Experienced Elementalist
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2006
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 0
Do I?
More like do you?
The 6000+ is a single FX-74 ported down to the AM2 940-pin plat form. It is a dual core CPU running at 3.0ghz with 1mb L2 cache per core.
So how does that tell me that it's faster? What does tell if it's better or not is reviews and they say something different.
In all but memory bandwidth tests. The e6700 (dual 2.66ghz w/ 2mb shared L2 cache), which costs the same as the 6000+, out performs it by a large margin. If that's not bad enough. The cheaper e6600 (dual 2.4ghz w/ 2mb shared L2 cache), which costs $200usd less then the 6000+, out performs in most cases and in the cases it doesn't. The speed difference between the 6000+ and e6400 is none.
And if you about to say something stupid like the 6000+ means it is equal to a 6ghz CPU then you can say the same about the 6600 equals a 6.6ghz one.
So please do show me where AMD CPUs are better then Intel ones? And if you can I'll give you my e6700.
Fan boys like you put a bad name on good companies like AMD. I am a huge fan of theirs and have bought a lot of my stuff from them and even perform their setups. But the fact of the matter is. Right now the Core 2 series CPU's are the best. Both in price to performance and performance to watt.
If there is any AMD setup at the moment that I would consider getting form AMD, it would be the Quad FX. Just because it's a good dual Opteron setup that uses unbuffered DDR2 memory and supports SLI. But will I get one over a QX6700? Hell no when there is only 1 over priced motherboard for it and the 2 CPU's will cost $1100 compared to the QX6700 which costs $999. So a Quad FX system will cost a total of $1500 for just the board and processors and the QX setup will cost $1250. So it's overpriced and in terms of power. The QX6700 is faster and uses half the power!
Not until AMD releases their next gen K10 CPUs this fall will they have any hope in touching the performance of the Core 2 processors.
NoPeace - out
6 ghz blahah, who will say it ?
AMD have processors released with 4 middles with alot cache.
Intel also have but,
What do u think for Hyper Transport? does AMD's HT = Intel's Hyper Threading?
answer is NO, when u enable Htransport from the Bios on AMD processor it gets a Hight Bandwich transport.
Intels Hthreading gets like 1 more processor, but it makes only Lag, i am telling it to you koz i have seed AMD and INTEL 1vss1 , with my friends we maked lots of test (procsts) , and intel geted only 7 from 20 test on alot of programs. but, if you convert videos it takes 50% if thr is on, if not 90/100%,
but that is only a fake, and u can't run MU and Video converter like mu will take 50% and video converter will take 50%, but when u paly its like 1 fps.
Also what do Intel have for live of their processors?, they have nothing, but almost All amd's have Therminal Throttling, it begins from 12.5%, so if your comp temperature gets hight this option takes some Mhz like for 50% it will take ~30% from cpu when it get hight temperature, it gets an empty cikles in ur processor, 1.6-30% = little lag, and for a little time ur temp is down.
If you wan the real Proof Take 2 CPU's (if u have money) with Good mb and almost = processors amd and intel, Simply, First test it with some Games and look the difference.:matrix: