Black Edition - Which one to get?

Roberty

Roberty

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
44,435
I'm about to pull the trigger on a new build and I'm going to give my 15 year old son my present X2 6000 system. I decided to just go with a Black Edition proc and wait for the Phenoms to get the clock speed up before I jump in there. Which Black Edition processor would be the better one to get - the 5000+ or the 6400+? The price difference really isn't a problem but I wonder if the differences between the 90nm of the 6400+ or the 65nm of the 5000+ is the deal maker. Any input would be appreciated.
 
The 6400 stock clock is 3.2, and my 5000 non-BE watercooled will only go to 3.1 (could be my mobo, won't even go above 250 FSB :rolleyes:)

I'd go for the 6400, no sense in a new build with a slower cpu.
 
N3mi5is said:
The 6400 stock clock is 3.2, and my 5000 non-BE watercooled will only go to 3.1 (could be my mobo, won't even go above 250 FSB :rolleyes:)

I'd go for the 6400, no sense in a new build with a slower cpu.
Click to expand...


That was my initial plan but I thought I'd play devil's advocate and see if there is something I missed before ordering the 6400+.
 
I've read of many taking their BE 5000+ to 3+ghz.

Maybe it's me but that is plenty fast unless your folding and need every spare CPU cycle.

Save the extra $$ and get a getter vid card.

 
Kendrak said:
I've read of many taking their BE 5000+ to 3+ghz.

Maybe it's me but that is plenty fast unless your folding and need every spare CPU cycle.

Save the extra $$ and get a getter vid card.

Click to expand...

I've already have all the video card that I want or need. Thanks for the input.


N3mi5is said:
Just so ya know, the BE processor's don't come with a HSF.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that and already have a beefy heatsink and fan ready to go. Thanks
 
My 5000+ BE is sitting at 3ghz 24hr prime stable on a crappy coolermaster heatsink in an MATX. It will hit 3.2ghz but will BSOD once in a while, but I think thats becuase of my ram. I'm sure this chip could go farther, but 3ghz is more than enough for me.
 
This is where an Intel fanboy comes in and tell you to get an Intel CPU instead ;)

Joke aside, I would choose the 5000+ over the 6400+. Sure the 6400+ is faster and could get to a higher clock speed when OCed but the 5000+ is cheaper and uses less power. I don't think that there would be much difference between 3.4GHz and 3.0GHz. If you choose the 5000+, you could use the extra money to get a great AM2+ mobo like the M3A32 MVP Deluxe Wifi.
 
It's hard to say that the 5000+ would be a bad choice...



5000+ @ close to 3.2GHz on a TForce570 SLI with a Scythe Mugen (Infinity)
 
I'd pick the 6400+ Black Edition. Should OC a little higher and has more L2... unless you'd rather go 65nm and cheaper.
 
What mobo are you going to use?.... you want to make sure that it can handle the higher wattage requirements of the 6400. It just depends on whether you want to spend the extra dollars for the extra MHz. That being said, my 5000 BE is working great for me.
 
My 5000+ BE will clock to 3.2, but core1 will dump in orthos everytime. I think its because I'm not running an eps12v psu, and therefor only have 4 of the 8pins for cpu power connected. However, it games fine, decodes dvd's and encodes divx fine, and stays plenty cool. It will orthos 24hrs on 3.0 and 3.1 GHz

The plus of 6400+ is larger cache, a guaranteed 3.2GHz. Con is heat and 90nm.

The plus of 5000+ is the newer 65nm, guaranteed for 2.6GHz, and it runs cooler. Con is lower cache.

Those points are what I tossed around, and now that I have the 5000+ BE, I wish I would have got the 6400+.
 
quadnad said:
With AMD, I'd argue 90nm is a good thing. Their F3s are by far the best and most consistently clocking processors in the K8 realm.
Click to expand...

Ohhh don't get me wrong. I agree their current 90's are great, hence my feelings towards getting the 6400+ over the 5000+. They clock well, and in the case of my old 90m 4200+, it clocked better than my 5000+. I just stated it because of those people out there who feel that 90nm is old-and-busted tech.
 
Version_3 said:
Ohhh don't get me wrong. I agree their current 90's are great, hence my feelings towards getting the 6400+ over the 5000+. They clock well, and in the case of my old 90m 4200+, it clocked better than my 5000+. I just stated it because of those people out there who feel that 90nm is old-and-busted tech.
Click to expand...

I think the bigger con is that for the price of a 6400+ you should definitely be looking to the other side of the fence for better overclockability, better performance, and better TDP. The 5000+ is probably the best pick out of the two of those simply because it's much cheaper.
 
