cpu x2 6000+

I am going to upgrade my computer with a AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, i now have a AMD Athlon 64 3500+ that uses 62W of power, and the 6000+ uses 125W of power, i have a 450W power supply and a Sapphire X1650+ Pro (Pci-express) , 1Gb DDR2 667Mhz,....

Do i need to buy a new power supply, or not?

How much stuff u got? I mean Hard drives, Dvd-roms? But i believe a 450W PSU should be good enough to handle the job?

Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.comedyman

[QUOTE="comedyman"]Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.LouieV13

A quad is a quad. :|

Seriously, if there's something good AMD has yet done against Core 2, it's spreading this huge misconception about Intel's quad cores. Yet, for over a year, AMD still stands with no answer to Core 2 Quad/Xeon 5300.

[QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="comedyman"]Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.Wesker776

A quad is a quad. :|

Seriously, if there's something good AMD has yet done against Core 2, it's spreading this huge misconception about Intel's quad cores. Yet, for over a year, AMD still stands with no answer to Core 2 Quad/Xeon 5300.

[QUOTE="Wesker776"]

[QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="comedyman"]Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.LouieV13

A quad is a quad. :|

Seriously, if there's something good AMD has yet done against Core 2, it's spreading this huge misconception about Intel's quad cores. Yet, for over a year, AMD still stands with no answer to Core 2 Quad/Xeon 5300.

Nice for dodging my Intel quad core statement.

Also, Inte have the E6750 and E6850 for which AMD still has no answer to either.

BTW, the E6600 didn't get a price cut, so don't refer to it. The 6000+'s main rival is the E6550.

The X2 6400+ can compete with the E6750 performance-wise, although the Intel chip is the better choice since it's cheaper, runs cooler, and uses less power... not to mention it overclocks better. :)

The FX-74 is just an X2 6000+ with an unlocked multiplier, and you can run two of them in Quad-FX.. which sucks ass.. usually worse than a single X2 6000+ or FX-62.

It'd be the E6550 or E6600.

What about the FX-74, what is Intel's equivalent to that?Rob_101

What about the FX-74, what is Intel's equivalent to that?Rob_101

the equivalent to that is intels "extreme" version of dual core processors

[QUOTE="comedyman"]Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.LouieV13

well in games there isn't much difference but in productive applications dual core makes a big difference

[QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="comedyman"]Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.Wesker776

A quad is a quad. :|

Seriously, if there's something good AMD has yet done against Core 2, it's spreading this huge misconception about Intel's quad cores. Yet, for over a year, AMD still stands with no answer to Core 2 Quad/Xeon 5300.

well intel couldn't do anything about amd from 2003 -2006

[QUOTE="Wesker776"]

[QUOTE="LouieV13"][QUOTE="comedyman"]Louie you do realise quads are already out right? and I swapped a 3000+ to a 4600+ and am very happy with it.imprezawrx500

A quad is a quad. :|

Seriously, if there's something good AMD has yet done against Core 2, it's spreading this huge misconception about Intel's quad cores. Yet, for over a year, AMD still stands with no answer to Core 2 Quad/Xeon 5300.

well intel couldn't do anything about amd from 2003 -2006

...and?

You'll never see me spreading fud such as "it sux cos its fake quad" or "you need to overclock to make it good", or denying AMD's advantage in any other way. I'm going to be honest here, I've always favoured going toward Intel, but I never denied AMD's performance advantage during the NetBurst bungle. I don't know why some AMD fans (e.g. AMDZone) still deny Intel's current advantage.

Further, AMD should've seen the Core 2 boom coming. Intel initially released the Pentium M for notebooks and it boasted better performance than the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 notebook processors. That was the first strike of the initial Core flood, then came Core Duo (Yonah)...followed by Core 2 Duo (Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest).

But at least they're making amends now for the future (e.g. Sand Tiger, Bulldozer, R700 and etc...).