PDA

View Full Version : AMD releases Athlon 64 X2 5200+, today


Heinz68
09-06-06, 02:25 PM
The 5200+ runs at a clock speed of 2.6 GHz and is fitted with a dual, 1-MB L2 cache. As with AMD's top-of-the-line desktop dual-core, the FX-62, the 5200+ uses AMD's new AM2 socket.
Priced at $403 each for 1000 unit.

Wish it was also for socket 939, AMD could probably sell many of them.

http://www.hartware.de/press_5281.html

PeterJensen
09-06-06, 03:10 PM
Mjaaaa i find it kind of useless. It cant match for a Core2duo.

a12ctic
09-06-06, 04:34 PM
Mjaaaa i find it kind of useless. It cant match for a Core2duo.
eh, for 400$, 2.6ghz will match the 6400-6600 at a simular price, id say its a pretty good chip.

Heinz68
09-06-06, 05:09 PM
Mjaaaa i find it kind of useless. It cant match for a Core2duo.Come on, sure it's useless for your system. It might not be so useless for people that have Socket AM2 and like to upgrade.
The AMD X2 5200+ is same like the FX-60 for Socket 939 , only much cheaper and for Socket AM2 only.

Roadhog
09-06-06, 06:02 PM
eh, for 400$, 2.6ghz will match the 6400-6600 at a simular price, id say its a pretty good chip.

Doubt that.

a12ctic
09-06-06, 06:05 PM
Doubt that.
@2.8ghz the fx beats the 6600 in 70%+ of benchies, @2.6 the 5200 will probobly beat the 6600 in 45-55% and the 6400 in 60-70%.

Roadhog
09-06-06, 06:12 PM
@2.8ghz the fx beats the 6600 in 70%+ of benchies, @2.6 the 5200 will probobly beat the 6600 in 45-55% and the 6400 in 60-70%.

Yah, this really look like it beats it in 70% of the benchies to me... You need to get your eyes checked.

http://xtreview.com/review115.htm

K007
09-06-06, 06:12 PM
gg 939

Bearclaw
09-06-06, 06:16 PM
If it was for socket 939 I would think about it. Right now I am just not ready to upgrade my motherboard and RAM on top of the CPU.

HighTest
09-06-06, 06:57 PM
Yah, this really look like it beats it in 70% of the benchies to me... You need to get your eyes checked.

http://xtreview.com/review115.htm

While Core 2 Duo is still shown as the leader in this pack, you'll notice how close the AMD came.

What's exciting is that I didn't even have to spend more than $153.00 to get similar results as my X2 3800+ is overclocking to 2.6 easily (even on hot days. Lately with an ambient temp of 82 degrees F in my room I've had to keep it at that speed. When on cool days I can tweek it up even higher yet and this is on air.)

Again Core 2 Duo may lead in performance at any cost (and the E6800 isn't cheap), at least the AMD performance is there enough that I don't see the reason to upgrade.

evilchris
09-13-06, 09:13 PM
@2.8ghz the fx beats the 6600 in 70%+ of benchies, @2.6 the 5200 will probobly beat the 6600 in 45-55% and the 6400 in 60-70%.


http://showcase.netins.net/web/flexia/fanboy1a.jpg


You just can't stand the FACT that intel has the faster, cheaper, lower power consumption chip can you.

a12ctic
09-13-06, 09:22 PM
single app performance on the c2d may be better, but try running 2 threads of superpi, one testing each core and youll notice its flaw, the unified cache is a nice trick for single threaded apps, but it will fail once applications really take advantage of 2 cores.

superklye
09-13-06, 10:13 PM
Dude, you can't just throw numbers out like that. You need something to back up your claims.

DataMatrix
09-13-06, 11:03 PM
Just had to say this:
AMD FANBOYISM FTW!!!

