The title question says it all. I don't know that much about computers. I am thinking of buying a Dell Inspiron 530 or 531 (the difference is in the CPU? ---and a few $). "People" say the Athion chip is as good as the Intel chip---Intel just spends more on advertising--- and that's why the Intel chip costs more. Please advise. ---Please keep any discussion simple and easy to understand--- Again, I know little about computers---and less about their components. Any help would be appreciated. Jaes.
AMD 64X2 Dual Core 5000+ or Intel Core 2 Duo E4400?? --and why.
- Thread starter jaes
- Start date
The title question says it all. I don't know that much about computers. I am thinking of buying a Dell Inspiron 530 or 531 (the difference is in the CPU? ---and a few $). "People" say the Athion chip is as good as the Intel chip---Intel just spends more on advertising--- and that's why the Intel chip costs more. Please advise. ---Please keep any discussion simple and easy to understand--- Again, I know little about computers---and less about their components. Any help would be appreciated. Jaes.
maroon1
New Member
E4400 performs as good as 4800+ brisbane, so this means that it is very close to 5000+ performance
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_7.html#sect0
And E4400 has better overclocking potential as well
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_7.html#sect0
And E4400 has better overclocking potential as well
Last edited:
Motoxrdude
Active Member
It's from dell, you cant overclock it.
The x2 5000+ is a faster cpu, i would buy that if i was you.
Willis240
New Member
yeah. i would choose the x2 5000+. apparently AMD is better for gaming, and Intel is better for a basic workstation. i don't know which you're planning to use the computer for, but i hope this helps you make your decision.
ThatGuy16
VIP Member
yeah. i would choose the x2 5000+. apparently AMD is better for gaming, and Intel is better for a basic workstation. i don't know which you're planning to use the computer for, but i hope this helps you make your decision.
Your going to get flamed
Best "bang for the buck" get the 5000+
Since its a Dell your not going to do much overclocking, go for the X2 5000.
yeah. i would choose the x2 5000+. apparently AMD is better for gaming, and Intel is better for a basic workstation. i don't know which you're planning to use the computer for, but i hope this helps you make your decision.
ADM better for gamming
I don't thnk so...Anyway, if not OCing, both E4400 or AMD x2 5000+ don't have huge different. Just get which ever cheaper
The age old question...AMD OR Intel thats a hot topic around here ic.. really up to you man..Amd is Cheaper.but Inel has its good points also ive used both and if your a basic user like most people go with the cheaper Amd and get the best bang for your buck...i bought my 5600+ for 118.00 oem and very happy!
The_Other_One
VIP Member
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=928&model2=882&chart=422
Unless I'm too sleepy to read this correctly (hey, it's happened before) I think we have a clear winner here
Unless I'm too sleepy to read this correctly (hey, it's happened before) I think we have a clear winner here
Dual_Corex2
banned
Being an AMD fan, id still go with the Intel. Its overall better if you ask me.
maroon1
New Member
reliable
He is comparing E4400 to 5000+, not E4300 to 5000+
Toms CPU charts are not reliable and they contradict a lot with other reviews, anyway.
Just look at the average perfomance from xbitlabs
As you can see 5000+ is slightly faster than E4400 on average
E4500 is now $130 at newegg and that is a better buy than 5000+
And no 5000+ doesn't have better OC capabilities
Please look at this
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2766-view-Core-2-Duo-e4500-M0-stepping-overclocking.html
5000+ @ 3.3GHz performs only 2% faster than 6000+ at average (2% extra performance for 10% higher clock speed)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclocker/page9.html
Yes you might be able to overclock it to 3.7GHz but those brisbane chips don't scale well at clock speed above 3.0GHz so you will not gain a lot of performance even if you overclock it to 3.7GHz
I'm pretty sure that E4500 @ 3.0GHz would easily beat 5000+ @3.7GHz. However you can overclock E4500 much higher than 3.0GHz
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=928&model2=882&chart=422
Unless I'm too sleepy to read this correctly (hey, it's happened before) I think we have a clear winner here
He is comparing E4400 to 5000+, not E4300 to 5000+
Toms CPU charts are not reliable and they contradict a lot with other reviews, anyway.
Just look at the average perfomance from xbitlabs
As you can see 5000+ is slightly faster than E4400 on average
E4500 is now $130 at newegg and that is a better buy than 5000+
And no 5000+ doesn't have better OC capabilities
Please look at this
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-2766-view-Core-2-Duo-e4500-M0-stepping-overclocking.html
5000+ @ 3.3GHz performs only 2% faster than 6000+ at average (2% extra performance for 10% higher clock speed)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/22/budget_overclocker/page9.html
Yes you might be able to overclock it to 3.7GHz but those brisbane chips don't scale well at clock speed above 3.0GHz so you will not gain a lot of performance even if you overclock it to 3.7GHz
I'm pretty sure that E4500 @ 3.0GHz would easily beat 5000+ @3.7GHz. However you can overclock E4500 much higher than 3.0GHz
Last edited: