# E7200 vs. X2 5600+



## Mitch?

Which is better? Here's a guide...
In -
1) Overclocking
2) Multitask
3) Gaming
4) Motherboard (as in, which has access to better, cheap motherboard)
5) Overall/Extra comments

It'll be paired with an HD3870 and 2gb DDR800 ram. The DDR800 will probably be upgraded to DDR1066 soon though.

PS... All motherboards have to be uATX.


----------



## Steelshivan

1) Overclocking - The Intel E7200.

2) Multitask - The Intel E7200.

3) Gaming - The Intel E7200.

4) Motherboard - I have found that on average, AMD seems to have access to solid mobos at a cheaper price.  Also, Pcie 2.0 is easy to find on AMD mobos at most any price point, while you have to shell out considerably more for an Intel one with Pcie 2.0

5) Overall/Extra comments - As Pcie 2.0 mobo capability likely won't be needed for a while, I would go with the Intel E7200 as it is clearly the better route to go regarding performance.  By the time you need a mobo with Pcie 2.0, you can just upgrade.


----------



## daisymtc

Steelshivan said:


> 1)
> 4) Motherboard - I have found that on average, AMD seems to have access to solid mobos at a cheaper price.  Also, Pcie 2.0 is easy to find on AMD mobos at most any price point, while you have to shell out considerably more for an Intel one with Pcie 2.0



The intel G45 chipset, supporting PCI-E x 16 2.0, will be start coming out. But Probably need to wait until Jul/Aug to allow the price to come down.


----------



## mrjack

I'm getting the E7200, hopefully my parts will be here tomorrow. It's supposed to be a good CPU, can even be OC'ed by 500MHz at stock voltage according to a review I've read.

Also, if you haven't bought the HD3870 already, I'd recommend you to seriously take a look at the GeForce 8800GT. It costs slightly more but it's quite a bit better.



daisymtc said:


> The intel G45 chipset, supporting PCI-E x 16 2.0, will be start coming out. But Probably need to wait until Jul/Aug to allow the price to come down.



MSI P7N SLI Platinum and MSI P7N Zilent use nVidia's 750i chipset and those have 3 PCI-Express 2.0 slots. In Finland they go for about $150-200


----------



## Geoff

E7200 all the way, especially with overclocking.


----------



## Mitch?

I've already got the HD3870, thanks to ThatGuy16, and considerably cheaper than an 8800...
So wait till price drops in July then?? I've decided on the E7200, but how much do you think prices would drop?


----------



## ThatGuy16

Definitely get the E7200 over the X25600+. I had the 5600+ before my E8400, it is a good performer. But you'll get more bang for the buck with the 7200.

PS: I'm off to the post office now.


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

The Intel chip is the better way to go, IMO.


----------



## Ramodkk

E7200 FTW, in all aspects! 

*Off topic:*

ThatGuy16, what's your new 3dmark06 score?


----------



## ThatGuy16

12100 lol


----------



## Ramodkk

Wow!  ~8,000 for the extra HD3870? Nice!


----------



## ThatGuy16

I remind you, 12,100 is a 4.0Ghz. The 20k was at 4.6Ghz 


To the op, i hope you find a deal on a E7200


----------



## MosIncredible

E7200 definitely. Best budget processor available right now


----------



## maroon1

E7200 at stock speeds is faster than 6400+ (fastest AMD X2)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-x3-8750_6.html


----------



## Ethan3.14159

maroon1 said:


> E7200 at stock speeds is faster than 6400+ (fastest AMD X2)
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-x3-8750_6.html



i highly doubt that article (heavy bias favoring intel if you read the other articles on that site), i could give you some benchmarks from amd that would basically swap the 2. finding a neutral source is difficult. 

anyway....the 6400+ (not even including the BE which is even faster) is one of the fastest, and highest performing dual cores to date. it even scores better than phenom 9850 in some benchmarks. not to mention it destroys any similarly priced intel in performance. and there is my biased opinion favoring amd

i can sense the amd and intel fanboys warming up for this one.....


----------



## Bradan

E7200 is definitely a beast

have it at 3.7 Ghz.. blazing fast vs my old e4300@2.8 (bad chip)

im within max VID spec of 1.365v

[sarcasm] Ethan, your right, here come the fanboys! [/sarcasm]

Im hitting a 14.5 super pi 1M, which is pretty sweet =D


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Bradan said:


> E7200 is definitely a beast
> 
> have it at 3.7 Ghz.. blazing fast vs my old e4300@2.8 (bad chip)
> 
> im within max VID spec of 1.365v
> 
> [sarcasm] Ethan, your right, here come the fanboys! [/sarcasm]
> 
> Im hitting a 14.5 super pi 1M, which is pretty sweet =D




3.7 ghz?!?!?! isnt the stock speed 2.53 ghz?
thats madness! i will give intel the fact they have much more room for overclocking. the furthest ive ever been able to go with my 5000+ is from 2.6ghz to 3.3 ghz (idling at 50*C too)


----------



## maroon1

Ethan3.14159 said:


> i highly doubt that article (heavy bias favoring intel if you read the other articles on that site), i could give you some benchmarks from amd that would basically swap the 2. finding a neutral source is difficult.



