What AMD chip is equalivant to the e6600 Intel chip?

M

Mickelonis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
203
Title says it all, if I wanted a chip about the same stock speeds as the E6600 which chip would I buy on the AMD side.

I don't care if it's 939 or AM2 socket... Just want suggestions on STOCK speeds, without OC'ing.

Thanks

-Pete
 
6000+, but it only compars to it in most real life tests. The e6600 still is better on power consumption and heat output.
 
Basically I don't want to go Intel, I am currently AMD and will stay AMD (kinda like a Ford / Chevy thing)

I really don't care about the heat output, I'm using Danger Den water cooling... I just want to upgrade and want to know what is comparable to the e6600....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773

Is this the processor that you are saying is close to the e6600? (just asking)

Thanks again guys!

-Pete
 
x2 5600+ is little slower, but x2 6000+ outperforms E6600.
FX60 is far, far behind.
 
Mickelonis said:
Basically I don't want to go Intel, I am currently AMD and will stay AMD (kinda like a Ford / Chevy thing)

I really don't care about the heat output, I'm using Danger Den water cooling... I just want to upgrade and want to know what is comparable to the e6600....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773

Is this the processor that you are saying is close to the e6600? (just asking)

Thanks again guys!

-Pete
Click to expand...

Do you care about your electric bill? Just asking.
 
Kasparz said:
x2 5600+ is little slower, but x2 6000+ outperforms E6600.
FX60 is far, far behind.
Click to expand...

Good information, thanks.... I am also looking for reviews on the X26000+ I seem to be steering closest to this as a solution to upgrading...

dook43 said:
Do you care about your electric bill? Just asking.
Click to expand...

Not at all... My PC is only on when I use it, I don't leave it on all the time. (good question though, thanks)

-Pete
 
Mickelonis said:
Not at all... My PC is only on when I use it, I don't leave it on all the time. (good question though, thanks)

-Pete
Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic. Your Intel E6600 would perform better and still use less power even if you only turned it on when you used it.
 
InorganicMatter said:
None. ;)

(Well, OK, and FX-60 comes very close. :p)
Click to expand...

clearly un-educated.

FX-60 comes close... (caught caught the 5600+ and the 6000+ are faster than the FX60)


dook43 said:
I don't understand this logic. Your Intel E6600 would perform better and still use less power even if you only turned it on when you used it.
Click to expand...

Thats questionable.. at stock speeds there pretty much the same.

electric bill? WTF? I have never noticed a change in my bill no matter what CPU im using.
 
Draax said:
QFT, toss us a frikken bone here.
Click to expand...

I think AM2 bring a little more to the table that s939 mobos/chipsets aren't capable of. Thus the reason for AM2, and the reason AMD dosnt seem to be making any plans to expand s939.
 
I(illa Bee said:
I think AM2 bring a little more to the table that s939 mobos/chipsets aren't capable of. Thus the reason for AM2, and the reason AMD dosnt seem to be making any plans to expand s939.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't.
 
I(illa Bee said:
I think AM2 bring a little more to the table that s939 mobos/chipsets aren't capable of. Thus the reason for AM2, and the reason AMD dosnt seem to be making any plans to expand s939.
Click to expand...
AM2 is refreshed K8 with DDR2 memcontroller. It has nothing to do with chipsets. There are AM2 with NF3 and NF4 that were belong to s939 before.
 
dook43 said:
I don't understand this logic. Your Intel E6600 would perform better and still use less power even if you only turned it on when you used it.
Click to expand...


I don't have an E6600..... I have an Athlon 4000+ and I am thinking about upgrading.... I want a processor that can compete with the E6600...

Also, I seriously doubt that it's going to nudge my power bill a penny or two a month....
 
Mickelonis said:
I don't have an E6600..... I have an Athlon 4000+ and I am thinking about upgrading.... I want a processor that can compete with the E6600...

Also, I seriously doubt that it's going to nudge my power bill a penny or two a month....
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I've yet to see anyone plug an x2 6000+ into a kill a watt meter and compare it directly to a same-config e6600. Until that happens, take the previous for what it was - fangirlism.
 
mwarps said:
Pretty much. I've yet to see anyone plug an x2 6000+ into a kill a watt meter and compare it directly to a same-config e6600. Until that happens, take the previous for what it was - fangirlism.
Click to expand...
You mean other than a considerable number of reviews like:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=13
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=9
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/463/13/
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3660771__12
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD_Athlon_64_X2_6000/?page=11
 
Kasparz said:
AM2 is refreshed K8 with DDR2 memcontroller. It has nothing to do with chipsets. There are AM2 with NF3 and NF4 that were belong to s939 before.
Click to expand...


