• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AM2 still worth considering?

Soldato
Joined
10 Dec 2004
Posts
7,437
Location
Oxfordshire
I have been looking around for reviews etc, and wouldnt mind some peoples personal opinion on this. when i get round to upgrading i am going to have a tight budget and the AM2 is pretty well priced. I have been looking at the 3600x2 Brisbane as it appears these can do 3.0ghz on air with something like the Freezer 64 i already have.

Would a budget AM2 setup be maybe a better plan than say a E2160 one
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2005
Posts
12,634
I think most people will agree no, its not.

If you overclock (which going by your signature and the CPU in it, you do) then you may as well go C2D. The E2160 goes to about 3GHZ usually, and at that speed is plenty good enough for pretty much any task...
 
Associate
Joined
8 Jan 2005
Posts
2,405
Location
Worcestershire
e2160vs3800x2cs3.jpg


You can see from the results that the e2160 and 3800 x2 are a pretty close match, overall the e2160 comes out on top. Its worth noting the 2160 has a slightly lower clock than the 3800 so if you clock both to 3GHz the pentium is only going to widen it gab.

Both a great performing processors for there price, if you can get the amd x2 stupid cheap it would definitely be worth considering.

Edit: hum you were considering the 3600x2, Im pretty sure those results are still relevant, the 3600 are very cheap though, a good £15~ less than a 2160. 30quid for a 3GHz x2 is bloody cheap!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 Dec 2004
Posts
7,437
Location
Oxfordshire
cool, cheers for the chart, it seems like the C2D does better in synthetic stuff.

I use photoshop and Supreme Commander on a regular basis and the AMD seems to perform better at that stuff.

I guess tho the 2160 can hit 3.4 with a Freezer 7 where as i rkn the AMD would struggle to get over 3.0ghz even if i bought the 4400x2
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2005
Posts
12,634
cool, cheers for the chart, it seems like the C2D does better in synthetic stuff.

I use photoshop and Supreme Commander on a regular basis and the AMD seems to perform better at that stuff.

I guess tho the 2160 can hit 3.4 with a Freezer 7 where as i rkn the AMD would struggle to get over 3.0ghz even if i bought the 4400x2

Unless I am misreading, Photoshop is faster on the C2D, the number is lower (less rendering time) and is in red, which means win ?
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
5,009
3.4Ghz is being a bit ambitious I think and it depends largely on luck like anything overclocked.

The only AM2 I will consider is the X2 3600+ which went for £25 on OCUK a short time ago :eek: ultimate budget machine but the 3600+ has been removed from OCUK for some reason.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Jan 2005
Posts
2,405
Location
Worcestershire
Unless I am misreading, Photoshop is faster on the C2D, the number is lower (less rendering time) and is in red, which means win ?

yup that’s correct dark angel, I think a more realistic overclock figure for an e2160 would be 3.2GHz though phatboy. but even at 3.2ghz the c2d would nuke an x2 at 3GHz.

I think it all comes down to price, if the amd is significantly cheaper I would seriously think about it.

Like I said before, a sub 30quid x2 clocking at 3GHz is pretty damn cool! :cool:
 
Associate
Joined
8 Jan 2005
Posts
2,405
Location
Worcestershire
On average the 2140 is only a couple of quid less than the 2160 so the 2160 is a more logical purchase, the extra multi can make a big difference when overclocking.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2005
Posts
12,634
yup that’s correct dark angel, I think a more realistic overclock figure for an e2160 would be 3.2GHz though phatboy. but even at 3.2ghz the c2d would nuke an x2 at 3GHz.

I think it all comes down to price, if the amd is significantly cheaper I would seriously think about it.

Like I said before, a sub 30quid x2 clocking at 3GHz is pretty damn cool! :cool:

I really love the C2D, when I upgraded from a venice @2.7 to a E4300 I couldn't belive the jump, and now again I went from a E4300 to a Q6600 G0, and once again a wonderful boost (particularly in Photoshop, Supreme Commander and so on).
 
Associate
Joined
21 May 2007
Posts
1,464
cool, cheers for the chart, it seems like the C2D does better in synthetic stuff.

I use photoshop and Supreme Commander on a regular basis and the AMD seems to perform better at that stuff.

I guess tho the 2160 can hit 3.4 with a Freezer 7 where as i rkn the AMD would struggle to get over 3.0ghz even if i bought the 4400x2

Dunno about photyshop, I only use GIMP, but Sup Com and Sup Com-FA run infintely better on my Q6600 than on either my AMD5600+ or my bro's Phenom 2.5 BE.

Other games, the reverse is true certainly, but SupCom LOVES intel as far as I can see.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Dec 2004
Posts
7,437
Location
Oxfordshire
cheers for all the replies guys, i have found somewhere that still does the 3600x2 chip for £25 :)

I just bought one for my fiancees' mums pc, and a £25 jetway board....even on that i have got it to 2.3ghz and it runs on load at 40 degrees according to core temp

Btw....my bad on the chart, read it backwards lol:p
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Mar 2006
Posts
4,379
Location
Jarrow, Tyne And Wear
I really love the C2D, when I upgraded from a venice @2.7 to a E4300 I couldn't belive the jump, and now again I went from a E4300 to a Q6600 G0, and once again a wonderful boost (particularly in Photoshop, Supreme Commander and so on).

see i never really noticed the HUGE difference people were ranting on about from athlon X2 3.2Ghz > E6750 3.8Ghz, the only thing that had a rediculous improvement was supreme commander, the speed difference was quite simply staggeringly better on the E6750, but other than that i haven't really noticed much, strangely enough my system when i had X2 seemed to starts applications quicker than it does with the C2D :confused:
 
Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2007
Posts
891
Location
Manchester
C2D are not *that* much faster clock for clock, especially when we're talking about games and casual applications. They overclock much better but they're also more expensive.

Quad vs Phenom is no competition given the recent price drops on the Q6600, but X2 vs Exxxx is a different ball game IMO. The slower chips like the 3800/4200 are cheap but still nippy and can be quite overclockable, and the 6000+ is <£100 and still a great chip for gaming, it won't overclock much on air but it's cheaper than the respective C2Ds.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2008
Posts
944
I think most people will agree no, its not.

If you overclock (which going by your signature and the CPU in it, you do) then you may as well go C2D. The E2160 goes to about 3GHZ usually, and at that speed is plenty good enough for pretty much any task...

amen, brother :p. the thing FLIES... IMO, the only logical upgrade from this setup is a Quad...
 
Top