6400+ and 5000+ B.E. questions

A

achensherd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
328
1. Does anyone know if there's going to be a Brisbane version of the 6400+ Black Edition?

2. Does the 6400+ B.E. have an unlocked multiplier like the 5000+ B.E.?

3. Which would be the better overall buy for speed, assuming:
a. overclocking?
b. not overclocking?

Thanks :).
 
Umm?

6400+ if you want to spend a bit more.

5000+ if you're cheap.

Seriously, 6400+ is like $210 CAD, which is how much I paid for my Opteron 146 2 years ago... Just get the 6400+
 
The 6400+ is based on AMD's F3 revision - the 5000+ is G2. The G2 revision looks like it can clock higher than the F3 - from what I've seen.
 
I highly doubt we'll see too many 65nm "Brisbane" based in the future. They're really pushing the Phenom's for performance so we'll probably see a phasing out of the Athlon name in the not too distant future.
 
Leon2ky said:
I highly doubt we'll see too many 65nm "Brisbane" based in the future. They're really pushing the Phenom's for performance so we'll probably see a phasing out of the Athlon name in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...
Considering that AMD is just now set this quarter to ship more dual-core parts than single-core processors, I doubt this..
 
mpcamer1220 said:
Considering that AMD is just now set this quarter to ship more dual-core parts than single-core processors, I doubt this..
Click to expand...

Athlon is moving into their mainstream so it won't really fade out but you won't hear Athlon when referenced to high performance processors. AMD wants to put heavy emphasis on 3 and 4 core processors that's why they have the Phenom name.

Phenom - Core 2
Athlon - Pentium
Sempron - Celeron

If you ever get a chance to talk to a AMD Marketing rep, ask them they'll tell you ;).
 
Lets see, the 5000 is slower clock for clock because its cache is slow (if im not mistaken) and although it does clock well, it doesn't beat the 6400 usually.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
Lets see, the 5000 is slower clock for clock because its cache is slow (if im not mistaken) and although it does clock well, it doesn't beat the 6400 usually.
Click to expand...

Cache won't really make that big a difference, if you OC'd a 5000+ to 6400 speeds in most places they should be about equal.
 
CCUABIDExORxDIE said:
only thre 5000+ is, im 100% sure that the 6400+ BE isnt unlocked.
Click to expand...

http://news.tigerdirect.com/2007/08/21/amd-athlon-x2-6400-black-edition-teaser/

Tiger Direct said:
The unlocked multiplier is a huge deal. It really breaks down the overclocking barriers to truly make this an enthusiast CPU. What that really means is that you have way more control over the multiplier and the FSB to make it extremely overclockable (is that a word?).
Click to expand...

And you are 100% Wrong.

Here's another one:
http://www.digitnotes.com/?p=8

DigiNotes said:
The “Black Edition” moniker means nothing more other than the processor comes with an unlocked multiplier. If you are not an overclocking enthusiast, this won’t mean much to you, as the unlocked multiplier is clearly targeted at hardware enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

If you're going to contest something at least contest something that can't be disproved using Google.
 
CCUABIDExORxDIE said:
only thre 5000+ is, im 100% sure that the 6400+ BE isnt unlocked.
Click to expand...

well now we kow what your 100% is worth :p.

the 5000+ is a brisbane with an unlocked multiplier and comes at a stock speed of 2.6GHz. The 6400+ is a windsor with an unclocked multiplier and comes at a stock speed of 3.2GHz. Both of those numbers are on the brink of what AMD is willing to give you in a stock SKU, as such they make you supply your own hs/f unit, since reshaping the marketing to allow for a higher performance hs/f to ship in those boxes would require a rework of the way they're manufacturered and shipped.

I would go for the 5000+. Its cheaper and will overclock higher. Kyle was able to push 3.5GHz on a 5000+ using unknown (probibly that nice ace-tek loop of theirs) cooling, and some pretty ugly voltages. (cf)eclipse managed 3.3 on much more modest numbers (including a thermalright Ultra 120). Give that 5000+ 4gb of ram and its as happy as a pig in sh!t.

In all fairness, that 6400+, even with its unlocked multiplier, wont get much higher. I suspect the factory yield is an unprecidented low (ie the rejection rate is in the sky).

edit: where you planning on popping it in that sig of yours? I think that would be an excellent idea. And I agree, foxconn mobo naming scheme for AM2 boards is seriously "WTF?!"
 
Thanks for the responses, guys :). So I gather that the 6400+ is the better CPU for pure, "paid-for" out-of-the-box speed that can't go much higher, and the 5000+ is a better bargain, being able to OC to at least near-6400+ speeds for a little over half the price.

I was confused about whether the 6400+ has an unlocked multiplier or not because the 5000+'s unlocked multiplier seems to get more attention. Actually, the 5000+ itself seems to get more attention than the 6400+. Google searches for 6400+ that keep yielding 5000+ results doesn't help much either. Thanks for the clarifications, though :).

MrWizard6600 said:
edit: where you planning on popping it in that sig of yours? I think that would be an excellent idea. And I agree, foxconn mobo naming scheme for AM2 boards is seriously "WTF?!"
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm planning on popping the new CPU into the system in my sig. I was all set on the 5000+, but wanted to make sure it was really a better CPU (all things considered) than the 6400+, what with the multiplier confusion I had and all. I also wanted to know whether there would be a Brisbane version of the 6400+, because the Windsor core and its 125 TDP brings back bad Prescott memories.

I find it hard to even refer to many of Foxconn's boards in person. "I have the Foxconn C51...XE...M... ummm... the Foxconn 590 SLI board!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top