which amd athlon 64 6000+

[GreenMachine]

which amd athlon 64 6000+ ? and would it really be worth it over my 4600+ ?

Newegg.com - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

-or-

Newegg.com - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

 

[RichM499]

Quote: 'and would it really be worth it over my 4600+ ?'


yes! definitely=) , but it depends what your doing with it i guess.

You'll get a decent boost in performance in video games.


Go for the windsor 3.0ghz 2x 1mb L2 cache


i say this because i dont see anything about What core the other one is.

And it also doesnt specify if its 2x512kb cache, or 2x 1mb

Better to go with the one you can be sure about=)

(you may also want to look in to the athlon x2 5400+ black edition, its 72$ free shipping on newegg, and it overclocks to 3.2ghz very easily (i have mine running at 3300 right now)

however it doesnt come with a HSF.

 

[Apokalipse]

I upgraded to a 6000+ (Windsor) from a 4600+
Yes, I think it was well worth it. I got the 6000+ to >3.4 100% stable right out of the box, whereas the 4600+ got 2.9 max (2.8 24/7)

Anyway, if you have good cooling I'd suggest the 3.0 windsor over the 3.1 Brisbane, because it has more L2 cache with slightly lower latency.

 

[baron5]

and my 5000+ runs at 3.2ghz 24.7 but i did have it at like 3.37 but wasnt completely stable.

 

[SapperX]

It's a good little processor, but as stated by baron a 5000+ can often beat it (notice my sig, I have a 6000+ and am still saying this). Might want to go the cheaper route and just overclock it.

Although if you don't want to overclock, get it!

 

[Hussein19891]

5400+ BE best AMD dual you can get. Rich has the 5400+ @3.3ghz or something. But still not enough to beat my Super PI :super_happy:

 

[Apokalipse]

I'm pretty sure 6000+/6400+ Windsors give you the best speeds out of the K8's. I was able to bench at 3495MHZ
Black Edition Brisbane chips can usually be had for less though

 

[Hussein19891]

6000+ and 6400+ are usually windsors and won't overclock as high. They are also 90nm and 125 Watt TDP. By no means am I calling them slow, at all. But the 65nm Brisbanes have lower TDP's remain much cooler and can over clock just as high as any 6000+ or 6400+

With the exception of this 6000+

Newegg.com - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.1GHz 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

Its 65nm and 89 Watt TDP so it might be able to get a decent overclock.

 

[Apokalipse]

6000+ and 6400+ are usually windsors and won't overclock as high.

No, in my experience, AMD's 90nm chips are pretty well optimised, and will often get at least 3.4

In fact, I think 90nm at AMD was one of their best nodes

 

[Hussein19891]

I m not denying they can get at least 3.4ghz. I m just claiming that similar 65nm Brisbanes are able to attain 3.4ghz as well. While they are newer tech and are able to reach the same overclocks with less heat.