Athlon 64 X2 6000+ [in 3 benchmarks]
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Buy
- Interface
- Core clock speed
- Max video memory
- Memory type
- Memory clock speed
- Maximum resolution
Summary
AMD started AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sales on August 2007. This is Windsor architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 2 cores and 2 threads, and is based on 90 nm manufacturing technology, with a maximum frequency of 3100 MHz and a locked multiplier.
Compatibility-wise, this is AMD Socket AM2 processor with a TDP of 125 Watt.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
0.92%
of a leader’s which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
Athlon 64
X2 6000+
vs
EPYC
7h22
General info
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and pricing.
Place in performance rating | 2431 | |
Value for money | 1.10 | |
Market segment | Desktop processor | |
Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2009) | |
Release date | August 2007 (15 years ago) | |
Current price | $53 | of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282) |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of the processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.
- 0
- 50
- 100
Technical specs
Basic microprocessor parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters can generally indicate CPU performance, but to be more precise you have to review its test results.
Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | |
Threads | 2 | |
Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | of 5.8 (Core i9-13900K) |
L1 cache | 256 KB | of 1536 (EPYC Embedded 3401) |
L2 cache | 512K | of 12288 (Core 2 Quad Q9550) |
L3 cache | 0 KB | of 32768 (Ryzen Threadripper 1998) |
Chip lithography | 90 nm | of 5 (Apple M1) |
Die size | 220 mm2 | |
Number of transistors | 227 million | of 57000 (Apple M1 Max) |
64 bit support | + | |
Windows 11 compatibility | — |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 6000+ compatibility with other computer components and devices: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one.
Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | of 8 (Opteron 842) |
Socket | AM2 | |
Thermal design power (TDP) | 125 Watt | of 400 (Xeon Platinum 9282) |
Benchmark performance
Single-core and multi-core benchmark results of Athlon 64 X2 6000+. Overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
0.92
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single-Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
925
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
277
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
507
Relative perfomance
Overall Athlon 64 X2 6000+ performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop CPUs.
AMD Athlon II X2 215
102.17
Intel Pentium E5400
101.09
Intel Celeron E3500
101.09
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
100
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
97.83
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+
97.83
Intel Pentium E5300
97.83
Intel equivalent
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Athlon 64 X2 6000+ from Intel is Celeron E3500, which is faster by 1% and higher by 5 positions in our rating.
Celeron
E3500
Compare
Here are some closest Intel rivals to Athlon 64 X2 6000+:
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200
103.26
Intel Celeron E3500
101.09
Intel Pentium E5400
101.09
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
100
Intel Pentium E5300
97.83
Intel Pentium G620T
96.74
Intel Pentium E5200
93.48
Similar processors
Here is our recommendation of several processors that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.
Pentium
E5400
Compare
Athlon 64
X2 5400+
Compare
Athlon 64
X2 5600+
Compare
Pentium
E5300
Compare
Athlon II
X2 215
Compare
Core 2
Duo E7200
Compare
Recommended graphics cards
These graphics cards are most commonly used with Athlon 64 X2 6000+ according to our statistics.
GeForce
9600 GT
10.2%
GeForce GTS
450
5.7%
GeForce
9800 GT
4.5%
GeForce GTX
550 Ti
3.6%
GeForce GT
710
3.4%
GeForce GT
730
3%
GeForce GTX
650
2.7%
GeForce GT
240
2. 6%
GeForce
8600 GT
2.6%
GeForce GT
630
2.5%
User rating
Here is the rating given to the reviewed processor by our users. Let others know your opinion by rating it yourself.
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 X2 6000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
CPU-Z Benchmark for AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (1T)
Best CPU performance — 64-bit — September 2022
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (1T)
Back to validation
Intel Core i9-12900KF
Intel Core i9-12900K
Intel Core i7-12700K
Intel Core i7-12700KF
Intel Core i5-12600K
Intel Core i5-12600KF
Intel Core i9-11900K
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Intel Core i7-11700K
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Intel Core i7-11700KF
Intel Core i5-11600K
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Intel Core i5-11600KF
Intel Core i7-11700
Intel Core i7-11700F
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX
Intel Core i5-11500
Intel Core i9-10900KF
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Intel Core i7-11800H
Intel Core i9-10900K
Intel Core i9-10850K
Intel Core i7-10700KF
Intel Core i5-11400
Intel Core i5-11400F
Intel Core i9-10900
Intel Core i5-11400H
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H
Intel Core i9-9900KF
Intel Core i7-9700KF
Intel Core i7-10700K
Intel Core i7-9700K
AMD Ryzen 5 5600H
Intel Core i9-9900K
Intel Core i5-10600KF
Intel Core i5-9600KF
Intel Core i7-10700
Intel Core i5-10600K
Intel Core i7-10700F
Intel Core i7-1165G7
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT
Intel Core i7-9700F
Intel Core i7-9700
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X
Intel Core i5-9600K
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
Intel Core i7-8700K
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Intel Core i5-1135G7
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G
Intel Core i5-8600K
AMD Ryzen 7 5700U
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
Intel Core i7-7700K
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
Intel Core i7-10875H
Intel Core i5-7600K
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i7-8700
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X
Intel Core i3-1115G4
AMD Ryzen 5 3500
Intel Core i7-10870H
AMD Ryzen 5 4500U
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
Intel Core i7-10750H
Intel Core i3-10105F
Intel Core i3-9100F
Intel Core i5-8500
Intel Core i7-6700K
Intel Core i5-10400
Intel Core i5-9400
AMD Ryzen 5 4600H
Intel Core i3-10100
Intel Core i3-10100F
Intel Core i5-9400F
Intel Core i5-6600K
Intel Core i5-10400F
AMD Ryzen 3 3100 4-Core
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Intel Core i5-10300H
Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-9750H
Intel Core i5-8400
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Intel Core i7-7700
Intel Core i5-4690K
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
Intel Core i7-8750H
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
Intel Core i5-9300H
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Intel Core i3-8100
Intel Core i7-10510U
Intel Core i5-7500
Intel Core i5-4670K
Intel Core i5-8300H
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Intel Core i7-8565U
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Intel Core i7-4770K
Intel Core i5-4690
Intel Core i5-10210U
Intel Core i5-1035G1
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
Intel Core i7-4790
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
Intel Core i7-6700
AMD Ryzen 7 2700
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i5-8265U
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Core i3-1005G1
Intel Core i5-4590
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H with
Intel Core i5-3570K
Intel Core i5-7400
Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel Core i5-6500
Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3
Intel Core i7-8550U
Intel Core i5-4570
Intel Core i3-7100
AMD Ryzen 3 1200
Intel Core i5-3570
Intel Core i5-2500K
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H with
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i7-2600K
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
Intel Core i5-8250U
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
Intel Core i5-6400
AMD Ryzen 5 1400
Intel Core i3-6100
Intel Core i5-4460
Intel Core i5-3470
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U with
Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3
Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3
AMD Athlon 3000G
Intel Core i5-4440
Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2
Intel Core i3-4170
Intel Core i5-2500
Intel Pentium G4560
Intel Core i7-2600
Intel Core i3-4160
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U with
Intel Xeon E5-2689
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
Intel Core i7-7500U
Intel Core i5-2400
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3
Intel Core i3-4130
Intel Xeon E5-2650 v2
Intel Core i5-3330
Intel Core i5-7200U
Intel Core i3-3240
Intel Core i7-6500U
Intel Core i3-3220
Intel Core i5-6300U
Intel Xeon E5450
Intel Core i3-2120
Intel Core i5-3230M
Intel Core i3-2100
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
Intel Core i5-6200U
Intel Core i5 750
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Intel Core i5-5200U
Intel Core i5-2520M
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500
Intel Core i5 650
Intel Core i5-3210M
Intel Core i7 920
AMD FX -8350
Intel Core i5-2450M
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400
AMD FX -4300
AMD FX -8320
AMD FX -6300
Intel Core i5-2410M
Intel Core i5-4210U
AMD FX -8300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Intel Core i3-7020U
Pentium E5200
Intel Core i5-4200U
Intel Core i3-3110M
Intel Core i3-5005U
Intel Core i3-6006U
AMD Phenom II X4 955
Intel Core i3-4005U
(YOU) AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
The FX-64 Lives! (AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+)
?>
Trending
ScamShield now available for Android users
Apple reportedly cancelled plan to increase iPhone 14 production
- News
- Reviews & Articles
-
Page 1 of 13 — The Cat is Finally Out of the Bag — X2 6000+Page 2 of 13 — DDR2-750, Notes on Memory Clocks & OverclockingPage 3 of 13 — Test SetupPage 4 of 13 — Results — SYSmark 2004Page 5 of 13 — Results — Lightwave 3D 7. 5Page 6 of 13 — Results — Futuremark PCMark05Page 7 of 13 — Results — SPECViewperf 8.01Page 8 of 13 — Results — Cinebench 2003 and XMpeg 5.03Page 9 of 13 — Results — Futuremark 3DMark06Page 10 of 13 — Results — Unreal Tournament 2004 and AquaMark3Page 11 of 13 — Results — Quake 4Page 12 of 13 — Power ConsumptionPage 13 of 13 — Conclusion
Page 1 of 13 — The Cat is Finally Out of the Bag — X2 6000+
- Next >
The Cat is Finally Out of the Bag — X2 6000+
AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 series has seen a proliferation of many new models in the last two months, bringing customers many more options to build their new system upon. Expanding both on the low and high-end scales of their successful dual-core processor series, AMD now has a vast (and confusing) lineup to fulfill almost every price point to configure a computer system. Focusing on the high-end, there have been some silent additions to the lineup such as the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ late last year, and just earlier this month, we saw speedier models such as the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ and X2 5600+. Today, AMD hits another milestone with the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ model — their first 3GHz dual-core processor (discounting the earlier launched FX-74 for the pseudo quad-core platform).
6000+ is an impressive sounding model number, but for all intents, the processor model numbers carry little meaning these days, but it still does a dandy job to bamboozle the less-informed. The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is equipped with 2MB of full speed L2 cache and based on the Windsor core, this 3GHz processor is essentially the rumored Athlon 64 FX-64, which we ‘previewed’ to readers over half a year back . So yes, the FX-64 is alive and kicking finally, but with the start of the Quad FX platform, only processors for this platform bear the FX nomenclature and the stand-alone dual-core processors fall under the Athlon 64 X2 lineup — which is a good thing in our opinion to do away with the differentiated naming scheme for their fastest model.
Processor Model / Processor Characteristics | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | Max TDP (W) | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ | 3. 0GHz | 1MB x 2 | 89 | US$464 |
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 | 2.8GHz | 1MB x 2 | 125 | US$713 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ | 2.8GHz | 1MB x 2 | 89 | US$326 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ | 2.8GHz | 512KB x 2 | 89 | US$267 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ | 2. 6GHz | 1MB x 2 | 89 | US$232 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2.6GHz | 512KB x 2 | 65 | US$222 |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2.6GHz | 512KB x 2 | 89 | US$222 |
So what crazy wattage can we expect out of the new Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor? Fear not as AMD has been fine-tuning the manufacturing process and of course tweaking the processors with various steppings along the way. The result? The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ shares the same 125W TDP as the Athlon 64 FX-62 processor. In fact, the FX-62 is now available in an 89W TDP variant which is known as the Athlon 64 X2 5600+. While we don’t have the X2 5600+ at hand to try our hand to verify AMD’s claims, we do have the X2 6000+, which is the highlight today and will be under close scrutiny with the FX-62 and Intel’s stable of Core 2 Duo processors.
Processor Name | AMD Athlon 64 X2 | AMD Athlon 64 FX | Core 2 Extreme (dual-core) | Core 2 Duo |
---|---|---|---|---|
Processor Model | 6000+ | FX-62 | X6800 | E6600, E6700 |
Processor Frequency | 3. 0GHz | 2.8GHz | 2.93GHz | 2.40GHz, 2.67GHz |
No. of Cores | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Front Side Bus (MHz) | — | — | 1066 | 1066 |
HyperTransport Bus | 1GHz (2000MT/s) | 1GHz (2000MT/s) | — | — |
L1 Cache (data + instruction) | (64KB + 64KB) x 2 | (64KB + 64KB) x 2 | (32KB + 32KB) x 2 | (32KB + 32KB) x 2 |
L2 Cache | 1MB x 2 | 1MB x 2 | 4MB | 4MB |
Memory Controller | Integrated Dual Channel (up to DDR2-800) | Integrated Dual Channel (up to DDR2-800) | External Dual Channel (up to DDR2-800) | External Dual Channel (up to DDR2-800) |
VID (V) | 1. 35 — 1.40 | 1.35 — 1.40 | 0.85 — 1.3625 | 0.85 — 1.3625 |
Icc (max) (A) | 90.4 | 90.4 | 90 | 75 |
TDP (W) | 125 | 125 | 75 | 65 |
Execute Disable Bit | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Intel EM64T / AMD64 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) / AMD Cool ‘n’ Quiet | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Virtualization Technology | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Packaging | AM2 | AM2 | LGA775 | LGA775 |
Process Technology | 90nm SOI | 90nm SOI | 65nm | 65nm |
Processor Codename | Windsor | Windsor | Conroe | Conroe |
Die Size | 230mm² | 230mm² | 143mm² | 143mm² |
No. of Transistors | 227.4 million | 227.4 million | 291 million | 291 million |
-
Page 1 of 13 — The Cat is Finally Out of the Bag — X2 6000+Page 2 of 13 — DDR2-750, Notes on Memory Clocks & OverclockingPage 3 of 13 — Test SetupPage 4 of 13 — Results — SYSmark 2004Page 5 of 13 — Results — Lightwave 3D 7.5Page 6 of 13 — Results — Futuremark PCMark05Page 7 of 13 — Results — SPECViewperf 8.01Page 8 of 13 — Results — Cinebench 2003 and XMpeg 5.03Page 9 of 13 — Results — Futuremark 3DMark06Page 10 of 13 — Results — Unreal Tournament 2004 and AquaMark3Page 11 of 13 — Results — Quake 4Page 12 of 13 — Power ConsumptionPage 13 of 13 — Conclusion
Page 1 of 13 — The Cat is Finally Out of the Bag — X2 6000+
- Next >
Join HWZ’s Telegram channel here and catch all the latest tech news!
Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.
Sponsored Links
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000 plus AM2 review
Skip to main content
TechRadar is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s why you can trust us.
Back for one more fight
TechRadar Verdict
Still packs a punch, but buying one for £300 is stark-raving, drooling, babbling insanity
TODAY’S BEST DEALS
Pros
- +
Best-performing AM2 yet
Much lower AMD pricing…
Cons
- —
…but still not low enough
Left in the dust by mid-range Core 2s
here’s a temptation to bend the truth when discussing AMD’s recent offerings. It’s the same sort of misguided pride that compels people who’ve just seen the Rolling Stones creak across some gigantic arena to say «yeah, they’ve still got it», whilst secretly knowing they’re just a bunch of clapped-out old men painfully going through the motions and disguising it with a whole lot of noise and lights.
Anyone who’s ever cared more than they should for PC hardware will have a soft spot in their hearts for AMD — including us. Once, it was the Stones to Intel’s Beatles, the rowdier, sprited underdog that might have sold less records, but goddamn if it didn’t make for a better party.
Tragically, now, it’s just hanging onto the past — slowly turning up the clockspeeds, in much the same way as its arch rival used to, in the desperate hope it can hang on until one of its fabs turns out a Conroe-esque knight in shining silicon.
The 6000 , running at an AM2-first of 3GHz, is a perfectly suitable chip for everyday computing and gaming. The trouble is it’s impossible to recommend — at £300, only a few bob cheaper than Intel’s eight month-old Core 2 Duo E6700. It’d be insane to pick this over that far better performing rival, despite sounding pretty good on paper.
The previous flagship, the FX-62, has been retired, and in almost every way, this is an identically-specced chip — the same Windsor core, but with 200MHz added to the clockspeed.
Quite a bargain. But no. Essentially, we’re looking at a wheezing interim processor before AMD’s native quad core chip (codenamed Barcelona) offers up a real fight to Intel in the mainstream later this year. So, the song remains the same — a 90nm, dual core K8-based chip with 1Mb cache per core.
A speed boost to the tune of 200Mhz simply cannot give it enough of a run-up to leap the gulf between the AM2s and the Core 2s.
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000 AM2 at Amazon for $55.60
1. Dreamhost
A superb choice for any kind of web hosting (48)
A superb choice for any kind of web hosting (48)
A superb choice for any kind of web hosting (48)
1. Dreamhost
Great choice for most kind of web hosting (46)
Great choice for most kind of web hosting (46)
Great choice for most kind of web hosting (46)
Great choice for most kind of web hosting (46)
Bring on the hi-def
That’s not to say it isn’t a capable chip, however. Hi-def content barely troubles it, for instance, with H.264 1080p decoding keeping CPU usage well below 40% on average, and only a little higher than that pesky E6700. In memory bandwidth, it delivers the customary AMD shoe to the wiggling Intel behind, the revered Athlon 64 on-die memory controller once again proving it has the edge over everything big blue has to offer.
It’s spanked by the E6700 in our games tests, but fairly lightly. The 6000 also has the edge over one of its long-standing forerunners, the X2 4600 . The additional 600MHz on the clockspeed and extra 512K on each core’s cache makes for better results across the board, though not, it must be said, dramatically enough to make upgrading from the 4600 (or any subsequent AM2 chip) to this hugely worthwhile.
And so, inexorably, we turn back to the Core 2 E6700, the 6000 simply being unable to hold our attention. Should the skies suddenly let forth a hail of AM2’s (probably) last gasp, you’d find that snaffling one of these strange meteorological gifts would certainly give you a system more than up to the job of any current game or consumer application.
In truth, it doesn’t lag a catastrophic distance behind the E6700, but far enough that £300 (though a canny change of tactic from AMD’s usual £600 top-end pricing) is just too much. If you’re a first-time dual-corer with three ton to spend, a £120 Core 2 E6300 can, with a spot of easy and safe overclocking, snap convincingly at the 6000 ‘s heels, thus freeing up the best part of the £200 needed for a GeForce 8800 GTS graphics card.
How much?
Had the 6000 been £200, it might have been a different matter, a slight return to the sepia days of the K6-2’s bargain-bucket prices, back when AMD carved out a successful niche selling decent chips to gamers on a tight budget.
It’s a different company now though — we won’t see those sort of prices for this chip until Barcelona starts doing the rounds. Further down the AM2 product line, an X2 3800 for £70, paired with a £35 motherboard, offers a basic but capable games platform for the price of an E6300 on its own. That’s the safe ledge AMD should cling onto until it’s rescued, not the crumbling, fragile one higher up the cliff face.
So, once again, the 6000 is not, by any stretch of the measure, a bad chip, but we wish it hadn’t been released, really. To use another geriatric-pretending-he’s-not analogy, it’s Rocky going into the ring yet again, the nostalgia and good will we had for him last time now all used up, with nothing left to disguise that this is a fight the admittedly musclebound pensioner simply can’t win.
Let the old man die in peace, AMD. Bring us a fresh challenger.
TODAY’S BEST DEALS
Tech.co.uk was the former name of TechRadar.com. Its staff were at the forefront of the digital publishing revolution, and spearheaded the move to bring consumer technology journalism to its natural home – online. Many of the current TechRadar staff started life a Tech.co.uk staff writer, covering everything from the emerging smartphone market to the evolving market of personal computers. Think of it as the building blocks of the TechRadar you love today.
TechRadar is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site .
©
Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street,
New York,
NY 10036.
AMD athlon 64 X2 6000-3.0 Ghz. dual core Processor – Econo PC
- Description
- Reviews
Item specifics
Product Description General information |
|
Type | CPU / Microprocessor |
Market segment | Desktop |
Family |
AMD Athlon 64 X2 |
Model number ? | 6000+ |
CPU part numbers |
|
Stepping code | CCB8F |
Frequency ? | 6000+ (rated) 3000 MHz (real) |
Bus speed ? | One 1000 MHz 16-bit HyperTransport link (2GT/s) |
Clock multiplier ? | 15 |
Package | 940-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA) |
Socket | Socket AM2 |
Introduction date | 2nd quarter 2008 [1] |
Architecture / Microarchitecture | |
Microarchitecture | K8 |
Processor core ? | Windsor |
Core stepping ? | JH-F3 |
CPUID | 40F33 |
Manufacturing process | 0. 09 micron silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology 243 million transistors |
Data width | 64 bit |
The number of CPU cores | 2 |
The number of threads | 2 |
Floating Point Unit | Integrated |
Level 1 cache size ? | 2 x 64 KB 2-way set associative instruction caches 2 x 64 KB 2-way set associative data caches |
Level 2 cache size ? | 2 x 1 MB 16-way set associative exclusive caches |
Physical memory | 1 TB |
Virtual memory | 256 TB |
Multiprocessing | Uniprocessor |
Features |
|
Integrated graphics | None |
Memory controller | The number of controllers: 1 Memory channels: 2 Supported memory: DDR2-800 Maximum memory bandwidth (GB/s): 12.8 |
Other peripherals | HyperTransport 2.0 technology (1 link) |
Electrical / Thermal parameters | |
Thermal Design Power ? | 89 Watt |
Notes on AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3 GHz, 89W) |
0.0 overall
AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor
IF YOU FOLLOW CPUs at all, you already know that Intel has been pretty much cleaning up with its Core 2 processors. Since this past summer, Intel has had the drop on AMD thanks to an excellent new microarchitecture that delivers high performance with low power consumptiona killer combo. AMD has been creeping slowly ahead itself toward a 65nm manufacturing process and its own new microarchitecture, due in the middle of this year. In the meantime, though, the Athlon 64 has fallen out of favor with enthusiasts somewhat, only making one of the four primary configs in our latest system guideand the low-end one, at that.
AMD is looking to stem the tide with the only tools available to it in the short term, and they’re both very old-school: a price cut and a clock speed increase. Can these time-worn techniques put the Athlon 64 back on the map in this age of fancy-pants architectural tweaks and CPU cores multiplying like guppies? The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a great test case. It now costs less than its natural competitor, the Core 2 Duo E6700, and it has quietly become the first Athlon 64 X2 processor to reach the 3GHz milestone.
The X2 6000+ debuts amid a changing landscape, as well. Windows Vista is here, and the conversion to Vista will likely mean increased uptake for 64-bit software on the desktop. Accordingly, we’ve moved our CPU testing to Windows Vista x64, with a healthy mix of 64-bit and multithreaded code to run on it. Keep reading to see how the X2 6000+ fares in this new environment.
The X2 6000+ up close
The Athlon 64 X2 is a familiar quantity by now, so I’ll spare you the details. The vitals on the X2 6000+ are simply this: two cores at 3GHz with 1MB of L2 cache per core, primed for Socket AM2. AMD has begun shipping some 65nm processors, but this isn’t one of them; it’s still made using a 90nm fab process. The combination of a high clock speed and a 90nm fab process brings the X2 6000+ one less desirable trait: a max thermal power rating of 125W, well above the 65W and 89W ratings of the lower rungs of the Athlon 64 lineup.
Here, for your viewing pleasure, are some unnecessarily large close-ups of our X2 6000+ review sample.
Yep. Uh huh.
As I said before, this processor’s most natural competitor is the Core 2 Duo E6700, which runs at 2.66GHz but has the higher clock-for-clock performance of Intel’s Core microarchitecture going for it. Concomitant with its lower clock speed and 65nm fab process, the E6700 has a much nicer thermal design power rating of only 65W, as well. AMD seems to have built a discount into the X2 6000+ in order to make up for that shortcoming. The E6700 currently lists for $530, and the X2 6000+ undercuts it with an initial price of $459. Below this price point, things align more closely, with the X2 5600+ at $326 facing off against the E6600 at $316. Above this price point, you’re into quad-core territory.
Thus, to keep things simple, we’ve decided to clear off the table and match up the X2 6000+ against the Core 2 Duo E6700 for a head-to-head comparison. (Well, that and we’ve spent too much time figuring out how to sidestep the quirks of Windows Vista to provide you with more results today. We’ll be following up with results from additional CPUsincluding the less expensive quad-core processorsfairly soon.) Can the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ make a case for itself in the face of formidable competition from Intel? Let’s take a look.
Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and the results were averaged.
Please note that our Core 2 Duo E6700 is actually a Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor clocked down to the appropriate speed. Its performance should be identical to that of the real thing, although its power consumption may vary slightly. Then again, power consumption tends to vary from older chips to newer and from one chip to the next.
Our test systems were configured like so:
Processor | Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz | Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3. 0GHz (90nm) |
System bus | 1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped) | 1GHz HyperTransport |
Motherboard | Intel D975XBX2 | Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe |
BIOS revision | BX97520J.86A.2618.2007.0212.0954 | 0903 |
North bridge | 975X MCH | nForce 590 SLI SPP |
South bridge | ICH7R | nForce 590 SLI MCP |
Chipset drivers | INF Update 8. 1.1.1010
Intel Matrix Storage Manager 6.21 |
ForceWare 15.00 |
Memory size | 2GB (2 DIMMs) | 2GB (2 DIMMs) |
Memory type | Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C4
DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz |
Corsair TWIN2X2048-8500C5
DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz |
CAS latency (CL) | 4 | 4 |
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) | 4 | 4 |
RAS precharge (tRP) | 4 | 4 |
Cycle time (tRAS) | 12 | 12 |
Audio | Integrated ICH7R/STAC9274D5 with
Sigmatel 6. 10.0.5274 drivers |
Integrated nForce 590 MCP/AD1988B with
Soundmax 6.10.2.6100 drivers |
Hard drive | Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150 | |
Graphics | GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB PCIe with ForceWare 100.64 drivers | |
OS | Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition | |
OS updates | – |
Thanks to Corsair for providing us with memory for our testing. Their products and support are far and away superior to generic, no-name memory.
Also, all of our test systems were powered by OCZ GameXStream 700W power supply units. Thanks to OCZ for providing these units for our use in testing.
The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1280×1024 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled.
We used the following versions of our test applications:
- SiSoft Sandra XI 2007.2.11.17 64-bit
- CPU-Z 1.39
- POV-Ray for Windows 3.7 beta 19a 64-bit
- Cinebench 9.5 64-bit Edition
- Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Edition
- picCOLOR 4.0 build 598 64-bit
- 3DMark06 1.0.2
- notfred’s Folding benchmark CD 10/31/06 revision
- The Panorama Factory 4.4 x64 Edition
- CASE Lab Euler3d CFD benchmark 2.2
- MyriMatch proteomics benchmark
- Valve Source Engine particle simulation benchmark
- Valve VRAD map build benchmark
- LAME MT 3.97a 64-bit
- 3DMark06 1.10
- The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 1.1
- Rainbow Six: Vegas 1.02
The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.
Memory performance
We’ll begin by measuring the memory subsystem performance of these solutions. These synthetic tests don’t track closely with real-world application performance, but are enlightening anyhow.
Notice that I’ve included a graphic above the benchmark results. That’s a snapshot of the CPU utilization indicator in Windows Task Manager, which helps illustrate how much the application takes advantage of up to four CPU cores, when they’re available. I’ve included these Task Manager graphics whenever possible throughout our results.
The X2 6000+ achieves higher memory throughput with lower latencies thanks to its built-in, on-die memory controller and dual channels of DDR2 800MHz memory. The Core 2 Duo E6700, meanwhile, hits a bottleneck in the form of its 1066MHz front-side bus; its chipset-based memory controller lies beyond that bus. That limits the E6700 to about 5.6GB/s of memory bandwidth, though it, too, has a dual-channel DDR2 800MHz memory subsystem.
These system architecture differences contribute to the E6700’s higher memory access latencies compared to the X2 6000+, although the gap is bridged somewhat by the Core 2 Duo’s so-called memory disambiguation feature, which moves memory loads ahead of stores in certain situations.
As our use of the term “memory disambiguation” shows, we like to scare off newbies here at TR in order to drive advertising revenues down. (It’s all about the tax write-off.) As part of that effort, here’s a look at some 3D graphs showing access latencies when going to L1 cache (yellow), L2 cache (orange), and main memory (er, burnt sienna).
The advantage in access latencies for the X2 6000+ is consistent and pronounced, and it grows at larger step sizes. This advantage is offset, however, by the E6700’s larger 4MB L2 cache. Whether the E6700 or the X2 6000+ has the upper hand in memory-constrained scenarios will depend on the application and its memory access patterns.
These are interesting things to know, but their bearing on overall performance is mixed. Let’s move now to some real-world tests to see how these two very different CPU and system architectures compete.
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
We tested Oblivion by manually playing through a specific point in the game five times while recording frame rates using the FRAPS utility. Each gameplay sequence lasted 60 seconds. This method has the advantage of simulating real gameplay quite closely, but it comes at the expense of precise repeatability. We believe five sample sessions are sufficient to get reasonably consistent and trustworthy results. In addition to average frame rates, we’ve included the low frames rates, because those tend to reflect the user experience in performance-critical situations. In order to diminish the effect of outliers, we’ve reported the median of the five low frame rates we encountered.
For this test, we set Oblivion’s graphical quality to “Medium,” but with HDR lighting enabled and vsync disabled, at 800×600 resolution. We’ve chosen this relatively low display resolution in order to prevent the graphics card from becoming a bottleneck, so differences between the CPUs can shine through.
Obviously, both CPUs deliver more-than-playable frame rates when the graphics card isn’t a bottleneck, but you may be surprised by how close the contest is. There’s only three frames per second worth of difference between the lowest frame rate from the E6700 and the lowest from the X2 6000+.
Rainbow Six: Vegas
Rainbow Six: Vegas is based on Unreal Engine 3 and is a port from the Xbox 360. For both of these reasons, it’s one of the first PC games that’s widely multithreaded, and ought to provide an illuminating look at CPU gaming performance.
For this test, we set the game to run at 1024×768 resolution with high dynamic range lighting enabled. “Hardware skinning” (via the GPU) was disabled, leaving that burden to fall on the CPU. Shadow quality was set to low, and motion blur was enabled at medium quality. I played through a 90-second sequence of the game’s Terrorist Hunt mode on the “Dante’s” level five times, capturing frame rates with FRAPS, as we did with Oblivion.
This one is even closer than Oblivion, with the X2 6000+ delivering the highest average framerate and the E6700 avoiding the lows a little better.
Valve Source engine particle simulation
Next up are a couple of tests we picked up during a visit to Valve Software, the developers of the Half-Life games. They’ve been working to incorporate support for multi-core processors into their Source game engine, and they’ve cooked up a couple of benchmarks to demonstrate the benefits of multithreading.
The first of those tests runs a particle simulation inside of the Source engine. Most games today use particle systems to create effects like smoke, steam, and fire, but the realism and interactivity of those effects is limited by the available computing horsepower. Valve’s particle system distributes the load across multiple CPU cores.
The E6700 achieves a decisive edge in Valve’s particle simulation.
Valve VRAD map compilation
This next test processes a map from Half-Life 2 using Valve’s VRAD lighting tool. Valve uses VRAD to precompute lighting that goes into its games. This isn’t a real-time process, and it doesn’t reflect the performance one would experience while playing a game. It does, however, show how multiple CPU cores can speed up game development.
The Athlon 64 can’t quite keep up with the Core 2 Duo when computing lighting in VRAD, either.
3DMark06
3DMark06 combines the results from its graphics and CPU tests in order to reach an overall score. Here’s how the processors did overall and in each of those tests.
This is another very close one, with a slight yet consistent lead for the E6700. We’ve become accustomed to close outcomes in 3DMark06, since it tends to be GPU-bound rather than CPU-bound. The exceptions to that rule are 3DMark’s CPU tests.
Even in the CPU tests, though, the X2 6000+ doesn’t trail the E6700 by much at all.
The Panorama Factory
The Panorama Factory handles an increasingly popular image processing task: joining together multiple images to create a wide-aspect panorama. This task can require lots of memory and can be computationally intensive, so The Panorama Factory comes in a 64-bit version that’s multithreaded. I asked it to join four pictures, each eight megapixels, into a glorious panorama of the interior of Damage Labs. The program’s timer function captures the amount of time needed to perform each stage of the panorama creation process. I’ve also added up the total operation time to give us an overall measure of performance.
The X2 6000+ proves quicker overall hereby a sliver.
picCOLOR
picCOLOR was created by Dr. Reinert H. G. Müller of the FIBUS Institute. This isn’t Photoshop; picCOLOR’s image analysis capabilities can be used for scientific applications like particle flow analysis. Dr. Müller has supplied us with new revisions of his program for some time now, all the while optimizing picCOLOR for new advances in CPU technology, including MMX, SSE2, and Hyper-Threading. Naturally, he’s ported picCOLOR to 64 bits, so we can test performance with the x86-64 ISA. Eight of the 12 functions in the test are multithreaded, and in this latest revision, five of those eight functions use four threads.
Scores in picCOLOR, by the way, are indexed against a single-processor Pentium III 1 GHz system, so that a score of 4.14 works out to 4.14 times the performance of the reference machine.
The E6700 has the edge again, and this time, it’s one function making up the bulk of the difference between the two CPUs: picCOLOR’s rotation function. The X2 6000+ is slower overall than the E6700, but it is by no means outclassed.
Windows Media Encoder x64 Edition
Windows Media Encoder is one of the few popular video encoding tools that uses four threads to take advantage of quad-core systems, and it comes in a 64-bit version. For this test, I asked Windows Media Encoder to transcode a 153MB 1080-line widescreen video into a 720-line WMV using its built-in DVD/Hardware profile. Because the default “High definition quality audio” codec threw some errors in Windows Vista, I instead used the “Multichannel audio” codec. Both audio codecs have a peak bitrate of 192Kbps.
The margin of difference may not seem large in the graph, but the E6700 finishes encoding this video clip nearly 90 seconds before the X2 6000+.
SiSoft Sandra Mandelbrot
Next up is SiSoft’s Sandra system diagnosis program, which includes a number of different benchmarks. The one of interest to us is the “multimedia” benchmark, intended to show off the benefits of “multimedia” extensions like MMX, SSE, and SSE2. According to SiSoft’s FAQ, the benchmark actually does a fractal computation:
This benchmark generates a picture (640×480) of the well-known Mandelbrot fractal, using 255 iterations for each data pixel, in 32 colours. It is a real-life benchmark rather than a synthetic benchmark, designed to show the improvements MMX/Enhanced, 3DNow!/Enhanced, SSE(2) bring to such an algorithm.
The benchmark is multi-threaded for up to 64 CPUs maximum on SMP systems. This works by interlacing, i.e. each thread computes the next column not being worked on by other threads. Sandra creates as many threads as there are CPUs in the system and assignes [sic] each thread to a different CPU.
We’re using the 64-bit version of Sandra. The “Integer x16” version of this test uses integer numbers to simulate floating-point math. The floating-point version of the benchmark takes advantage of SSE2 to process up to eight Mandelbrot iterations in parallel.
This test is pretty much a best-case scenario for the vector math capabilities of todays’ CPUs, and the Core 2 Duo’s superior SSE2 capabilities, including the ability to process a 128-bit SSE instruction in a single cycle, are on display here.
Cinebench
Graphics is a classic example of a computing problem that’s easily parallelizable, so it’s no surprise that we can exploit a multi-core processor with a 3D rendering app. Cinebench is the first of those we’ll try, a benchmark based on Maxon’s Cinema 4D rendering engine. It’s multithreaded and comes with a 64-bit executable. This test runs with just a single thread and then with as many threads as CPU cores are available.
The X2 6000+ gets a little relief here, taking a win from the E6700. Let’s try another rendering app and see if the advantage holds.
POV-Ray rendering
We’ve finally caved in and moved to the beta version of POV-Ray 3.7 that includes native multithreading. The latest beta 64-bit executable is still quite a bit slower than the 3.6 release, but it should give us a decent look at comparative performance, regardless.
The X2 6000+ again beats out the E6700 in a rendering app. We’ve used this chess2.pov scene for ages, but it doesn’t employ the latest features of POV-Ray like the app’s recommended benchmark scene does. Let’s have a look at performance with that scene, as well. For this test, I’ve just used the optimal number of threads on each CPU, rather than testing scaling with one, two, and four threads. That means two threads for these two dual-core processors.
The Athlon 64 hangs on to win, but the gap closes somewhat with the benchmark.pov scene.
I had hoped to use 3dsmax 9 to test rendering performance, too, but it appears to have some issues with Windows Vista x64. We’ll have to revisit it once its developers get the problems resolved.
MyriMatch
Our benchmarks sometimes come from unexpected places, and such is the case with this one. David Tabb is a friend of mine from high school and a long-time TR reader. He recently offered to provide us with an intriguing new benchmark based on an application he’s developed for use in his research work. The application is called MyriMatch, and it’s intended for use in proteomics, or the large-scale study of protein. I’ll stop right here and let him explain what MyriMatch does:
In shotgun proteomics, researchers digest complex mixtures of proteins into peptides, separate them by liquid chromatography, and analyze them by tandem mass spectrometers. This creates data sets containing tens of thousands of spectra that can be identified to peptide sequences drawn from the known genomes for most lab organisms. The first software for this purpose was Sequest, created by John Yates and Jimmy Eng at the University of Washington. Recently, David Tabb and Matthew Chambers at Vanderbilt University developed MyriMatch, an algorithm that can exploit multiple cores and multiple computers for this matching. Source code and binaries of MyriMatch are publicly available.
In this test, 5555 tandem mass spectra from a Thermo LTQ mass spectrometer are identified to peptides generated from the 6714 proteins of S. cerevisiae (baker’s yeast). The data set was provided by Andy Link at Vanderbilt University. The FASTA protein sequence database was provided by the Saccharomyces Genome Database.MyriMatch uses threading to accelerate the handling of protein sequences. The database (read into memory) is separated into a number of jobs, typically the number of threads multiplied by 10. If four threads are used in the above database, for example, each job consists of 168 protein sequences (1/40th of the database). When a thread finishes handling all proteins in the current job, it accepts another job from the queue. This technique is intended to minimize synchronization overhead between threads and minimize CPU idle time.
The most important news for us is that MyriMatch is a widely multithreaded real-world application that we can use with a relevant data set. MyriMatch also offers control over the number of threads used, so we’ve tested with one to four threads. Also, this is a newer version of the MyriMatch code than we’ve used in the past, with a larger spectral collection, so these results aren’t comparable to those in our past articles.
The two CPUs scale similarly from one thread to two, but the E6700 has the advantage in all cases. Again, however, the X2 6000+ shadows it pretty closely.
STARS Euler3d computational fluid dynamics
Our next benchmark is also a relatively new one for us. Charles O’Neill works in the Computational Aeroservoelasticity Laboratory at Oklahoma State University, and he contacted us recently to suggest we try the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) benchmark based on the STARS Euler3D structural analysis routines developed at CASELab. This benchmark has been available to the public for some time in single-threaded form, but Charles was kind enough to put together a multithreaded version of the benchmark for us with a larger data set. He has also put a web page online with a downloadable version of the multithreaded benchmark, a description, and some results here. (I believe the score you see there at almost 3Hz comes from our eight-core Clovertown test system.)
In this test, the application is basically doing analysis of airflow over an aircraft wing. I will step out of the way and let Charles explain the rest:
The benchmark testcase is the AGARD 445.6 aeroelastic test wing. The wing uses a NACA 65A004 airfoil section and has a panel aspect ratio of 1.65, taper ratio of 0.66, and a quarter-chord sweep angle of 45º. This AGARD wing was tested at the NASA Langley Research Center in the 16-foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel and is a standard aeroelastic test case used for validation of unsteady, compressible CFD codes.
The CFD grid contains 1.23 million tetrahedral elements and 223 thousand nodes . . . . The benchmark executable advances the Mach 0.50 AGARD flow solution. A benchmark score is reported as a CFD cycle frequency in Hertz.
So the higher the score, the faster the computer. I understand the STARS Euler3D routines are both very floating-point intensive and oftentimes limited by memory bandwidth. Charles has updated the benchmark for us to enable control over the number of threads used. Here’s how our contenders handled the test with different thread counts.
Chalk up this one for the E6700, which has roughly a 38% advantage over the X2 6000+.
[email protected]
Next, we have another relatively new addition to our benchmark suite: a slick little [email protected] benchmark CD created by notfred, one of the members of Team TR, our excellent Folding team. For the unfamiliar, [email protected] is a distributed computing project created by folks at Stanford University that investigates how proteins work in the human body, in an attempt to better understand diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cystic fibrosis. It’s a great way to use your PC’s spare CPU cycles to help advance medical research. I’d encourage you to visit our distributed computing forum and consider joining our team if you haven’t already joined one.
The [email protected] project uses a number of highly optimized routines to process different types of work units from Stanford’s research projects. The Gromacs core, for instance, uses SSE on Intel processors, 3DNow! on AMD processors, and Altivec on PowerPCs. Overall, [email protected] should be a great example of real-world scientific computing.
notfred’s Folding Benchmark CD tests the most common work unit types and estimates performance in terms of the points per day that a CPU could earn for a Folding team member. The CD itself is a bootable ISO. The CD boots into Linux, detects the system’s processors and Ethernet adapters, picks up an IP address, and downloads the latest versions of the Folding execution cores from Stanford. It then processes a sample work unit of each type.
On a system with two CPU cores, for instance, the CD spins off a Tinker WU on core 1 and an Amber WU on core 2. When either of those WUs are finished, the benchmark moves on to additional WU types, always keeping both cores occupied with some sort of calculation. Should the benchmark run out of new WUs to test, it simply processes another WU in order to prevent any of the cores from going idle as the others finish. Once all four of the WU types have been tested, the benchmark averages the points per day among them. That points-per-day average is then multiplied by the number of cores on the CPU in order to estimate the total number of points per day that CPU might achieve.
This may be a somewhat quirky method of estimating overall performance, but my sense is that it generally ought to work. We’ve discussed some potential reservations about how it works here, for those who are interested. I have included results for each of the individual WU types below, so you can see how the different CPUs perform on each.
These results are consistent with what we’ve seen before from these two CPU architectures. The Athlon 64 crunches through Tinker and Amber work units much quicker than the Core 2 Duo, but the tables turn with the two Gromacs WU types. If you average the four types, the X2 6000+ comes out ahead of the E6700 on the strength of its performance with Amber and Tinker WUs.
Power consumption and efficiency
We’re trying something a little different with power consumption. Our Extech 380803 power meter has the ability to log data, so we can capture power use over a span of time. As always, the meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire systemthe CPU, motherboard, memory, video card, hard drives, and anything else plugged into the power supply unit. (We plugged the computer monitor and speakers into a separate outlet, though.) We measured how each of our test systems used power during a roughly one-minute period, during which time we executed Cinebench’s rendering test. All of the systems had their power management features (such as SpeedStep and Cool’n’Quiet) enabled during these tests.
Right away, you can see that the two CPUs live up to their thermal/power ratings125W in the case of the X2 6000+ and 65W for the E6700. The two systems’ idle power consumption levels are similar, but under load, the Athlon 64 X2 draws quite a bit more power.
We can break down the power consumption data in various useful ways. We’ll start with a look at idle power, taken from the trailing edge of our test period, after all CPUs have completed the render.
There’s only 9W difference between the two systems at idle, despite our AMD system’s use of the nForce 590 SLI chipset, which has earned a reputation for being power-hungry.
Next, we can look at peak power draw by taking an average from the five-second span from 10 to 15 seconds into our test period, during which the processors were rendering.
Here is where the differences between the two CPUs become readily apparent. The system based on the X2 6000+ draws 78W more at peak than the Core 2 Duo E6700-based system.
Another way to gauge power efficiency is to look at total energy use over our time span. This method takes into account power use both during the render and during the idle time. We can express the result in terms of watt-seconds, equivalent to joules.
The E6700 uses quite a bit less energy during our test period, regardless of whether the single-threaded or multithreaded test is used. In general, though, multithreading pays benefits in terms of energy use.
Finally, we can consider the amount of energy used to render the scene. Since the different systems completed the render at different speeds, we’ve isolated the render period for each system. We then computed the amount of energy used by each system to render the scene, expressed in watt-seconds. This method should account for both power use and, to some degree, performance, because shorter render times may lead to less energy consumption.
The E6700’s combination of strong performance and lower peak power draw gives it a convincing lead in energy efficiency over the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, as this last and best indicator of power-efficient performance demonstrates vividly.
Conclusions
AMD’s two old-school tricks, the price cut and the clock speed bump, have combined to give the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ a pretty good value proposition. Performance-wise, the X2 6000+ is slower overall than the Core 2 Duo E6700, but not by much. That may be a surprising outcome to those accustomed to seeing Core 2 Duo processors convincingly trounce the competition, but these two architectures were never that different in terms of clock-for-clock performance. It stands to reason that a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 could nearly pull even with a Core 2 Duo at 2.66GHz. The X2 6000+ is also about 70 bucks cheaper than the E6700, making it a pretty sweet deal in the grand scheme of things. Of course, as always, there are better deals to be had at lower price points than this one, but the X2 6000+ offers a compelling alternative to the E6700.
That said, there’s a reason the old-school clock speed bump has become much less fashionable of late, and the power consumption numbers for the X2 6000+ are a testament to it. Power draw rises proportionately with clock frequency and with the square of core voltage. Those power curves tend to get hairy at the higher clock frequencies possible with CPUs made on a given fab process. That’s why the X2 6000+ has a 125W thermal/power rating, while the X2 5600+ needs only 89W to run at 2.8GHz. Both are 90nm chips. (AMD has made some progress on this front, incidentally; the Athlon 64 FX-62 was also a 2.8GHz part, but had a 125W rating. And all of AMD’s 65nm CPUs to date have a rating of 65W or less. The progress at 90nm probably helped open up the possibility of 3GHz parts like the X2 6000+.)
If you decide to save the 70 bucks to get yourself an X2 6000+ rather than an E6700, you will pay for it with much higher peak power consumption. That may translate into higher system temperatures, more fan noise, or (though we haven’t had time to test it) less overclocking headroom. Some folks, I expect, will be willing to take that bargain.
The X2 6000+ also signals a broader realignment in the Athlon 64 X2 lineup, with price cuts across the board that make AMD’s offerings more attractive as alternatives to the Core 2 Duo. Some of those Athlon 64 X2s, at lower clock speeds, have power consumption ratings of 65W or less. We’ll soon expand our Windows Vista x64 performance and power results to encompass more price points, so stay tuned.
characteristics of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+ (Brisbane) / overclockers.ua
950XRyzen 9 3900XTRyzen 9 3900XRyzen 7 3800XTRyzen 7 3800XRyzen 7 3700XRyzen 5 3600XTRyzen 5 3600XRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3400GRyzen 3 3300XRyzen 3 3200GRyzen 3 3100Athlon 3000GRyzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2500XRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 5 2400GERyzen 3 2300XRyzen 3 2200GRyzen 3 2200GEAthlon 240GEAthlon 220GEAthlon 200GERyzen 7 1800XRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 1700Ryzen 5 1600XRyzen 5 1600 AFRyzen 5 1600Ryzen 5 1500XRyzen 5 1400Ryzen 3 1300XRyzen 3 1200 AFRyzen 3 1200FX-8350FX-8320FX-8150FX-8120FX-8100FX-6350FX-6100FX-4170FX-4100A10-7870KAthlon 5350A10-7850KAthlon X4 860KAthlon X4 760KAthlon X4 750KAthlon X4 740Athlon X2 340A10-5800KA10-5700A8-5600KA8-5500A6-5400KA4-5300A8-3850A8-3800Athlon II X4 631A6-3650A6-3600A6-3500A4-3400A4-33010T BEPhenom II X6 1075TPhenom II X6 1065TPhenom II X6 1055TPhenom II X6 1045TPhenom II X6 1035TAthlon II X4 650Athlon II X4 645Athlon II X4 640Athlon II X4 635Athlon II X4 630Athlon II X4 620eAthlon II X4 620Athlon II X4 615eAthlon II X4 615Athlon II X4 610eAthlon II X4 605eAthlon II X4 605Athlon II X4 600eAthlon II X3 460Athlon II X3 455Athlon II X3 450Athlon II X3 445Athlon II X3 440Athlon II X3 435Athlon II X3 425eAthlon II X3 425Athlon II X3 420Athlon II X3 420eAthlon II X3 415eAthlon II X3 410Athlon II X3 405eAthlon II X3 400Athlon II X2 265Athlon II X2 270uAthlon II X2 260Athlon II X2 255Athlon II X2 250eAthlon II X2 250Athlon II X2 245eAthlon II X2 245Athlon II X2 240eAthlon II X2 240Athlon II X2 235eAthlon II X2 220Athlon II X2 215Athlon II X2 210eAthlon II 160uSempron 180Sempron 150Sempron 145Sempron 140Sempron 130Athlon X2 7850Athlon X2 7750Athlon X2 7550Athlon X2 7450Athlon X2 6500 BEPhenom II X4 980 BEPhenom II X4 975 BEPhenom II X4 970 BE (Zosma)Phenom II X4 970 BEPhenom II X4 965 BEPhenom II X4 960T BEPhenom II X4 955 BEPhenom II X4 945Phenom II X4 940Phenom II X4 925Phenom II X4 920Phenom II X4 IIphenom 910 905ePhenom II X4 900ePhenom II X4 850Phenom II X4 840Phenom II X4 840TPhenom II X4 830Phenom II X4 820Phenom II X4 810Phenom II X4 805Phenom II X3 740 BEPhenom II X3 720Phenom II X3 715 BEPhenom II X3 710Phenom II X3 705ePhenom II X3 700ePhenom II X2 570 BEPhenom II X2 565 BEPhenom II X2 560 BEPhenom II X2 555 BEPhenom II X2 550 BEPhenom II X2 550Phenom II X2 545Phenom II X2 521Phenom II X2 511Phenom X4 9950 BEPhenom X4 9850 BEPhenom X4 9850Phenom X4 9750BPhenom X4 9750Phenom X4 9650Phenom X4 9600 Black EditionPhenom X4 9600BPhenom X4 9600Phenom X4 9550Phenom X4 9500Phenom X4 9450ePhenom X4 9350ePhenom X4 9150ePhenom X4 9100ePhenom X3 8850Phenom X3 8750 BEPhenom X3 8750BPhenom X3 8750Phenom X3 8650Phenom X3 8600BPhenom X3 8600Phenom X3 8550Phenom X3 8450ePhenom X3 8450Phenom X3 8400Phenom X3 8250eAthlon X2 BE-2400Athlon X2 BE-2350Athlon X2 BE-2300Athlon 64 FX-74Athlon 64 FX-72Athlon 64 FX-70Athlon 64 FX-62Athlon 64 FX-60Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 6400+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) Athlon 64 X2 5800+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Brisbane) X2 5400+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 5000+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4850eAthlon 64 X2 4800+ (Bris bane)Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 4600+Athlon 64 X2 4450eAthlon 64 X2 4400+ (Brisbane) Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4050eAthlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 2MB) Athlon 64 X2 3800+Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 X2 4400+Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) (Manchester)Athlon 64 LE-1660Athlon 64 LE-1640Athlon 64 LE-1620Athlon 64 LE-1600Athlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 3800+Athlon 64 3500+Athlon 64 3200+Athlon 64 3Athlon 64 FX-557 -55Athlon 64 FX-53Athlon 64 FX-51Athlon 64 4200+Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego)Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3800+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3700 +Athlon 64 (Manchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3500+ (San Diego)At hlon 64 3500+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3500+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3700+Athlon 64 3400+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3400+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3000+ ( Venice) Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 3000+ (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 2800+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 2800+ (Clawhammer) +Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3400+Sempron 3300+Sempron 3100+ (Palermo)Sempron 3100+ (Paris)Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3000+ (Paris)Sempron 2800+Sempron 2600+ (Winchester)Sernpron 2600+ ( Palermo) Sempron 2500+Sempron 3000+Sempron 2800+ (Thorton) )Athlon XP 3200+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 3100+Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB400)Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2900+Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2700+Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2200 + (Thorton)Athlon XP 2200+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1900+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1900+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1800+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1800+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1700+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1600+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1600 + (Palomino) Athlon XP 1500+ Athlon 1400 (FSB266) ATHLON 1400 (FSB200) Athlon 1333athlon 1300athlon 1200 (FSB266) Athlon 1200 (FSB200) Ath26 (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon) Athlon 950Athlon 900Athlon 850Athlon 800Athlon 750Athlon 700Duron 1800Duron 1600Duron 1400Duron 1300Duron 1200Duron 1100Duron 1000Duron 950 (Morgan)Duron 950 (Spitfire)Duron 900 (Morgan)Duron 900 (Spitfire)Duron 850Duron 800Duron 750Duron 700Duron 650Duron 600Athlon 1000 (Orion)Athlon 1000 (Thunderbird) Athlon 950 (Pluto) Athlon 900 (Thunderbird) Athlon 850 (Pluto) Athlon 850 (Thundebird) Athlon 800 (Pluto) Athlon 800 (Thunderbird) Athlon 750 (Pluto) Athlon 750 (Thunderbird) Athlon 700 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Argon) Athlon 650 (Thunderbird) Athlon 600 (Pluto) Athlon 600 (Argon) Athlon 550 (Pluto) -2 533 (CXT)K6-2 500 (CXT)K6-2 475 (CXT)K6-2 450 (CXT)K6-2 400 (CXT)K6-2 380 (CXT)K6-2 366 (CXT)K6- 2 350 (CXT)K6-2 350K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300K6-2 266K6 300K6 266K6 233K6 200K6 166K5 PR166K5 PR150K5 PR133K5 PR120K5 PR100K5 PR90K5 PR75IntelPentium Gold G7400Celeron G6900Core i9-11900KCore i9-11900KFCore i9-11900Core i9-11900FCore i9-11900TCore i7-11700KCore i7-11700KFCore i7-11700Core i7-11700FCore i7-11700TCore i5-11600KCore i5-11600KFCore i5-11600Core i5-11600TCore i5-11500Core i5-11500TCore i5-11400Core i5-11400FCore i5-11400TCore i3-10325Core i3-10305Core i3-10305TCore i3-10105Core i3-10105FCore i3-10105TPentium Gold G6605Pentium Gold G6505Pentium Gold G6505TPentium Gold G6405Pentium Gold G6405TCore i9-10900KCore i9-10900KFCore i9-10900Core i9-10900FCore i7-10700KCore i7-10700KFCore i7-10700Core i7-10700FCore i5-10600KCore i5-10600KFCore i5-10600Core i5-10500Core i5-10400Core i5-10400FCore i3-10320Core i3-10300Core i3-10100Pentium Gold G6600Pentium Gold G6500Pentium Gold G6400Celeron G5925Celeron G5920Celeron G5905Celeron G5900Core i9-9900KCore i7-9700KCore i5-9600KCore i7-8700KCore i7-8700Core i5-8600KCore i5-8400Core i3-8350KCore i3-8100Pentium Gold G5400Core i7-7700KCore i7-7700Core i7-7700TCore i5-7600KCore i5- 7600Core i5-7600TCore i5-7500Core i5-7500TCore i5-7400Core i5-7400TCore i3-7350KCore i3-7320Core i3-7300Core i3-7300TCore i3-7100Core i3-7100TCore i7-6950XCore i7-6700KCore i7-6700Core i7-6700TCore i5-6600KCore i5-6600Core i5-6600TCore i5-6500Core i5-6500TCore i5-6400Core i5-6400TCore i3-6300Core i3-6300TCore i3-6100Core i3-6100TCore i7-5960XCore i7-5775CCore i5 -5675CCore i7-4960XCore i7-4930KCore i7-4820KCore i7-4790KCore i5-4690KCore i7-4770KCore i7-4770Core i5-4670KCore i5-4670Core i5-4570Core i7-3970XCore i7-3960XCore i7-3930KCore i7-3820Core i7-2700KCore i7-2600KCore i7-2600Core i7-2600SCore i5-3330Core i5-2500KCore i5-2500Core i5-2500SCore i5-2500TCore i5-2405SCore i5-2400Core i5-2400SCore i5-2390TCore i5-2320Core i5-2310Core i5-2300Core i3-2130Core i3-2125Core i3-2120Core i3-2105Core i3-2100Core i3-2100TPentium G860Pentium G850Pentium G840Pentium G632Pentium G630Pentium G622Pentium G620Celeron G540Celeron G530Celeron G440Core i7-990XCore i7-980Core i7 980XCore i7-975 ExtremeCore i7 970Core i7 965 ExtremeCore i7 960Core i7 950Core i7 940Core i7 930Core i7 920Core i7-880Core i7-875KCore i7-870Core i7-860SCore i7-860Core i5-760Core i5-750SCore i5-750Core i5-680Core i5-670Core i5-661Core i5- 660Core i5-655KCore i5-650Core i3-560Core i3-550Core i3-540Core i3-530Pentium G6960Pentium G6951Pentium G6950Atom D525Atom D510Atom D425Atom D410Atom 330Atom 230Core 2 Extreme QX9775Core 2 Extreme QX9770Core 2 Extreme QX9650Core 2 Quad Q9650Core 2 Quad Q9550sCore 2 Quad Q9550Core 2 Quad Q9505Core 2 Quad Q9450Core 2 Quad Q9400sCore 2 Quad Q9400Core 2 Quad Q9300Core 2 Quad Q8400sCore 2 Quad Q8400Core 2 Quad Q8300Core 2 Quad Q8200sCore 2 Quad Q8200Core 2 Duo E8600Core 2 Duo E8500Core 2 Duo E8400Core 2 Duo E8300Core 2 Duo E8200Core 2 Duo E8190Core 2 Duo E7600Core 2 Duo E7500Core 2 Duo E7400Core 2 Duo E7300Core 2 Duo E7200Core 2 Extreme QX6850Core 2 Extreme OX6800Core 2 Extreme QX6700Core 2 Quad Q6700Core 2 Quad Q6600Core 2 Extreme X6900Core 2 Extreme X6800Core 2 Duo E6850Core 2 Duo E6800Core 2 Duo E6750Core 2 Duo E6700Core 2 Duo E6600Core 2 Duo E6550Core 2 Duo E6540Core 2 Duo E6420Core 2 Duo E6400 (Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E6320Core 2 Duo E6300 ( Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6300 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E4700Core 2 Duo E4600Core 2 Duo E4500Core 2 Duo E4400Core 2 Duo E4300Pentium Dual-Core E6800Pentium Dual-Core E6700Pentium Dual-Core E6600Pentium Dual-Core E6500Pentium Dual-Core E6300Pentium Dual-Core E5800Pentium Dual-Core E5700Pentium Dual-Core E5500Pentium Dual-Core E5400Pentium Dual-Core E5300Pentium Dual-Core E5200Pentium Dual-Core E2220Pentium Dual-Core E2210Pentium Dual-Core E2200Pentium Dual-Core E2180Pentium Dual-Core E2160Pentium Dual-Core E21 4065 XEPentium D 960Pentium D 955 XEPentium D 950Pentium D 945Pentium D 940Pentium D 935Pentium D 930Pentium D 925Pentium D 920Pentium D 915Pentium D 840 XEPentium D 840Pentium D 830Pentium D 820Pentium D 805Pentium 4 EE 3. 73Pentium 4 EE 3.46Pentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 672Pentium 4 671Pentium 4 670Pentium 4 662Pentium 4 661Pentium 4 660Pentium 4 651Pentium 4 650Pentium 4 641Pentium 4 640Pentium 4 631Pentium 4 630Pentium 4 620Pentium 4 571Pentium 4 570JPentium 4 561Pentium 4 560JPentium 4 560Pentium 4 551Pentium 4 550JPentium 4 550Pentium 4 541Pentium 4 540JPentium 4 540Pentium 4 531Pentium 4 530JPentium 4 530Pentium 4 521Pentium 4 520JPentium 4 520Pentium 4 519KPentium 4 519JPentium 4 517Pentium 4 516Pentium 4 515JPentium 4 515Pentium 4 511Pentium 4 506Pentium 4 505JPentium 4 505Pentium 4 3.8FPentium 4 3.6FPentium 4 3.4FPentium 4 3.2FPentium 4 3.4EPentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 3.4Pentium 4 3.2EPentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 3.2 Pentium 4 3.06Pentium 4 3.0EPentium 4 3.0Pentium 4 2.8EPentium 4 2.8APentium 4 2.8CPentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.67Pentium 4 2.66Pentium 4 2.6CPentium 4 2.6Pentium 4 2.53Pentium 4 2.5Pentium 4 2.4EPentium 4 2.4APentium 4 2.4CPentium 4 2.4BPentium 4 2.4Pentium 4 2.26APentium 4 2. 26Pentium 4 2.2Pentium 4 2.0APentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8 APentium 4 1.8 Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6 APentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 1.3Pentium III-S 1400Pentium III 1400Pentium III 1333Pentium III-S 1266Pentium III 1200Pentium III-S 1133Pentium III 1133APentium III 1000BPentium III 1133Pentium III 1100Pentium III 1000EBPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 900Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550EPentium III 533EBPentium III 500EPentium III 1000BPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600BPentium III 600Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550Pentium III 550EPentium III 533BPentium III 533EBPentium III 500Pentium III 450Pentium II Overdrive 333Pentium II Overdrive 300Pentium II 450Pentium II 400Pentium II 350Pentium II 333Pentium II 300APentium II 300Pentium II 266APentium II 266Pentium II 233Pentium Overdrive MMX 200Pentium Overdrive MMX 180Pentium Overdrive MMX 166Pentium Overdrive MMX 150Pentium Overdrive 166Pentium Overdrive 150Pentium Overdrive 125Pentium Overdrive 133Pentium Overdrive 120Pentium Pro 200MHz (1024 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (512 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (256 KB)Pentium Pro 180MHzPentium Pro 166MHzPentium Pro 150MHzPentium 233 MMXPentium 200 MMXPentium 166 MMXPentium 200Pentium 166Pentium 150Pentium 133Pentium 120Pentium 100Pentium 90Pentium 75Pentium 66Pentium 60Celeron G1101Celeron E3500Celeron E3400Celeron E3300Celeron E3200Celeron E1600Celeron E1500Celeron E1400Celeron E1200Celeron 450Celeron 445Celeron 440Celeron 430Celeron 420Celeron 220Celeron D 365Celeron D 360Celeron D 356Celeron D 352Celeron D 355Celeron D 351Celeron D 350Celeron D 346Celeron D 345JCeleron D 345Celeron D 341Celeron D 340JCeleron D 340Celeron D 336Celeron D 335JCeleron D 335Celeron D 331Celeron D 330JCeleron D 330Celeron D 326Celeron D 325JCeleron D 325Celeron D 320Celeron D 315Celeron D 310Celeron 2. 8Celeron 2.7Celeron 2.6Celeron 2.5Celeron 2.4Celeron 2.3Celeron 2.2Celeron 2.1Celeron 2.0Celeron 1.8Celeron 1.7Celeron 1400Celeron 1300Celeron 1200Celeron 1100ACeleron 1000ACeleron 1100Celeron 1000Celeron 950Celeron 900Celeron 850Celeron 800Celeron 766Celeron 733Celeron 700Celeron 667Celeron 633Celeron 600Celeron 566Celeron 533ACeleron 533Celeron 500Celeron 466Celeron 433 (S370)Celeron 433 (Slot 1)Celeron 400 (S370)Celeron 400 (Slot 1)Celeron 366 (S370)Celeron 366 (Slot 1)Celeron 333 ( S370) Celeron 333 (Slot 1) Celeron 300A (S370) Celeron 300A (SLOT 1) Celeron 300CELERON 266
Go to all processors
Compare
AMDryzen 9 7950xryzen 9 7900xryzen 76600xryzen 76600xryzen 76600xryzen 76600xryzen 76600xryzen5950XRyzen 9 5900XRyzen 7 5800X3DRyzen 7 5800XRyzen 7 5700XRyzen 7 5700GRyzen 5 5600XRyzen 5 5600Ryzen 5 5600GRyzen 5 5500Ryzen 7 PRO 4750GRyzen 7 PRO 4750GERyzen 5 PRO 4650GRyzen 5 PRO 4650GERyzen 3 PRO 4350GRyzen 3 PRO 4350GERyzen Threadripper 3960XRyzen 9 3950XRyzen 9 3900XTRyzen 9 3900XRyzen 7 3800XTRyzen 7 3800XRyzen 7 3700XRyzen 5 3600XTRyzen 5 3600XRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3400GRyzen 3 3300XRyzen 3 3200GRyzen 3 3100Athlon 3000GRyzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2500XRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 5 2400GERyzen 3 2300XRyzen 3 2200GRyzen 3 2200GEAthlon 240GEAthlon 220GEAthlon 200GERyzen 7 1800XRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 1700Ryzen 5 1600XRyzen 5 1600 AFRyzen 5 1600Ryzen 5 1500XRyzen 5 1400Ryzen 3 1300XRyzen 3 1200 AFRyzen 3 1200FX-8350FX-8320FX-8150FX-8120FX-8100FX-6350FX-6100FX-4170FX-4100A10-7870KAthlon 5350A10-7850KAthlon X4 860KAthlon X4 760KAthlon X4 750KAthlon X4 740Athlon X2 340A10-5800KA10-5700A8 -5600KA8-5500A6-5400KA4-5300A8-3850A8-3800Athlon II X4 631A6-3650A6-3600A6-3500 A4-3400A4-3300Phenom II X6 1100TPhenom II X6 1090T BEPhenom II X6 1075TPhenom II X6 1065TPhenom II X6 1055TPhenom II X6 1045TPhenom II X6 1035TAthlon II X4 650Athlon II X4 645Athlon II X4 640Athlon II X4 635Athlon II X4 630Athlon II X4 620eAthlon II X4 620Athlon II X4 615eAthlon II X4 615Athlon II X4 610eAthlon II X4 605eAthlon II X4 605Athlon II X4 600eAthlon II X3 460Athlon II X3 455Athlon II X3 450Athlon II X3 445Athlon II X3 440Athlon II X3 435Athlon II X3 425eAthlon II X3 425Athlon II X3 420Athlon II X3 420eAthlon II X3 415eAthlon II X3 410Athlon II X3 405eAthlon II X3 400Athlon II X2 265Athlon II X2 270uAthlon II X2 260Athlon II X2 255Athlon II X2 250eAthlon II X2 250Athlon II X2 245eAthlon II X2 245Athlon II X2 240eAthlon II X2 240Athlon II X2 235eAthlon II X2 220Athlon II X2 215Athlon II X2 210eAthlon II 160uSempron 180Sempron 150Sempron 145Sempron 140Sempron 130Athlon X2 7850Athlon X2 7750Athlon X2 7550Athlon X2 7450Athlon X2 6500 BEPhenom II X4 980 BEPhenom II X4 975 BEPhenom II X4 970 BE (Zosma)Phenom II X4 970 BEPhenom II X4 965 BEPhenom II X4 960T BEPhenom II X4 955 BEPhenom II X4 945Phenom II X4 940Phenom II X4 925Phenom II X4 920Phenom II X4 IIphenom 910 905ePhenom II X4 900ePhenom II X4 850Phenom II X4 840Phenom II X4 840TPhenom II X4 830Phenom II X4 820Phenom II X4 810Phenom II X4 805Phenom II X3 740 BEPhenom II X3 720Phenom II X3 715 BEPhenom II X3 710Phenom II X3 705ePhenom II X3 700ePhenom II X2 570 BEPhenom II X2 565 BEPhenom II X2 560 BEPhenom II X2 555 BEPhenom II X2 550 BEPhenom II X2 550Phenom II X2 545Phenom II X2 521Phenom II X2 511Phenom X4 9950 BEPhenom X4 9850 BEPhenom X4 9850Phenom X4 9750BPhenom X4 9750Phenom X4 9650Phenom X4 9600 Black EditionPhenom X4 9600BPhenom X4 9600Phenom X4 9550Phenom X4 9500Phenom X4 9450ePhenom X4 9350ePhenom X4 9150ePhenom X4 9100ePhenom X3 8850Phenom X3 8750 BEPhenom X3 8750BPhenom X3 8750Phenom X3 8650Phenom X3 8600BPhenom X3 8600Phenom X3 8550Phenom X3 8450ePhenom X3 8450Phenom X3 8400Phenom X3 8250eAthlon X2 BE-2400Athlon X2 BE-2350Athlon X2 BE-2300Athlon 64 FX-74Athlon 64 FX-72Athlon 64 FX-70Athlon 64 FX-62Athlon 64 FX-60Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 6400+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) Athlon 64 X2 5800+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Brisbane) X2 5400+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 5000+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4850eAthlon 64 X2 4800+ (Bris bane)Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 4600+Athlon 64 X2 4450eAthlon 64 X2 4400+ (Brisbane) Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4050eAthlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 2MB) Athlon 64 X2 3800+Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 X2 4400+Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) (Manchester)Athlon 64 LE-1660Athlon 64 LE-1640Athlon 64 LE-1620Athlon 64 LE-1600Athlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 3800+Athlon 64 3500+Athlon 64 3200+Athlon 64 3Athlon 64 FX-557 -55Athlon 64 FX-53Athlon 64 FX-51Athlon 64 4200+Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego)Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3800+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3700 +Athlon 64 (Manchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3500+ (San Diego)At hlon 64 3500+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3500+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3700+Athlon 64 3400+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3400+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3000+ ( Venice) Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 3000+ (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 