AMD X2 5000+ Black edition useless? am I missing something?

[taltamir]

The 5000+ 2.6ghz black edition costs 30$ less then the 3.0 ghz 6000+ windsor cpu... and the 6000 comes with a cooler, while the black edition one requires you to buy a cooler, and you need to buy a cooler that is at least 40$ to be able to OC to 3.0... a FEW people managed to oc higher (3.2ghz max I heard of)... some only manage to reach 2.8 or so.

Max oc I have seen on the 6000 windsor? also 3.2 (EDIT, i first said 3.55 but i noticed that was not air cooling score. so they both overclock to the same max, 3.2)

Since the black edition comes without a fan it actually costs MORE then the 6000 and gives you much much less... Am I missing something here or is this just a useless lunch to take advantage of suckers?

 

[myocardia]

Nobody has ever run a 6000 @ 3.55 on air, and certainly not with the stock heatsink. In other words, a 5000 would run as fast as a 6000, if both were being cooled by the same high-end watercooler, or other expensive means.

 

[taltamir]

mmm, I missed that the 3.55 wasn't on air...

None the less, ok they can be overclocked to about the same max of 3.2. but the 6000 is gaurenteed to work at 3.0, works at 3.0 out of the box, and costs less when you consider the price of the cooler...

So is there anything architectually different about it that makes up for those shortcommings?

 

[Viditor]

I believe that it's because the 5000 black has an unlocked multiplier, and the 6000 does not, giving you more flexibility in how you overclock...

 

[taltamir]

but it can't overclock as well. Yes it is more flexible but a much weaker cpu. It can overclock to the stock speed of the 6000$ for more money? so what!

I have reread stuff and a ton of people are claiming to oced the 6000 to more then 3.2 meaning that the black edition cannot compare on base speed or overclocking...

this black edition also has LESS L2 cache then the 6000...

The only benefit i see is that the power consumption should be lower on the black edition cpu. Which could be useful if you are running something like boinc all the time, it could balance the costs... but as far as performance goes it fails miserably compared to its older, CHEAPER brother.
So I guess it is not COMPLETELY useless...

I am waiting on the phenoms, maybe they will actually offer something better...

 

[Viditor]

I found a site who reviewed the 5000 with a stable OC at 3.315 GHz...
Review

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I have reread stuff and a ton of people are claiming to oced the 6000 to more then 3.2 meaning that the black edition cannot compare on base speed or overclocking...

I think what you're failing to see is that, for some people, an unlocked multiplier is worth paying $20 more, for the same processor. Not everyone plans ahead, and buys a motherboard that's overclocking friendly. Plus, what about those people with completely unoverclockable motherboards, like the HP's & Dells? That's most likely AMD's target "audience", with this processor-- either people who know absolutely nothing about overclocking, or owner's of Dell's and HP's.

 

[zach0624]

3.2ghz seems a little weak for a 6000+ seeming as I have an ECS with absolutely no (working, the option is in the bios but doesn't do anything) voltage control and still got 3.15ghz orthos stable with a 5600+ at mid forties orthos load with a zalman 9700.

 

[imported_TechKid]

The Black Edition is pretty much an undercover FX. These chips are begging to be overclocked. Unlocked multi and so on make it the overclocker's choice.

 

[opmike]

Umm, you don't need a $40+ HSF to push these over 3.0 GHz and 3.2 (on air) is hardly the highest that these have been pushed. I haven't heard of anyone having trouble achieving at least 3.0 at stock vCore.

My old single-core Orleans was getting a little long in the tooth so I saw the 5000+ BE as a good dual-core upgrade chip for the $127 or so that I paid for it.

 

[Denithor]

X2 5000+ BE
Pro: Unlocked multiplier makes for ultra-easy (read: braindead) overclocking
Pro: 65nm makes it run cooler and may increase overclocking range a bit

X2 6000+
Pro: Higher (guaranteed) performance out-of-the-box (YMMV with 5000+)
Pro: 2 x 1MB cache versus 2 x 512KB for 5000+

You pay 23% more for the 6000+ that will run at least 20% faster at stock than the 5000+ (15% higher clock and ~5% from double cache). If they OC to exactly the same speed the 6000+ will still have a slight advantage from the bigger cache.

The fact that you also don't get even a stock cooler with the 5000+ is just an added insult.

IMO if you need the higher performance pay for it because you might get a crappy 5000+ that won't even reach 3GHz (unlikely, granted, but OC is never guaranteed).

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: taltamir
I have reread stuff and a ton of people are claiming to oced the 6000 to more then 3.2 meaning that the black edition cannot compare on base speed or overclocking...

I think what you're failing to see is that, for some people, an unlocked multiplier is worth paying $20 more, for the same processor. Not everyone plans ahead, and buys a motherboard that's overclocking friendly. Plus, what about those people with completely unoverclockable motherboards, like the HP's & Dells? That's most likely AMD's target "audience", with this processor-- either people who know absolutely nothing about overclocking, or owner's of Dell's and HP's.

Let me make it perfectly clear, I would certainly pay extra for an unlocked multiplier on the FASTEST available amd cpu... but this is paying extra for an unlocked multiplier on a midrange part allowing it to overclock (not gaurenteed or waranteed) to the level of a cheaper cpu.

because you actually need to buy a headsink and fan you are actually paying 60+$ more... which makes it more expensive then a CPU that at stock outperforms your overclock (and can overclock beyond that). And with alot less work, worrying, etc.

