Cheat Engine

Pancake · Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: amd athlon 6000+?

3.1 ghz, less than 100 bucks,
is this a bang for the buck?
any good at all?

Blank · Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject:

I'd rather stick to Intel for architecture reasons I don't understand.

Superweapons, Slovach or Cheetah might explain it.

Pancake · Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject:

Tofu · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:18 am Post subject:

Maxammus · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:35 am Post subject:

The phenom 9600 costs the same and is about 25% more powerful than e7200 and about 60% more powerful than 6000+ Wink

http:://cpubenchjoe.net/cpu_list.php

Great cpu benchmark site.

Change benchjoe to benchmark, CEF filters it for some reason

hcavolsdsadgadsg · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:45 am Post subject:

Cheetah · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:26 am Post subject:

The E7200 is a good chip.

I would also recommend looking into this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072

The lower FSB will help you overclock better if you don't have good RAM or a good board, and the drop from 3MB to 2MB is negligible. Plus it's a lot cheaper.

Humper · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:25 am Post subject:

No don't go for the 6000+ not even the phenom.
I had 4 friends that bought 6000+ all sold them because of crappy
preformance and bought E8400 instead that one is at 120€.
And like 40% better.

Go for INTEL E5XXX/E7XXX/E8XXX/Q6600 <- ( if you want quad).

Regards Humper

superweapons · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:08 am Post subject:

The E5200 looks extremely impressive right now. 45nm Wolfdale architecture (low voltage, lower temperatures), high CPU multiplier (12.5x). It all looks good.

The difference in cache between 2MB and 3MB is under 5% in terms of gaming performance. But with a ~$40 price difference, you'll probably want to stick with the E5200. Last time I checked, an overclocked E2180 (1MB cache, 3GHz) that benchmarked against the E6850 (4MB cache, 3GHz), the difference in performance was about 5 FPS (with most of the games running at ~80FPS), and a 10 FPS difference at the most. That was between 1MB and 4MB. You'll probably find applications that will take advantage of the extra cache, but I wouldn't say that giving in an extra $40 is worth it, if you're going to overclock.

Humper · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:29 am Post subject:

Maxammus · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject:

Humper · Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:29 am Post subject:

Maxammus · Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject:

You only seem to read what you don't like. I said if you don't want to OC you should get it. Not everyone wants to OC.

I'm not an AMD fanboy but if you're on a budget the 9600 is the way to go, it's great performance for the price. I'm not saying that all phenoms are good for the price but the 9600 is atleast.

Cheetah · Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject:

Maxammus · Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject:

Most people don't know what OCing is(people who don't build their on systems which is why i'm using it in the comps i'm going to sell), and some don't know enough about it and think they might destroy their processor, shorten the lifespan, ect. Idk about the power consumption or heat generation but for people who want a powerful, cheap processor and don't plan to OC then i'd say go with the 9600.

I got the impression jst isn't going to OC so i think the 9600 is the way to go.