2800+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 2800+ (Clawhammer) +Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3400+Sempron 3300+Sempron 3100+ (Palermo)Sempron 3100+ (Paris)Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3000+ (Paris)Sempron 2800+Sempron 2600+ (Winchester)Sernpron 2600+ ( Palermo) Sempron 2500+Sempron 3000+Sempron 2800+ (Thorton) )Athlon XP 3200+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 3100+Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB400)Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2900+Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2700+Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2200 + (Thorton)Athlon XP 2200+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1900+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1900+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1800+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1800+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1700+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1600+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1600 + (Palomino) Athlon XP 1500+ Athlon 1400 (FSB266) ATHLON 1400 (FSB200) Athlon 1333athlon 1300athlon 1200 (FSB266) Athlon 1200 (FSB200) Ath26 (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon) Athlon 950Athlon 900Athlon 850Athlon 800Athlon 750Athlon 700Duron 1800Duron 1600Duron 1400Duron 1300Duron 1200Duron 1100Duron 1000Duron 950 (Morgan)Duron 950 (Spitfire)Duron 900 (Morgan)Duron 900 (Spitfire)Duron 850Duron 800Duron 750Duron 700Duron 650Duron 600Athlon 1000 (Orion)Athlon 1000 (Thunderbird) Athlon 950 (Pluto) Athlon 900 (Thunderbird) Athlon 850 (Pluto) Athlon 850 (Thundebird) Athlon 800 (Pluto) Athlon 800 (Thunderbird) Athlon 750 (Pluto) Athlon 750 (Thunderbird) Athlon 700 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Argon) Athlon 650 (Thunderbird) Athlon 600 (Pluto) Athlon 600 (Argon) Athlon 550 (Pluto) -2 533 (CXT)K6-2 500 (CXT)K6-2 475 (CXT)K6-2 450 (CXT)K6-2 400 (CXT)K6-2 380 (CXT)K6-2 366 (CXT)K6- 2 350 (CXT)K6-2 350K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300K6-2 266K6 300K6 266K6 233K6 200K6 166K5 PR166K5 PR150K5 PR133K5 PR120K5 PR100K5 PR90K5 PR75IntelPentium Gold G7400Celeron G6900Core i9-11900KCore i9-11900KFCore i9-11900Core i9-11900FCore i9-11900TCore i7-11700KCore i7-11700KFCore i7-11700Core i7-11700FCore i7-11700TCore i5-11600KCore i5-11600KFCore i5-11600Core i5-11600TCore i5-11500Core i5-11500TCore i5-11400Core i5-11400FCore i5-11400TCore i3-10325Core i3-10305Core i3-10305TCore i3-10105Core i3-10105FCore i3-10105TPentium Gold G6605Pentium Gold G6505Pentium Gold G6505TPentium Gold G6405Pentium Gold G6405TCore i9-10900KCore i9-10900KFCore i9-10900Core i9-10900FCore i7-10700KCore i7-10700KFCore i7-10700Core i7-10700FCore i5-10600KCore i5-10600KFCore i5-10600Core i5-10500Core i5-10400Core i5-10400FCore i3-10320Core i3-10300Core i3-10100Pentium Gold G6600Pentium Gold G6500Pentium Gold G6400Celeron G5925Celeron G5920Celeron G5905Celeron G5900Core i9-9900KCore i7-9700KCore i5-9600KCore i7-8700KCore i7-8700Core i5-8600KCore i5-8400Core i3-8350KCore i3-8100Pentium Gold G5400Core i7-7700KCore i7-7700Core i7-7700TCore i5-7600KCore i5- 7600Core i5-7600TCore i5-7500Core i5-7500TCore i5-7400Core i5-7400TCore i3-7350KCore i3-7320Core i3-7300Core i3-7300TCore i3-7100Core i3-7100TCore i7-6950XCore i7-6700KCore i7-6700Core i7-6700TCore i5-6600KCore i5-6600Core i5-6600TCore i5-6500Core i5-6500TCore i5-6400Core i5-6400TCore i3-6300Core i3-6300TCore i3-6100Core i3-6100TCore i7-5960XCore i7-5775CCore i5 -5675CCore i7-4960XCore i7-4930KCore i7-4820KCore i7-4790KCore i5-4690KCore i7-4770KCore i7-4770Core i5-4670KCore i5-4670Core i5-4570Core i7-3970XCore i7-3960XCore i7-3930KCore i7-3820Core i7-2700KCore i7-2600KCore i7-2600Core i7-2600SCore i5-3330Core i5-2500KCore i5-2500Core i5-2500SCore i5-2500TCore i5-2405SCore i5-2400Core i5-2400SCore i5-2390TCore i5-2320Core i5-2310Core i5-2300Core i3-2130Core i3-2125Core i3-2120Core i3-2105Core i3-2100Core i3-2100TPentium G860Pentium G850Pentium G840Pentium G632Pentium G630Pentium G622Pentium G620Celeron G540Celeron G530Celeron G440Core i7-990XCore i7-980Core i7 980XCore i7-975 ExtremeCore i7 970Core i7 965 ExtremeCore i7 960Core i7 950Core i7 940Core i7 930Core i7 920Core i7-880Core i7-875KCore i7-870Core i7-860SCore i7-860Core i5-760Core i5-750SCore i5-750Core i5-680Core i5-670Core i5-661Core i5- 660Core i5-655KCore i5-650Core i3-560Core i3-550Core i3-540Core i3-530Pentium G6960Pentium G6951Pentium G6950Atom D525Atom D510Atom D425Atom D410Atom 330Atom 230Core 2 Extreme QX9775Core 2 Extreme QX9770Core 2 Extreme QX9650Core 2 Quad Q9650Core 2 Quad Q9550sCore 2 Quad Q9550Core 2 Quad Q9505Core 2 Quad Q9450Core 2 Quad Q9400sCore 2 Quad Q9400Core 2 Quad Q9300Core 2 Quad Q8400sCore 2 Quad Q8400Core 2 Quad Q8300Core 2 Quad Q8200sCore 2 Quad Q8200Core 2 Duo E8600Core 2 Duo E8500Core 2 Duo E8400Core 2 Duo E8300Core 2 Duo E8200Core 2 Duo E8190Core 2 Duo E7600Core 2 Duo E7500Core 2 Duo E7400Core 2 Duo E7300Core 2 Duo E7200Core 2 Extreme QX6850Core 2 Extreme OX6800Core 2 Extreme QX6700Core 2 Quad Q6700Core 2 Quad Q6600Core 2 Extreme X6900Core 2 Extreme X6800Core 2 Duo E6850Core 2 Duo E6800Core 2 Duo E6750Core 2 Duo E6700Core 2 Duo E6600Core 2 Duo E6550Core 2 Duo E6540Core 2 Duo E6420Core 2 Duo E6400 (Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E6320Core 2 Duo E6300 ( Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6300 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E4700Core 2 Duo E4600Core 2 Duo E4500Core 2 Duo E4400Core 2 Duo E4300Pentium Dual-Core E6800Pentium Dual-Core E6700Pentium Dual-Core E6600Pentium Dual-Core E6500Pentium Dual-Core E6300Pentium Dual-Core E5800Pentium Dual-Core E5700Pentium Dual-Core E5500Pentium Dual-Core E5400Pentium Dual-Core E5300Pentium Dual-Core E5200Pentium Dual-Core E2220Pentium Dual-Core E2210Pentium Dual-Core E2200Pentium Dual-Core E2180Pentium Dual-Core E2160Pentium Dual-Core E21 4065 XEPentium D 960Pentium D 955 XEPentium D 950Pentium D 945Pentium D 940Pentium D 935Pentium D 930Pentium D 925Pentium D 920Pentium D 915Pentium D 840 XEPentium D 840Pentium D 830Pentium D 820Pentium D 805Pentium 4 EE 3. 73Pentium 4 EE 3.46Pentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 672Pentium 4 671Pentium 4 670Pentium 4 662Pentium 4 661Pentium 4 660Pentium 4 651Pentium 4 650Pentium 4 641Pentium 4 640Pentium 4 631Pentium 4 630Pentium 4 620Pentium 4 571Pentium 4 570JPentium 4 561Pentium 4 560JPentium 4 560Pentium 4 551Pentium 4 550JPentium 4 550Pentium 4 541Pentium 4 540JPentium 4 540Pentium 4 531Pentium 4 530JPentium 4 530Pentium 4 521Pentium 4 520JPentium 4 520Pentium 4 519KPentium 4 519JPentium 4 517Pentium 4 516Pentium 4 515JPentium 4 515Pentium 4 511Pentium 4 506Pentium 4 505JPentium 4 505Pentium 4 3.8FPentium 4 3.6FPentium 4 3.4FPentium 4 3.2FPentium 4 3.4EPentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 3.4Pentium 4 3.2EPentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 3.2 Pentium 4 3.06Pentium 4 3.0EPentium 4 3.0Pentium 4 2.8EPentium 4 2.8APentium 4 2.8CPentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.67Pentium 4 2.66Pentium 4 2.6CPentium 4 2.6Pentium 4 2.53Pentium 4 2.5Pentium 4 2.4EPentium 4 2.4APentium 4 2.4CPentium 4 2.4BPentium 4 2.4Pentium 4 2.26APentium 4 2. 26Pentium 4 2.2Pentium 4 2.0APentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8 APentium 4 1.8 Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6 APentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 1.3Pentium III-S 1400Pentium III 1400Pentium III 1333Pentium III-S 1266Pentium III 1200Pentium III-S 1133Pentium III 1133APentium III 1000BPentium III 1133Pentium III 1100Pentium III 1000EBPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 900Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550EPentium III 533EBPentium III 500EPentium III 1000BPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600BPentium III 600Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550Pentium III 550EPentium III 533BPentium III 533EBPentium III 500Pentium III 450Pentium II Overdrive 333Pentium II Overdrive 300Pentium II 450Pentium II 400Pentium II 350Pentium II 333Pentium II 300APentium II 300Pentium II 266APentium II 266Pentium II 233Pentium Overdrive MMX 200Pentium Overdrive MMX 180Pentium Overdrive MMX 166Pentium Overdrive MMX 150Pentium Overdrive 166Pentium Overdrive 150Pentium Overdrive 125Pentium Overdrive 133Pentium Overdrive 120Pentium Pro 200MHz (1024 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (512 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (256 KB)Pentium Pro 180MHzPentium Pro 166MHzPentium Pro 150MHzPentium 233 MMXPentium 200 MMXPentium 166 MMXPentium 200Pentium 166Pentium 150Pentium 133Pentium 120Pentium 100Pentium 90Pentium 75Pentium 66Pentium 60Celeron G1101Celeron E3500Celeron E3400Celeron E3300Celeron E3200Celeron E1600Celeron E1500Celeron E1400Celeron E1200Celeron 450Celeron 445Celeron 440Celeron 430Celeron 420Celeron 220Celeron D 365Celeron D 360Celeron D 356Celeron D 352Celeron D 355Celeron D 351Celeron D 350Celeron D 346Celeron D 345JCeleron D 345Celeron D 341Celeron D 340JCeleron D 340Celeron D 336Celeron D 335JCeleron D 335Celeron D 331Celeron D 330JCeleron D 330Celeron D 326Celeron D 325JCeleron D 325Celeron D 320Celeron D 315Celeron D 310Celeron 2. 8Celeron 2.7Celeron 2.6Celeron 2.5Celeron 2.4Celeron 2.3Celeron 2.2Celeron 2.1Celeron 2.0Celeron 1.8Celeron 1.7Celeron 1400Celeron 1300Celeron 1200Celeron 1100ACeleron 1000ACeleron 1100Celeron 1000Celeron 950Celeron 900Celeron 850Celeron 800Celeron 766Celeron 733Celeron 700Celeron 667Celeron 633Celeron 600Celeron 566Celeron 533ACeleron 533Celeron 500Celeron 466Celeron 433 (S370)Celeron 433 (Slot 1)Celeron 400 (S370)Celeron 400 (Slot 1)Celeron 366 (S370)Celeron 366 (Slot 1)Celeron 333 ( S370)Celeron 333 (Slot 1)Celeron 300A (S370)Celeron 300A (Slot 1)Celeron 300Celeron 266
You can select
up to 10 processors simultaneously by holding Ctrl
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor [in 3 benchmarks]0001
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
- Interface
- Core frequency
- Video memory size
- Memory type
- Memory frequency
- Maximum resolution
Description
AMD started AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sales in August 2007. This is Windsor architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 2 cores and 2 threads and is manufactured by 90 nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 3100 MHz, the multiplier is locked.
In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket AM2 processor with a TDP of 125W.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
0.92%
from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
Athlon 64
X2 6000+
or
EPYC
7h22
General information
Information about the type (for desktops or laptops) and architecture of the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, as well as when sales started and cost at that time.
Performance ranking | 2431 | |
Value for money |
Value for money
To obtain an index, we compare the characteristics of processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.
- 0
- 50
- 100
Features
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.
Overall performance in tests
This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
0.92
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark consisting of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
925
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can be used to accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
277
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses all available processor cores.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
507
Relative capacity
Overall Athlon 64 X2 6000+ performance compared to its nearest competitor desktop processors.
AMD Athlon II X2 215
102.17
Intel Pentium E5400
101.09
Intel Celeron E3500
101.09
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
100
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+
97.83
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+
97.83
Intel Pentium E5300
97.83
Competitor from Intel
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Athlon 64 X2 6000+ from Intel is Celeron E3500, which is slower by 1% and higher by 5 positions in our rating, on average.
Celeron
E3500
Compare
Here are some of Intel’s closest competitors to the Athlon 64 X2 6000+:
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200
103.26
Intel Celeron E3500
101. 09
Intel Pentium E5400
101.09
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
100
Intel Pentium E5300
97.83
Intel Pentium G620T
96.74
Intel Pentium E5200
93.48
Other processors
Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.
