5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE?

zx6r1033 · 08-03-2008, 08:58 PM

I am at a crossroad for a moment, and would love some opinions on the matter.

I want a new processor, and I am torn between two different ones. Both are AMD 64 X2 and both are Black Editions. One is a 6400+ Windsor and the other is the 5400+ Brisbane. The Brisbane is selling right now for $90 and the Windsor can be had for $160. Which would be a better option? The Windsor starts 400mhz higher, but they are known for running hotter, too. I've read mixed theories about them, but I haven't run across any direct comparisons.

**stressfreesoul** · 08-08-2008, 03:14 PM

Its just a decision to be made on merit. If you want the faster CPU, then you will have to come to terms with the little bit extra you have to pay to keep it cool (upgrade cooler).
IMHO, I think if you have the money to get the 6400 then go for it, if it does run hot, buy something like this or this.
As with most components in a PC, keeping them cool will only benefit you.

Luda · 08-16-2008, 03:01 AM

go with the brisbane, the windsor is a 90nm chip, and honestly dated in its design. the brisbane is a 65nm chip, and runs much cooler, and also uses less power. and is capable of 3.0ghz [http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=298739] ive got my clocked @ 2.62ghz at the moment due to power issues [my PSU isnt up to the task of running the system @ a 50%, and both the 8800GT and 8400GS overclocked] but before i overclocked the video cards i was running 3.0ghz, under 60C, on stock cooling and thermal paste.

ive seen brisbanes clocked as high as 4.1ghz, granted the components in the rest of the system were much more highend then mine.

slightly updated version of my proc: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103257
oh, and i can run crysis @ high @ 1440*900 w/ 2xaa on my setup, so its fairly powerful, especially for a 60$ chip

wayliff · 08-30-2008, 11:57 AM

this is a great cooler for a very good price
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233003

Luda · 08-30-2008, 12:21 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233011

10$ more

and im currently sitting at 25C in a room thats 28C ambient

amazing unit

**Kalim** · 09-02-2008, 10:55 PM

The Brisbane cores are better. Usually 3.1 GHz to 3.5 GHz consistently stable overclockers.

08-03-2008, 08:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
zx6r1033 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: South China, Maine Posts: 22 OS: Ubuntu (Linux) / WindowsXP	5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE? I am at a crossroad for a moment, and would love some opinions on the matter. I want a new processor, and I am torn between two different ones. Both are AMD 64 X2 and both are Black Editions. One is a 6400+ Windsor and the other is the 5400+ Brisbane. The Brisbane is selling right now for $90 and the Windsor can be had for $160. Which would be a better option? The Windsor starts 400mhz higher, but they are known for running hotter, too. I've read mixed theories about them, but I haven't run across any direct comparisons.

08-08-2008, 03:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
stressfreesoul Semi-Absent (life, eh?) Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: County Durham UK Posts: 1,852 OS: XP, Win7 RC x64, Ubuntu x64 multiboot My System Blog Entries: 7	Re: 5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE? Its just a decision to be made on merit. If you want the faster CPU, then you will have to come to terms with the little bit extra you have to pay to keep it cool (upgrade cooler). IMHO, I think if you have the money to get the 6400 then go for it, if it does run hot, buy something like this or this. As with most components in a PC, keeping them cool will only benefit you. __________________ TSF Folding@Home, find out how to do your bit in the fight against Cancer "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut" xbox Live tag: storiedmedal Warning!! GTA IV addict! Join my game at your peril!

08-16-2008, 03:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
Luda Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 150 OS: Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 My System	Re: 5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE? go with the brisbane, the windsor is a 90nm chip, and honestly dated in its design. the brisbane is a 65nm chip, and runs much cooler, and also uses less power. and is capable of 3.0ghz [http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=298739] ive got my clocked @ 2.62ghz at the moment due to power issues [my PSU isnt up to the task of running the system @ a 50%, and both the 8800GT and 8400GS overclocked] but before i overclocked the video cards i was running 3.0ghz, under 60C, on stock cooling and thermal paste. ive seen brisbanes clocked as high as 4.1ghz, granted the components in the rest of the system were much more highend then mine. slightly updated version of my proc: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103257 oh, and i can run crysis @ high @ 1440*900 w/ 2xaa on my setup, so its fairly powerful, especially for a 60$ chip __________________ \| Abit AN9 32x \| AMD X2 4000+ {3.0ghz]} \| 2GB corsair XMS2 @ DDR2-876 \| 8800GT Luda edition {custom bios 750/1800/1000} \| Biostar 8400GS {Physx} \| Xigma AIO CPU watercooling \|

08-30-2008, 11:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
wayliff Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 125 OS: Win7 Ultimate x64	Re: 5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE? this is a great cooler for a very good price http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233003

08-30-2008, 12:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
Luda Registered User Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 150 OS: Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 My System	Re: 5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835233011 10$ more and im currently sitting at 25C in a room thats 28C ambient amazing unit __________________ \| Abit AN9 32x \| AMD X2 4000+ {3.0ghz]} \| 2GB corsair XMS2 @ DDR2-876 \| 8800GT Luda edition {custom bios 750/1800/1000} \| Biostar 8400GS {Physx} \| Xigma AIO CPU watercooling \|

09-02-2008, 10:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
Kalim Roaming To Help Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,642 OS: Many	Re: 5400+ BE vs 6400+ BE? The Brisbane cores are better. Usually 3.1 GHz to 3.5 GHz consistently stable overclockers.