The article is not biased, but according to you any review that shows the truth is biased.

I challenge you to show me *one review *that shows E7200 having worse *average* performance than 6400+ in real-world applications and gaming. 

And xbitlabs is know to be one of the most reliable source on the internet. I'm pretty sure that many people agree with me on that

Anyway, here is another review for E7200 that shows similar results
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=5

So, now it not just one review but it is two review from two difference sources. Both xbitlabs and anandtech are two popular sources.




> not to mention it destroys any similarly priced intel in performance. and there is my biased opinion favoring amd


At newegg E7200 is cheaper than both 6000+ and 6400+. And it outperforms both even at stock speeds. Not to mention that E7200 consume less power and overclocks much better




> it even scores better than phenom 9850 in some benchmarks.


E7200 does outperform Phenom 9850 in some benchmaks

So, what is your point?



> .the 6400+ (not even including the BE which is even faster) is one of the fastest, and highest performing dual cores to date.


It the fastest AMD dual core, but it is not the fastest dual core, and it is not one of the highest performing dual cores to date because many Intel dual cores outperform it easily even at stock speeds


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Ethan3.14159 said:


> i can sense the amd and intel fanboys warming up for this one.....



i'll quote myself

anyway, im not going to argue because no one's opinion will be changed by it. the intel e7200 is a good cpu but cant be compared to the amd 6400+, maybe compare it to the 5000+ 

don't enjoy dealing with fanboys.....


----------



## maroon1

Ethan3.14159 said:


> i'll quote myself
> 
> anyway, im not going to argue because no one's opinion will be changed by it. the intel e7200 is a good cpu but cant be compared to the amd 6400+, maybe compare it to the 5000+
> 
> don't enjoy dealing with fanboys.....



Raw numbers are not an opinion 

It is not my opinion that E7200 is better than 6400+. The benchmarks show E7200 outperforming 6400+ most of the time.

E7200 is overall better performer than 6400+ in gaming and real-world applications, and almost all the reviews are showing that. I posted two review and until now you haven't show any review that shows otherwise.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

maroon1 said:


> Raw numbers are not an opinion
> 
> It is not my opinion that E7200 is better than 6400+. The benchmarks show E7200 outperforming 6400+ most of the time.
> 
> E7200 is overall better performer than 6400+ in gaming and real-world applications, and almost all the reviews are showing that. And until now you haven't show any review that shows otherwise.



raw numbers from one source doesnt equal fact, and that one benchamrk test has variables like the motherboard for example. this is like when i built my first computer, ordered a 1.4 ghz amd processor and it claimed to be faster than intels 1.8 ghz processor and tried desperately to back it up with benchmarks, and it wasnt even close to as fast.


----------



## maroon1

Ethan3.14159 said:


> raw numbers from one source doesnt equal fact



I posted another review from anadtech in one of my previous posts

So, it two sources.

And this is the third one
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14573/8

3 vs 0

I think I'm the winner.

In addition to that E7200 is cheaper than both 6000+ and 6400+


----------



## Geoff

Ethan3.14159 said:


> 3.7 ghz?!?!?! isnt the stock speed 2.53 ghz?
> thats madness! i will give intel the fact they have much more room for overclocking. the furthest ive ever been able to go with my 5000+ is from 2.6ghz to 3.3 ghz (idling at 50*C too)


Yup, the Intel's are amazing overclockers.  I got my Q6600 from 2.4 to 3.8GHz, and my Pentium Dual-Core from 2.2GHz to 3.3GHz.


----------



## MosIncredible

[-0MEGA-];991875 said:
			
		

> Yup, the Intel's are amazing overclockers.  I got my Q6600 from 2.4 to 3.8GHz, and my Pentium Dual-Core from 2.2GHz to 3.3GHz.



Wish I had water, or a top notch air even. I think I could get 3.8GHz with this Q6600 on air. I can boot & run SuperPI 1M with 1.39v


----------



## Geoff

MosIncredible said:


> Wish I had water, or a top notch air even. I think I could get 3.8GHz with this Q6600 on air. I can boot & run SuperPI 1M with 1.39v


The Q6600 got up to 3.6GHz on air, and the E2200 I got up to 3.3GHz on air.


----------