You are better off paying LESS money, getting a 6000, and overclocking it... if you want extreme performance, get the 6000 black edition for 100$ more and overclock that... or you know, buy a core 2 duo (since AMD is currently a budget system.... can't compete in performance, but alittle cheaper)

 

[bryanW1995]

the 6400 is actually the fastest cpu they have at 3.2 ghz.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Let me make it perfectly clear, I would certainly pay extra for an unlocked multiplier on the FASTEST available amd cpu... but this is paying extra for an unlocked multiplier on a midrange part allowing it to overclock (not gaurenteed or waranteed) to the level of a cheaper cpu.

because you actually need to buy a headsink and fan you are actually paying 60+$ more... which makes it more expensive then a CPU that at stock outperforms your overclock (and can overclock beyond that). And with alot less work, worrying, etc.

Let me make this perfectly clear: that AMD stock heatsink is worth maybe $10, and for $20, you can buy an Arctic Cooling Freezer 64, that outperforms the stock heatsink. So, $129 for the processor, plus $20 for a better heatsink= still cheaper than the 6000, which is still dropping in price.

The 6000 was $169, the day we started this discussion, and was likely still selling for >$200, when the marketing people (assuming they have any, sometimes I wonder) at AMD decided that a cheaper chip with an unlocked muti would be a good idea. I also checked the price of the 6000 @ newegg, the day the 5000 black edition came out, and the 6000 was $190.

Now, would I buy a 5000 black edition? No, I wouldn't buy anything AMD has for sale, at the moment. What I don't understand is why you're making such a big deal about this one processor. I mean, are you interested in buying the 3600 Brisbane? Why haven't you made a thread condemning that processor also, since it doesn't interest you?

 

[taltamir]

Actually I was wondering if there was any POINT to this cpu, not throwing condemnations. You have raised the good point that it might have been more cost effective early on when they started selling it...

I came across the fact that it should take less power and have added that to the original post with an edit.

So that pretty much settles the question. Now it is not worth buying, when it came out it was more cost effective then it is now. And it might decrease power consumption abit to buy and overclock this to 3ghz rather then buying a 6000.

 

[A554SS1N]

I chewed over this discussion on another forum, and came to the conclusion that, as the black edition 5000+ had the slower per-clock brisbane core, it'd need to run over 3.00Ghz just to equal a stock 5600+, at which point there are diminishing returns. I'd rather have the higher cached product tbh

 

[rchiu]

black edition is more marketing then practical. The really only benefit is the unlocked mulitplier which makes overclock really easy and your other components won't limit your OC. But seriously there isn't a point to ANY of the highend AMD cpu if you are gonna OC. Most of the 60/70 bucks cpu can go close to 3ghz anyway, that's where AMD cpu's value is.

 

[sdsdv10]

Just to add to the discussion,

There is a Black Edition 5000+ at XS doing 3.7GHz on air. http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=162738

on edit: there's also one on H-OCP doing 4.0GHz on dry ice. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1239834

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: rchiu
black edition is more marketing then practical. The really only benefit is the unlocked mulitplier which makes overclock really easy and your other components won't limit your OC. But seriously there isn't a point to ANY of the highend AMD cpu if you are gonna OC. Most of the 60/70 bucks cpu can go close to 3ghz anyway, that's where AMD cpu's value is.

Why get that when you can get a E2180 and easily overclock it to 3GHz for more performance? It's also $40 cheaper...

 

[opmike]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: rchiu
black edition is more marketing then practical. The really only benefit is the unlocked mulitplier which makes overclock really easy and your other components won't limit your OC. But seriously there isn't a point to ANY of the highend AMD cpu if you are gonna OC. Most of the 60/70 bucks cpu can go close to 3ghz anyway, that's where AMD cpu's value is.

Why get that when you can get a E2180 and easily overclock it to 3GHz for more performance? It's also $40 cheaper...

Not everyone has an Intel motherboard. I see the 5000+ as more of an upgrade chip for those with existing AM2 motherboards and heatsinks rather than someone starting a entirely new build who should probably go with Intel anyway.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: opmike
Not everyone has an Intel motherboard. I see the 5000+ as more of an upgrade chip for those with existing AM2 motherboards and heatsinks rather than someone starting a entirely new build who should probably go with Intel anyway.

Not everyone has an AM2 motherboard either. But if you already have an AM2 motherboard that means you have DDR2. So there's nothing that says you can't buy a Abit IP35-E and go the path of an Intel rig. In the end you will probably be much happier.

 

[kmmatney]

The 5000+ seems to only make sense if you already have a decent heatsink/fan and don't need to buy a new one.

 

[taltamir]

excellent point... you might already have a high end cooler that you perhaps bought with your existing AM2 cpu... this will make this the better deal...

Also, if you are running 24/7 at 100% cpu usage (folding@home, seti, whatever) then you will save money on the reduced power consumption (I calculated it to be 37$ a year at 12cents a KWh if you beleive the TDP's... which actually it should be MORE considering what a TDP is it means that if you are running 100% utilization you are going to be drawing way MORE then the TDP.)

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: taltamir
excellent point... you might already have a high end cooler that you perhaps bought with your existing AM2 cpu... this will make this the better deal...

Also, if you are running 24/7 at 100% cpu usage (folding@home, seti, whatever) then you will save money on the reduced power consumption (I calculated it to be 37$ a year at 12cents a KWh if you beleive the TDP's... which actually it should be MORE considering what a TDP is it means that if you are running 100% utilization you are going to be drawing way MORE then the TDP.)

Intel has SpeedStep on their processors.

 

[taltamir]

so does amd. i am pretty certain amd has intel beat in power savings and power reduction tech... they just loose in performance.