AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+: Competing with Aggressive Pricing
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 20, 2007 3:37 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Test - Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
While the major benchmark suites still lack support for the OS, we are trying our hands at testing CPUs under Windows Vista with this review. By now we know not to expect a significant performance difference between Windows Vista and XP, but given Vista's compelling feature set we see it becoming the dominant PC OS for new system builds in the enthusiast community.
With a substantial number of our CPU benchmarks available in 64-bit versions, using the 64-bit version of Vista wasn't a difficult choice. Since we're also using modern components in our testbeds, driver support wasn't an issue either. Given what we saw in our Vista Performance Guide, the ability to use more memory for features like SuperFetch warrants the switch to 64-bit if you don't have any legacy hardware without driver support.
The only other change we've made to our test beds is the use of 4GB of memory; by no means is it necessary (yet) but Vista's added memory requirements coupled with its better use of free memory makes 4GB a good target for enthusiasts.
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.0GHz/1MBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2.8GHz/1MBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.6GHz/512KBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz/512KBx2) Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz/4MB) Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz/4MB) Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz/2MB) |
| Motherboard: | ASUS P5B Deluxe (P965) ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (nForce 590 SLI) |
| Chipset: | Intel P965 NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 8.1.1.1010 (Intel) Integrated Vista Drivers (NVIDIA) |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA |
| Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 4) |
| Video Card: | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 100.54 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1600 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
defter - Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - link
The maximum measured 8800GTX power consumption is about 150W. NVidia has mentioned that absolute maximum is 180W. However, since this is a CPU review, it's logical to assume that they stressed only the CPU in "full load" power consumption test.poohbear - Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - link
wow so 260w load plus 50w for a 8800gtx, thats only 310wts! kinda strange when companies are selling 1kilowatt psus.:/poohbear - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
i was gonna ask the exact same question. I wish they'd clarify that in the articles when they talk about power consumption. Is that 263wts under load for the 5600+ JUST for the cpu or the whole system? thanks for any of the writers who can clarify this 100%.JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Power reports are always for the entire system. Obviously, lower end GPUs would reduce total power requirements quite a bit, but in maximum load testing the stress is only on the CPU and not the GPU. Thus, the ~50W power difference is going to remain whether you're running an 8800 GTX or an X1300 SE. The latter would simply use probably 40-50W less total power.bamacre - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Add in OC'ing and Intel, still, jumps further in the lead.BladeVenom - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
But most people don't overclock.ViRGE - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Many of the readers of this site do though. The C2D is so mind numbingly easy to overclock, it's hard to not do it.Roy2001 - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
I agree. I never OCed before. But with E6400 it is so easy. I just changed FSB from 266 to 350, I have a 2.8Ghz C2D. No voltage change, no cooling change. That's easy.mino - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
Not to mention 800FSB E4300 parts.2.66/333FSB is pretty much a safe bet on most boards.
Even 2.13 for $150 is nice with board at STOCK FSB!.
Who needs E6400 then :) (for stock performance).
poohbear - Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - link
well if a 2.4ghz C2D can beat a AMD64 @ 3.0ghz, then calling a C2D @ 3.2ghz (the average overclock from what im reading) the "king" processor is a monumental understatement. It'd rape the 6000+.