x2 3800 vs e6300 ?

[13Gigatons]

In terms of percentage how much slower will a x3800 perform at both native and overclocked ?

The mobo price cannot exceed $100 and the memory will DDR2 667 value stuff. Is it worth spending the extra since the x2's are so low priced right now.

I need to make a recommendation and I don't have the time look through all the benchmarks and caculate the the margin and if it's worth the extra price.

Native vs Native
Overclocked vs Overclocked

 

[crispy2010]

Without a doubt e6300 either oced or not!

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: crispy2010
Without a doubt e6300 either oced or not!

I'm aware that the e6300 is faster but what percentage and is it worth the money considering that a x2 3800 is under $100.

 

[crispy2010]

I had a x2 3800 and found it to really pisspoor in performance at stock. I cannot give a % because I dont know %, I would just be guessing. If you have the funds there is absoluty no reason to build 3800 over e6300. Just my opinion.

 

[F1shF4t]

The e6300 performs at stock at about the level of the 4200+ slightly more in some cases, so i would say about 10%+ over 3800+
On the other had the e6300 will overclock much better and will be a LOT faster when overclocked

 

[bX510]

e6300

 

[SuperFreaky]

/thread

 

[jpeyton]

$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

This is accurate information, however even so if I were building a system now I'd go with the E6300.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jpeyton
$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

This is accurate information, however even so if I were building a system now I'd go with the E6300.

Of course you would; you can afford it. A Core 2 Quad is better than both and I can fit that in my budget if I was building a system right now.

 

[Hulk]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jpeyton
$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

This is accurate information, however even so if I were building a system now I'd go with the E6300.

Of course you would; you can afford it. A Core 2 Quad is better than both and I can fit that in my budget if I was building a system right now.

Your initial statement is illogical. Price is not always a good index for performance especially from one CPU family to another.

Is the $345 X2 5200+ faster than the C2D E6600, which is less expensive?

Of course not.

In fact the 5200+ is barely faster than the E6400 even though it is 50% more expensive.

That's why websites benchmark CPU's. If it were just a matter of comparing prices we wouldn't need any reviews.

People need to be aware of absurd remarks and "logic" like this.

 

[LouPoir]

Yeah - the E6300 overclocked will kill the 3800x2 overclocked. No contest.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Hulk

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jpeyton
$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

This is accurate information, however even so if I were building a system now I'd go with the E6300.

Of course you would; you can afford it. A Core 2 Quad is better than both and I can fit that in my budget if I was building a system right now.

Your initial statement is illogical. Price is not always a good index for performance especially from one CPU family to another.

Is the $345 X2 5200+ faster than the C2D E6600, which is less expensive?

Of course not.

In fact the 5200+ is barely faster than the E6400 even though it is 50% more expensive.

That's why websites benchmark CPU's. If it were just a matter of comparing prices we wouldn't need any reviews.

People need to be aware of absurd remarks and "logic" like this.

The only absurd thing is taking only price OR performance into account, not both.

Is a E6300 twice as fast as a X2 3800+?

 

[AlgaeEater]

Actually jpeyton really is on a point here guys, not all of us do the "best" thing.

When someone sets a budget, they have to stick to the budget no matter what. It's not future proofing or long term benefits analysis; it's literally working with what you have now.

Back on the topic...

You said you needed to make a recommendation, but on what specific grounds is the chip going to being used for? For all intents and purposes, the 6300 is better no matter what, but it's also much more if not near double the price of the X2. Is this person looking into gaming or using heavy resource apps? Planning on going vista? Need more details for all of us here to give you a really specific answer.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater
Actually jpeyton really is on a point here guys, not all of us do the "best" thing.

When someone sets a budget, they have to stick to the budget no matter what. It's not future proofing or long term benefits analysis; it's literally working with what you have now.

Back on the topic...

