AMD 6000+ or

[KHALIK]

Which one would you go for and why ? - both are smiliarly priced. -- which CPU is faster ?

The pc will be used for playing CS Source, COD4 and Homework



AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ 3.00GHz (Socket AM2) - Retail
£65.79 inc VAT

or

AMD Phenom X3 Tri Core 8450 2.10GHz (Socket AM2) - Retail
£71.66 inc VAT

 

[MooMoo444]

Dual, for the faster clock. The third core wouldnt be used much to be totally honest.

 

[jrwagh333]

AMD 6000+ Because it is a fraction cheaper, faster clocked so games will run better.

And new AMD Quad's are only just around the corner. If you look elsewhere, for the same price of the 6000+ you can get the 65nm version insted of that 90nm version. and it only needs 89W instead of 120w. Also the 65nm version is 3.1GHz

 

[KHALIK]

Thank you all

I decided to go for 6000+

 

[KHALIK]

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?...4&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=ecbede03,38415bd9

6000+ 90nm = 1024 cache
6000+ 64nm = 512 cache

surely 90nm is better ? --- faster ?

 

[jrwagh333]

They both have 1024 cache.
The 90nm description just says 1MB
while the 65nm says 512 x2

 

[gazfocus]

Also a thing to note is that the AMD Tri Cores are Quad Core CPU's with a dead core...so decide whether or not you want to buy an effectively dud product

 

[jrwagh333]

That WAS the case, but now they make them on purpose with only 3 active cores

 

[KHALIK]

They both have 1024 cache.
The 90nm description just says 1MB
while the 65nm says 512 x2

On Overclockers cpu description it say 2x1MB L2 Cache
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=803

 

[helmutcheese]

On Overclockers cpu description it say 2x1MB L2 Cache
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=803

Wont be 1st time they get it wrong, they said that also when the 6000+ launched and I bought it.


HERE :

Technical Details
Product Description: AMD Athlon X2 6000+ / 3.1 GHz processor
Product Type: Processor
Processor Type: AMD Athlon X2 6000+
Multi-Core Technology: Dual-Core
64-bit Computing: Yes
Compatible Processor Socket: Socket AM2
Processor Qty: 1
Clock Speed: 3.1 GHz
Manufacturing Process: 65 nm
Cache Memory: L2 1 MB ( 2 x 512 KB )
Features: AMD64 technology, integrated memory controller, Enhanced Virus Protection
Compatible Slots: 1 x processor - Socket AM2
Manufacturer Warranty: 3 years warranty

 

[DrBombcrater]

Also a thing to note is that the AMD Tri Cores are Quad Core CPU's with a dead core...so decide whether or not you want to buy an effectively dud product

Sigh. It's not a dud product. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. Whether the disabled core ever worked or not is completely irrelevant. My suspicion is most of the 'dead' cores worked just fine, the latest X3s are overclocking well on relatively low voltages, which suggests the dies are of fairly high quality.

 

[helmutcheese]

It's a dud core and that's from AMD.

Does not make financial sense to disable a perfectly good core.

Buy a Dual or a Quad IMO.

 

[KHALIK]

Wont be 1st time they get it wrong, they said that also when the 6000+ launched and I bought it.

I sent them a email asking if that information is correct and to confirm that it supports 2x1MB L2 cache (6000+ AMD)

 

[KHALIK]

UPDATE -

There information is correct.

Dear Mohammed Khalik,

Thank you for the webnote,

Yes it does have 2x1MB of cache

Regards,

Gary Ratcliffe

 

[musicman53]

I sent them a email asking if that information is correct and to confirm that it supports 2x1MB L2 cache (6000+ AMD)

-------------------------------------------------------
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUSideBySide.aspx?id=34&id=451
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[helmutcheese]

I sent them a email asking if that information is correct and to confirm that it supports 2x1MB L2 cache (6000+ AMD)

They are wrong, I go by AMD's info on their site, its 2x 512KB and I owned the 90nm Version.

 

[musicman53]

They both have 1024 cache.
The 90nm description just says 1MB
while the 65nm says 512 x2

1MB each core(90mm)
65mm does not have 1Mb each core.
I have both(90nm =1Mb each)and 65nm =512k each.

 

[Happy]

They both have 1024 cache.
The 90nm description just says 1MB
while the 65nm says 512 x2

Nope the 90nm has 2x1MB, using it right now

 

[DrBombcrater]

Does not make financial sense to disable a perfectly good core.

It makes perfect financial sense. Fab plants need to be kept busy, like any factory. They cost almost the same lying idle as they do in full production. If AMD has the capacity to make, say, 1 million quad-core dies each month but only has orders for 500,000 of them what do they do? They can either limit production to 500,000 dies or start offering chips with cores shut off at cheaper prices in the hope of selling the excess production to people who are on a budget and won't pay £120 for a quad but will pay £80 for a tri. It doesn't take many orders before that approach generates more money than limiting production.

Selling 'de-specced' products is standard procedure in the computer industry and has been for decades.

AMD and Intel both do it. ATI and NVidia do it. Hard drive manufacturers do it (ie, these days platter density means many '500GB' drives are really 640MB ones with different firmware).

 

[Amonlym]

To clarify the 6000+ question for you all:

there is a 65nm 6000+. this cpu runs 2 cores at 3100mhz each has 512kb L2.
there is a 90nm 6000+. this cpu runs 2 cores at 3000mhz each has 1024kb L2.

the same is true of a variety of other speed grades. the newer 65nm cores carry less cache and so are run faster at a given speed grade.

last orders for 90nm products from amd was a long time ago, hence why the 6400+ is now rare and things like 6000+ have transitioned to the new cores.