Legit Reviews

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!



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

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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

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

clock for clock Intel would be in the lead

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.

Apoptosis wrote:clock for clock Intel would be in the lead

I know, i'm not that stupid.

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

Apoptosis wrote:clock for clock Intel would be in the lead

nice review mate

part 2 with oc'd comparisons on the books ?

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. =)

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)

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

All the Intel prices are now as of today out of date.............. 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...............

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

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

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