Athlon 2400+ would I notice the difference

[Stephen7372]

if I went for a 6300 dual core just want it for watching the telly on and encoding stuff

 

[PaulProteus]

The difference will be massive! OCed E6300 runds better than FX60. You will definitely be better off when encoding.

 

[Stephen7372]

twice as fast three times as fast what do you reckon

 

[Cob]

Maybe >5 times as fast.

 

[Defcon5]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=509&model2=433&chart=182

But not much difference here..

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=509&model2=433&chart=181

 

[FreeStream]

I'd say, between 4 and 10 times the performance at 3.2+ghz

 

[Edinho]

Some of you should work for pcworld. Terms like 'Massive' and 10x faster are a bit off the mark. It will be noticably quicker yes. But you will need a new mb, graphics etc etc. So would you be better off just upgrading the chip? /shrug

 

[bfar]

You'll see a good difference, maybe even 50%+ if overclocked. The figures stated above are ridiculous tho.

 

[HangTime]

You'll see a good difference, maybe even 50%+ if overclocked. The figures stated above are ridiculous tho.

Well bear in mind that not only is a stock E6300 way faster than an XP 2400+ in single threaded apps, he is talking about doing encoding in which dual core will excel. When you throw the overclocking potential into the mix I think that it is not unreasonable to suggest a performance increase of 200%+ in encoding.

 

[Robert]

Some of you should work for pcworld. Terms like 'Massive' and 10x faster are a bit off the mark. It will be noticably quicker yes. But you will need a new mb, graphics etc etc. So would you be better off just upgrading the chip? /shrug

Not really. The benchmark above is using a 64 chip, and I'd say the conroe is around 5*+ quicker there.

 

[FreeStream]

Some of you should work for pcworld. Terms like 'Massive' and 10x faster are a bit off the mark. It will be noticably quicker yes. But you will need a new mb, graphics etc etc. So would you be better off just upgrading the chip? /shrug

X6800 vs. AMD 64 1.8Ghz Newcastle (Which is easily 30-50% better than a 2400+)

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=165
^^ Beaten by over 2 times

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=177
^^ nearly 4 times here

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=178
^^ Over 2 times again

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=183
^^ 3 times


Maybe 10 times is a bit much, but it is certainly going to be between 2 and 5 times quicker, especially when its at 400x8.

CR.

 

[bfar]

X6800 vs. AMD 64 1.8Ghz Newcastle (Which is easily 30-50% better than a 2400+)

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=165
^^ Beaten by over 2 times

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=177
^^ nearly 4 times here

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=178
^^ Over 2 times again

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=509&chart=183
^^ 3 times


Maybe 10 times is a bit much, but it is certainly going to be between 2 and 5 times quicker, especially when its at 400x8.

CR.

Good work! We're not being pessimistic, just very conservative. Its unfair to exadurate when someone's spending a lot of money. Better to give the worst case scenario.