$185 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5600+ Versus Intel E6300

A place to give your thoughts on our reviews!
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

$185 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5600+ Versus Intel E6300

Post by Apoptosis » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:06 pm

With AMD slashing processor prices we figured that now was a great time to take a look at gaming performance on a pair $185 desktop processors. With enthusiasts and gamers waiting to see realistic gaming performance numbers we tested six games at various resolutions of 1024x1768, 1600x1200 and 1920x1600 to show you what's up. This is a must read for those on a budget!

Image

Article Title: $185 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5600+ Versus Intel E6300
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/1/
DIGG URL: http://digg.com/hardware/185_Gaming_CPU ... ntel_E6300
Last edited by Apoptosis on Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dgood
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: Lynnwood, WA

Post by dgood » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:56 pm

well done, I like how you added stalker in there. It shows that AMD is still in competition for the normal market of gamers. AKA the people who don't overclock just spend there money for stock performance. In this case it show amd as the choice to be in my opinion from what you are showing in the tests. However knowing the true capability of the processors I would have to say the intel steals the show. Im glad you mentioned that at the end. I actually expected the intel at 1.86 to be dead even or better than the 2.8 amd. Guess pure GHz does help at times.
Image

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:09 pm

dgood wrote:well done, I like how you added stalker in there. It shows that AMD is still in competition for the normal market of gamers. AKA the people who don't overclock just spend there money for stock performance. In this case it show amd as the choice to be in my opinion from what you are showing in the tests. However knowing the true capability of the processors I would have to say the intel steals the show. Im glad you mentioned that at the end. I actually expected the intel at 1.86 to be dead even or better than the 2.8 amd. Guess pure GHz does help at times.
Thanks for the great feedback... I'm neither an Intel or an AMD fan boy, so I try to keep things as straight forward as can be and I'm glad you noticed that I tried my best! Cheers to you! :drinkers:

I just bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. last weekend to play personally and couldn't help but install it on these two platforms as the graphics engine is pretty unique.

User avatar
mongol05
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:24 am
Location: Longview, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by mongol05 » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:19 pm

It's good to know I'm not screwed by having an AM2 mobo. =P

I may end up upgrading my 4200+ sometime before Quakecon. The only question is: do I stick with the stock fan or do I upgrade that as well?
Porthos
Asus M2N SLI Deluxe | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | 2 GB Corsair XMS2 PC6400 | eVGA Geforce 7900 GT 256 MB
Athos
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 | Athlon 64 3000+ | 1 GB PNY PC3200 | eVGA Geforce 6800 128 MB

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:22 pm

I'd suggest a new fan only if you plan on overclocking... stock is fine for a stock CPU.

AntiV6
Legit Enthusiast
Legit Enthusiast
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:41 am

Post by AntiV6 » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:37 pm

Great article! I can't believe the 5600+ held its own(and beat) the e6300 in most cases. :shock:

I wonder what the numbers would be if the e6300 was over clocked to the stock 5600+ speed.

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:50 pm

clock for clock Intel would be in the lead

FeRaL
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: So Cal

Post by FeRaL » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:50 pm

Loved the article and the conclusion. I don't consider myself a "fanboy" of either companies. Love the competition, the consumer ends up winning in the end.

AntiV6
Legit Enthusiast
Legit Enthusiast
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:41 am

Post by AntiV6 » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:04 pm

Apoptosis wrote:clock for clock Intel would be in the lead
I know, i'm not that stupid. :lol:

I wasn't sure how much the lead would be.

User avatar
eva2000
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:12 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Post by eva2000 » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:18 pm

Apoptosis wrote:clock for clock Intel would be in the lead
nice review mate :)

part 2 with oc'd comparisons on the books ?

User avatar
mongol05
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:24 am
Location: Longview, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by mongol05 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:18 am

Apoptosis wrote:clock for clock Intel would be in the lead
True enough, but since they're not free, I'm glad you guys compared them dollar for dollar. =)
Porthos
Asus M2N SLI Deluxe | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ | 2 GB Corsair XMS2 PC6400 | eVGA Geforce 7900 GT 256 MB
Athos
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 | Athlon 64 3000+ | 1 GB PNY PC3200 | eVGA Geforce 6800 128 MB

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:20 am

mongol05 wrote:True enough, but since they're not free, I'm glad you guys compared them dollar for dollar. =)
I am too... I'm still amazed that the motherboards and the processors were just $1 apart each! (granted it was supposed to be that way)

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:07 am

DIGG URL added for those that want to DIGG it... http://digg.com/hardware/185_Gaming_CPU ... ntel_E6300

Always DIGG it if you liked it!

DallasTexas
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:38 am

Bogus test

Post by DallasTexas » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:32 am

This is one of those "reviews" to find a place where AMD can win. It makes for good fodder.. In fact Inquirer.Net already changed the nsame of the is reivew to " AMD demolished Core".. Goes to show you how pathetic this all is.

Clearly, comparing Intel low end Core 2 offering with AMD's top end offering is not implied. Instead, it is masked by the "Battle of the $200 processors".


Useless. The target audience for this is not interested in budget processor wars.

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:42 am

I agree that this is “AMD’s high end vs Intel's lower endâ€

Bwall
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 675
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:22 am
Location: St. Louis
Contact:

Re: Bogus test

Post by Bwall » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:43 am

DallasTexas wrote:This is one of those "reviews" to find a place where AMD can win. It makes for good fodder.. In fact Inquirer.Net already changed the nsame of the is reivew to " AMD demolished Core".. Goes to show you how pathetic this all is.

Clearly, comparing Intel low end Core 2 offering with AMD's top end offering is not implied. Instead, it is masked by the "Battle of the $200 processors".


Useless. The target audience for this is not interested in budget processor wars.
The target audience has a huge influence on what other people buy, their suggestions to friends and family that don't plan to overclock will be more informed by this article instead of a blanket statement that Intel dominates AMD at every price point. :drinkers:
Image

User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminati » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:34 pm

IMHO, AMD forfeited the 'high-end' title to the 5600+ when they slashed it's prices. This is what AMD had to do to get consumers to start buying their products again... I think this will help AMD's bottom line because I think they were losing that much business to the Conroe... Time will tell though.

Great review to bring this price/performance to the attention of the regular consumers, while still mentioning that if you are an overclocker, the story hasn't really changed.
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook

User avatar
Bio-Hazard
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Back Woods Of MO.

Post by Bio-Hazard » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:57 pm

All the Intel prices are now as of today out of date.............. :shock: For less than $200 at a few e-tailers you can now pick-up the new C2D E6420 with 4 meg cache.............. :) That should really put a cramp in the AMD 5600+ panties............... 8)

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... Code=80867

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:22 pm

looks like the new prices came early... interesting... Looks like a part 2 to this article will be coming soon! :)

User avatar
Bio-Hazard
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Back Woods Of MO.

Post by Bio-Hazard » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:45 pm

I'm thinking about gettinf one of the new 4 meg chips to play around with......... :shock: Seems like 4 meg cache is slowly becoming a minimum.

Post Reply