AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ out - Still can't beat Intel's E6700

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ out - Still can't beat Intel's E6700

Summary: AMDs latest processor, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, is out - but it still can't beat Intel's E6700

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors
72

Today sees AMD release the Athlon 64 X2 6000+.  This is a dual core processor that runs at 3.0GHz and has 1MB of L2 cache per core (2MB in all). 

Hot Hardware have a review and it's performance is lackluster to say the least.  Compared to other AMD CPUs, yes, it's impressive, but compared to Intel's Core 2 Duo, well, here's what Hot Hardware have to say:

In comparison to all previous socket AM2 processor offerings, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a solid product. Its higher clock speeds make it the fastest AM2 processor ever released, which also make it the fastest desktop CPU ever to come out of AMD's fabs. In the shadow of Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 processors though, the new X2 6000+ isn't quite as impressive. The Core 2 Duos consumed less power overall and performed better in just about every benchmark. AMD has priced the 6000+ aggressively, which somewhat compensates for the Core 2's higher performance.  The 6000+ is almost $500 cheaper than the Athlon 64 FX-62 was when it was launched, which markedly enhances its value proposition. And it's about $60 less expensive than the Core 2 Duo E6700.

What I don't understand is why AMD are still releasing updated Athlon 64 X2's that aren't faster that Intel's processors.  Seems to me that it could be spending  R&D money better on establishing a line that seriously beat Intel either on price or performance (or both).  A shift to a 65nm process would help - the 90nm process has been squeezed dry.

Still, that's a lot of pins on the business side of that processor!

How should AMD move forward?

Topic: Processors

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

72 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • AMD needs..

    I was once an AMD user, before switching to Mac's. Ran Linux on AMD processors.
    There was a time where AMD was winning (somewhat) the processor battle. That is
    until Intel decided to kick it in gear.

    It's hard to compete with Intel. But AMD needs to release some revolutionary chip to
    really compete. I feel that if they don't they will forever be stuck as the cheap
    alternative brand.
    IAHawkeye
    • We can agree on that

      My current computer is an AMD Athlon and was a great deal compared to Intel when I bought it. When I build my next desktop, I'd be crazy to go with anything other than Intel.
      NonZealot
  • Hmmm??

    "A shift to a 65nm process would help - the 90nm process has been squeezed dry."

    I was under the impression AMD *had* moved to 65nm. At least everything coming outta the new fab. What the heck is going on here??
    Techboy_z
    • The 6000+ is based on 90nm process

      They come out of fab 30 and fab 36 in Dresden, Germany
      Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
      • Um, yes...I read that already...

        But Fab 36 is also producing 65 nm units, which is confounding, IMO.

        http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~116039,00.html

        Perhaps some coverage of the new 65 nm CPUs? Even though they are not the fastest AMD offers, they offer a much-improved price/performance/watt over their 90 nm predecessors.

        Additionally, perhaps you could prod AMD for the lowdown on their roadmap...a) when will their leading X2s be on 65 nm? b) why are they not already? c) what else is in the pipeline...we're looking for something big, capable of leapfrogging Core Duo...does it exist? (even on paper?) Get us a real scoop on this, please. Thanks.
        Techboy_z
        • You probably don't realize this ...

          ... but AMD is a very tight-lipped, secretive company. It's darn hard to get much info form them that's not released ... but I'll see what I can find.
          Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
  • Maybe it's just me...

    But why didn't they do the comparison using a 64 bit OS? Why choose to compare using XP SP2?
    zkiwi
    • Good question...

      [b]But why didn't they do the comparison using a 64 bit OS? Why choose to compare using XP SP2?[/b]

      Probably for the same reason that XP SP2 is like still the most popularly available flavor of Windows out there and they wanted to test in a more or less real world scenario.

      Secondly, XP 64 still suffers from driver issue - namely the lack of them.
      Wolfie2K3
      • I guess

        But, if they wanted to be thorough then they could have done their XP test, and then tossed on a 64 bit *nix to see what happened. It's not exactly hard to do, and it would have provided a "here's what you get now in 32 bit land, and here's what you might get in 64 bit land later" viewpoint, which would have been nice.
        zkiwi
    • They don't know how to install Linux...

      Yes, it is rather silly - no - STUPID - to be comparing CPUs in compatibility mode rather than in native mode. However, VisDuh simply isn't ready for x86_64 machines and I guess these folks don't know how to load a 64-bit Linux. That's what happens when script kiddies download and run benchmarking software...
      zoroaster
      • Not "compatibility mode"

        Both AMD64 & EM64T run x86 instructions natively. That was AMD's design, Intel's 64-bit architecture did NOT run x86 natively, but fortuantely EPIC died a slow, quiet death.

        And Windows (or would you call it "M$ W1nd0Wzzzz") has been running 64-bit natively since Windows 2000, running AMD64 (now x64) natively since 2003.
        KTLA
      • Actually I run Vista x64 on numerous systems ...

        ... and have zero issues with finding drivers. It would seem that you don't have a clue. Not suprising for a Linux Luddite dissing something has never tried.
        ShadeTree
        • True ...

          ... but OEMs still seem wary of 64-bit.
          Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
          • The scary part is that consumers ...

            ... don't change their peripherals when they buy a new PC. The worry is some old printer or other legacy device causing an issue. As OEMs we do however have signed drivers for 64bit for all our systems that are shipping.
            ShadeTree
      • They probably chose 32-bit XP ...

        ... so they could compare the data with previous tests.
        Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
  • AMD Counter Attack:

    AMD 4X4 will crush Intel.....Be patient!

    :)
    VonHelton
    • 4x4?

      AMD's 4x4 has been out for months, and does NOT crush Intel.

      When AMD gets the Barcelona wave out the door, only then will Intel take a beating.
      KTLA
      • When Barcelona launches ....

        ... Intel will still be ahead.
        ShadeTree
        • Really?

          The only thing I know for sure is that neither of us actually knows.

          However, I maintain my doubt that comaprably-priced Intel chips will be able to keep up in any of the K10 segments.
          KTLA
          • The whole time AMD was beating Intel ...

            ... Intel was working on Core 2 Duo. They knew they were going to clobber AMD but they had to listen to all the bad press just the same. It is not an experience they will soon forget or repeat. AMD woke the sleeping giant and now they are going to pay.
            ShadeTree