ViN86
09-14-06, 12:57 AM
Mjaaaa i find it kind of useless. It cant match for a Core2duo.
i <3 threadcrappers

http://www.lanmaniac.com/Images/threadcrap_lmstyle.gif

he made no statements regarding its performance. just said it was released today.

Riptide
09-14-06, 02:25 AM
Sucks that 939 is a dead socket. I would probably buy one otherwise. :(

AMD will ofcourse get my money again sooner or later. But they'll have to wait a while before I chuck practically everything I have but my video card. :p

john19055
09-14-06, 12:55 PM
You can get a 4400+(89w) for $221 and they overclock great.yes the conroe is faster and some game you get 250FPS where as with a X2 you just get 200FPS and on some of the newer games it is real close because they are GPU limited.but you don't have to upgrade everthing ,but if you are going to upgrade everthing anyway then you would be better off with a conroe,but if you just want some more speed and the X2 have went down in price a lot.

Heinz68
09-14-06, 10:06 PM
You can get a 4400+(89w) for $221 and they overclock great.yes the conroe is faster and some game you get 250FPS where as with a X2 you just get 200FPS and on some of the newer games it is real close because they are GPU limited.but you don't have to upgrade everthing ,but if you are going to upgrade everthing anyway then you would be better off with a conroe,but if you just want some more speed and the X2 have went down in price a lot.Well not much helpful for "Riptide" or me. The 1000MB extra memory on the 4400+ doesn't make it worth to to upgrade.
Not much left for us to upgrade on Socket 939 except the still very much overpriced FX-60.
The AMD 5200+ plus is exactly that, finally AMD got the naming right :), I guess in order to sell the chip much cheaper.
The problem is, the 5200+ is only for AM2 socket. I probably wont do complete update for a about year and by that time we probably have AM3 Socket and new Intel Socket for DDR3.

Yes for some the 4400+ is nice upgrade or even the 3800+ for only about $150 USD

Yes same like you I believe anybody going for the complete upgrade RIGHT NOW, the best is to buy one of the Conroe chips.

lukrad
09-14-06, 10:27 PM
Intel CPU sucks big time undex Windows XP X64Edition...

Heinz68
09-15-06, 07:29 AM
Intel CPU sucks big time undex Windows XP X64Edition...Any more details on that ?.....and the source

DataMatrix
09-15-06, 08:00 AM
Any more details on that ?.....and the source

IA64 sucks compared to AMD64 instruction sets.

Stoneyguy
09-15-06, 10:18 AM
IA64 basicly is AMD64

Heinz68
09-15-06, 10:54 AM
IA64 sucks compared to AMD64 instruction sets.
Well we are of topic here and still not the source.

At Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64)
IA-64 was develop by Intel and HP for the Itanium processors and uses the Windows 64 Server Version

"lucrad" posted "Intel CPU sucks big time undex Windows XP X64Edition"
Here you can read System requirements (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/trial.mspx) for the x64: Intel CPUs with "EM64T support"

Also note on the same page:
Important: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition cannot be successfully installed on 64-bit Intel Itanium-based systems.

At ExtremeTech (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1561875,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532) an industry analyst has concluded that Intel reverse-engineered AMD64 instruction set to create the Extended Memory 64 Technology, or "Intel EM64T", so there should not be much difference between the AMD 64bit and Intel 64bit for Windows x64 Edition.

Stoneyguy
09-15-06, 05:17 PM
Ahh thanks for clearing that up. I always assumed that EM64T and IA64 were basicly the same thing and that both were derived from the AMD64 instruction set. Now that I think about it though the IA64 set was released before the AMD64 set... if memory serves.

Ok that's enough threadjacking for me. :p

a12ctic
09-15-06, 05:38 PM
ia64 has no backwards compatability, and 64bit chips have been around forever, intel didnt create them and neither did amd, amd created 64bit chips that could not only run the new, faster 64bit applications, but also the old, legacy 32bit apps just as fast. EM64 is not as good as amd's A64, although it is close, and the perforamcne difference is probobly minimal.