PDA

View Full Version : AMD Athlon 64 3000+3200+ and 3500+???


gate1975mlm
10-26-04, 10:37 PM
Between the AMD Athlon 64 3000+3200+ and 3500+ 939 Chip Set 90nm would there be any real big performance differences between them? I am not sure what I should go with. I don't want to spend a lot of money if I don't need to.

MUYA
10-26-04, 10:41 PM
crickey....just get one and be done with. We don't all own those processors..plenty of websites which review them cpus...just look for them

Riptide
10-26-04, 10:53 PM
Simple. Get the fastest one you can afford. The 3500+ is the fastest of those you list, so get it if you can.

Gator
10-27-04, 02:29 PM
from MonarchComputer.com
Athlon64 3000 S939 = 1.8ghz = $184
Athlon64 3200 S939 = 2.0ghz = $215
Athlon64 3500 S939 = 2.2ghz = $288

The difference between the 3000 and 3200 is only $31 for 200mhz more and a higher multiplier, so I definetly think the 3200 is a wiser purchase. But the difference between 3200 and 3500 is $73, more than double the difference, so the 3500 is priced too high in my opinion.

Definetly go for the 3200! And I can tell you from first hand experience that my Athlon64 3200 S754 is plenty fast for any game or application out there ;) (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33788396)

Ninjaman09
10-27-04, 02:35 PM
The socket 939 chips are different as they all have dual channel memory controllers, and perform slightly better than the S754s. It depends on how big a deal dual channel is, I suppose. If you have good cooling, the 3200 is probably the best deal, though I really like my 3500. Whatever you need, really.

saturnotaku
10-27-04, 02:50 PM
Are those CPUs multiplier locked? Only the FX-53 can be adjusted, correct?

Gator
10-27-04, 04:55 PM
Are those CPUs multiplier locked? Only the FX-53 can be adjusted, correct?

So far as I know only the "FX" style have the unlocked multiplier

stncttr908
10-27-04, 04:58 PM
I hear that the 3000+ 90nm socket 939 overclocks like a mother. People are calling it the "Mobile XP Barton" of the Athlon 64's already.

Riptide
10-27-04, 05:59 PM
Are those CPUs multiplier locked? Only the FX-53 can be adjusted, correct?
I've found the unlocked multiplier to be worthless to me. You can already reduce your multiplier factor with non FX CPUs from what I've heard. Only a real diehard overclocker with extreme cooling would need to increase their multiplier. Most of us are going to lower the multiplier a notch or two and then increase FSB/HTT.

saturnotaku
10-27-04, 07:22 PM
That's really what I was asking. I wanted to know if I could lower my multi and push my fsb higher. :D

einstein_314
10-27-04, 08:35 PM
That's really what I was asking. I wanted to know if I could lower my multi and push my fsb higher. :D

I've got a 3500 130nm and I can lower it's multiplier. Don't know if it's the same with the 90nm.

netviper13
10-27-04, 09:09 PM
I've got a 3500 130nm and I can lower it's multiplier. Don't know if it's the same with the 90nm.

Yes all Socket 939 (I don't know about the 754 chips) processors allow you to lower the multiplier; with the FX series you also get unlocked higher multipliers.

superklye
10-27-04, 09:46 PM
so with the A64s, higher multiplier = bad?

Riptide
10-27-04, 09:51 PM
Not necessarily bad. But higher multipliers = higher CPU clocks unless you lower your FSB.

Better to use higher FSB and lower multipliers. That is unless you're using phase change cooling or something like that where you are going for real high clocks.

saturnotaku
10-27-04, 10:30 PM
I just tried a lower multi with my CPU and it wouldn't take. It's cool, though - I don't want to do too much here. The 218x11 (2400 MHz) is plenty - that's 3800+ territory right there. I'm plenty content with that and the 6400 mb/s of memory bandwidth contained therein. I'm only running on stock cooling and my temps are excellent (32-35 idle/48-52 load) even with a slight bump in the vcore. And as long as I'm happy, that's all that really matters, right? :p :D