings faster link speeds and greater bandwidth. "
- http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=2986&p=6

As I stated in my post, there will be backwards compatability, however the HT bus will be neutered. AT supports my claim.

In addition, comparing reviews using seperate drivers and across great spans of time creates an unacceptable margin of error, even within reasonable hardware limits.

Edit: Just want to make this clear... I am not here to start a flame war. I am trying to provide the OP with the truth, or at least reasonable information for him to make a judgement. The 5000+ is quite a capable chip, and whatever he chooses he will be very happy with. At the end of the day, it is up to him to check the facts and click the buy button.

 

[lopri]

I was more interested in the stark contrast in each architectures strength. Applications that benefit from low latencies works relatively better with A64 architecture but data-heavy applications are like made for C2D architecture. Taking this into consideration, E6420 will better suit most desktop usage scenarios than X2 5000+. I'd expect strong showing of X2 5000+ in scientific apps, though. For Photoshop, E6420 is a sure winner.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
I remember Xbitlab had written an article about their relation with AMD (not good).

I have never seen such an article. Either link to it or STFU with your FUD, it stinks. Before attacking Xbitlab's credibility you should have some of your own. Who are you anyway, you remind me of forum clown 'ochungry', in fact I wouldn't be surprised if you are the same person.

 

[RussianSensation]

As far back as I remember reading xbitlabs they have been impartial and unbiased in their cpu reviews.

The processor tests in new gaming applications once again proved that AMD CPUs boast the best architectures for gaming needs. Almost in all contemporary shooters K8 CPUs provided better results. And sometimes the performance difference between AMD solutions and the rivals reaches unbelievably high rates.

Here are 2 more benches from another site then:

Photoshop CS2 - Rendering 5 pictures 66MB, 7 filters
E6400 has no trouble outperforming 5600+

Converting 150 photos 9MP to 0.8MP in Photoshop
E6400 ties 5600+.

I am not saying the difference in photoshop will be earth shattering, but Core 2 Duo IS faster. So for the same price and the needs specified in this thread, it is a better system.

As far as the claims made here that X2 5000+ runs cooler, they are again unjustified:

E6700 4mb cache total system load < x2 5000+

 

[lopri]

Power consumption testing in AT reviews are broken beyond repair. (And for some reason they don't listen) I would suggest the following (much better) charts and try to draw one's own conclusioin.

http://www.techreport.com/revi...2-be2350/index.x?pg=13

 

[RussianSensation]

Lopri, sure they might be "broken" and not displaying correct values, but again E6600 consumes less power than 65nm 5000+ which doesn't change my point.

 

[Arkaign]

SayNoToFSB, you've just proven yourself to be a fanboy troll. A true enthusiast/realist will always acknowledge the fastest chip/best deal. For example : if you look at the majority of benchmarks, you will notice :

Pentium 3 Katmai was faster than K6-3
Original AMD Athlon was faster than P3 Katmai
P3 Coppermine was faster than Original Athlon
Athlon Thunderbird was faster than P3 Coppermine
Athlon XP was faster than P4 Willamette
P4 Northwood was faster than Athlon XP
Athlon 64 was faster than All P4
Athlon X2 was faster than all PD
C2D *IS* faster than all Athlon X2 (like this 6420 4MB chip vs the X2 5000+, 6600 VS 5600+, etc)
As far as Barcelona/Agena/Penryn, etc, we won't know until we SEE them benched, and released as stable products.

The best varies widely from time to time, and it also makes a difference how much you are paying. Even when the P4-C Northwoods were far faster at the top ranges (3Ghz+), it still made good sense to buy cheap AXPs and overclock them to 3200+ ranges at 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a low-end P4-C chip. The value in this thread is a question of two EQUALLY priced systems, of which the 6420 is FASTER.