Draax said:
No, it really doesn't.
Click to expand...

AMD Virtualization? I know a hand full of developers at my work, require Virtualization enabled before deployment of a machine, and s939 doesn't have it... Im not exactly sure what it it that give the system that ability, BIOS, chipset, CPU or what.. but I know they were limited to c2d until recently
 
SLee said:
You mean other than a considerable number of reviews like:

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=13
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=9
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/463/13/
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3660771__12
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD_Athlon_64_X2_6000/?page=11
Click to expand...

Ah, very nice, someone finally strapped on some balls and showed some (mostly real) numbers.

The performance difference between the two chips is almost nil, the power draw is almost equal at idle (speedstep/cnq on, or it's a bullshit show). Load is a big difference. OP doesn't fold, so his power bill is still going to be about the same.

Is there a point to this continued stupidity, as the OP has already stated he's not buying intel?
 
mwarps said:
Ah, very nice, someone finally strapped on some balls and showed some (mostly real) numbers.

The performance difference between the two chips is almost nil, the power draw is almost equal at idle (speedstep/cnq on, or it's a bullshit show). Load is a big difference. OP doesn't fold, so his power bill is still going to be about the same.

Is there a point to this continued stupidity, as the OP has already stated he's not buying intel?
Click to expand...

So he doesn't game for hours at a time either?

I don't even know why I responded to you, because it's clear from your previous post that you haven't been paying too much attention.
 
Wow...

Even if the difference between an E660 and the X2 6000 was 100w under full load... we're talking about an extra ~$0.008 an hour to run it... For most of the western world.

Christ.
 
Basically I was looking for a performance standpoint, not power at all. I should have pointed that out in my original post.

I do game, but I have a wife and kid so I can't sit at the computer for hours and hours. My gaming sessions are limited to two hours usually.... Again, I really could care less about power.

I was thinking about buying an FX processor but it sounds like the Athlon 6000+ is my winner. Thanks for your feedback, this is the processor I will be purchasing =)

-Pete
 
Arcygenical said:
Wow...

Even if the difference between an E660 and the X2 6000 was 100w under full load... we're talking about an extra ~$0.008 an hour to run it... For most of the western world.

Christ.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't realize is was THAT much more expensive to my electric bill... dang, I should have gotten that 6000+, no worrying about overclocking...
 
Cost per KWH is by no means static across the entire country, much less the "entire western world". I'm going to go home and find out how much my electric company charges.

I actually belong to a cooperative, so it's about half what the Entergy customers in the area are charged.
 
Let's keep it civil guys.

Moose and I will have no problems locking threads and handing out warnings if you can't post like a mature adult.
 
Indeed. The OP has already stated that he does not want an Intel setup so why are we debating the issue of power consumption? All the OP wants to know is which AMD cpu will give him performance closest to or comparable with and Intel E6600. By performance I am assuming he means pure raw speed. Why can't we just give him the courtesy of answering his question without all ther Intel/AMD debate? His question seems pretty straightforward to me. Let's answer his question and forget the debate. Please pardon me if I seem a bit too forceful, I'm only trying to refocus the thread because it seems to have been hijacked from its intended purpose.
 
BigMacAttack said:
Indeed. The OP has already stated that he does not want an Intel setup so why are we debating the issue of power consumption? All the OP wants to know is which AMD cpu will give him performance closest to or comparable with and Intel E6600. By performance I am assuming he means pure raw speed. Why can't we just give him the courtesy of answering his question without all ther Intel/AMD debate? His question seems pretty straightforward to me. Let's answer his question and forget the debate. Please pardon me if I seem a bit too forceful, I'm only trying to refocus the thread because it seems to have been hijacked from its intended purpose.
Click to expand...

And the simple answer should have just been X2 6000 for performance and price. I've always said folks should spend their money the way they want to. I'd wonder why anyone wanting AMD so badly would even care about how Intel performs:confused:
 
Right. I understand the OP's desire to compare but perhaps a better question would have been "which AMD is best for price performance" or something like that. In any event I thought it was a fairly benign question since he wasn't casting aspersions or anything like that.
 
Donnie27 said:
And the simple answer should have just been X2 6000 for performance and price. I've always said folks should spend their money the way they want to. I'd wonder why anyone wanting AMD so badly would even care about how Intel performs:confused:
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's hard when the under-dog gets beaten on :(

People right now who are using AMD want an E6600, but conveniently forget that the E6600 overclocks. That's the truth.

But honestly, if you don't encode videos, music, etc. If you are only surfing the internet, playing games, etc. It shouldn't be a huge deal the processor you have. And if it is, you should overclock it. That's what you do with computers now.
 
