$160 Battle: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E6550

In our last AMD vs. Intel battle of the day, we've got the Core 2 Duo E6550, a newcomer at 2.33GHz vs. the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+. The price point is around $160, and the stakes are high but once again, AMD is up against stiffer competition. The X2 5600+ used to be priced at the Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz) level, but now it's up against a 2.33GHz bohemoth by comparison.

The X2 5600+ manages to pull three wins, besting the E6550 under Cinebench, Lightwave and one of the Lost Planet tests, but it is still no match for its competition at this point. The 5600+ used to hang with the Core 2 Duo E6300, but its new competitor has a 25% higher clock and will have a price parity as of next week. Our recommendation stands.

$180 Battle: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 The Million Dollar Question: Dual or Quad Core for the Same Price?
Comments Locked

68 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrKaz - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link

    I don’t know but I have very doubts that someone who buys some premium and highest end CPUs will even bother in OC.
    If I was going to buy one AMD CPU for OC I would choose one of the single core or one dual up to the X4400+, higher than that I was shooting myself in the foot.
    With Intel I would go for one of the lowest FSB versions (800/1066) or the slowest of the 1333Mhz (but I doubt I would go for one of this). Going for the 3.0Ghz Intel versions I was again shooting myself in the foot. Why OC something that is already so fast and already in its limits.
  • Pirks - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    quote:

    the same folks who are enough of an enthusiast to know that the AMD MB's can save them a bit, and then apply that savings towards either the GPU or grabbing a higher-end AMD processor are very likely to overclock
    VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers, and AMD gear is VERY solid choice here, I pick old single core AMDs for nothing on ebay, like $45 for a fast gaming San Diego 4000+, pick older 7900GTX cards on ebay as well for cheap (only the ones I know are silent 'cause reviewers say so) and then I stuff it all in Antec P182, do some other voodoo with Cooler Master or ThermalRight gear... voila, a SILENT gaming rig, chews through S.T.A.L.K.E.R. just like that! and cheap, compared to some intel rigs from overclocking Intel freaks - it is DIRT cheap, cause there are no water, no overheating from fashionable overclocked quad-core intel shit, nothing like that.

    so you are TOTALLY wrong when you classify all enthusiasts as overclocking intel freaks - there are a lot of us who specialize in silent & inexpensive PCs, including gaming ones. it's easy to pay intel $$$ $$$ $$$ and get watercooled quad extreme blah blah blah, or get a cheap and noisy overclocked aircooled rig. but to get 1) gaming 2) silent 3) cheap PC - this is REAL ART, btw it's not covered at anandtech at all
  • relic2279 - Monday, December 17, 2007 - link

    A User said:
    "the same folks who are enough of an enthusiast to know that the AMD MB's can save them a bit, and then apply that savings towards either the GPU or grabbing a higher-end AMD processor are very likely to overclock."

    Pirks replied to this:

    "VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers."
    -----------------------------------------------------------


    Very far from the truth? Possibly for you specifically but he was generalizing and I believe he is correct. People who do care enough and are being specific, building their own PC's tend to be the same people who tinker, and OC their computers. People intrigued enough to read this whole article and pay attention to the benchmarks are more likely to overclock then not.
    So to say that it's "VERY far from the truth" is not only incorrect, but ignorant. It's just more fanboys spouting propaganda for their favorite company.

    I don't have a preference personally. I buy what the best is for my money, at the time. If it's AMD, then I buy them, if it's intel, then them. I suggest everyone do the same. I've purchased 6 intel chips and 7 amd chips in my life. Most of my intel chips were 286's 386's or pentium 1-2's. Lately I was buying AMD cause they were the better buy, but not now. For the money, I get alot more with intel. I have noticed an increase in reliability as well, after switching to intel.
    I may have to take that into consideration on my next chip purchase which (if the wife allows me) will hopefully be soon. :)

    Oh and I noticed that some people mentioned that the price cuts would be bad for intel as far as profits go etc... The price cuts benifit us, and thats what matters. I don't care if amd/intel's revenue is down this year by 100% and neither should you. What matters is that we get a good price and a good cpu. If someone brings that up, it just further proves they are fanboys and care more for that particular company then they probably should. Again, getting a decent price is what should matter, not profit margins of a huge company.
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    please learn to tell the difference between "most likely" and "all"
  • Pirks - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link

    quote:

    please learn to tell the difference between "most likely" and "all"
    doesn't matter if you classify all enthusiasts as OC guys, or just "most of them" as OC guys - this is still your subjective opinion, you have no facts to prove it.

    I classify "most of enthusiasts" as silent PC guys, not OC guys, so what? here ya go, my subjective opinion versus yours. enjoy your meal :P

    yeah, and when you get some solid arguments besides your opinion - don't forget to post them here, I'm interested! maybe I'm wrong about most of us being silent PC people, who knows ;)
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    I classify "most of enthusiasts" as silent PC guys, not OC guys, so what? here ya go, my subjective opinion versus yours. enjoy your meal :P

    Well, silence enthusiasts would be better off with Intel seeing as how most of their Core based dual-core lineup now uses less power under load than the 4000+ San Diego, and with the G0 stepping Intel has only increased its performance/watt.
  • Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    silence enthusiasts would be better off with Intel seeing as how most of their Core based dual-core lineup now uses less power under load than the 4000+ San Diego
    nice shot, but, alas, a miss - you have no idea how much AMD 65nm and 35watt dualcore chips consume under load. get back to school, read you hardware docs, come back - we'll talk again. good luck ;)
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_core-se-dec...">http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_...e-en-pen...

    Complete domination of Intel Core processors in full load power consumption.
  • Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Complete domination of Intel
    you're right about consumption, intel is slightly ahead, but if we take prices and upgrade scenarios (like copious amount of old DDR RAM in the system) into account, the picture is not so rosy for Intel
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    you're right about consumption, intel is slightly ahead

    In the same way that AMD's K8 was slightly ahead of Prescott.

    quote:

    but if we take prices and upgrade scenarios (like copious amount of old DDR RAM in the system) into account, the picture is not so rosy for Intel

    How so? There aren't any of the low-voltage or 65nm X2s on Socket 939, they're all high-power 90nm models where even the lowly 3800+ uses as much power under load as the fastest dual-core C2D. Meanwhile there are a few DDR1 MB that support C2D if you want, and with the excellent power usage of the C2D, passive cooling is a piece of cake with a half-decent tower heatsink.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now