So yeah, either shape up your endless FUD, drop the fanboy BS, or get out. You're not being reasonable, realistic, or helpful with your trollishness.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
You are not overclocking-Get the AM2 5000 it's better deal and @ stock it will outperform The E6420. Besides that you can upgrade it to Phenom (K10) later on. Anyone says that The E6420 @ 2.13gh outperforms AMD's 5000 @ 2.6 GHz need to provide the proof for you. Even if you consider C2D 15% better performer (10% on the average) you will get 2.45 GHz (2.13*1.15%=2.45 GHz) which is still lower than 2.6 GHz. If E6420 was better performer than the 5000 that would put it > 23% faster clock: clock which is ridiculous claim. Even if this outrageous claim was to be true, you are still better off w/ the AMD 5000. It's much cooler CPU, consume about 40% less power than C2D (do your independent research and don?t believe the Intel marketer thugs here), and AM2 motherboard is future proof (you can just drop in the new AMD's 2x or 4x K10).
Good luck with it.

The benchmarks already provided by Xbit labs show the 6420 to be faster than the 5000+ in almost every test. The link has already been posted in this thread.

EDIT : Here it is, read and learn :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ay/core2duo-e6420.html

Xbitlab will cook their review anyway they please.
Notice the review below by xbitlab that shows AMD's 5000 and 3800x2 with higher 3Dmark06 scores than the one you linked to. It is a known fact that XbitLab has a rocky relation with AMD and are Intel's Maketer thugs.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ium-e2160_8.html#sect1

3dmark is a synthetic benchmark that is extremely sensitive to variations in system configuration. Also notable is that in one of the Xbit reviews, they used Vista 32-bit, and in the other, Vista 64-bit. This alone would probably bring considerable divergence in driver performance, but when you think of the time that had passed between these two reviews, the ATI driver revision was also a few builds apart.

What is not debatable, is that in the tests themselves, on the same OS/driver load, same amount/type of ram, same HD, that the 6420 notably pulls away from the 5000+, and in many cases even the 5600, etc.

The 5000+ is a fine chip. But to choose the slower product at the same price is senseless.

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

The 5000+ is a fine chip. But to choose the slower product at the same price is senseless.

So you call me bias and a troll and ignore the benchmarks (in the same review) that AMD 5000 is faster than the E6420. Below are the benchmarks that AMD 5000 is faster than e6420.
1) 5000 faster than E6420 in 3Dmark 06, CPU benchmark. CPU test the 5000 is faster
2)5000 faster than E6420 in 3Dmark 05, CPU benchmark. Repeat: CPU test the 5000 is faster
3) The 5000 is faster than e6420 in valve source particle engine test.
4) The 5000 is almost 25% faster than e6420 in zip decompression. A big 25% advantage.
5) The 5000 is faster than e6420 in H.264 encoding, apple QuickTime.
6) The 5000 is almost 14% faster than e6420 in cinebench 9.5. A sizeable advantage
7) The 5000 is faster than e6420 in Pov-ray 3.7
The 5000 was marginally slower than the other tests (not noticeable in real life experience); with exception of 2-3 bench marks that e6420 has sizable advantage. But so as the 5000 in 2-3 of the tests. I would not consider e6420 faster than 5000 in no way. As matter of fact, most of the tests that e6420 was faster were related to other factors (hardware and motherboard) than CPU. On the other hand the above 7 tests that AMD 5000 pulled way ahead were all CPU related.
Another advantage that the AM2 platform will have is upgrading to PHENOM with minimum cost.
Why so many inteler thugs paint a rosier picture here is nothing short of deception and misguiding those who seek info in this and other forums. One should also notice that these thugs will do anything to promote Intel over AMD any cost. Foul language is just one of their smear tactics (especially if cornered). Does anyone really want to associate with these thugs?

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

you have a PM regardin a $300 coupon for this Dell machine.
enjoy it

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB

The 5000 was marginally slower than the other tests (not noticeable in real life experience); with exception of 2-3 bench marks that e6420 has sizable advantage. But so as the 5000 in 2-3 of the tests. I would not consider e6420 faster than 5000 in no way. As matter of fact, most of the tests that e6420 was faster were related to other factors (hardware and motherboard) than CPU. On the other hand the above 7 tests that AMD 5000 pulled way ahead were all CPU related

WTF? Other factors "Hardware and motherboard"?!?!

LOL! The other hardware is the same, and how the heck does the mobo affect the performance ?!

