Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Two Cores at a Low Cost: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ CPU Review

Started by: coldpower27 | Date 08/11/06 11:01:02 PM
Comments: 64 | Last Comment:  12/19/15 06:41:55 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads



Good to see that the change of 1/2 the LV2 cache makes very little difference.

I can't wait for Intel's response the E4300. As well it also remains when and if the 3600+ will come to retail channels in North America.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/11/06 11:01:02 PM]

Comparing a stock Intel vs a OC-ed AMD sounds fair to you?
Both CPU's are priced exactly the same..
You think the AM2's can keep up when the C2D's when they are both granted a similar OC?
Even if the AM2's could keep up, the C2D's have a far better PPW and less TDP.
And that is apart from the fact that the C2D's OC far better then the AM2's, and you know that!
So tell me.. are you stupid or do you think we are?

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/12/06 04:41:06 AM]
- collapse thread

Looks to me that the review had graphs showing the reviewed product at stock speed, and at potential overclocked speed, so you could compare it against other AM2 products, namely the 3800+ and 5000+. The Conroe results were added as a point of relevance.

With Conroe costing over $200 at many retailers right now ($250 at NewEgg wasn't it?), a $150 X2 3600+ is not exactly "priced exactly the same". Even the RRP of the Conroe is over $30 more expensive than the stock X2 3600+ price. So that's a blatant lie on your part. Let us not take the cost of the motherboard into consideration, Conroe is very new, so motherboards are still quite highly priced.

The TDP is roughly the same for both processors at stock speeds. The E6300 is better performing however, for the extra $50 - $100 you pay currently.

The E6300's don't overclock that great according to all the reviews I've seen. 2.5GHz seems an average result. The higher end Conroes do overclock very nicely however.

So, in conclusion, the review gave all the information allowing for the informed and intelligent reader to form their own opinion. If you are incapable of doing that, then who is the 'stupid' person?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/13/06 09:43:52 AM]

The competition for the X2-3800+ (and it appears the X2-3600+) is not the Pentium D 915, but rather the Pentium D 940 (and perhaps the 945).
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/12/06 06:07:44 AM]

The $150 you paid for the X2 3600+ is actually the true price.

The price is supposed to be $148, which means that the X2 3800+ really isn't that competitive against the X2 3800+ priced at $159. I'm sure most people are going to choose the X2 3800+ over it. The 65W TDP may be a saving grace though. The 915D is supposed to be priced at $133 so it still has a price advantage. The 945D is priced at $163 which is slightly more expensive than the X2 3800+, but it's also on average slightly faster according to X-bit labs previous price/performance comparison. The 915D will be replaced by the 925D on October 1st.

I was hoping to see some power consumption numbers though. I don't suppose you happen to have any of the new D0 stepping chips for Presler since they have a 95W TDP all the way up to the 960D. That should help bring down the 915Ds power from the current C1 steppings. I always found it curious that most of the 930D, 940D, and 950D reviews dealing with power are still using B1 steppings which don't have EIST instead of the newer C1 and D0 steppings.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/12/06 10:17:33 AM]
- collapse thread

It may be so officialy. At my dealer the prices I wrote above are a reality.

Also one should consider PD eats ~$5 a year more on electricity than X2, so to achieve price-parity PD should be in fact $10-$20 cheaper.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/12/06 12:53:54 PM]
Yes that's why I'm interested in seeing the new D0 stepping PDs to see if they actually show any power savings over B1 and C1 PDs. They should considering with B1s 95W was only the 3GHz 930D, the C1s upped that to 95W for 3.4GHz 950Ds, and D0s upped again at 95W for 3.6GHz 960Ds.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/12/06 08:02:50 PM]

The most drudgery part of using a PC is booting it up and launching programs. It is nice to have X2 chips. I will start with SATA-II harddrive above all. It reduce the boot time by 66% over the old ATA-100 EIDE hard drives. I like to sit and turn on my PC and watch it all along. I am tired of turning on PC and go around do something else while waiting for it to be ready to be used. SATA-II is really fast in launching programs and scanning for viruses and spywares. My mother board can be fitted with x2 chips later, thank goodness!! It will be a lotta faster . oh my my
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/12/06 12:02:26 PM]

The comparisons are not fair and comparing oranges to apples. You compare an overclocked AMD3600 to all others at the stock speed ... not fair and stupid !!!

You never mentioned that fact that an overclocked Core 2 E6300 is far better anything AMD has to offer and E6300 is the lowest end of the Core 2 family. So AMD is the loser in all cases !!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/13/06 10:40:29 AM]
- collapse thread

Grow the fuck up. You basically made the same comment as the other guy. (Post number 2)

The review had both the stock and overclocked numbers for the 3600+. The point is to give you an idea how much you gain if you went for the cheapest A64 X2 now and overclocked. The Core 2 Duo and other CPUs are used as a comparison to provide some sort of reference of where it lies. (both in stock and overclocked speeds). Apparently, your brain is incapable of interpreting that simple concept.

Maybe if you bothered to actually READ and UNDERSTAND the article and actually took the time to compare the numbers, than post your 2 cents worth of shit, you wouldn't look like a no-clue moron!

That's whats wrong with sites like Xbit Labs...You have try-hard idiots who don't have a fucking clue what is going on. They mindless post shit.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 08/13/06 08:50:24 PM]

you intel fanboys.when are you gonna get it?intel has always been like that.we would have to pay more for same performance we get in AMD processors.Conclusion:AMD>INTEL
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 12/18/06 05:29:38 AM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment