• 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.

Which CPU is faster, E5200 or X3-445?

lol is this trolling? AMD isnt that bad ffs. If you could overclock that E5200 to about 3.9GHz then it might be faster than a 445. But then the 445 can OC too...
 
If you're overclocking, they will end up about the same, those 5200s are gold for that.

It's more of a 'why these two' question though?
 
It's not a troll post and both are totally stock, it was an honest question. I figured AMD would probably be faster but I didn't know for sure. I haven't been able to overclock my E5200 at all though, it's on a very cheap mATX MSI motherboard with stock HSF.

A while back I built a system for my mother, which has that X3 CPU (was about $70 and the 4th core unlocked!). Shamefully, it turns out my computer is slower hehe.
 
I have the faster version of the x3 445 called the x3 455 which is clocked at 3.3ghz. It works very well with general internet use and for games as well.
 
Interestingly enough, overclocked to 3.75Ghz, the E5200 scores about the same overall as a AMD Athlon II X4 at stock, in the Nuclearus benchmark.
 
Haserath said:
You could actually just go to Anand's bench and pit a similar X3 against a similar C2D.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/189?vs=63

AMD wins and it's not even close.
Click to expand...

FUD. Comparing to an E4700 makes no sense. The E4xxx series is incredibly ancient, and you chose one that's clocked a ton lower.

Up the clock speed on the C2D, and things change considerably :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/189?vs=56

Clock for clock, depending on cache, the C2D series will be equal or faster than Athlon II processors. Of course, if you don't overclock, then pick whichever one has a higher clockspeed.

The triple core never seemed to deliver much over dual cores, though I'd take an Athlon II X4 over any Core 2 Duo in a heartbeat.
 
nemesismk2 said:
I have the faster version of the x3 445 called the x3 455 which is clocked at 3.3ghz. It works very well with general internet use and for games as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a x3 440 (default 3.0 GHz) overclocked to 3.45 GHz. It's paired with a 6870 and can play Skyrim on high settings at 1920x1200 resolution fine.
 
Yes, there is a pentium dual core E5200 in the list . . .and I was sure I had selected it when I made the link. <bangs head on desk>
edit: Oh wait, that was the other guy. I think I'm gonna go back to bed.
 
Last edited:
Arkaign said:
FUD. Comparing to an E4700 makes no sense. The E4xxx series is incredibly ancient, and you chose one that's clocked a ton lower.

Up the clock speed on the C2D, and things change considerably :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/189?vs=56

Clock for clock, depending on cache, the C2D series will be equal or faster than Athlon II processors. Of course, if you don't overclock, then pick whichever one has a higher clockspeed.

The triple core never seemed to deliver much over dual cores, though I'd take an Athlon II X4 over any Core 2 Duo in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
not fud at all. the old E4700 performs almost identically to the E5200. you can compare the E4700 to the E5200 right there and see.
 
Arkaign said:
FUD. Comparing to an E4700 makes no sense. The E4xxx series is incredibly ancient, and you chose one that's clocked a ton lower.

Up the clock speed on the C2D, and things change considerably :

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/189?vs=56

Clock for clock, depending on cache, the C2D series will be equal or faster than Athlon II processors. Of course, if you don't overclock, then pick whichever one has a higher clockspeed.

The triple core never seemed to deliver much over dual cores, though I'd take an Athlon II X4 over any Core 2 Duo in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

OMG! The e8400 kills the E5200! Why even put this up!

He asked Stock! but even at the same clocks, the e8400 kills the e5200, it's just bad bad bad comparing it to the X3 for any reasonable measurement.

This is as close as you are gonna gt. And its very very close to 100% accurate:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/119?vs=66


This actually is 100mhz slower for the X3, so your results would be slightly better. But as you can see, the X3 440 eats up the 5200 by a long shot. Expecially when you get to the timed benchmarks (in seconds) and the games.

So the 445 would be even better. The AMD x3 Wins by a long shot!
 
volcane said:
Yeah, I have a x3 440 (default 3.0 GHz) overclocked to 3.45 GHz. It's paired with a 6870 and can play Skyrim on high settings at 1920x1200 resolution fine.
Click to expand...

I was going to replace my x3 455 with something intel but after using it for everyday kind of things including light gaming I am going to keep it instead 😉
 
Anyone who says intel is a fanboy at it's purest form

Let's face it, AMD looses more often than not but in this instance it wins, no comparison
 
nemesismk2 said:
I was going to replace my x3 455 with something intel but after using it for everyday kind of things including light gaming I am going to keep it instead 😉
Click to expand...

Same here. I was on the verge of pulling the trigger on a 2500k, but my x3 is still doing the job. I think I can wait until Ivy Bridge, and probably beyond!
 
volcane said:
Same here. I was on the verge of pulling the trigger on a 2500k, but my x3 is still doing the job. I think I can wait until Ivy Bridge, and probably beyond!
Click to expand...

I also have intel x3 as well the i3 2120 which is very quick for gaming so I guess I am in both camps lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top