6000+ or 6400+?

Itronix

Itronix

New Member
Hello. I built my system close to a year ago now and I'm quite happy with it, well at least for most games. The new games that are comming out are demanding more, so my 4600+ isn't quite cutting it anymore (it always had a bit of trouble anyway). I'd like to upgrade the processor to either a 6000+ or a 6400+. My motherboard isn't compatible with anything higher.

There are a few problems with the 6400+. First of all, Newegg isn't stocking it nearly as often as they use to and I'm wondering if it will be back. There are other places, but they usually want way more than what I can pay. Second, it's 125w, which means more heat. Third, due to the heat, I'll have to have a nicer heat sink, which will most likely involve pulling the motherboard to install.

On the other hand, we have this little number:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103272

First, it's cheap. Second, it's 89w, so I could probably use my aftermarket cooler that I use presently. Third,....... did I mention it's cheap?

Basically, I'm wondering how much better the 6400+ really is. I'm playing GTA4
on pc now, which runs decently on low-medium settings during the daytime, but when night falls in the game, I drop down to what must be below 18 fps. I haven't turned fraps on yet to actually check. I'm not looking to max anything out, but I was hoping to at least run this game smooth on the present settings, possibly bring them up a little if she's capable. I won't be overclocking. So, is the 6400+ really worth the search/extra cash/hassle, or will the 6000+ @ 3.1ghz as seen in the Newegg link perform almost as well?

Btw- GTA IV for the pc is the @$#%!!! The car explosions/fires are great....

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
The actual difference wouldn't even be noticed between the 125w version of the 6000+ in use here and the 200mhz or so clock speed increase seen with the 6400+. As far as newegg they didn't have the 6400+ instock over a year ago when ordering the cpu for the build here only seeing the 6000+ then.

The 89w model will also run somewhat cooler then the 125w to start with making the price seen worth the effort to grab a quick deal rather then pay more for 200mhz and 36w more heat to worry about for stock use. You'll be happy with the 6000+ while the next build here will likely see one of the Phenom II X4s coming out in Q1 2009.
 
I wouldn't bother looking. AFAIK the 6400+ is 90nm which explains higher thermal rating. If you went for the 6000+, the 500MHz clockspeed increase by itself should by itself give a significant performance boost, not to mention it's a newer stepping (which may improve performance a slight bit). The only significant advantage of the 6400+ is the cache (2MB) but it's not really worth it... maybe only like $10 bucks more considering the disadvantages (90nm = more heat & power draw, older stepping...).
 
For that price plus being the same speed only not running as warm as the 125w version of that here everyone is coming to the exact same conclusion. Save the mula for the next build rather then busting chops to get the small difference the 6400+ might offer.

I'm running the 125w version of the 6000+ and ignored jumping at the 6400+ when newegg did have it instock a few months ago. The boost seen here was going from a 2.2ghz single core model on the last build to the 3.1ghz dual core 6000. That was a big leap actually seen here over simply moving up 200mhz.
 
The performance difference between a 6000+ and 6400+ is almost nil, but the 125w for the 6400+ makes it unattractive IMHO. For a lot of motherboards, that doesn't leave a lot of overclocking headroom (not that these things overclock well haha), and I'd rather free up some of that power and heat.

BTW, if GTA4 is your primary concern, I don't know if you're going to see a huge difference even from a 4600+ to a 6000+. The biggest upgrade you could do is to go to quad core, or at least tri core. This is the first PC game that I know of that has been specifically optimized for more than two cores. A dual core is actually below the recommended specs for this game.
 
Sorry for not responding back. Thank you for all of your help! I got tied up with a bunch of stuff, but I ended up ordering the 6000+ and I installed it today. I used the heatsink that it came with because this one has heat pipes and a nice copper base (or copper plated). I haven't gamed yet at all, hoping to break the thermal grease in. I have the stock grease on at the moment. I figured I'd give it a shot. Something isn't right, though. My cores are running at around 17c and 14c (my cpu temp sensor on the motherboard is crap which we figured out on this forum in the past, PC eye might remember). I use core temp to check the cores individually instead of the motherboard sensor. That seems WAY to low to be possible. Although, when I open the internet or something, they will jump to 24 and 19 or even 27 and 24 or so very quickly, and then cool off after a few seconds. What's up? Is this just a funky break in thing or did I get unlucky once more and get a cpu with bad temp sensors? My 4600+ was usually in the 35c idle to 45c under load range. Considering that this one uses 89w, I'd think it would be right on par in temps with the 4600+. Any ideas? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Something isn't right, though. My cores are running at around 17c and 14c (my cpu temp sensor on the motherboard is crap which we figured out on this forum in the past, PC eye might remember). I use core temp to check the cores individually instead of the motherboard sensor. That seems WAY to low to be possible. Although, when I open the internet or something, they will jump to 24 and 19 or even 27 and 24 or so very quickly, and then cool off after a few seconds. What's up?
Click to expand...
Sometimes thermal sensors do this, they only display correct values within a certain temperature range, i.e. when/if the thing runs really cool (close to room temps) the sensors may give weird readings, seeing unusually low temps being comparatively common, whereas sometimes when going too high they actually wrap around an display sub-zero temps or something... however, I would give another program a go (PC Wizard, Speedfan, etc.) and see what they give, as the readings given by one program may not be accurate.
 
I tried pc wizard as well and it said the same thing. So, are you saying that it's running so cool that it's having trouble reading temps that low due to the fact that it would usually run hotter? Sorry if I'm not getting this quite right; I need to get to bed :D . I could try GTA 4 tomorrow and see if it runs too hot or if it comes to a normal, stable range. I just don't want to jump in too quick and cause the thermal grease to not "form" correctly or something. Maybe that's not as much of a problem with the stock stuff.... Thanks.
 
So, are you saying that it's running so cool that it's having trouble reading temps that low due to the fact that it would usually run hotter?
Click to expand...
Sort of... try stressing the CPU and if it still gives way-off readings on all programs you probably have a bad sensor, though it may be some easy-to-fix glitch that I don't know of.
 
Those readings are normal. When you go under full load, though (like OCCT or some other stress testing), you'll see it go up to more expected values. BTW, the temps shoot up and down rapidly when you start doing tasks and playing games.

It's not like boiling water on a stove, where the temps very slowly and gradually rise. This has electricity, metal, and air involved. It's going to move all over the place, depending on what you're doing. =)

I wouldn't worry at all. If you want more realistic temps when idle, check your BIOS. That tends to be honest. If it looks weird in there, then something could be off...
 
Overclock it to 3.3 GHz, you have cool temps.

Voltage 1.4 -> 1.425
Frequency 200 - > 213
Multiplier 15.5 (Default)

Remember to make sure the HT is under 1000
 
Itronix said:
Something isn't right, though. My cores are running at around 17c and 14c (my cpu temp sensor on the motherboard is crap which we figured out on this forum in the past, PC eye might remember). I use core temp to check the cores individually instead of the motherboard sensor. That seems WAY to low to be possible.
Click to expand...


Not actually. When first getting this build together seeing the Zalman 9700 and fresh appliacation of Artic Silver 5 on the initial temps were about 23C for the 125w version of the 6000+ used here. That was due to allowing time for the initial bonding to take place in order to start seeing heat transferring through the firmed up paste into the 9700 for dissipation.

Given time it finally started averaging about 33C. Soon I'll to reapply some AS-5 since that was over a year ago and temps have been warm lately. A good cleaning and fresh application will see the temps drop right back down again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top