• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

E6600 v X2 6000+

V

vlsi0n

n00b
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
6
So I didn't know what section to put this under - it's not like the graphics section where the subforums are different makers. Anyways, since I was leaning more toward a E6600 I put it here.

Question: Would I be better off with a Core Cuo E6600 or a Athlon 64 X2 6000+

Upgrading from: P4 3.0 GHz (fossil age)

Usage: Gaming for newer games, and some video encoding - no where near heavy use just occasionally. I run Windows Vista.

Thank you!
(I don't want a flame war - I want the facts please. I have no bias toward either company. Other chips can of course be recommended.)

Another thought: If you know my other components that might make a difference - here is my current idea of what I'm going to build.
 
Do you intend to over clock?

If so, the Intel should over clock considerably more.

Stock clock for stock clock, I give the nod to the e6600. I don't think it would be any difference you would likely notice on every day activities, but I think encoding and such it might be a bit better.

I have never owned a x2 6000, however, I did run an x2 3600 at 3.1ghz less than a month ago. So, likely very similar in performance there.

I'd go for Intel, personally. In my particular case, I picked up a large amount when over clocking, but even at stock clocks, I believe the e6600 performed better than my 3.1ghz brisbane.

Good Luck,
Josh
 
I'd be interested in over-clocking if it was stable. That'd require a third party cooling solution though (for the best). What would work best with it, getting a OEM and then after marketing cooling solution?
 
For the price performance comparison I would go for the AMD. The E6600 will get a higher % OC but net net the performance is about the same. I have been running on Vista for about 45 days now & I am very satisfied. ;)
 
The E6600 is a few percent faster in some games, but the added cost of a decent SLi motherboard over an AMD platform (a 680i is about $40-100 more expensive than an nForce 590 SLI board) simply is not worth it. The E6600 is also $50 more expensive than the X2 6000. Bottom line - the X2 6000 is a far better value if you plan on running everything at stock. Most people tend to overlook this factor when reccomending Intel over AMD - the entire platform cost.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
The E6600 is a few percent faster in some games, but the added cost of a decent SLi motherboard over an AMD platform (a 680i is about $40-100 more expensive than an nForce 590 SLI board) simply is not worth it. The E6600 is also $50 more expensive than the X2 6000. Bottom line - the X2 6000 is a far better value if you plan on running everything at stock. Most people tend to overlook this factor when reccomending Intel over AMD - the entire platform cost.
Click to expand...

Who wants SLi boards anyway? :rolleyes:
 
the 6000+ produces alot more heat, i mean alot more, so if you don't have good AC, id consider the intel. The intel will also overclock better and be faster when overclocked. AMD has a slight lead @ stock.
 
I looked at the e6750 and I don't understand why someone would get the e6600 over the e6750. Unless the e6600 does better OC'ing?
 
vlsi0n said:
I looked at the e6750 and I don't understand why someone would get the e6600 over the e6750. Unless the e6600 does better OC'ing?
Click to expand...

E6600 Multiplier = 9

Cheaper RAM, less high FSB requirements, more overclock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top