Pentium
E5400
Compare
Athlon II
X2 215
Compare
Pentium
E5300
Compare
Athlon 64
X2 5400+
Compare
Athlon 64
X2 5600+
Compare
Core 2
Duo E7200
Compare
Recommended video cards
According to our statistics, these video cards are most often used with Athlon 64 X2 6000+:
GeForce
9600 GT
10. 2%
GeForce GTS
450
5.7%
GeForce
9800 GT
4.5%
GeForce GTX
550 Ti
3.6%
GeForce GT
710
3.4%
GeForce GT
730
3%
GeForce GTX
650
2.7%
GeForce GT
240
2.6%
GeForce
8600 GT
2.6%
GeForce GT
630
2.5%
User rating
Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.
Tips and comments
Here you can ask a question about the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
1747985
Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, and the memory of him will remain for life.
Excellent! God, the processor is a legend of its time! It has been working for 10 years, for the last 4 years I began to take care of it (well, there is thermal paste, remove dust, etc.) and I look at it and understand this is a processor. Pulls «average» games at minimum wages (30 frames, it will give out). Enough for home use. Who fumbles in overclocking can easily drive up to 3.2 (with a good cooler). It will remain in my heart for the rest of my life. Considerable power for 2 cores. Reliable, 10 years of operation (in game mode). Too hot, TDP 125W. Under full load of 2 cores, it gives out 55-60 degrees (critical temp. in the region of 63-65).
ararr
For a middle-class computer, you can take
It will do. If you take not strong games, and you have a video card at an average level, then I think you can take it. But if you install a video card (for example, geforce gtx280 or radeon hd4870 and higher) so that all games run well, then this processor is simply not enough, it’s better to take Intel (for example, E8400 and higher). price On the last games (at max) it’s very sickly.
Artem
For the money he is the best!
Excellent! I had it on my old computer, it still stands and will stand! For 4 years I have not found any problems, what about cooling, so there is no need to even talk about it! It’s just that now it’s already a bit old, but if someone needs a normal processor for work and at home (i. e., watch a movie and listen to music), since you won’t be able to play new games at full steam on it, it’s what you need! Unpretentious, reliable, does not require cooling! Weak at the moment.
delux333
a good processor, for its time)
Excellent! good percent, I have been using it since 2005, then it was a mega percent, everything was pulling, but time goes by, processors are improving … above above
Eudgen
Excellent processor. The best choice for an inexpensive upgrade for owners of 3000, 3200 and even 3800+
Great! Over 19$ the processor works simply enchantingly. Above 50 degrees it does not heat up even with the maximum load (PSU CHIEFTEC 500w), almost does not notice office tasks, periodically I indulge in World of Tanks — the bundle produces a stable 24-48 fps on medium requirements and improved rendering.
Those. if you are not ready to change your old motherboard — this processor is a real find for you — quite fast, economical and cold enough by AMD standards. In conjunction with an inexpensive, but fairly modern video card, it will satisfy an unpretentious player, and it will cope with the rest of the tasks perfectly well. — performance
— profitability
— 45w power consumption, t not higher than 50 gr.
— low price Frequency 2.5 GHz — can be a problem for those who want to play modern games without spending money on a new motherboard
exstudy
Became like a family member
Great! crack. Since 2006. It would be time to rest, but the hand does not rise. The box cooler circulates air rather poorly, but it doesn’t make much noise. During this time, the video card, PSU, HDD died, and at least henna to him. Oh yes, the performance was unsurpassed then) I still make 2D drawings in CAD, but you can’t play new games anymore. Legends don’t die — they’ll probably outlive me. What is it about?
Krablzd
Hot coal!
It will do Prots itself, like a pro, only very, very hot. You can fry an egg. Pretty fast. Hot, already steaming!
lesprikonga
Check the label before buying
Good There are 3 varieties of the Athlon X2 6000+ processor:
1) marking ADX6000IAA6CZ — Windsor core, frequency 3.0GHz, L2 cache 1024Kb + 1024Kb, heat dissipation 125W (the hottest)
2) marking ADA6000IAA6CZ — Windsor core, frequency 3.0 GHz, L2 cache 1024Kb + 1024Kb, heat dissipation 89W (supply voltage reduced)
3) marking ADV6000IAA5DO — Brisbane core, frequency 3. 1GHz, L2 cache 512Kb + 512Kb, heat dissipation 89W (slower cache)
I got the first one. When the supply voltage is reduced from 1.4 to 1.25
works stably and heats up less Inexpensive, productive percent compared to Intel products The optimal would be percent No. 2, reduced and slower cache for No. 3, hot No. 1
lol2001
in my heart forever
Great! just a legend already worth 9-10 years old, outlived 1 mother, 1 vidyuhu, 1 bp they died all at once and he probably survived me power durability no
nabeybeat
A wonderful processor for its once money!
Great! Wonderful processor for your money! Never let me down!!! No problems in 6 years! No problems in 6 years!
OXOTHiK-94
could have put 10 — would put 20 =)
Excellent! I can say that AMD-devs were able to produce durable, powerful processors. My computer has been standing for almost 10 years, so I don’t know if anyone needs this review at the present time) At that time it was unsurpassed power, all new games and another 5 years plus new games pulled without any problems. It still works. Yes, with the current requirements, it’s time to change it, with modern requirements for applications, games and operating systems, of course, it doesn’t pull it out anymore, it’s understandable, it’s already so many years old. Like my own) Speed, durability, I don’t remember the cost to tell the truth Well, it’s already too old for modern systems, but they simply don’t exist
sabl9
If you have AM2, insert it.
Ok Hello from 2016. Stands today on my modest computer. gt630 2gb. 4gb ram ddr-2
Play cs go FPS 50-80
I play Pro Evolution Soccer 2017. Medium settings. Everything is great.
Tried to put GTA 5 sags specifically in places, but you can indulge.
Powerful old processor. of AM2 is the best
You can play at low almost everything new. It heats up terribly, on bad coolers
Not chasing
Sanches
I advise!
Great! I bought it about a year or a year and a half ago, I don’t remember. Yes, it boils like my kettle)), on an old cooler for $ 10-15 it reached up to 70 degrees. I bought Cooler Master V8 a new Stacker 931 case and two Enermax Apolish valves and a normul, in games up to 50 it catches up with the max))), this is cool even for such a hot amigo as AMD with the hottest version. And about not chasing — nonsense! Everything is chasing, it still depends on the motherboard, I have ASUS M2N SLI DELUX nForce 570 SLI support for 140 cotton CPUs! reset to 3.345Mhz and all the rules, the multiplier did not touch, drove by voltage))), gain + 11% Excellent chasing, price, quality! Hot for weak and cheap coolers!
THE_EA-DEATH
Good stone for the money.
Good Excellent processor. It’s been exactly 1 year since I’ve had it. While satisfied.
Quietly chases from 2.7g to 3.0g and at the same time the temperature is very stable. 20 degrees without load and 40-45 with load. You can even up to 3.2g, but then the temperature rises and you have to open the roof of the computer. At one time he was a very good prots, until he finished it. Quietly works during acceleration. Doesn’t get very hot. no.
vovamel
the best AMD creation combined price quality
Great! fell) most likely the mother got a Biostar 750 sl T pover took it with her started working in 2006 survived three vidyuhi, 2 sets of RAM, percent fire, friends have already changed computers 2 times, but everything worked for me, until I throw it away, I’ll try on put some kind of overclocked mother. I have 6000+ 9 years plowed overclocked to 3600 mg warmed up, you need a good cooler of dollars from 25
Wolwerine
Threshing with a bang!
Excellent! I look, despite the obsolete processor, the reviews are good))
I want to mark myself. I took 6000 stone in 2008.. still mumbling. pulls everything)) but crisis 3 didn’t start because of the video card, I don’t know how I would pull it or not) and so no complaints. I took it with a box cooler, everything works well) despite being old, quite nimble hot… the process technology makes you aware
YRA
Good, but old!
Fits US 5200+ 2700. MAX. I overclocked it to 3325, but there was no stability, I removed it to 3200 and everything began to fuss!
Proc. good — was about 2 years ago! Normal hard worker Proc. good — was about 2 years ago!
_Terr
An excellent percentage of the times when AMD was still on horseback
Excellent! Plows since the beginning of 2006. Excellent processor. Pulls even modern programs such as Photoshop. It’s a pity that due to the slowness of the operatives by today’s standards, we now need to change the mother, which means the percentage, eh … Just a great stone Haven’t noticed in 7 years
Alex
In games (COD4, NFS HP-2010) — 55-58 deg.
Good I put a 92mm intake valve in the front (120mm does not fit into the mATX case), an 80mm exhaust valve in the back, add. 70mm valve for the cooler (Titanium — see below) of the processor, plus a 120mm horizontal valve for the PSU FSP 450PNR / Now in the Everest stress test it gives a stable 60-62 deg. In games (COD4, NFS HP-2010) — 55-58 degrees. Fast CPU temperature does not allow to drive (water cooling!)
Alex
Better add a little and buy AM2+ — AM3 compatible processor!
Good Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Brisbane, 3.1 GHz, 89W — fast but hot processor! Windows7 put a performance rating of 6.1. Requires a VERY CAREFUL APPROACH TO THE SELECTION OF THE COOLING SYSTEM. I have a Titan (130W) with a 92mm valve on copper tubes, plus a valve on the body. In stress tests, the processor temperature is at the limit (60-63 degrees). I think, in addition to the summer, put the second valve on the case in front for blowing, and replace the valve on the cooler with 120mm. And so — the system flies. Fast (for his age). Cheap (relative to others). Very hot. Physically tired. Morally obsolete.
Alexey
Quite enough
Excellent! I took the 6400+ as soon as it appeared on sale, I was happy and proud of it (before that I had an Athlon 2800), I took BOX, so it works on standard cooling and has never let me down , all applications and the latest games fly at maximum speed, although the load in almost any game reaches 100% (but I’m already used to this in the old one), I don’t even see any reason to change it yet))) Even now he is quite competitive. Acceptable price. Not found
Andrey
hot but good
OK I have ADX6400IAA6CZ Windsor core, clock 3.2GHz, L2 cache 1024Kb+1024Kb, heat dissipation 125W — hot but good. In general, I’m happy as an elephant! Long chased after him and found. I installed a Cooler Master cooler with heat pipes. The temperature under load is 59-61 degrees, in idle 31-32. The best percent on this core and the last one in this series. High operating frequency and there is an overclocking margin (3.4GHz). Requires an efficient cooling system
Andrey
As much as 3 GHz
Excellent! I don’t even know if anyone will need this review for 2014 or not, but still. I have been using this stone for a long time. Year 4 (Maybe more). Impressions are the best. At the time, I didn’t have any problems with it. In terms of performance at the moment, GF8600GT and 9800GT were also doing well. He pulled out all the new toys, furiously consuming his 125 watts. I remember in 2007 (it was 15 years old then) when my friends still had old celerons, this processor was the most high-end. How so? as many as two cores and 3GHz? at that time it was space. Already two years as on Intel. Immediately i5 now i7. Of course, faster, of course, cooler, but for some reason, the six-thousander, for me, still remains a little more than an ordinary stone that I once had. Legend. 125W, it was unrealistic to get warm on the stock cooler
Vadim
«Boiler» in the system unit
Mediocre I bought it because it is the most productive processor that is installed on my motherboard. Immediately discovered that it is heated terribly. With the standard cooler, which worked fine on the X2 Dual-Core 5600+, even MS Word overheated here. I had to buy a cooler with tubes. But even now I do not close the system. In games, the temperature of the processor is at the limit. In general, do not take the 125W version. And, by the way, he does not chase at all. Balance of price and performance Excessive heating, not chasing
Vanya
Legendary processor
Excellent! Good processor, I bought it in 2009 and just now replaced it. Because for modern games at maximum settings, it slows down a bit. But the stone is amazing! High performance for 2005 model. Small brakes because of him in some games
Victor
I recommend to take.
Good What does 6000+ to 5600+ have to do with it??
In general, I came across with the marking ADA5600IAA5DO, respectively, its parameters are as follows: L2 — 512×2
core frequency — 2900
core — Brisbane, 65nm
consumption — 64 watts
revision — BH-G2 Overclocked to 3300. Locked multiplier.
Victor
Excellent processor for the K9 platform
Excellent! For dual-core processors, an example to imitate! The price/quality ratio is just amazing!! Price quality for this model, this price range — no not big. very hot — up to 72gr. Pulls modern applications and games …. Hot, requires additional spending on good cooling.
Magus
Athlon Legends
Great!
I got this processor in 2006, for immodest at that time — 230 USD. At that time, these processors were fried as best they could. Intel’s gluing Pentium D could not oppose them. But in 2007, full-fledged Core 2 Duo came out and the wonderful era of Athlon processors came to an end.
The line, which debuted in 2001, immediately became the first. Along with it, AMD was the first to take 1 GHz, brought the 64-bit architecture to the masses (adequate, without loss of performance), the first to integrate a memory controller into the processor, and a bunch of other good innovations.
A remarkable monument was the glory and strength of engineering. The processor is outdated to write about the advantages / disadvantages The processor is outdated to write about the advantages / disadvantages
Denis
For such money, that’s it!
Good I took the same processor! They work fine, but they get very hot. Somewhere around 62 degrees 🙁 I don’t know what to do anymore. I couldn’t lower the voltage. ASUS Nforce 570ultra mother. There are only standard commands 1.38V and ignore in the BIOS. You will have to buy an expensive cooler, which I advise everyone when buying this unit!0775 Price-quality-speed of work High temperature. Expensive cooler in pursuit.
Dmitry
You can take.
Good I bought it a long time ago, at that time there was nothing like a pebble, but it takes its time. Perfect for work, toys are good, but not enough. Together with the CoolerMaster Hyper TX3 cooler, the temperature does not rise above 40 at 70 percent rpm, which cannot be said about the boxed cooler. It didn’t work out particularly well, but it’s realistic to make 4600+ out of it, it will work quite stably. as a simple option — itself is outdated, you will need to buy decent cooling
Eugene
Good percent
Good Good percent, only hot, you need a good cooler, at the time when I took it, there was no suitable cooler, not that now the choice. Win 7 even worked well, but Win XP is best for this, whatever one may say, it worked for me for about 2 years, but it is outdated, which is a pity, for games.
needs to be changed constantly Performance Price Time
Igor
Take it if you’re sorry for the money, but you need a good stone.
