AMD x2 5000+ vs Intel C2D E6300

M

MaskedCarrot

n00b
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
15
I just recently bought a AMD x2 5000+ system from Best Buy. I am wondering how it would compare speed wise to the C2D e6300? I don't overlock, and have no intention of overclocking. I am just looking for opinions at stock speeds. I am mainly concerned with gaming performance since everything else I do would be the same on either one.

Both systems have 2 gigs DDR2 and an Nvidia 7900 GS video card.

I have been an AMD man for years, which is why I bought it. But after doing some reading, it seems like people are really liking the C2D chips. Unfortunately all the threads on here which try and compare the 2 are either comparing really highend systems, or overclocking the crap out of them.

I am just looking for a comparison at stock speeds.
 
Does SiSoft Sandra have updated Core 2 numbers in it? You could probably get an idea benchmarking your system against ones in Sandra.
 
Thanks for the article, I think that reassured me that I made the right choice with the x2 5000+ over the E6300.

But the tests in the article were a bit off in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a AMD's FX-62 a single core CPU? If so, why would you even be throwing that into the tests if we are talking about dual core processors?

I would have thought the article would have had a better comparison if they would have kept it all dual core.
 
MaskedCarrot said:
But the tests in the article were a bit off in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a AMD's FX-62 a single core CPU?
Click to expand...

Both the FX-60 and the FX-62 are dual core procs.
 
MaskedCarrot said:
Thanks for the article, I think that reassured me that I made the right choice with the x2 5000+ over the E6300.

But the tests in the article were a bit off in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a AMD's FX-62 a single core CPU? If so, why would you even be throwing that into the tests if we are talking about dual core processors?

I would have thought the article would have had a better comparison if they would have kept it all dual core.
Click to expand...

So , you need the 2nd best A64 ( $335 ) to beat the slowest Conroe ( $181 ) and you consider this to be the right choice?

Why don't you compare your $335 toy with the $311 E6600 for the sake of price parity ? Do you still think you made the right choice ? :rolleyes:
 
I'm on a 5000+ at 3ghz. This being overclocked of course is quite a bit faster than a stock 6300.. I've compared my benchmarks on CPU scores in various apps (besides superpi), and I'm keeping up or beating stock 6600's.

Anyhow, gaming performance doesn't depend on the CPU much at all, its all about the graphics processing power in your video card. You can prove it time and time again with high resolution gaming benchmarks.
 
w1retap said:
I'm on a 5000+ at 3ghz. This being overclocked of course is quite a bit faster than a stock 6300.. I've compared my benchmarks on CPU scores in various apps (besides superpi), and I'm keeping up or beating stock 6600's.

Anyhow, gaming performance doesn't depend on the CPU much at all, its all about the graphics processing power in your video card. You can prove it time and time again with high resolution gaming benchmarks.
Click to expand...

The key words being "stock 6300", "stock 6600", and "5000+ at 3ghz". Anyways, I think when games start to use multiple cores, you will see major differences between the two CPUs.
 
w1retap said:
I'm on a 5000+ at 3ghz. This being overclocked of course is quite a bit faster than a stock 6300.. I've compared my benchmarks on CPU scores in various apps (besides superpi), and I'm keeping up or beating stock 6600's.

Anyhow, gaming performance doesn't depend on the CPU much at all, its all about the graphics processing power in your video card. You can prove it time and time again with high resolution gaming benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Overclock the E6300 and it will rape down the 5000+, even overclocked ;)

However, the main thing is that if you are satisfied with the 5000+ performance, keep it and ignore this fact. It's mainly e-penis anyway.
 
Xilikon said:
Overclock the E6300 and it will rape down the 5000+, even overclocked ;)

However, the main thing is that if you are satisfied with the 5000+ performance, keep it and ignore this fact. It's mainly e-penis anyway.
Click to expand...

No , it's getting the most for your dough or the "rational buyer" behaviour.
 
savantu said:
No , it's getting the most for your dough or the "rational buyer" behaviour.
Click to expand...

while I agree, with you, but he already has a 5000+ system, unless he can return, it then yes, he if he saves money then its worth it, if for some reason both systems cost the same then the 5000+ is the better choice.
 
I purchased a few weeks before conroe's came out.. and finally there is a decent mobo for the intel side now.. the 680i. If I was to make a purchase today, I would absolutely go intel with the 680i. But for now, I still made a great decision, because I'm more than happy with the performance I'm getting. The processor isn't everything, especially when they are so close in performance. Yes, I consider it close because a few extra FPS or a few less seconds of encoding time with a conroe is close-- I game at 1920x1080 with 16xaa so a processor very little concern as of right now. I still have the option to upgrade to AMD's quad core when its released since its supposed to be socket AM2. If its not, oh well, I'll upgrade my mobo.
 
Download CPU-Z. It should tell you if you have a s939 or an AM2. A 5000+ is AM2 IIRC, but you never know what happens with the crazy OEMs. You'll find all kinds of crazy CPU's that aren't in retail channels (see also s939 semprons).
 
Thanks for all the info guys.

@Savantu

The reason I was asking for a comparison of the x2 5000+ to the C2D e6300 was that those two systems where the choice that I had. All the stuff I read about the C2D owning the AMDs, and regardless of the fact that the e6300 is a lower end model, I was still curious. All the threads I read are all about overclocking, and I was looking for an opinion on stock speeds.

@Motley

I have always built my own systems from scratch for as long as I can remember. But I don't have the money currently to buy all the parts I would need for upgrading an AMD XP 3000+ system to a dual core. While at Best Buy I got approved for a charge. So I figured what the heck, might as well buy a new system.

The HP I got is actually a pretty nice system. Check it out here . Plus I get a free copy of Vista Premium when it get released from Best Buy.

I ended up putting a better video card in it, but in turn I had to put in a more powerful power supply as well. But so far I am really happy with it.
 
Yes, considering the E6300 is only 183US, losing to the 5000+ at 301USD isn't much of a big deal.
 
coldpower27 said:
Yes, considering the E6300 is only 183US, losing to the 5000+ at 301USD isn't much of a big deal.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is the AMD 5000+ is like 75% more expensive than the e6300. At stock speeds they are close with a slight win to the 5000+.

Overclocking BOTH to there full potential and the e6300 destroys the 5000+. Overclock BOTH to even a mild overclock the e6300 will still wipe the floor.

Unfortunately the 5000+ is a poor choice from a enthusiasts point of view, but at the end of the day both processors will do nicely for nearly anything.

AMD will be back, but at the moment its all Intel.
 
Battleneter2 said:
The bottom line is the AMD 5000+ is like 75% more expensive than the e6300. At stock speeds they are close with a slight win to the 5000+.

Overclocking BOTH to there full potential and the e6300 destroys the 5000+. Overclock BOTH to even a mild overclock the e6300 will still wipe the floor.

Unfortunately the 5000+ is a poor choice from a enthusiasts point of view, but at the end of the day both processors will do nicely for nearly anything.

AMD will be back, but at the moment its all Intel.
Click to expand...
Nothing that I didn't already know thanks. :)
 
Your system will perform the same as an E6300, but will be ~$100 more expensive. Your call, I guess if brand loyalty is worth $100 to you, then go for it.
 
savantu said:
So , you need the 2nd best A64 ( $335 ) to beat the slowest Conroe ( $181 ) and you consider this to be the right choice?

Why don't you compare your $335 toy with the $311 E6600 for the sake of price parity ? Do you still think you made the right choice ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

While I agree with you generally speaking, the right choice isn't always that clear. If a person already has a complete Socket AM2 system, then you have to factor in the cost of the new motherboard as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top