You've just made a total fool of yourself, thanks for proving what a total fanboy you are.

Give it up Ochungry/Sharikou or whoever you are.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
There should be some system of forum demerits when someone states something so obviously false. The 5000+ x2 is a fine cpu, but the 4mb L2 6420 wins the majority of benchmarks with ease. Hell, even the top-end 6000+ barely keeps up with the midrange E6600 in most apps.

I'd take the 6420, if nothing else, you will surely be able to drop in a Q6600 when prices come down to human levels. The AM2 may or may not be able to support quad-core, so caveat emptor. Both are great systems

I agree, let's start now.

Originally posted by: jhtrico1850
The 5000 will be faster.

1 demerit.

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
You are not overclocking-Get the AM2 5000 it's better deal and @ stock it will outperform The E6420.

10 demerits, or 15 if he's really who I suspect he is.

Besides that you can upgrade it to Phenom (K10) later on.

Never has anyone who works for AMD said that. Stop spreading your FUD.

 

[sayNOtoFSB]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Arkaign
There should be some system of forum demerits when someone states something so obviously false. The 5000+ x2 is a fine cpu, but the 4mb L2 6420 wins the majority of benchmarks with ease. Hell, even the top-end 6000+ barely keeps up with the midrange E6600 in most apps.

I'd take the 6420, if nothing else, you will surely be able to drop in a Q6600 when prices come down to human levels. The AM2 may or may not be able to support quad-core, so caveat emptor. Both are great systems

I agree, let's start now.

Originally posted by: jhtrico1850
The 5000 will be faster.

1 demerit.

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
You are not overclocking-Get the AM2 5000 it's better deal and @ stock it will outperform The E6420.

10 demerits, or 15 if he's really who I suspect he is.

Besides that you can upgrade it to Phenom (K10) later on.

Never has anyone who works for AMD said that. Stop spreading your FUD.

Oh yeah?
You are wrong. check AMD website, anandtech reviews, and dailytech news.
I am stating the facts, and you are spreading the "FUD" against AMD by saying the above.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Arkaign
There should be some system of forum demerits when someone states something so obviously false. The 5000+ x2 is a fine cpu, but the 4mb L2 6420 wins the majority of benchmarks with ease. Hell, even the top-end 6000+ barely keeps up with the midrange E6600 in most apps.

I'd take the 6420, if nothing else, you will surely be able to drop in a Q6600 when prices come down to human levels. The AM2 may or may not be able to support quad-core, so caveat emptor. Both are great systems

I agree, let's start now.

Originally posted by: jhtrico1850
The 5000 will be faster.

1 demerit.

Originally posted by: sayNOtoFSB
You are not overclocking-Get the AM2 5000 it's better deal and @ stock it will outperform The E6420.

10 demerits, or 15 if he's really who I suspect he is.

Besides that you can upgrade it to Phenom (K10) later on.

Never has anyone who works for AMD said that. Stop spreading your FUD.

Oh yeah?
You are wrong. check AMD website, anandtech reviews, and dailytech news.
I am stating the facts, and you are spreading the "FUD" against AMD by saying the above.

All they said is that Phenom will be compatible with AM2 but didn't say if it requires bios update, new chipset or what. Nobody knows cause AMD don't have the chip for mobo manufacturer to play with yet. There is no one who can say with certainty that this Dell AMD machine will be able to take Phenom, well maybe except you.

 

[Nathelion]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=10

In this anandtech review, the older E6400 beats out the 5000 x2 in most tests, notably the photoshop and photogallery ones. Since you said it'd be used for photo editing, the C2D is the better deal all around.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Nathelion
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=10

In this anandtech review, the older E6400 beats out the 5000 x2 in most tests, notably the photoshop and photogallery ones. Since you said it'd be used for photo editing, the C2D is the better deal all around.

Aye, and in this comparison, we're talking E6420, which has double the L2 as the 6400, and the extra cache gives another added boost, bringing the dominance to a nearly complete level.

SayNOtoFSB, nobody is saying the X2-5000+ is a bad chip, but there's no denying that it's definitely slower on more benchmarks than the 6420. If the price is the same, get the faster cpu!