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

Evilsizer · Post by **Evilsizer** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:45 pm

the review is great for those looking at what to buy at what price point. these type of reviews really have a purpose still. since alot of people dont care about ocing their cpu.

phuntism · Post by **phuntism** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:25 am

Thanks for the great review, straight to the point. This was one of my favorite comparisons I've read it a while.

In particular, thanks for;

comparing processors based on price
including the price of the motherboards
mentioning the overclocking potential of the processors (I've been out of the loop lately and didn't know)

One improvement though...
On a couple games, (Quake 4, Call of Duty 2) you set the graphics too high for the video card to keep up, so the results came out even since they were limited by the video card instead of the processors. Instead you should bring the graphics down enough to let the processors show their differences (and for Q4, lower the settings enough to get enjoyable frame rates).

Also, 127 fps is 21% better 105 fps ((127-105)/105)... I know that because I used a calculator. Next time could you do it for me

? Thanks!

Big Thumbs up!

Post by **Apoptosis** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:42 am

Evilsizer wrote:the review is great for those looking at what to buy at what price point. these type of reviews really have a purpose still. since alot of people dont care about ocing their cpu.

That was the thought behind it!

Also I've gotten a half dozen e-mails on why I used a Zalman HSF on the AMD system and a reference HSF on Intel. Many people are saying that made the AMD system run better because it was cooler. I just wanted to say that the Zalman cooler was used because all my easy-to-install AMD AM2 heat sinks were in use on other test systems and I couldn't find my box of reference fans, so I just used the Zalman... There was no performance improvement because of the fan and it shouldn't make the AMD system $50 more expensive and 'better' like numerous people have e-mailed me saying!

srgess · Post by **srgess** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:44 am

This is not a legit review, crank up the C2D at 2.8ghz so it can be the same mhz to mhz and price to price

Post by **dicecca112** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:58 am

That wasn't the point of the review. That point was same price range, stock vs stock. Nate even aludes to the fact that an OCed C2D would destroy the AMD. With the prevelance of C2D overclocking, it goes overlooked that AMDs chips vs Intel Chips, AMD is better at stock for gaming. Not everyone OCs, I know shocking.

Evilsizer · Post by **Evilsizer** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:35 pm

the only thing now is the $100 cpu point.

Kougar · Post by **Kougar** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:24 pm

Man, good luck with part 2.

E4300 for $113, the new 2ghz E4400 for $133...

Third Quarter with the next round of price cuts ontop of these will be interesting to say the least. AMD should be holding the performance crown though by then, so they won't be in to much trouble from it.

liqnit · Post by **liqnit** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:32 pm

Great review!
I wonder what AMD would come up next after Intel new prices?

Post by **Illuminati** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:03 am

srgess wrote:This is not a legit review, crank up the C2D at 2.8ghz so it can be the same mhz to mhz and price to price

LOL... my 2.8GHz orange is better than your 2.8GHz apple!!

I see no need to start up the debate on why we can not compare Intel Vs. AMD clock for clock. In fact, I think this review proves the point about the obvious architecture differences.

jodiuh · Post by **jodiuh** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:21 pm

Did I completely skip the part about heat/power?

Darkstar · Post by **Darkstar** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:54 am

Great review, in fact a buddy of mine emailed me the link over the weekend, LOL (no he is not a forum member, he's a frog).

Gives me a reason to build some inexpensive systems....

Arctucas · Post by **Arctucas** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:53 am

Okay, how about comparing the E6420 with the 5600+ today?

iinmelb · Post by **iinmelb** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:40 pm

source: MSY
http://www.msy.com.au/Parts/PARTS.pdf
(prices in Australian dollars $A)

AMD 5600 is A$246 = US$204

Intel E6300 A$199 = US$165
and Intel E6320 A$228 = US$189
and Intel E6420 A$259 = US$215

prices include 10% GST (sales tax)

current exchange rate
A$1 = US$0.83

OK, so now we need a comparison between the E6420 and the AMD 5600

Post by **Apoptosis** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:31 am

Arctucas wrote:Okay, how about comparing the E6420 with the 5600+ today?

Today? I'm currently in Africa (Tunis), but as soon as I get back I will be able to re-test the Intel system, but that won't be till next week. As I noted in the review and here in the forum I will be re-doing the Intel numbers with the new processor and will post it up when I can get the work done. I run each test 3-5 times depending on the test and then average the results, so it does take a bit.

Arctucas · Post by **Arctucas** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:52 pm

When I said 'today' I was actually commenting on the recent Intel price reductions.

While we at it, how about throwing a Xeon 3050 in the mix?

HarshReality · Post by **HarshReality** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:02 pm

While I can appreciate the "price war" putting a CPU that is rated at over 1Ghz faster... come on guys how did you actually expect that to turn out?

Also, I would suggest the next time your doing a review for the purposes of consumer spending you might try and use consumer hardware, in this case you went for moderately priced CPU & board but then you throw a 600.00 video card into play... just for the sake of argument, can you try the same test again but use a "moderate" card?

skier · Post by **skier** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:09 pm

"harsh reality" wtf does it matter what Video card is used, this review WAS for comparing the CPUs, which were for "on budget" the rest of the system was not and does not matter really

Zertz · Post by **Zertz** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:30 pm

HarshReality wrote:While I can appreciate the "price war" putting a CPU that is rated at over 1Ghz faster... come on guys how did you actually expect that to turn out?

Also, I would suggest the next time your doing a review for the purposes of consumer spending you might try and use consumer hardware, in this case you went for moderately priced CPU & board but then you throw a 600.00 video card into play... just for the sake of argument, can you try the same test again but use a "moderate" card?

If he had used a "moderate" card benchmarks wouldn't have been accurate since the video card would've been the bottleneck, that review wasn't about comparing video cards, it was 2 CPUs are the same price.

Post by **Apoptosis** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:45 am

This whole article is dated as it was done back in March. Like mentioned above the GPU was taken out of the equation as it was a CPU article. Now one can get the Intel E6750 for around $185, so performance for Intel has gone way way up.

Bio-Hazard · Post by **Bio-Hazard** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:46 am

Nate, you guys need to do another update to the article so the folks don't have to dig up out-dated threads to chat about...............

Legit Reviews

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

Prices in Australia

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

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

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

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

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