AMD® Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+

ThatGuy16 said:
Have you seen benchmarks? at stock speeds the 6000 beats it in most of them...

If anything at 2.8ghz the 5600 would compare to the E6550
Click to expand...

Just look at the benchmarks here
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3038

E6550 outperforms 5600+ most of the time

E6550 performs on par with 6000+


EDIT: I can show you an evidence that E6550 is even faster than 6000+

untitledkl6.jpg





E6550 on average is 7.3% faster than 5600+

6000+ has only 6.6% higher clock than 5600+. This means that 6000+ can't be more than 6.6% faster than 5600+ in any application. This also means than 6000+ on average is less than 6.6% faster than 5600+

This also means that the average performance of E6550 is better than 6000+. Not by a lot but it is better.

And remember that the applications where E6550 outperforms 6000+ is more important. For example, gaming is more important for most people than cinebench. Encoding and photoshop is more important than SYSMark2007
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
the 6400 is closer to the 5000 or 5200.
Click to expand...

E6400 beats 5000+ in most cases

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_7.html#sect0

I think is more comparable to 5200+ and E6420 is comparable to 5600+ at stock


And remember that synthetic benchmarks (like 3dmark) are not so important, because 3dmark don't not tell you which processor is better.

If you don't include synthetic benchmarks, then I think E6400 would even outperform 5200+. Because it performs very well in real world applications and gaming
 
Last edited:
It all comes down to the Core 2 has about a 400 to 500MHZ advantage on the X2. If you have a Core 2 at 1.8 it takes a X2 at 2.2 to equal it
 
StrangleHold said:
I used the word (closer), it beats the 5000 by a few points, big deal. If they used the 5200 and I did say 5000 or 5200 the 5200 would probable be a few points ahead of the 6400. The 6400 is pretty much between the 5000 and the 5200
Click to expand...

LOL ^^

Did you even look at the benchmarks that I posted ?? Did you look at all pages ?


The only difference between 5000+ and 5200+ is that 5200+ has more cache. the extra cache in 5200+ won't help it

The E6400 in the benchmark I posted was a clear winner. If you look at the next page, the E6400 outperformed 5000+ by around 70% in some of the office applications

The only place where 5000+ performed well are in 3dmarks and PCmarks. But those are noting. They are just programs made for scoring points.

In gaming, office applications, editing, encoding, rendering and phtoshop, E6400 was a clear winner. And I think E6400 would even outperform 5200+ most of time in these applications
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
It all comes down to the Core 2 has about a 400 to 500MHZ advantage on the X2. If you have a Core 2 at 1.8 it takes a X2 at 2.2 to equal it
Click to expand...


Depending on the cache and FSB, Core 2 Duo has around 20-30% advantage over AMD

E6550 performs on par with 6000+, yet the clock speed difference is about 766MHz

I think E2140 performs on par with 3600+, yet the clock speed difference is only 300MHz

I pretty sure that Core 2 Duo overclocked to 5GHz with beat AMD at 6GHz


So, saying that core 2 have 20-30% advantage over AMD is much more accurate than saying that core 2 has 400 to 500MHZ advantage
 
Last edited:
Ok, what ever you want to think, both of us are talking about a few seconds or frames:D. Look at it this way, when AMD came out with the Athlon 64 it took Intel years (about 5) to release the Core 2 to beat it. After the Core 2 was released its took AMD alittle over a year to come out with the Barcelona and the Agena and Kuma for desktop later this year and considering Intel is 20 times bigger thats a shame factor that AMD could ever beat it:P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top