• 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 vs FX-62

B

BackStabber

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
357
I have seen several reviews where the E6800 owns the FX-62 but price wise the FX-62 $299 vs the E6600 $313. Any one seen any bench marks showing these two cpu's compared.

With out talking about overclocking just staock speeds wich CPU has the most bang for the buck.

I have built alot of AMD systems but never Intel. My first inclination is the FX cpu would be better?
 
dont forget the FX-62 is a powerhungry monster, the conroes are much more energy efficient, dunno if this matters for you, it does for me
 
The FX will hold it's price better from this current standpoint. I would go with the FX-62 for the reason that it's cheaper and it's a good processor. However, keep in mind that the E6600 gives you an upgrade path (should you decide to go quad core in the future)... whereas the FX-62 is pretty much the end of the road for AM2 (AM3 coming out soon).
 
Ok

Stock speeds:
2.4Ghz e6600 vs 2.8Ghz FX-62

2.4Ghz e6600 wins 90% of the benchmarks!

Then don't forget that the e6600 has TONS of headroom for overclocking b/c its default speed is only 2.4Ghz. And even at its default speed its kicking the FX's ass most of the time even though the FX has 400Mhz clock speed advantage. Imagine when you overclock it and its the other way around (e6600 has the 400Mhz clock adv)! Most e6600's hit 3.0Ghz minimum and many hit up to 3.4-3.6+Ghz!!

Where the FX-62 is already near its max clock speed, you might be able to squeeze 2.9-3.0Ghz with a lot of heat coming off it.

so imagine 3.4Ghz e6600 vs 3.0Ghz FX-62
 
If your building a brand new system get the E6600 or even the E4300 if your worried about price. The E4300 would kill the FX-62 when overclocked. If you currently have a Am2 board getting the Fx-62 is still a nice upgrade and overclocker.
 
chrisf6969 said:
Ok

Stock speeds:
2.4Ghz e6600 vs 2.8Ghz FX-62

2.4Ghz e6600 wins 90% of the benchmarks!

Then don't forget that the e6600 has TONS of headroom for overclocking b/c its default speed is only 2.4Ghz. And even at its default speed its kicking the FX's ass most of the time even though the FX has 400Mhz clock speed advantage. Imagine when you overclock it and its the other way around (e6600 has the 400Mhz clock adv)! Most e6600's hit 3.0Ghz minimum and many hit up to 3.4-3.6+Ghz!!

Where the FX-62 is already near its max clock speed, you might be able to squeeze 2.9-3.0Ghz with a lot of heat coming off it.

so imagine 3.4Ghz e6600 vs 3.0Ghz FX-62
Click to expand...

QMFT!
 
BackStabber said:
I have seen several reviews where the E6800 owns the FX-62 but price wise the FX-62 $299 vs the E6600 $313. Any one seen any bench marks showing these two cpu's compared.

With out talking about overclocking just staock speeds wich CPU has the most bang for the buck.

I have built alot of AMD systems but never Intel. My first inclination is the FX cpu would be better?
Click to expand...

Even if they were identical performance wise, in nine out of ten cases E6600 is the better deal. It runs cooler/gives off less heat, uses less juice so you can get a smaller PSU, Not as Dependant on Good RAM, has more choices Chipset wise and etc...................

How much better? My 3GHz overclocked temps are a little less than my Bud's FX-60 at almost stock:) In fact, he doesn't overclock anymore and went bought a E6700 and he will build a QC model after the April price cuts. I might get his 6700 since I know it hasn't been overclocked;)

Edit mine is 400MHz overclocked and his was 200MHz overclocked.
 
E6600 even it is $15 expensive. Who cares when you are spending $295, you can spend $315 and get the fast one, NOT to mention if you overclock it pass 3GHZ. AMD does not have any chance to compete.
 
Like an above poster mentioned, the E6600 will win 90% of the benchmarks against the FX-62 at stock speeds. It also draws significantly less power and outputs a lot less heat as well (65W vs 125W I think), but Intel and AMD thermal ratings are different. Intel rates their thermals for average power usage, while AMD rates theirs for maximum.

Upgrade path is mixed. Both Barcelona and Penryn will debut later this year, but no one is for certain which of today's motherboards will be compatible with tomorrow's processors.

As for overclockability, the E6600 wins hands down, no contest. You can have yourself a real juggernaut of a CPU if you're able to overclock the E6600 to, say, 3.6ghz (400fsb).
 
Ranari said:
Like an above poster mentioned, the E6600 will win 90% of the benchmarks against the FX-62 at stock speeds. It also draws significantly less power and outputs a lot less heat as well (65W vs 125W I think), but Intel and AMD thermal ratings are different. Intel rates their thermals for average power usage, while AMD rates theirs for maximum.
Click to expand...
Not anymore for the C2D series:

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/19/IMG0019367.gif
 
jmackay said:
I see the C2D's way below that of the FX-62 (61 w/2x prime vs 126). The 5000s are closer, but still higher. Only the quad cores are using a lot.. and thats because they are doing 4x prime.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the old generalization that Intel's TDP is not comparable to AMD's TDP.
 
At the moment amd suxs, so go with intel unless you can wait till barcelona or true quads from intel or even octicores:D
 
How about just getting the e6400, which is about equal to an FX-62 at it's stock speed, and only costs $218. Then overclock it to 3000mhz to entirely destroy the FX-62...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top