Great! I’ll tell you what, 3800+ is a cool stone. It stands on MSI K9N6SGM-V with a Floston FCAM-22SACQ valve and does not heat up above 40. 25-30 idle. Works fast. For light games, archivers, office and other rubbish just right. Powerful (for the money), cold (for AMD). Did not detect.
Sergey
the best stone
Great!
I work in the NSF sometimes I play, and so the children watch cartoons.
Change without intending to.
And before him was 3800+
Let it work while it works!!! Trouble-free, reliable!!! When the cooler clogs up with dust, it slows down
Sergey L.
Cool
Great! The processor is just class! After my AMD 3000+ It’s just a cool thing!
Bought in one of the elite stores in Minsk! I bought a $10 cooler with him! The temperature, in a word, is super, about 76 degrees, I had to buy Glacialtech for 70560! Cool, the temperature has dropped to the baseboard and is 54 degrees maximum! EVERYTHING! Temperature!
Tyoma
Grandpa amd;)
Good It’s been worth it for 9 years already) In idle, the temperature is 38 °, then it rises to a maximum of 55) but the era of this stone is over, so you need to take something new)) For his age, excellent processor)) Temperature
Yuri
Today — the best!
Excellent! I have the ADX6000IAA6CZ marking — Windsor core, frequency 3. 0 GHz, L2 cache 1024Kb + 1024Kb, heat dissipation 125W, super processor, everything flies, Geforce 260 GTX card, all games fly at maximum without problems. So Intel processors are resting, and why overpay for a similar Intel at least 50 dollars. Super processor, everything flies without problems. Not expensive. Productive. You need a decent cooler, like ASUS Arctic Square.
Pay attention
AMD FX-6300 (FD6300WMW6KHK)
Average rating: 4.5, opinions:
AMD Phenom II X4 B93
Average:
AMD PHENOM II 955 (HDK9DG) Average Rating: 5, Opinions:
AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core 5000+
Average Rating: 4.5, Opinions:
Tell a friend
Give your opinion
AMD Athlon X2 6000+ processor
Home / Processors / AMD Athlon X2 6000+
- Edelmark rating — 3.3 out of 10;
- Release date: February, 2007;
- Number of cores: 2;
- Frequency: 3 GHz;
- Power consumption (TDP): 125W;
Specifications AMD Athlon X2 6000+
General parameters
Clock speed | 3GHz |
---|---|
Cores | 2 |
Socket | AM2 |
Unlock cores | No |
Functions
NX-bit (XD-bit) present | Yes |
---|---|
Virtualization support | Yes |
Instructions supported | MMX SSE SSE2 3DNow! SSE3 |
Support for dynamic frequency scaling (CPU Throttling) | Yes |
Integrated (integrated) graphics
Graphics core | No |
---|---|
Brand | No |
Latest DirectX | No |
Number of displays supported | No |
Graphics core clock speed | No |
Maximum clock frequency | No |
3DMark06 | No |
Parts and Features
Architecture | x86-64 |
---|---|
Threads | 2 |
L2 cache | 2MB |
Second level cache per core (L2) | 1 MB/core |
L3 cache | 0MB |
Level 3 cache per core (L3) | 0 MB/core |
Process | 90 nm |
Maximum processors | 1 |
Voltage range | 1. 35 — 1.4V |
Operating temperature | Unknown — 55°C |
Overclocking Athlon X2 6000+
Overclocking Clock | 3.33 GHz |
---|---|
Water-cooled boost clock | 3.53 GHz |
PassMark (Overclocked) | 1.612.2 |
Air cooled boost clock | 3.33 GHz |
Power consumption
Power consumption | 125W |
---|---|
Annual cost of electricity (NON-commercial use) | 30.11 $/year |
Annual cost of electricity (commercial use) | 109.5 $/year |
Capacity per W | 0.53pt/W |
Average energy consumption | 101.56W |
Comparison of Athlon X2 6000+ with similar processors
Performance
Performance using all cores.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 3.3 out of 10 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 4.1 out of 10 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 3.2 out of 10 |
Performance per core
Base performance per processor core.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 3.1 out of 10 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 3.2 out of 10 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2.7 out of 10 |
Integrated Graphics
Integrated GPU performance for graphics tasks.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 0.0 out of 10 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 0.0 out of 10 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | no data |
Integrated graphics (OpenCL)
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 0.0 out of 10 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 0.0 out of 10 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | no data |
Performance per W
How efficiently the processor uses electricity.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 4.0 out of 10 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 4.4 out of 10 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 5. 6 out of 10 |
Price-performance ratio
How much you overpay for performance.
Athlon X2 6000+ | no data |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | no data |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | no data |
Total Edelmark rating
Total processor rating.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 3.3 out of 10 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 3.6 out of 10 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 4.9out of 10 |
Benchmarks Athlon X2 6000+
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core)
Athlon X2 6000+ | 2. 472 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 4.490 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 1,767.5 |
GeekBench 3 (Single core)
Athlon X2 6000+ | 1.290 |
---|---|
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 994.5 |
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 1.306 |
GeekBench 3 (AES single core)
Athlon X2 6000+ | 86.1 MB/s |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 102,800 MB/s |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 64.85 MB/s |
GeekBench (32-bit)
Athlon X2 6000+ | 2.188 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 4.161 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 1.857 |
GeekBench (64-bit)
Athlon X2 6000+ | 3.720 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 4.541 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 3. 326 |
GeekBench
Athlon X2 6000+ | 3.720 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 5.918 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 3.326 |
PassMark
Athlon X2 6000+ | 1.604 |
---|---|
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 2.970 |
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 1.497 |
PassMark (Single Core)
Athlon X2 6000+ | 898 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 779 | |||||
Core2 Quad Q6600 | 924 |
PassMark Single thread mark |
|
|||||
PassMark CPU mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench 4 Single Core |
|
|||||
Geekbench 4 Multi-Core |
|
|||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop Face Detection |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Ocean Surface Simulation |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop T-Rex |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Bitcoin Mining |
|
|
Name | Meaning |
---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 1026 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 925 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 288 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 514 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection | 1.495 mPixels/s |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation | 3.655 Frames/s |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex | 0.078 Frames/s |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining | 2.013 mHash/s |
Features
Architecture name | Windsor |
Production date | February 2007 |
Place in ranking | 2549 |
Price now | $32.50 |
Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 14. 55 |
Applicability | Desktop |
Support 64 bit | |
Crystal area | 220mm |
Level 1 cache | 256KB |
Level 2 cache | 1024KB |
Process | 90nm |
Maximum frequency | 3GHz |
Number of cores | 2 |
Number of transistors | 227 million |
Maximum number of processors in configuration | 1 |
Supported sockets | AM2 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt |
second -level cache on the kernel (L2) | 1 MB/Nucleus |
Third -level cache (L3) | 0 MB |
of the third level per nucleus (L3) | 0 MB/kernel |
Technological process | 90 nm |
Maximum processors | 1 |
voltage range | 1. 35 — 1.4V |
Opening temperature | is unknown — 55 ° C.0011 125W |
The annual cost of electricity (non -profit use) | 30.11 $/year |
The annual electricity cost (commercial use) | 109.5 $ | performance on Tue Bus | 0. |
Average power consumption | 101.56W |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ CPU 2: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | CPU 1 |
CPU 2 |
0012
Integrated graphics (Opencl)
Employed GPU for Parallells.
Tested on: CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining, CompuBench 1.5 Face detection, CompuBench 1.5 Ocean Surface Simulation, CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex, CompuBench 1.5 Video composition.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 0.0 from 10 |
Core2 QUAD Q6600 | 0.0 from 10 |
ATHLON 64 X2 5000+ | No data |
Products, out of 1 VT
, as far as the processor uses the processor.
Tests used: Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin, CompuBench 1.5 Face detection, CompuBench 1.5 Ocean Surface Simulation, CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex, CompuBench 1.5 Video composition, PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark, Geekbench 3 Multi-Core, PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core, Geekbench 3 AES Single Core, TDP.
Athlon X2 6000+ | 4. 0 of 10 |
Core2 QUAD Q6600 | 4.4 Of 10 |
Athlon 64 x2 5000+ | 5.6 of 10 |
Advantages of
Reasons to choose AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
- Newer processor, 5 month(s) difference in release dates
- About 15% more clock speed: 3 GHz vs 2.6 GHz in benchmark 9012 Geekbench 4 — Single Core about 8% more: 288 vs 266
- Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core about 3% more: 514 vs 498
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) about 30% more: 1.4
1.495 vs 1.147 Reasons to choose AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+
- About 40% less power consumption: 89 Watt vs 125 Watt
- 17% more: 4. 278 vs 3.655
- About 10% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.086 vs 0.078
Features Core2 Quad Q6600 102,800 MB/s Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 64.85 MB/s GeekBench (32-bit)
Athlon X2 6000+ 2,188 Core2 Quad Q6600 4,161 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 1,857 GeekBench (64-bit)
Athlon X2 6000+ 3,720 Core2 Quad Q6600 4,541 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 3,326 GeekBench
Athlon X2 6000+ 3,720 Core2 Quad Q6600 5,918 Athlon 64 x2 5000+ 3.326 Passmark
Athlon X2 6000+ 1. 604 Core2 Quad Q6600 2..0009 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 1,497 PassMark (Single Core)
Athlon X2 6000+ 898 Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 779 Core2 Quad Q6600 924 Description
AMD started AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ sales in February 2007. This is Windsor architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 2 cores and 2 threads and is manufactured by 90 nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 3.1 GHz, the multiplier is locked.
In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket AM2 processor with a TDP of 125W.
It provides weak performance in tests at the level of 3.38% of the leader, which is AMD EPYC 7742.
Athlon X2 6000+ reviews I took on the advice of one weirdo 6000+, which I greatly regretted, this 125-watt stove brought me a lot of problems.
I regret that I didn’t take this athlon 5600+, since for this stone the memory controller does not cut the RAM as it cuts its athlon 6000+.
of course it’s funny, but it’s not a fact that the cores in it will be live 2 ddr with a 700 series chipset, also look for 3 frequency is still low 2.5 GHz edge on it is better than a second hair dryer for 2 rubles with 4 cores which will guaranteed to work at 3.5 GHz and still quite lively or even 1055t if the mother pulls 125 watts
iron and there is just a drain of money ….. People, be extremely careful and careful when choosing iron … otherwise the consequences can be disastrous ……!
in my opinion, the processor does a great job) the picture in games at medium settings is almost indistinguishable from the picture at maximum settings, so the video is just brainwashing juveniles so that they burn the processor as soon as possible, preferably together with the motherboard
Tags:125W , 3 GHz, AMD, Athlon X2 6000+, CPU
Processor AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+ specifications and my review!
Hello everyone You know, I don’t often write about AMD processors, but today I will write about just such, to be more precise, about the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ model, I will tell you what I think about it and tell you its characteristics. Well, I think that you know that the processor is, as it were, far from new, but at the same time I can’t say that it’s nothing at all, all the same, it seems to me that it’s better than the Pentium 4, which means that for an office computer it fit quietly.
So what is the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor? This is a percent made according to the 90 nm process technology, frequency 3 GHz, TDP is 125 watts, so this percent can by no means be called cold. Two cores, each core has a L2 cache of 1 MB, that is, a total of 2 MB, which is not so bad. Supports DDR2 memory, maximum capacity is 16 gigs. The percent itself was released somewhere in 2006, well, maybe a little earlier, but around this time. There is a model made according to the 90 nm process technology, and there is one made according to the 65 nm process technology, the latter is better, because it heats up less. Processor socket is AM2.
In general, AMD Athlon 64 X2 is, as it were, an analogue of the processor from Intel, here I mean the E6600, but this E6600 has a frequency of 2. 4 GHz, the cache is really 4 MB. And the E6600 consumes almost half as much energy, because the TDP is 65 watts. To be more precise, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 is only slightly inferior to the E6600, that is, everything is in the best traditions, AMD is good, but Intel is better. it was a little more powerful than the similar one from Intel, but to be honest I won’t lie, I don’t remember exactly what model it was ..
Here is what the CPU-Z program shows about this process:
Here are more detailed characteristics:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and games: why not? No, well, of course, modern games, I don’t think that they will work normally on this processor, even if there is a super-duper vidyuha, then the processor will still be missed. But a little old games, such as NFS Most Wanted, Quake 4, then you can play with a normal vidyuha. By the way, I think that DOOM 3 will also work well, well, I just liked this game very much before, well, it was really a long time ago, although the game is old, but as for me, it’s one of the best in general…
I can’t say anything about overclocking AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, the fact is that the CPU already works at a high frequency, at that time 3 GHz was considered a really high frequency. Therefore, with its regular 3 GHz, the percentage was warming up and so decently, but if you overclock, then you yourself understand. But because of its high frequency, the percentage didn’t really chase, well, it will most likely be possible to increase the frequency by about 10%, but it’s unlikely to go any further …
Here is the WinRAR test: 6000+ is slightly weaker than the E6700, but in principle you can understand what kind of beast this percentage would be to say so Well, that is what I wrote, in terms of performance, the percentage is very similar to the E6600, probably if there was an E6600 in the test, then there would be a difference or not would it be at all, or even maybe AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ won by a percentage or two …
Well, it makes no sense to show the tests especially, as I already wrote, then AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is an analogue of the E6600, somewhere in some test someone is faster, somewhere someone is slower .. In 2017 -that year, I don’t even know where you can use AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, well, maybe on an office computer or if you have a video camera and you like old games, then you can play in principle
In general, these are the things guys, I’m sorry that I wrote little information here, but I don’t know what to write anymore, in short, as it is, I wrote it.