VOGONS


Athlon 64 X2 6000+ still fast?

Topic actions

First post, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Hi,

what is your opinion on the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ cpu? I never tried this cpu and I was thinking to test it as linux word excel mail web office machine with a dual channel ocz 5-5-5 2GBx2 kit and SSD. With which Intel machine could I compare it to (for example a Core2 E8600?)

Thank you.

Reply 1 of 23, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Roughly comparable to a first generation Core 2 Duo CPU. They're quite useful for modern computing if equipped with enough RAM.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 2 of 23, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
gdjacobs wrote:

Roughly comparable to a first generation Core 2 Duo CPU. They're quite useful for modern computing if equipped with enough RAM.

Thank you. On the AM2 which any other cpu would be interesting to push this socket to its limit? The board is a K9AGM2.

From some cpu support list it seems the 6000+ and the FX-62 are the fastest cpu I imagine.

Reply 3 of 23, by SW-SSG

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Be mindful of which X2 6000+ variation you buy. There are 90nm versions with 125w and 89w TDPs, running at 3.0GHz with 2x1MB of L2 cache, and a 65nm version with 89w TDP, running at 3.1GHz with 2x512KB L2. Cheaper MBs' VRMs will balk at the 125w TDP version, and AFAIK some older boards can't handle 65nm chips at all, even with BIOS update.

Reply 4 of 23, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

With which Intel machine could I compare it to

Core 2 E6600. Conroe is roughly 25% faster in clock-for-clock comparison.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 5 of 23, by BeginnerGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Athlon 64 x2, especially the 3ghz 6000+, is perfectly usable today. I was using Lubuntu on a 5000+ with 4gb DDR2 for a bit just for some fun. It was very snappy at the OS level and things like libreoffice and watching videos from networked drives was perfectly smooth. I have a Q9400 machine I use instead though so the Athlon went back in storage.

*IF* you define 'usable' as smoothly browsing facebook while playing a youtube video, which seems to be the benchmark of an average PC user today, you may not be happy. Those websites will lock in the CPU at 100% load, especially facebook. I also find they run better on light weight linux distros than they do on Windows XP. For youtube you may be able to get away with a GPU that will do HW acceleration. At this point for social networking I would suggest at minimum a Core 2 Quad Q6600. Others may disagree, but that's been my experience of late.

For a basic benchmark like Passmark, the 6000+ is closest in score to a Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53ghz

Sup. I like computers. Are you a computer?

Reply 6 of 23, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
BeginnerGuy wrote:

Athlon 64 x2, especially the 3ghz 6000+, is perfectly usable today. I was using Lubuntu on a 5000+ with 4gb DDR2 for a bit just for some fun. It was very snappy at the OS level and things like libreoffice and watching videos from networked drives was perfectly smooth. I have a Q9400 machine I use instead though so the Athlon went back in storage.

*IF* you define 'usable' as smoothly browsing facebook while playing a youtube video, which seems to be the benchmark of an average PC user today, you may not be happy. Those websites will lock in the CPU at 100% load, especially facebook. I also find they run better on light weight linux distros than they do on Windows XP. For youtube you may be able to get away with a GPU that will do HW acceleration. At this point for social networking I would suggest at minimum a Core 2 Quad Q6600. Others may disagree, but that's been my experience of late.

For a basic benchmark like Passmark, the 6000+ is closest in score to a Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53ghz

geekbench also seems to indicate performance on par with e7200
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/ … seline=10444170

but I think for gaming the e7200 would be better,
also it handles some modern tasks better, like it supports SSE4.1 which helps nicely for some video decoding (like HEVC)
and when you consider the power usage...

and yes I agree, it might struggle with facebook and multitasking

Reply 7 of 23, by PTherapist

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I'm running an Athlon 64 X2 6400+ with 4GB RAM as a Web Server, with Ubuntu as the OS. The 6400+ is the fastest CPU my motherboard will accept and for my needs it's absolutely fine. Still usable as a modern PC, though I would hate to have to run it as my main day to day system. Even an Intel Core 2 Quad from the same era feels the strain on the modern Web. I used to leave Firefox open with 100s of tabs on a Core 2 Quad Q6600 with 4GB RAM and the Firefox process would need ending every couple of hours as it bogged down the system. 🤣

I've actually recently retired a PC from active daily usage that had a slower CPU than you're aiming for - Athlon 64 X2 5200+ with 4GB RAM, running Windows 10. It wasn't a speed demon, but served my family's needs well. Only the occasional moans about slowness and it was pitiful when they tried to watch streaming video on certain websites. The 6000+ should cope a little better there, but certainly with lots of 100% CPU usage spikes.

I also have several other Socket AM2 based systems, all still useful as modern systems in some way:

Athlon 64 X2 5600+ that's in use as a HTPC, running Windows 8.1 with Kodi. Handles HD video playback & live TV etc with ease.

Athlon 64 X2 5000+ that's my classic Hackintosh setup, to cover early Mac OS X era games & apps on Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. Been playing Doom 3 on that setup recently with max settings.

Sempron 3500+ this is currently just a spare PC that I may make into a backup HTPC. I did overclock this from 2.0GHz to 2.7GHz though, which certainly helps.

