ATHLON 64 X2 6000+ REVIEW BENCHMARK AND OVERCLOCK
Posted:2007-02-20 By cpu review Number of View:56684
ATHLON 64 X2 6000+ REVIEW BENCHMARK AND OVERCLOCK By :cpu review Posted:2007-02-20 xtreview is your : Video card - cpu - memory - Hard drive - power supply unit source  While waiting for Barcelona,  AMD proposes his top-end-range last- one proposed today to us: Athlon 64 X2 6000+. Having in this case 3 GHz as operation frequency Is this 3ghz frequency with a new core revision sufficient for Athlon 64 X2 6000+ to get the lead from the elite INTEL Core 2 Duo  ? .In this review we will also consider the performances of Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and its analogs from Intel under Windows Vista, the last operating system from Microsoft . AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+: Processor AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is processors based on K8 architecture,  as its name indicates its a model dual core. Each one of its core has 1 Mb memory in the second level, and the operation frequency of this processor is fixed at 3 GHz. Its multiplier is also fixed at 15x, with the frequency of system buses at 200 MHz. The revision of core which equips the processor, here is Windsor  F3 version , the same which is used on Athlon 64 FX70. Thanks to this new stepping that allow AMD to reach the 3 GHz. Note that this evolution of the revision core does not play with the latency times of cache memory  since they remain identical to those generally observed on Athlon 64 X2 Windsor made on 90Nm. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ CPU-Z Let us finish this review of Athlon 64 X2 6000+ by mentioning some of technologies that it support. The processor logically has the instructions SSE3, function NX Bit for protection in writing to the zones of memories. It also obtains the function AMD Virtualization which makes possible to optimize the operation of software virtualisation like VMWare or Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Heat, Power consumption and overclocking:! The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ remains in 90Nm, and that it has only the new core revision , this can result in high power consumption and heat from such processor. In practice, our fears was confirmed since our Athlon 64 X2 6000+ has 63° C in full load! . Power consumption, was  also a huge since our system containing X2 6000+ use largely more than 270 Watts against… 200 Watts for Core 2 Duo E6600. We take on consideration the total system power consumption and we note aaso that it is known that the chipsets nForce 590 consume  more watt than INTEL i975X .   Total system consumption Recorded temperature AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 270 watt 61 c AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 275 watt 63 c INTEL Core 2 Duo E6700 203 watt 39 c INTEL Core 2 Extreme QX6700 240 watt 45 c INTEL Core 2 X6800 Extreme 210 watt 39 c As for overclocking, there Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is far from giving the whole satisfaction! . In fact it is quite difficult, to assume that asus m2 N32-SLI Deluxe can \'t do more than 215 MHz in HTT witch is equal to a little more than 3,2 GHz of rated CPU frequency. It should be noted that the multiplier of this processor is particularly high and fixed at 15x:. Athlon 64 X2 6000+: do not overclock very but this what we should except from K8 high end CPU! Presenting itself at format Socket AM2, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, can appear surprising since its always made from the old 90Nm. Whereas the last AMD processors  and in particular famous Energy Efficient , benefit from the smoothness of  65 NM. From the start this parameter is not good sign especially when it is known that Athlon 64 X2 6000+ counts nearly 227,4 million transistors . Besides AMD announces the TDP fixed at 125 Watts against 85 Watts in general for Athlon 64 X2. This TDP is besides identical to that generally reserved for Athlon 64 FX and it will be necessary to be ensured that u have a sufficiently effective cooler and an adequate motherboard. Side supply voltage , the vCore of this Athlon 64 lies between 1,35 and 1,4 Volt. To test the performances of this new Athlon 64 X2, we had recourse to the following platform: Motherboard Asus m2 N32-SLI Deluxe (BIOS 0903), 2x1 GB  DDR2 Corsair Twin2X 6400C3, Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, 2x hard Disk Western DIGITAL Raptor 150 GB Our test system used the last driver and BIOS available to the date of test and in this configuration we used not only the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ but also Athlon 64 FX-62 as well as Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 65nm. Naturally, we will oppose the processors AMD to Core 2 Duo from INTEL and for this reason we had recourse to the following configuration: Motherboard Asus P5W-DH Deluxe, 2x1 GB report DDR2 Corsair Twin2X 6400C3, Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, 2x hard Disk Western DIGITAL Raptor 150 GB On this platform we used the following INTEL processors  : INTEL Core 2 Duo E6600, INTEL Core 2 Duo E6700 and INTEL Core 2 X6800 Extreme. To start,  we will test our various processors under Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 before observing their behavior under Windows Vista . 3DMark 06 - v1.1.0 - Processor Test we starts with 3DMark 06 and its processor test . At the head, we finds Core 2 X6800 Extreme followed in the second position by Core 2 Duo E6700. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ has a beautiful boost here and it get AMD rises in third position, in slight withdrawal vs E6700. The 3 GHz X2 6000+ show 7% higher performances  than those of Athlon 64 FX-62 which work at 2,8 GHz. Compared with Athlon 64 X2 5000+, in  this test, the model 6000+ is 15% here faster. PCMark 05 - CPU - v1.2.0 The processor test  of PCMark is another tool signed FutureMark, gives the same result as 3DMark 06. we finds in the head group Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Core 2 Duo E6700. If Athlon 64 X2 6000+ preserves its third place, the variation with Core 2 Duo E6700 is much more significant. Here, INTEL processor  is 10% more powerful whereas X2 6000+ is finally as fast as Core 2 Duo E6600. vs Athlon 64 FX 62, X2 6000+ are 7% faster . PCMark 05 - Memory - v1.2.0 The memory test of PCMark 05 always gives Core 2 Duo a small boost, but here AMD takes again its third placel. The last processor is with equality with Core 2 Duo E6700. The profit made by X2 6000+ vs  FX 62 does not exceed 4%. Sandra Xi - SP1 - Processor Test The processor test  Sandra gives its favors to Core 2 X6800 Extreme. However, in term of operations in floating point, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ finishes second but considering the million instructions per second, it is only fourth, behind Core 2 Duo E6600. Compared with Athlon 64 FX 62, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is 7% faster . Sandra Xi - SP1 - Memory Test Without surprise, the memory performances of AMD processors  are largely better than those of Core 2 in the last version of Sandra. It should be noted that with FX 62 memory DDR2 800 operates at 400 MHz whereas it work only at 375 MHz with Athlon 64 X2 6000+. ScienceMark 2.0 - Primordia Traditionally favorable to AMD processors , ScienceMark allows the new amd CPU to take again the advantage on its direct competitor. Thus Athlon 64 X2 6000+ finishes in front of Core 2 X6800 Extreme. The performances profit obtained with X2 6000+ is set to 10% vs Athlon 64 FX 62. It should be noted here that Core 2 Duo E6600 finishes last . Cinebench 9.5 Test of  3D rendering, Cinebench gives the lead to Core 2 duo ( X6800 Extreme ) . However, the second here is AMD X2 6000+ witch precede Core 2 Duo E6700. Compared to Athlon 64 FX 62, the last CPU from AMD is 9% faster.  it precedes Core 2 Duo E6600 by  12%. Adobe Photoshop CS2 Under Photoshop CS2, we measure in seconds time necessary to the application of a complex filter on high definition image . Surprised, X2 6000+ finishes first, in front of Core 2 X6800 Extreme! Let us recognize however that the advantage of AMD processor  is far from being Net . Vs FX-62, X2 6000+ spend 3 seconds less to execute the  filter. Windows Media Encoder 9.0 Here we measure the time necessary to encode video AVI (720x576) with format Windows Media Video 9. In this test: AMD processors are the slowest. X2 5000+ is slowest whereas X2 6000+ is not a lot faster since it finishes with equality with Core 2 Duo E 6600. Vs  FX-62, X2 6000+ will allow to get an additional 16 seconds in the total conversion time  . But Core 2 Duo E6700 do the same task in 23 seconds less time. Files Compression  WinRAR 3.62 The compression of our 650 Mb files does not show any good sign for AMD processors  , they remain in lost vs core duo CPU. Vs FX 62, X2 6000+ show profit in performances whereas Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700 are much faster. It will take for example 24 seconds more for X2 6000+ to compress our files compared to Core 2 Duo E6700. 3DSMax 8 - Radiosity Under 3DSMax 8 we measure the time necessary for 3D complexes in 800x600. The results are always expressed in seconds. we finds X2 5000+ and FX62 on the last places  whereas X2 6000+ is slightly better than Core 2 Duo E6600. Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 X6800 Extreme preserve an unquestionable advantage. TMPGenc 4.2.3.193 Xpress TMPGenc is video encoding software  . We use it to compress with format MPEG 2 a AVI videos for certain duration. The software has interesting benefits from extensions INTEL SSSE 3  and that it exploits technologies of AMD like 3D Now. Unfortunately TMPGenc don\'t like AMD processors : those last are far behind Core 2 duo from INTEL. Whereas X2 6000+ spends 11 seconds less than its big brother FX 62 to compress the video, Core 2 Duo E6600 execute the same operation in 21 seconds less! There is no surprise that we finds Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 X6800 Extreme on the first places. Pinnacle Studio 10.7 The application of video assembly general public Studio Pinnacle enables us to evaluate the performances of our processors when it is question of complete project format MPEG4.processors INTEL keep the advantage and X2 6000+ does not even manage to compete with Core 2 Duo E6600. Mathematica 5.1 Mathematica, is a scientific benchmark. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ takes again its third here, with equality (or almost) with Core 2 Duo E6600. Vs FX62, X2 6000+ it is about 7% faster  Doom 3 v1.3 - 1024x768x32 Under Doom 3, our various processors show similar performance, probably limited by the graphics card. Processors INTEL preserve an unquestionable advantage on their counterparts AMD and vs Athlon 64 FX 62, X2 6000+ make possible to gain 0,4 FPS ! Far Cry v1.4 - 1024x768x32 After Doom 3, Far Cry makes possible to set a better chart between our various processor. Here processors INTEL are definitely at the head and the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ does not make possible for AMD to get better result  . This last show performances hardly 2% higher than Athlon 64 FX 62. In fact, simple Core 2 Duo E6600 working at 2,4 GHz is  11% faster than the last AMD processor whose frequency is set to 3 GHz. Cal Of Duty 2 - v1.3 - 1024x768x32 Like Doom 3, Call Off Duty 2 seems to be clearly limited by the graphics card. INTEL Processors are as always at the head  , but Athlon are not so far. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ finishes, in spite of its 3 GHz, behind Core 2 Duo E6600 whereas its performances are hardly 1% higher than those of Athlon 64 FX 62. Vs Athlon 64 X2 5000+, the last AMD cpu is almost 6% faster. Windows vista performance Know we will switch to The new operating system from Microsoft, Windows Vista being available since the end of January, we wanted to evaluate the performances of Athlon 64 X2 6000+ on this system. Naturally will oppose here AMD   to INTEL processors . The software environment not being  ready for Windows Vista we have to make some tests : as  example Windows Media Encoder 9 which freeze systematically. The tests here were excuted  under the final version of Windows Vista ultimate edition. Side configurations, we use the same platforms as those described at the beginning of test whereas on the level of driver we use here ForceWare 100.54 for Windows Vista. 3DMark 06 - v1.1.0 - Processor Test Our top-end-range Core 2 remain largely at the head under Windows Vista whereas Athlon 64 X2 6000+ takes down the third place, vs Core 2 Duo E6600. The last processor from AMD is 5% faster under 3DMark 06 than Athlon 64 FX 62. PCMark 05 - v1.2.0 - Processor Test The processor test  of PCMark 05 gives an different result from those obtained in 3DMark. Athlon 64 X2 6000+ falls to the fourth place behind Core 2 Duo E6600. The last-cpu from AMD is 6% faster than the FX 62 and 15% faster than X2 5000+. On the other hand, Core 2 Duo E6700 remains 8% more faster under Windows Vista. Cinebench 9.5 The performances with regards to the rendering 3D remain favorable to Core 2 X6800 Extreme even if Athlon 64 X2 6000+ was found in second position, as under Windows XP. Vs FX 62, X2 6000+ is 6% faster and compared with Core 2 Duo E6600 it is 11% faster . ScienceMark 2.0 - Primordia Under Windows XP, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ preceded Core 2 X6800 Extreme according to ScienceMark 2.0. The passage to Windows Vista changes those result and Core 2 Extreme finds its first. The last AMD processor appears 5% faster than its predecessor, FX62. As under XP, X2 6000+ Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700 precedes. Doom 3 - v1.3 - 1024x768x32 Windows Vista or not, Doom 3 remains favorable to INTEL processors  and Athlon 64 X2 6000+ just manages to equalize Core 2 Duo E6600. Compared with the FX62, it is 1,8% faster  Cal Of Duty 2 - v1.3 - 1024x768x32 Call Of Duty 2 brings a different result since the gaming seems to appreciate particularly Athlon 64 X2 6000+. This processor finishes second behind Core 2 X6800 Extreme. The result presented here is thus different from what we observed under Windows XP . Vsthe FX62 the last AMD processor  is faster 4% here. Files Compression WinRAR 3.62 With WinRAR we measure, stop watch  time necessary for the compression of more than 650 Mb data. The results are expressed in seconds,. The passage to Windows Vista does not change the result between our various processors, Core 2 remainder most powerful. On the other hand we notes worse overall performances under Vista: between 10 and 20 seconds more to compress the files. As for Athlon 64 X2 6000+ it excute this task in five seconds less than Athlon 64 FX62. TMPGenc 4.2.3.193 Xpress The result between our various processors here is reflected perfectly as the results already observed under Windows XP. The video encoding remains in the side of Intel processors  and Athlon 64 X2 6000+ comes to end of this task in 13 seconds less than Athlon 64 FX 62. Like what we observe under WinRAR, our processors here is also penalized by Windows Vista: Conclusion One additional cpu in this range but also probable last representing this long line of processors derived from architecture K8, Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is not bad processor . It should be said that we are here in the presence of Athlon 64 FX-74 . Athlon 64 X2 6000+ uses  Socket AM2, one nothing more conventional than Socket F Athlon 64 FX series 70. working at 3 GHz, this cpu from AMD could have better result in the old day of Pentium D  . AMD set the price of this Athlon 64 X2 6000+ at 459 dollars per quantity of thousand , but vs Core 2 Duo E6600 is sold for less than 300 euros, witch make the amd processor too much expensive with its overall equivalent performances. Nothing could justify the overcost required by AMD for its X2 6000+ and especially the excessive heat and power consumption . we hope that AMD will do better with K8L,witch are expected soon xtreview is your : Video card - cpu - memory - Hard drive - power supply unit source we would be happy to answer for your question . if you have suggestion or comment regarding this review our support would be glad to help just join our forum and ask u will get the best answer to discuss check our forum section :-) RATE THIS REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5    / 5   View Stat

computer news computer parts review Old Forum Downloads New Forum Login Join Articles terms Hardware blog Sitemap Get Freebies