amc11890 Posted June 10, 2006 CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 Along with last week's Athlon 64 FX-62 CPU and Socket AM2 chipset announcements, AMD introduced a more mainstream dual-core chip, the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. At $696 (according to AMD's pricing per 1,000 units), the X2 5000+ has a lot of performance to offer for the price, stacking up well alongside AMD's pricier Athlon 64 X2 FX-60 and FX-62 CPUs, as well as Intel's most advanced desktop chip, the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. If Intel weren't close to announcing a major overhaul to its CPU lineup in the coming months, we'd be able to provide a clearer recommendation for the Athlon 64 X2 5000+. As it stands, powerful though it is, we suggest you hold off purchasing such an expensive chip until we know what Intel's next-generation Core 2 Duo processors will bring to the computing table. Despite the impending Intel announcement, the X2 5000+ deserves merit. Compared to everything else in the field right now, the X2 5000+ will serve everyone but demanding gamers well. At 2.6GHz per core, it's faster than all of AMD's original X2 series of dual-core CPUs. It was also announced on the same date as the aforementioned Socket AM2 chipset for a reason. The new AM2 chipset brings all of AMD's CPUs onto an updated motherboard platform, although the company needs to reissue separate AM2 versions of the old Socket 939 chips. The X2 5000+, however, is Socket AM2 only. About all that really means is that you'll need to buy a new motherboard (Socket AM2 and Socket 939 aren't cross-compatible) and new DDR2 memory, since AM2 boards don't use DDR memory. Aside from the memory switch, the only other major advantage of the new platform is reduced power consumption. Whereas on Socket 939, the highest-end X2 chip, the 4800+, required 115 watts from your power supply, the X2 5000+ (and the AM2 version of the 4800+) needs only 89 watts. While we appreciate the improvement, it will really benefit you only if you're building a PC with multiple high-end graphics cards. rest of the article/review herehttp://reviews.cnet.com/AMD_Athlon_64_X2_5000/4505-3086_7-31890132-2.html?tag=nav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 10, 2006 CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 it may be good, but i will not be rushing or even thinking of buying any AMD processors for a little bit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTB Posted June 10, 2006 CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 From an overclocker's point of view it is useless, a lot of cores can go 2.6 Ghz or beyond. Not to mention the incoming Conroe release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted June 10, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 atleast it consumes less power than the older x2's but it is not socket 939 "compatible" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 10, 2006 CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 atleast it consumes less power than the older x2's but it is not socket 939 "compatible" it may use a little less power, and be a little faster, but not enought for anyone to actually buy it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted June 10, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 it may use a little less power, and be a little faster, but not enought for anyone to actually buy ot yeah thats true because you would have to invest in a new mobo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 10, 2006 CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 yeah thats true because you would have to invest in a new mobo. your look at $750-$800 for a upgrade that adds 3% more performance, it makes no since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted June 10, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 10, 2006 for me it would be a huge performance boost but i get what you are saying if you are upgrading from the 4800 it would be a huge waste of $$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 for me it would be a huge performance boost but i get what you are saying if you are upgrading from the 4800 it would be a huge waste of $$$ ya but for the money its not worth out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sco77 Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 AM2 has been out for more than a week... Anyway, all high-end chips are for rich people, from a normal user standpoint it's not worth the money. Between FX and X2 I would probably go with FX though, atleast until games start taking advantage of dual core (multi process). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 Anyway, all high-end chips are for rich people, from a normal user standpoint it's not worth the money. Between FX and X2 I would probably go with FX though, atleast until games start taking advantage of dual core (multi process). welcome to the forum Sco77 highend chips can be for anyone with a job and a little time. personally i would never spend more then $350 on a processor, because i can always over clock it and get the performace of a $500-$600 CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sco77 Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 welcome to the forum Sco77 highend chips can be for anyone with a job and a little time. personally i would never spend more then $350 on a processor, because i can always over clock it and get the performace of a $500-$600 CPU. That and an Athlon64 3700 - 4000+ ($200-$300) is not going to be the limiting factor in any game currently out, the limiting factor would be Video card (in-game) and HDD (load time)... difference between a 4000+ and those high-end chips is minimal, maybe 5-10%, which isn't much for the 100+ % cost difference. Thanks for the welcoming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted June 11, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 I would be happy with a amd athlon 64 3000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 I would be happy with a amd athlon 64 3000. well ya, going from a 1100mhz processor to that would be a night and day difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc11890 Posted June 11, 2006 Author CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 well ya, going from a 1100MHz processor to that would be a night and day difference. lol yeah, i cant belive i still havent been able to fix that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinOhioRR Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 If you already on the socket 939.....please do NOT upgrade to AM2. It is ONLY a 1-2% increase in "most" benchmarks. I am still on socket 754 with my sempron, and will be waiting until K8L comes out in Q107. Then I will be quad cored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planatoid Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 DDR2 is a joke right now anways, as far as performance. That's one major thing that'll keep me away from AM2. When DDR3 comes out for CPUs, then we'll be talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xs1 Posted June 11, 2006 CID Share Posted June 11, 2006 DDR2 is a joke right now anways, as far as performance. That's one major thing that'll keep me away from AM2. When DDR3 comes out for CPUs, then we'll be talking. ^ right, right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.