AM2/Core 2

[Jumper]

If I am running a 4200+ dual core AM2 at 2.3 gig is that the same as running a E6300 at around the same speed. Just fancied a comparison to my mates 6300 at 2.3?

 

[Vonny]

No mate, unfortunately not, at the same speed the Core2 will be faster

 

[Socaddict]

at the same speed, theres not much in it. However, the major advantage of the Core 2s is the sheer amount of overclocking headroom on them. Most AMD X2 used to max out around the 2.8GHz mark. Most core 2s max at around 3.4 or higher, at least the original Conroe cores. Thats a significant difference in performance.

 

[Lightnix]

Actually, Core 2's are around 15% faster clock for clock... A stock E6600 (2.4GHz dual core) was ever so slightly faster in most benchmarks than a stock X2 6000+ (3GHz dual core)

 

[Andeh]

the E6300 generally maxes out at around 3.15ghz, thats the fastest ive gotten mine while being fully stable. 3.4 is possible, but will blue screen after a few mins in windows.

 

[Socaddict]

Actually, Core 2's are around 15% faster clock for clock... A stock E6600 (2.4GHz dual core) was ever so slightly faster in most benchmarks than a stock X2 6000+ (3GHz dual core)

Generally, its dependent on task, got a linky that shows what you're saying?

Also, I had a E6300 up to 3.3GHz happily for a while, but i'm now running an E6600 at stock, as I really don't need overclocked levels of performance. Might have to go quad in the not too distance future, but that might tie in with my next new build...

 

[Lightnix]

Righto:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2933&p=2
URL tagged for long linkage.

Various other sites seem to show pretty much the same trend, the E6600 and 6000+ are just about level-pegging, with the E6600 often pulling out a little in front despite it being 600MHz slower.