When upgrading I'm considering one of the following AMD CPU1) AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5200+ SOCKET AM2 BOXED 65W2) AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5600+ SOCKET AM2 BOXEDThe second option is slightly more expensive but more important I think is that it consumes 89 W while the first one takes 65 W.In addition to that I wonder if there is a noticable performence difference between 5200+ and 5600+. What do you think? Is anybode using this CPU with FSX? If so how well does FSX run?

Have you an Athlon 64 AM2 940 Socket socket motherboard allready, that you are going to use in this build?Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

>Have you an Athlon 64 AM2 940 Socket socket motherboard>allready, that you are going to use in this build?>No my intention is to buy a ASUS M2N4-SLI NF4 SLI SKT-AM2 ATXmotherboard. My current motherboard is socket 939 Asus A8V deluxe which simply won't work fully stable with SATA HDs.

Never having built with either cpu, (so that automatically disqualifies me from making a definitive statement ;) ) ...for FS I would pick whichever one had the higher clock speed. With that in mind, we have the following:Both cpu's are Windsor coresThe 5200+ that uses 65W runs at 2.6 ghz.The 5600+ that uses 89W runs at 2.8 ghz.You asked which cpu I would choose, I'd get the 5600+, power usage is of no concern to me. FS performance is. My San Diego core cpu uses 89W also and I consider it a gem compared to the later P4's/Pentium D's.Then again, maybe the 5200+ runs cooler and as such might overclock better. ?? You should get opinions from people that own these cpu's and overclock them.Bottom line for me is cpu speed is king re: FS.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Would you not consider an Intel Conroe Core 2 duo, since this is a better processor than the AMD Athlon 64 dualcore?Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

>Would you not consider an Intel Conroe Core 2 duo, since this>is a better processor than the AMD Athlon 64 dualcore?>I find and considered Intel Core 2 duo for sale but nothing about Conroe is stated in the specification. I find the prices higher for both the CPU and the motherboard compared to the AMD option.

>>Would you not consider an Intel Conroe Core 2 duo, since>this>>is a better processor than the AMD Athlon 64 dualcore?>>>I find and considered Intel Core 2 duo for sale but nothing>about Conroe is stated in the specification. I find the prices>higher for both the CPU and the motherboard compared to the>AMD option.@AdrianIn this case, price is his ultimate criteria, price by itself even trumping price vs. performance. I can understand that.@jfriTherefore my advice still stands: For FS, of the two cpu's, I would get the one with the fastest clock. (2.8 ghz)Also jfri one point I didn't think about the other day, was that Intel's latest chipset, the P35, will be both compatible with today's Core2 Conroes/Merom and tomorrows Core2 Penryn cpu's. So depending on what you want to do going forward, you might consider a P35 platform to build on.But then again, I am sure the P35 motherboards will not be cheap at all right now.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>Therefore my advice still stands: For FS, of the two cpu's, I>would get the one with the fastest clock. (2.8 ghz)>Which is higher than Intel 2 Duo 6600>Also jfri one point I didn't think about the other day, was>that Intel's latest chipset, the P35, will be both compatible>with today's Core2 Conroes/Merom and tomorrows Core2 Penryn>cpu's. So depending on what you want to do going forward, you>might consider a P35 platform to build on.>>But then again, I am sure the P35 motherboards will not be>cheap at all right now.>Price for P35 motherboards are higher but the CPU price are more importnat.Also another important issue for me. I upgrade now since my current components simply won't work together and I wan't to be sure that won't happen again. And that's no simple thing. The AMD motherboard I picked is listed as a recommended one for the two AMD CPUs I picked. The memory I picked is listed in the nb supported and tested memory. So with my current choice I seems to be safe.

>>Therefore my advice still stands: For FS, of the two cpu's,>I>>would get the one with the fastest clock. (2.8 ghz)>>>Which is higher than Intel 2 Duo 6600>Well yes the 2.8 ghz clock on a 5600+ or whatever it is, is indeed higher clock than on some of the Core2's, but the Core2's are faster cpu's. They have a faster architecture clock for clock.But you said 5600+ or 5800+. So between the two I would pick the one with the higher clock. I would not care about power consumption. >Also another important issue for me. I upgrade now since my>current components simply won't work together and I wan't to>be sure that won't happen again. And that's no simple thing.>The AMD motherboard I picked is listed as a recommended one>for the two AMD CPUs I picked. The memory I picked is listed>in the nb supported and tested memory. So with my current>choice I seems to be safe.That's a good philosophy--to make sure all parts are matched and work well together. Too many people don't take the time to do that kind of research, and they end up with a system that has fast components, but doesn't overclock well, or is prone to crashes, stuttering in FS, etc. And then they wonder why.Sounds like you have done your research. If you went with a P35 board you would have to start over on research.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

What Rhett said, and heres Toms Hardware cpu charts to verify.....E6600 beats the 5600, heres encoding time (shear cpu power) for terminator 2http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.htm...2=877&chart=429Too bad they dont have FSX in the list but other games are closerSupreme Commanderhttp://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.htm...2=877&chart=421

>>Which is higher than Intel 2 Duo 6600>>>>Well yes the 2.8 ghz clock on a 5600+ or whatever it is, is>indeed higher clock than on some of the Core2's, but the>Core2's are faster cpu's. They have a faster architecture>clock for clock.>And the Intel 2 Core Duo is more expensive. Another strange thing it's also more expensive than Intel Core 2 Duo 6750.>That's a good philosophy--to make sure all parts are matched>and work well together. Too many people don't take the time>to do that kind of research, and they end up with a system>that has fast components, but doesn't overclock well, or is>prone to crashes, stuttering in FS, etc. >>And then they wonder why.>>Sounds like you have done your research. If you went with a>P35 board you would have to start over on research.>When spending so much money it would be stupid not to research this path if it's more powerful.