Kendrak said:
I've read of many taking their BE 5000+ to 3+ghz.

Maybe it's me but that is plenty fast unless your folding and need every spare CPU cycle.

Save the extra $$ and get a getter vid card.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Your gaming is GPU limited, a dual core at 2.5GHz or higher is all you need if you are playing at resolutions above 1440.
 
I'm running a 6400+ and it hasn't let me down yet. It does everything that I need it to do and games exceptionally well with my 3870X2.

IMHO, I would go for the faster processor since you already have a videocard that you're going to use. You will also have some headroom to overclock as I was able to get my 6400+ to 3.5ghz.
 
I had both, and although I went with the 6400+, both have their pros and cons like Version_3 mentioned. For me, my 5000+ wouldn't overclock past 2.9-3.0 stably, and 3.2 wanted dangerously high amounts of voltage that I didn't want to give it (1.5+, and still nowhere stable). I wanted full memory utilization, so it was either 2.8 or 3.2, and a 200MHz overclock on a BE seemed weak to me, so I went with the guaranteed 3.2GHz that the 6400+ offered. The drawback is that the thing's a space heater all by itself.
 
bender said:
I am running the 5000+ BE @ 3.2ghz air cooling. Great CPU for the $.
Click to expand...

same. with 1.35v no less :D


btw, what will you be doing with your system? with my custom high quality settings and an 8800gt, crysis is waiting on the cpu way longer than i would like ;)
 
i suspect that the 6400+ BE is just a 6000+ with unlocked multiplier clocked at 3200 mhz.

I dont think buying a 6400+ BE will give any advantage at all.
 
you're buying the higher stock speed and unlocked multiplier. i'd venture a guess that it's worth it for some. if it's not, then the 5000+ is a better choice than the 6000+ anyway.
 
5000+, but maybe I'm biased ;)

Untitled-1-1.jpg
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this: If you're just using this processor as a stopgap before getting a Phenom, why not save some $$ and go with the 5000+?

You should have no trouble getting it to at least 3 ghz (as mine is on a stock AM2 cooler), and possibly more if you actually have a good cooler. Depending on what you intend to use it for, the possible gains from a 6400+ could be fairly negligible anyways. My $0.02.
 
Thats quite a nice overclock. curious to know the temperature of that.

an AMD 8000+ CPU, not bad :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
if you wanna play that way, i am biased too :D
Click to expand...

:eek:
I'm guessing a phase change setup to get that much out of it - correct Eclipse?

I'va about to order my new setup tomorrow. I've about decided to just go with a 6400+ for now until the Phenom's get their clockspeeds up.

Thanks for all the help guys.
 
I just got my 5000+ black yesterday, its not up yet, waiting on my new HDD and Vista.

With $200 to spend on CPU and Motherboard I went with it, but I must say I've been getting some flak for not going Intel.

I'm not chasing after any benchmarks so... whatever I get out of it as long as its 3+ I'll be happy.
 
Fonzie said:
I just got my 5000+ black yesterday, its not up yet, waiting on my new HDD and Vista.

With $200 to spend on CPU and Motherboard I went with it, but I must say I've been getting some flak for not going Intel.

I'm not chasing after any benchmarks so... whatever I get out of it as long as its 3+ I'll be happy.
Click to expand...

It will be a good rig, just make sure to fold with the cpu cycles you are not using :D

 
idletempsdy7.jpg

Brisbane was my choice for the temps. This is on a Zalman 9500 running full speed. Read reports of much higher temps from people on NewEgg with who got 6400s. Both chips pretty much rock though, the best AMD duals for sure.
 
The Pharaoh said:
This is on a Zalman 9500 running full speed. Read reports of much higher temps from people on NewEgg with who got 6400s. Both chips pretty much rock though, the best AMD duals for sure.
Click to expand...

hey wait, your temp sensor looks right. rmclock tries to tell me that one core is ~14c and the other is ~1c :confused:
 
Speedfan was telling me that my 5000+ at 3ghz on a crappy heatsink was 5c idle and 10c load :p. I know that Biostar's monitoring utility shows correct temps. I guess it's something to do with the BIOS or somesuch.
 
indeed, because dfi's temperature program was giving me believable temps too, it was just speedfan and coretemp that freaked out on me :(
 
Thats what confused me, is the Biostar program detected the correct(or at least beleivable) temperature, and yet speedfan didnt? I take it they read different sensors, which is sort of odd.
 
My Asus utility reads between 10 and 20 Celsius high, while RMClock seems to be totally accurate. I experienced the same issue on one DFI 790 board I used, which had the same ITE monitoring chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top