AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+: Competing with Aggressive Pricing
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 20, 2007 3:37 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
With the latest round of price cuts AMD is far more competitive than at any other point since the release of Intel's Core 2 processors. Unfortunately for AMD, this means that at best, it can offer performance close to that of Intel's Core 2 processors at similar prices.
Overall, the performance advantage still goes to Intel's Core 2 lineup but there are a few situations where the performance between the two families is close enough to be considered a tie. There are also the outlier cases where the Athlon 64 X2 actually ends up faster than the Core 2, but we suspect that they are more isolated incidents than indications of the norm.
We are most happy that the most expensive AM2 processor you can buy now will run you less than $500 as the FX series has been relegated to Socket-1207 only. While AMD won't be winning any performance crowns with this minor speed bump, it does mean that current Socket-AM2 owners have a pretty good upgrade path to look forward to; after all, for $326 you can upgrade to what was once a $999 Athlon 64 FX-62.
As the last Socket-AM2 processor before AMD's new-architecture makes its debut, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ doesn't set any land speed records, nor does it send off AMD's most successful architecture to date with any sort of a bang. AMD is still relying on its 90nm process for the top bin parts and thus there's no real power efficiency in the X2 6000+ to be impressed by. We still have to wait for Barcelona before we can get really excited about anything AMD is doing, but recent price cuts positioning Socket-AM2 as a more affordable platform have made this an easier pill to swallow.
Our recommendation continues to be for Intel's Core 2 lineup, but it's beginning to seem like competition could be restored when Barcelona arrives...assuming Penryn doesn't happen until 2008.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
defter - Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - link
The maximum measured 8800GTX power consumption is about 150W. NVidia has mentioned that absolute maximum is 180W. However, since this is a CPU review, it's logical to assume that they stressed only the CPU in "full load" power consumption test.poohbear - Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - link
wow so 260w load plus 50w for a 8800gtx, thats only 310wts! kinda strange when companies are selling 1kilowatt psus.:/poohbear - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
i was gonna ask the exact same question. I wish they'd clarify that in the articles when they talk about power consumption. Is that 263wts under load for the 5600+ JUST for the cpu or the whole system? thanks for any of the writers who can clarify this 100%.JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Power reports are always for the entire system. Obviously, lower end GPUs would reduce total power requirements quite a bit, but in maximum load testing the stress is only on the CPU and not the GPU. Thus, the ~50W power difference is going to remain whether you're running an 8800 GTX or an X1300 SE. The latter would simply use probably 40-50W less total power.bamacre - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Add in OC'ing and Intel, still, jumps further in the lead.BladeVenom - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
But most people don't overclock.ViRGE - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Many of the readers of this site do though. The C2D is so mind numbingly easy to overclock, it's hard to not do it.Roy2001 - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
I agree. I never OCed before. But with E6400 it is so easy. I just changed FSB from 266 to 350, I have a 2.8Ghz C2D. No voltage change, no cooling change. That's easy.mino - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Not to mention 800FSB E4300 parts.2.66/333FSB is pretty much a safe bet on most boards.
Even 2.13 for $150 is nice with board at STOCK FSB!.
Who needs E6400 then :) (for stock performance).
poohbear - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
well if a 2.4ghz C2D can beat a AMD64 @ 3.0ghz, then calling a C2D @ 3.2ghz (the average overclock from what im reading) the "king" processor is a monumental understatement. It'd rape the 6000+.