[JoJoTime]

Can anyone tell me what is the big difference is between AMD 5600+ and the AMD 6400+?
Whats with the gigantic price? (compared to other AMD processors)
Is this processor really worth to buy? or should I just get a 5600 which is cheaper and less power-sucking.


Please no flaming AMD or saying bu**sh*t like "OMGZ INTEL IS THE BEST GO BUY IT!!"

[Advertisements]

I again recommend the 6000+. At less than $200 it has your best price/performance ratio on the AMD line. The 6400+ is almost like a Intel extreme edition. It is better than the rest of the line but not really worth the extra cash because it is priced much higher than other good chips. Another comparision is the 8800 GTS to the GTX. The GTX is the best that you can buy but it is $200 more than the GTS and no where near offers performance that justifies $200.


IMO you should get the 6000+.

Edited by Titan8990, 11 September 2007 - 11:06 AM.

[Titan8990]

I again recommend the 6000+. At less than $200 it has your best price/performance ratio on the AMD line. The 6400+ is almost like a Intel extreme edition. It is better than the rest of the line but not really worth the extra cash because it is priced much higher than other good chips. Another comparision is the 8800 GTS to the GTX. The GTX is the best that you can buy but it is $200 more than the GTS and no where near offers performance that justifies $200.


IMO you should get the 6000+.

Edited by Titan8990, 11 September 2007 - 11:06 AM.

[jackflash1991]

Well take a look for yourself: http://www23.tomshar...m...1&chart=421
This is comparing the 5600+ and 6000+. You can chose different processor and different benchmarks. As you can see the 6000+ is slightly higher and for an extra $20 for the 6000+ I think it is worth it.

[Neil Jones]

An AMD 6400x2 is basically a 6000 with a higher price tag and a slightly faster processor raw-speed. I don't think its too much better than a 6000 for want of an extra 200Mhz which you wouldn't notice anyway. IMO its not worth the extra asking price. The Intel processors have bigger cache sizes (four times in some cases) and at the moment this is one of the reasons amongst many why performance-wise they're wiping the floor with the AMDs.

The 5600 and the 6000 are similiar performance wise, so I suppose it all comes down to what you're doing with the computer at the end of the day.

Edited by Neil Jones, 11 September 2007 - 05:18 PM.

[jackflash1991]

Price/Performance chart:
http://www23.tomshar...m...1&chart=444
The 5600+ is a little better but for only games (new ones) the 6000+ is better Price/Performance.

[JoJoTime]

Thanks everyone for explaining.
I also noticed 6400 has 2mb cache over the 6000 which has 1mb - Is cache really important?

And one more thing... On the CPU Charts over at Tom's Hardware - At the end of every processor there is a 3 digit number e.g.
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (F3) (Windsor, 3000/200, NF590, 750)
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (F3) (Windsor, 2800/200, NF590, 800)
What do these mean as well?

[jackflash1991]

And one more thing... On the CPU Charts over at Tom's Hardware - At the end of every processor there is a 3 digit number e.g.
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (F3) (Windsor, 3000/200, NF590, 750)
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (F3) (Windsor, 2800/200, NF590, 800)
What do these mean as well?

I'm not exactly sure but I don't think it is that important if you just look at the other specs or performance of the chip as a whole.

[james_8970]

Here I'll list what all those numbers are in order:
Chipset Code name
Processor speed
FSB
Northbridge
RAM clock, there are odd numbers (750MHz) on the chart however, not sure if they are changing the RAM's multiplier or not, which would be odd if they were.
James

[JoJoTime]

How much difference do you think 4mb cache on the 6400+ compared to the 2mb on 6000+ will make on games?
I heard cpu cache is better on games than clock rate.

I plan to play Test Drive Unlimited, NFS Pro street, Bioshock, Garrysmod 10 and tons of the new games that are coming out and are already out recently.

Ah and a lot of multi-tasking but mostly gaming.

Edited by JoJoTime, 13 September 2007 - 12:29 AM.

[Troy]

If you can afford the extra price then go for it. I personally would go for the 6400+ as I believe the larger cache and faster clock speed will make a difference, but I am in full agreeance with everyone here - the 6000+ would be better for the performance/price ratio, and would be the "best buy" for your money.

Ultimately, it's your call. Also, what's the rest of your system specs? There's no point forking out $$$ for the 6400+ if you are only running 1GB of RAM or something like that, how about posting the rest for us to work out?

[JoJoTime]

Here are my specs:

ASROCK AM2NF6G Mobo

Corsair 2x1gb 667mhz

PALIT 7900GS 512mb PCI-E

Western Digital 250gb SATA2 16mb cache

Thats about it..

[jackflash1991]

You are in good shape.