Which is better?

[dawizhacker]

ATHLON 4800 this is .2 herts slower but had 1k left cache more

or

ATHLON 5000

 

[LU4sTrooper]

The X2 5000+ is better... however

Both are too expensive considering you could get a simple Core 2 Duo e6300 for WAY cheaper, and it would blow them out of the water, especially when overclocked; or get an e6600 (still probably cheaper) and aboloutely destroy them.

(Coming from a previously self-confessed AMD fanboy )

 

[gmanych]

The X2 5000+ is better... however

Both are too expensive considering you could get a simple Core 2 Duo e6300 for WAY cheaper, and it would blow them out of the water, especially when overclocked; or get an e6600 (still probably cheaper) and aboloutely destroy them.

(Coming from a previously self-confessed AMD fanboy )

Yes... Thats true... Intel's Core 2 Duo budget model (E6300) will out peform a Amd 64 Fx-62 when overclocked. the E6300 can get to 4.0 GHz with stock cooling and will kick any Amd butt

 

[turtile]

I have yet to see a E6300 hit 4 on stock stable. More like a little over 3.

 

[Ste]

ATHLON 4800 this is .2 herts slower but had 1k left cache more

or

ATHLON 5000

I think he wants to buy AMD because he also doesn't want to upgrade his Motherboard.

Which is why many don't always want to change to Intels new Chip even if it does out perform whatever he/she is asking about.