Reply 8 of 23, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

In most apps, it'll be similar to an E6400. Integer-heavy programs will put the X2 slightly ahead, while programs that rely more on FP/SSE performance will give the Core 2 a boost.

The E8600 is much faster. I have an Opteron 185 clocked at 3GHz (same as the X2-6000), and it doesn't even come close to my e8600. The E8600 still feels fairly nimble browsing js-heavy sites in Chrome, while the Opteron painfully chugs along.

P6 chip. Triple the speed of the Pentium.
Tualatin: PIII-S @ 1628 MHz | QDI Advance 12T | 2GB DDR-310 | 6800GT | X-Fi | 500GB HDD | 3DMark01: 14,059
Dothan: PM @ 2720 MHz | MSI Speedster FA4 | 2GB DDR2-544 | GTX-280 | X-Fi | 500GB SSD | 3DMark01: 42,148

Reply 9 of 23, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Much as I respect the ad-based business model for free content on the web, I feel a lot of ad providers have completely overstepped the mark with massively impacting code on their ads. Some can even bring a recent Core i7 to its knees, let alone a system like this. Given that the actual desired content is well within the capabilities of the system, a certain level of ad-blocking can hugely improve performance and usability at web browsing. If you are selective about it, you can block the worst offenders without starving sites with 'decent' ads of their revenue.

Reply 10 of 23, by vvbee

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Runs hot. I prefer the low-power versions, like the 5050e.

I'd underclock and undervolt it and use it for a passive win 98 machine. You should be able to get the tdp down to about five or so watts at 800 mhz.

Reply 11 of 23, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Yeah A64 looks really awfully inefficient compared to Core 2. It's totally outclassed. I guess it's not useless. Fun to experiment with maybe. Meh. E8600 chips are almost free these days however and those leave even Phenom II behind in some things. Almost modern performance there.

I have more retro interest in 939 than AM2 for K8 things.

Reply 12 of 23, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

and it doesn't even come close to my e8600

No surprise there, since high-end Wolfdale is 50%+ faster. Also can be easily overclocked to 4ghz or more.

I have more retro interest in 939 than AM2 for K8 things.

They're practically the same thing though.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 13 of 23, by Unknown_K

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I have one in a machine I play Age of Empires 2 online with. You need a copper heatsink like the one Phenoum II's came with (if you have the 125W model) or better, Other then the heat is is a decent vintage CPU for gaming. I wouldn't run modern tasks on one (you pretty much need a quad core Phenom or better for that these days).

Collector of old computers, hardware, and software

Reply 14 of 23, by nforce4max

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Fun to build with but for regular use I wouldn't bother outside of retro gaming as they run too hot and not all that fast, like others have said Avoid the 125w versions. Phenom (both gens) on the other hand is still nice in my book.

On a far away planet reading your posts in the year 10,191.

Reply 15 of 23, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Thank you all for your answers. My version of the 6000+ is the 125W one and the mainboard actually boot it, need to test it.

Funny it was mentioned the E7200. Today I found also a "945GC-M7 TE" mobo that support up to the E7200 and the E6850. So basically I imagine same sort of performances even if one thing I don't understand on these cpus, why the E7200 with a better process and much lower freqs/fsb still requires 65W? It seems the best cpu for that mobo.

Reply 16 of 23, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It doesn't require 65W.
It simply was made to use this spec.
Basicly : Intel is too lazy to make few TDP points in desktop CPUs.
They stick to what they have to claim better perf with the same cooling.
It can bite them in the a** like in 8700k/9900k case.

157143230295.png

Reply 17 of 23, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I am actually using now this 6000+ with the K9AGM2 board. I am trying the latest Ubuntu version with Qt interface. It feels fast enough as I was expecting but what suprised me is how still fastthe previous Pentium 4 3,4Ghz Prescott on the old 478 socket compare to this in the real world usage. But anyway some bench for example on single core in the "System Profiler and Benchmark" app:

P4 3,4: CPU Blowfish test: 10,5 seconds
6000+: 6.5 seconds (lower better)

P4 3,4: FPU Raytracing test: 55 seconds
6000+ 7 seconds (lower better) 😲

Temperatures are lower than expected and power requirements are more or less like the P4 with 150W on full usage and 50W at idle at the wall plug (integrated gpu, pci sound card, ssd).

Reply 18 of 23, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
vvbee wrote:

Runs hot. I prefer the low-power versions, like the 5050e.

I'd underclock and undervolt it and use it for a passive win 98 machine. You should be able to get the tdp down to about five or so watts at 800 mhz.

Pretty much this.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 19 of 23, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

A friend of mine actually used a A64 x2 6000+ as a main LAN rig for years, till the system gave out due to problems with the PSU and the system getting upgraded sequentially till the CPU was left without a system to run in.

It's the 125W version and needed DDR2, but it worked pretty well for what it is.

If one wants efficiency, this CPU will not be the best choice. But this isn't a bad thing I think, or nobody would be running any P4 anymore these days (and I found Northwood to be quite nice to use, actually).

It has its own limits regarding its use, but the CPU will work alright these days for a spare LAN rig, playing somewhat older games.

But imo an AM3 CPU is the better choice here.

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!