help choosing a processor..

[maroon1]

my choices are between the Intel E6550 and the Athlon X2 64 6000+...

At stock they perform around the same, but E6550 overclocks better and consume less power

Personally, I would get E6550 over 6000+

 

[eyeCpc]

And if escallui has no plans to oc then what? Again it depends on the type of build. For a stock and multitasking the 6000+ X2 has worked out quite well on the build here. For ocing the lesser models in a socket series always seem to be the better ocers.

 

[Redmo0n]

I'm planning to get a E6650 for christmas

 

[escallui]

And if escallui has no plans to oc then what? Again it depends on the type of build. For a stock and multitasking the 6000+ X2 has worked out quite well on the build here. For ocing the lesser models in a socket series always seem to be the better ocers.

my build is for a gaming computer.
ive heard that Oc can make you save money,and that intel is a good overclocker.

many guys here go for AMD, but do you guys overclock??

 

[veg1992]

of course we do.. most people here go Intel Core 2 Duo then AMD however...

 

[BiGyLiLuPdAmIdL]

of course we do.. most people here go Intel Core 2 Duo then AMD however...

yeah, most people do go intel over amd currently ecall, but that's why you gotta stay true to the arts: AMD, lol. If you want to do really high overclocking and you're willing to do the research and know what you're doing, then go with intel, I'm not going to lie, but if you aren't planning on o/cing anyways, then go with AMD. They still can o/c, but not as much, and for pretty cheap, you can get a cpu with high stock speeds already. Like the x2 6000+ @3.0ghz, or the x2 6400+ Black Edition @ 3.2ghz (What I have)

 

[Peter.Cort]

to be honest if you overclock you're gonna wanna go with either the e2160 or the e2180. The 2160 was able to get to 3.37ghz on air from a stock 1.8ghz. (MaximumPC Magazine) and its a 80 dollar chip.

And no I didn't test the two chips (e4400 and the 4000+ X2) under the same conditions, but I did have the e4400 and an Athlon XP 3000+ @ 2.1ghz under the same conditions, and I didn't notice any difference what so ever. which was quite disappointing.

as far as comparing the two chips clock for clock, i meant the 5000+ has the potential to overclock higher then the e6550. Either I must have not clearly made my point or you must have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

 

[Peter.Cort]

yeah, most people do go intel over amd currently ecall, but that's why you gotta stay true to the arts: AMD, lol. If you want to do really high overclocking and you're willing to do the research and know what you're doing, then go with intel, I'm not going to lie, but if you aren't planning on o/cing anyways, then go with AMD. They still can o/c, but not as much, and for pretty cheap, you can get a cpu with high stock speeds already. Like the x2 6000+ @3.0ghz, or the x2 6400+ Black Edition @ 3.2ghz (What I have)

to be quite honest, there isn't much of a reason to go with AMD over Intel. Other then getting a decent lower end Dual-Core chip. But other then the real low end market Intel's are pretty much better then AMD's.

I personally just don't like Intel and nVidia. Every time I've boughten something from either of them I didn't see a noticable performance increase like I thought I would get, and also its just one of those things that doesn't work. I always grew up with AMD + ATI stuff in my computers and their stuff just feels right with me. Yes call me a fanboy all you want, yes I will try and get people to go with AMD and ATI but when the facts are placed before me I won't try and make excuses about why AMD doesn't out perform Intel. So just saying that so you don't go off on me about only being a fanboy and not understanding whats really going on.

 

[eyeCpc]

After the first few systems(prebuilt) used here with the pre-Pentium days now long past AMD had the lead for seeing more work done in one clock cycle while Intel was all about cpu clock speeds. The Core 2 models where the turnaround according to all of the gaming reviews while based on writer's own opinions there.

Here I run everything on AMD and mid to low range ATI models and still see game settings up all the way. Besides ATI's latest goof up with the Catalyst 7.9 I have been seeing good results there. The new build now moved up from a low end Radeon X1300 Pro not the nest by far for gaming but I perform more multasking anyways.

MSI makes the real performers for both ATI and NVidia models when making comparisons. The last NVidia model here however was an MSI FX5200 on an old Socket A build that saw that after first running the Asus equal and followed by the ATI Radeon 9550 256mb model. That had the 9600 chip on it with the Cat. 5.11 seeing the best results.

 

[maroon1]

If you want to overclock, then get the new E4600 it should overclock much better than E6550 because it has 12x multiplier