It shouldn't be a huge deal the processor you have. And if it is, you should overclock it. That's what you do with computers now.
Click to expand...
:D QFT:D Unless of course you have a prebuilt system. I'll never do that again!
 
dook43 said:
I don't understand this logic. Your Intel E6600 would perform better and still use less power even if you only turned it on when you used it.
Click to expand...

Grats you saved 2 bucks at the end of year b/c you used a conroe instead of an X2? Seriously this is a pretty moot point. A point worth mentioning, no doubt, but at reasonable levels its not a big deal for some people.
 
Citizen86 said:
Like I said, it's hard when the under-dog gets beaten on :(

People right now who are using AMD want an E6600, but conveniently forget that the E6600 overclocks. That's the truth.

But honestly, if you don't encode videos, music, etc. If you are only surfing the internet, playing games, etc. It shouldn't be a huge deal the processor you have. And if it is, you should overclock it. That's what you do with computers now.
Click to expand...

I know, I own an E6600 too but that wasn't the point. If someone wants something, they should be able to buy it free of being bashed, jumped and badgered. That's why I said what the simple answer should have been. At first I thought Oh NO when he posted it.

IMHO, AMD is just like any other large faceless corporation. I'm not going for any kind of talk of underdog or etc... My #2 computer is a 3500+ and eventually I'll upgrade it to Dual Core but it will stay Sc-939. My Conroe is faster but in noway do I think even my 3500+ sucks even if it's slower. In fact, both of my Rigs could use Video card upgrades first.
 
Citizen86 said:
Like I said, it's hard when the under-dog gets beaten on :(

People right now who are using AMD want an E6600, but conveniently forget that the E6600 overclocks. That's the truth.

But honestly, if you don't encode videos, music, etc. If you are only surfing the internet, playing games, etc. It shouldn't be a huge deal the processor you have. And if it is, you should overclock it. That's what you do with computers now.
Click to expand...

Yeah for stock speeds, but if the 6600 overclocks better then it will win.
I still think the OP's reasoning isnt right. Its like saying that your going to buy a certain brand even if its a POS and doesnt last long insetad of the other one because you dont like them. But I guess thats their choice. I use common sense and go with what is best for now and upgradable in the future but thats just me.
 
I am the OP...

My apologies for not being a bit more clear on my reasoning for the post....

Long story short, though I am a longstanding AMD fan, I recently have been more educated with Intel products because they sponsor a LAN event I regularly attend (PDXLAN). Because of this, I have lost touch with AMD products.

I decided I wanted an AMD product that gave me the performance of an e6600... I didn't think that was a difficult question....

The question simply was "What AMD chip is equalivant to the e6600 Intel chip?" Also stated in the first post of this thread: "Just want suggestions on STOCK speeds, without OC'ing" (thus, I don't care about power consumption)

I do believe I have my answer now, I will be purchasing an Athlon X2 6000+.

Thank you for all of your input.... (even the people that gave me feedback on power consumption, I learned that the 6000+ was a power hog and I didn't know that before)

Good day to you all...

=)

-Pete
 
Hagrid said:
Yeah for stock speeds, but if the 6600 overclocks better then it will win.
I still think the OP's reasoning isnt right. Its like saying that your going to buy a certain brand even if its a POS and doesnt last long insetad of the other one because you dont like them. But I guess thats their choice. I use common sense and go with what is best for now and upgradable in the future but thats just me.
Click to expand...

I think you completely missed what I said, even though you quoted me.... please read again.

Mickelonis said:
I am the OP...

My apologies for not being a bit more clear on my reasoning for the post....

Long story short, though I am a longstanding AMD fan, I recently have been more educated with Intel products because they sponsor a LAN event I regularly attend (PDXLAN). Because of this, I have lost touch with AMD products.

I decided I wanted an AMD product that gave me the performance of an e6600... I didn't think that was a difficult question....

The question simply was "What AMD chip is equalivant to the e6600 Intel chip?" Also stated in the first post of this thread: "Just want suggestions on STOCK speeds, without OC'ing" (thus, I don't care about power consumption)

I do believe I have my answer now, I will be purchasing an Athlon X2 6000+.

Thank you for all of your input.... (even the people that gave me feedback on power consumption, I learned that the 6000+ was a power hog and I didn't know that before)

Good day to you all...

=)

-Pete
Click to expand...

Good call, like Donnie said, its your money, spend it how you want. Dont let anyone tell you it's a POS either, it's a fast chip (obviously), and at that speed you don't really need to overclock, just for e-peen ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top