You said you needed to make a recommendation, but on what specific grounds is the chip going to being used for? For all intents and purposes, the 6300 is better no matter what, but it's also much more if not near double the price of the X2. Is this person looking into gaming or using heavy resource apps? Planning on going vista? Need more details for all of us here to give you a really specific answer.

Basically everything:

watching dvd, encoding video, surfing the web, email, office 2007, Adobe Photoshop CS2, etc.

Another choice would be to buy a mobo that is C2D ready and a Pentium D. The Pentium D is the same price and at least there would be an upgrade path to the E6300 when the prices fall, of course AMD will probably have their AM3 CPU out by then and it will be the new e6300.....sigh.

 

[Smartazz]

The E6300 without a doubt either way out, but this is how I saw it when I bought my X2 rig over a Core 2 rig.
I was deciding between an E6300 and a $150 mobo or an X2 3800+ with a $100 mobo. That's a big price difference isn't it? I got a Scythe Mine to make the cooling quieter and so that I can overclock. I hit 2.6GHZ very easily and it runs cool, and I must say that the X2 3800+ at stock is slow, but at X2 5000+ speeds it is a fast chip. Would the E6300 have done the job better? Absolutely, but I wasn't willing to spend that much money on a computer that was pretty much for only gaming and as of now cpu plays a small role in gaming and I feel as though my chip can hold its ground in gaming for a while. I don't think it slows down my 8800GTS and that card is a monster. So it really is up to you, if you don't want to spend that much on a computer just get the X2, again it's entirely up to you.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Hulk

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jpeyton
$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

This is accurate information, however even so if I were building a system now I'd go with the E6300.

Of course you would; you can afford it. A Core 2 Quad is better than both and I can fit that in my budget if I was building a system right now.

Your initial statement is illogical. Price is not always a good index for performance especially from one CPU family to another.

Is the $345 X2 5200+ faster than the C2D E6600, which is less expensive?

Of course not.

In fact the 5200+ is barely faster than the E6400 even though it is 50% more expensive.

That's why websites benchmark CPU's. If it were just a matter of comparing prices we wouldn't need any reviews.

People need to be aware of absurd remarks and "logic" like this.

?

E6400 = $222
5200+ = $239

I think there have been some price cuts since you looked.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

If money is a concern, get the e4300, it is the replacement for the e6300 since the ne wseries of e6xxx wit hbe the E6x20

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: jpeyton
$95 X2 3800+ vs. $180 E6300? Of course the E6300 is faster, it's almost 100% more expensive.

This is accurate information, however even so if I were building a system now I'd go with the E6300.

Of course you would; you can afford it. A Core 2 Quad is better than both and I can fit that in my budget if I was building a system right now.

Actually I'd pick an E6600 if I was building a new box for myself right now.

 

[obeseotron]

I'd absolutely go with the E6300, it's faster, has far more overclocking headroom, and faster processors are available in LGA775 than AM2, so you probably have a bigger upgrade path.

As for exactly how much faster it is at stock:
Encoding is between 5% (MP3) and 25% (DivX or H.264) faster.
Games (see other pages in above link) are in the 10-15% range when CPU bound, but basically nothing is going to be CPU bound under 60fps for either of these chips.

Once you start overclocking, especially if you have a new P965 or nForce6 motherboard the Core 2 really leaves the Athlon in the dust.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I agree an E6300 overclocked to it's potential will be much faster than an O/C'd X2 3800+.

But, your not going to get anywhere near an E6300's potential max overclock with a $100 mobo and DDR667 value ram.

Given the mobo and ram restrictions listed in the OP I would also recommend the E4300. Although for a budget rig a well overclocked X2 3800+ is a very good option for the price.

I built my wife a rig a couple of months ago with the X2 3800+ and a $70 biostar Tforce 6100-939 board and it easily o/c'd to 2.6ghz and is a rocking little machine.

For normal day to day use I really don't feel much difference between her rig and mine(E6400 @ 3.6ghz). But when encoding or rendering mine is noticabley faster, and if you benchmark the two mine stomps the bejesus out of hers