DailyTech - 2/20/2007 Daily Hardware Reviews -- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Edition

Submit News

Hardware 2/20/2007 Daily Hardware Reviews -- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Edition
Brandon Hill (Blog) - February 20, 2007 10:04 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

11 comment(s) - last by Dactyl.. on Feb 20 at 3:33 PM

The Last of the K8: The AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @ HWUpgrade

DailyTech's roundup of reviews from around the web for Tuesday

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
@ HWUpgrade
@ BCCHardware
@ HotHardware.com
@ X-bit Labs
@ Penstar Systems

Desktops
Dell XPS 710 H2C Performance Gaming System @ HotHardware.com

Motherboards
ECS PN2 SLI2+ (680i SLI) Motherboard @ Legit Reviews

Enclosures
In Win F430 Xtreme Series ATX Gaming Case @ Bigbruin.com
Spire Swirl Computer Case @ Tweaknews.net

Cooling
CoolIT Freezone @ Bjorn3D
Zalman 9500 & 9700 Air Tunnels @ Anandtech
Enzotech Ultra-X Heatsink @ Frostytech.com
Zalman Reserator 2 Water Cooling System @ 3dGameMan

Peripherals
Kingwin JET External 3.5" SATA HDD Enclosure @ Virtual-Hideout
Cooler Master X Craft 250 and 350 Hard Drive Enclosures @ Bigbruin.com
Freecom FSG-3 Storage Gateway WLAN @ TrustedReviews
Xbox 360 Wireless Receiver for Windows @ OCModShop
Brando Optical USB Finger Mouse @ BonaFideReviews
Cooler Master NotePal S @ XYZ Computing
Targus Voice Recording Presenter w/ Laser Pointer @ Legit Reviews
Sharkoon 1337 XL Gaming Mat @ techPowerUp
Aliph Jawbone Bluetooth Headset @ BlueTomorrow
Logitech QuickCam for Notebooks Pro @ Techgage

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not an overclocker

By DEredita on 2/20/2007 10:59:48 AM , Rating: 1

Seems like most of the reviews weren't able to go beyond 3.2 Ghz when they overclocked the AMD Athlon 6000+ processor. I wonder if AMD will release a 65nm version of this processor. It would be interesting to see if the smaller process allows for higher overclocking potential.
As for the processor - it's faster than the other Athlon 64 X2 series processors, but still in many benchmarks, The 6000+ is only on par with the Core 2 Duo E6400 :(
I hope the next generation of Athlon processors offer us AMD fans something to be excited about.

RE: Not an overclocker

By ogreslayer on 2/20/2007 11:11:32 AM , Rating: 2

The price is HIGHLY disappointing. $450+ for a processor on par with one that is <$320(E6600) is honestly unacceptable from a company like AMD which used to offer the best value for the money. I can't wait to see the new chips but I just have this feeling that they are gonna be in the same predicament again. Intel probably has something ready to smack them in the face with a few weeks later.

Parent

RE: Not an overclocker

By RussianSensation on 2/20/2007 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 3

I would agree that overclocking is disappointing. However, if you sit back and recall when A64 first came out a 2.0ghz 3000+ was outperforming P4 3.0ghz w/HT. Therefore, A64 was roughly 50% as efficient per clock cycle. Here a 6000+ 3.0ghz competes fairly well with a Core 2 Duo at 2.4ghz. In other words Core 2 is roughly 25% more efficient than A64.

The dual stage 128-bit SSE engines, as well as the return of the formidable onboard memory controller and rumoured 80% increase in per clock efficiency over the old Opteron processors almost guarantees that K10 will smoke Core 2 per clock cycle. However, Intel already has 45nm lineup whereas AMD is still struggling with 65nm yields. Therefore, in about 6-8 months you'll see the exact opposite situation of K10 2.8ghz vs. 3.2ghz Core 2.

In fact, AMD cannot afford to be slower after 2-3 years of development, and with E4300 dipping to $113 in the near future. AMD can no longer rely on a price war. But you can bet their processor WILL be faster.

Parent

RE: Not an overclocker

By Uncle C on 2/20/2007 12:20:26 PM , Rating: 1

R.S., I couldn't agree with you more. The K10 looks to be a step in the right direction for AMD in the hopes of achieving higher efficiency.
If you look through the models of all the previous years it is almost always the most efficient processor that takes the crown.

Parent

RE: Not an overclocker

By RussianSensation on 2/20/2007 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 2

I myself own E6400@3.4ghz and I still think Intel fans just don't want to face reality. Sure Core 2 is amazing but after lacklustre P4 which was around since the Willamette core, anything would have been great.

Considering AMD brought 64-bit and an internal memory controller first, who knows what other innovations it has up its sleeve. If we recall, XP was a lot more efficient than P4 and A64 was also more efficient, which means AMD already had 2 successful processor designs in the past. This would be AMD's 3rd efficient desktop core compared to Intel's 1st in the same 5-year timeframe (discounting older P3 and Pentium M mobile). I for one would love for AMD to wipe the floor with Core 2 as serious competition brings lower prices to all :)

Parent

RE: Not an overclocker

By coldpower27 on 2/20/2007 3:04:29 PM , Rating: 2

There is nothing for Intel fans to face reality about, fact of the matter is until K10/Barcelona arrives AMD fans will have to remain content on being in 2nd place. Considering Willamette was from the year 2000 that is ancient history, not to mention it is surprising how well Intel did considering they used the NetBurst architecture for so long.

Intel is a paranoid creature and was prepared for x86-64 should the need arose with Prescott, an IMC while nice isn't the be all and end all way to garner performance, Core 2 shows us there are more ways then once to raise IPC.

AMD went with the low clockspeed and high efficiency route while Intel chose higher clockspeed at lower efficiency, each approach has it's pros and cons. Depends on what you mean by "sucessful" NetBurst did it's job, which was sell that GHZ was king, and actual performance was a secondary concern, and made Intel billions of dollars. That's very nice that you choose to ignore certain processors to further your agenda but fact of that matter is that Intel has a more diverse portfolio with regard to different architectures with NetBurst, Itanium, and Pentium M/Core.

The desktop isn't exactly a hard segment to move into, with AMD they scaled down their server oriented K8 architecture, with Intel they scaled up their mobile derived architecture. There isn't much point to design an architecture just for desktop as the needs are pretty average here.

I too hope that Barcelona and K10 derivatives come in competitive, as I want someone to keep reminding Intel they have to continue to push forward.

Parent

RE: Not an overclocker

By coldpower27 on 2/20/2007 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 2

Overclocking being disappointing is expected it is at the limits of the 90nm SOI process, and is likely the last of it's kind. I recall no such thing the Athlon 64 3000+ vs the Pentium 4 3.0GHZ with HT was a draw due to the fact that the Athlon 64 was better for gaming while the Pentium 4 was better for multi tasking and everyday use and encoding due to HyperThreading. Each was strong at certain workloads.

We will have to see if the claimed levels of performance for Barcelona and the K10 derivatives prove to come true.

Parent

RE: Not an overclocker

By coldpower27 on 2/20/2007 2:47:42 PM , Rating: 2

Flagship processors from either company tends to be more for bragging rights then representing good value, and they rarely match up to whatever the competitor's performance levels are.

So the Athlon 64x2 6000+ is a poor deal, this isn't surprising simply don't buy it and get the Intel equivalent for better value or buy a lower level AMD processor which would also be more value for your dollar.

Parent

So the best route is still OC a E6300 or a E6600 stock.

By Roy2001 on 2/20/2007 12:57:37 PM , Rating: 2

So the best route is still OC a E6300 or a E6600 stock unless you are upgrading your existing AMD system.

RE: So the best route is still OC a E6300 or a E6600 stock.

By Dactyl on 2/20/2007 3:33:35 PM , Rating: 2

You'd be better off switching to Intel than upgrading an existing system.

The cost of a socket 775 mobo + Intel CPU is less than the cost of one 6000+ X2.

Parent

X2 5600

By hubajube on 2/20/2007 11:04:11 AM , Rating: 3

Looks like the X2 5600 is the better deal. On the Xbitlabs benches it performs the same as a X2 6000 and an E6600 for the same price as an E6600. I didn't check out the other sites benches because I'm not familiar with them. Looks like AMD does have a product that competes well with the C2D.