Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: AMD 64 3000 or 3200




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    15

    Default

    I'm debating over which one to get, I'm kind of on a budget, and I would like to hear which you guys think is a better deal. Do you guys think the 3200 is worth the extra 60 dollars? Also...which mobo is better...Asus K8v Deluxe or the MSI K8t Neo-Fis2r?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    56

    Default

    I'm sure you know that AMD decided not to change the clocks between the two processors....instead 3000+ runs at the same 2GHz frequency as the 3200+ model.
    The basic difference between these two solutions is that the size of the L2 cache on the new Athlon 64 3000+ is 512KB as compared to the size of the Athlon 64 3200+ which is 1MB.

    The reduction in cache, as demonstrated in AnandTech's benchmarks, only results in very minor disparity in performance between the two chips.
    "In almost every benchmark, the 3000+ is only a few percent lower in performance than a 3200+. Even more important, the 3000+ performs very well compared to Intelís 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 ó a chip that sells for almost double the cost of the Athlon64 3000+" -AnandTech
    __/\__
    \ oO / cHeEsY327
    /_ ~_\ _ _____________ __ _ _ _
    | \/
    | EPoX 4SDA+ Motherboard w/ Intel P4 2.0a @ 2.625GHz
    | SoundBlaster Live! X-Gamer 5.1 w/ Logitech Z560 4.1 Surround
    | 40GB Quantum Fireball Plus AS & 30GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 60
    : Lite-On 52x24x52 CD-RW & Asus 50x CD-ROM
    : 768MB Corsair XMS3000 DDR333
    . PNY GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
    ∑ Windows XP Pro

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    Another thing to consider is that the 64-bit Athlons will in the next 2 months be changing to the new 939pin sockets so if you buy a 754pin mainboard then you'll be stuck with only 32-bit versions of those CPU's as an upgrade path in the future.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    Umm.... There aren't 32-bit versions of Athlon 64s....
    I think what you're trying to say is that he'll be stuck with non-FX Athlon 64s...

    And while there is little benchmark difference between the 3000 and the 3200, I bet the extra L2 cache would show up more if the processor were overclocked. Maybe it's not worth the extra $60, but if you can afford it, why not?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Well, he did mention that he was on a budget....However, he failed to mention exactly what sort of budget he was on. Personally, I think the $60 could be better spent towards a better video card (if you're a gamer) or more overclockable RAM (if that's your forte).
    __/\__
    \ oO / cHeEsY327
    /_ ~_\ _ _____________ __ _ _ _
    | \/
    | EPoX 4SDA+ Motherboard w/ Intel P4 2.0a @ 2.625GHz
    | SoundBlaster Live! X-Gamer 5.1 w/ Logitech Z560 4.1 Surround
    | 40GB Quantum Fireball Plus AS & 30GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 60
    : Lite-On 52x24x52 CD-RW & Asus 50x CD-ROM
    : 768MB Corsair XMS3000 DDR333
    . PNY GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
    ∑ Windows XP Pro

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    Umm.... There aren't 32-bit versions of Athlon 64s....
    I think what you're trying to say is that he'll be stuck with non-FX Athlon 64s...
    No there arn't any 32-bit versions yet (late this year they're due) but they are coming and they are on AMD's roadmap for socket 754 plus they're labeled as "Athlon XP". More details here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    I see what you were saying before, but...

    There is no such thing as an 32-bit Athlon 64. An Athlon XP on scoket 754 is still an Athlon XP.

    You still make a good point now that I see this. You are really limiting your upgrade options by going with a socket 754 motherboard and processor. Getting a socket 939 processor when they come out would really be much better. That or getting a socket 940 now. Not as upgradable (unless you want to dump Windows and grab an Opteron...), but an FX on a socket 940 motherbaord would last more than a few years.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    I see what you were saying before, but...

    There is no such thing as an 32-bit Athlon 64. An Athlon XP on scoket 754 is still an Athlon XP.

    You still make a good point now that I see this. You are really limiting your upgrade options by going with a socket 754 motherboard and processor. Getting a socket 939 processor when they come out would really be much better. That or getting a socket 940 now. Not as upgradable (unless you want to dump Windows and grab an Opteron...), but an FX on a socket 940 motherbaord would last more than a few years.
    Obviously you missed this part, "The last thing to note are the two Socket-754 Athlon XPs on the chart; although clock speeds have yet to be determined, you can expect these two processors to feature an on-die memory controller just like their Athlon 64 brothers but have their 64-bit support disabled. The reduction in cache size to 256KB will decrease 32-bit performance by a noticeable amount, but they will make a good successor to the current Socket-A Athlon XPs."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    That's obvious because? :confused:
    :roll:
    They aren't Athlon 64s. Whether it's because AMD simply disabled 64-bit mode (which I see no reason to believe), or because they don't have 64-bit support in the first place. Actually, both of those points are irrelevant, because they are called Athlon XPs, not Athlon 64s.

    And if you're going to bring it up again, your first point was irrelevant. If this person get an Athlon 64 3000 or 3200, there are still 64-bit upgrade possibilities. And I doubt that upgrading to any AMD 32-bit processor would really be an upgrade even if they make really fast Athlon XPs.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    15

    Default

    So are you guys suggesting I wait for summer or would a 64 3200 be a good investment?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •