AMD 64 CPU Choice ?

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
madd02
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:15 am
Location: New Zealand

AMD 64 CPU Choice ?

Post by madd02 » Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:14 pm

Ok im not sure about CPU choice... SOme help would be appreciated.
Im looking at a price range of 250 up to 400NZD. Below are the 939 chips im looking at for my abit mb i already have.

Questions
1) is it worth the jump from 3000 to 3500 ?

2) Are any of the following chips cooler than the others...
according to the sticky 'Athlon 64 power reduction: C'n'Q, Vcore, mobile, tools' I should get a 90nm venice core as they are coolest ?

Im just not sure which is venice and which is winchester =(




.................................................OPTIONS....
[AMD] ATHLON 64 3000+
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, RETAIL BOX

$250.65



[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+ 1.8GHz
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, W/HEATSINK & FAN, OEM

$262.35



[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+ 2.0GHz
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, W/FAN, OEM

$279.15


[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, RETAIL BOX

$313.65





[AMD] ATHLON 64 3500+ 2.2GHz
SOCKET 939, FSB 800, 512K L2 CACHE, RETAIL BOX

$371.35

Jonas/Viper
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:49 am

Post by Jonas/Viper » Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:52 pm

Try to see if you can get the model number and check the last two character (or the characters before 'BOX' in boxed packages). It would be BP for Venice cores and BI for Winchester.

madd02
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:15 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by madd02 » Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:49 pm

Ah thats what those mean, i noticed those on that sticky.
Thanks.

What about the jump in performance for the price difference between 3000+ and 3500+ ??

ronrem
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Santa Cruz

Post by ronrem » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:20 pm

The difference in clock speed is about 20%,but the price difference is significant. The Venice 3000 is remarkable in terms of bang for the buck,but a gamer would probably lean to spending for a little more speed while I'd use the savings for a better soundcard.

Winchester upgraded from Newcastle,going to 90 nm,which meant cooler. Venice upgraded the Winchester mainly by giving more RAM options,better memory mgmt. Winnys and Venices are about equal in heat.

If I had a feeling a 3000 was not enough-I'd save and wait a couple months and go 3800 X2

madd02
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:15 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by madd02 » Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:43 pm

Yeah i was thinking that i would get a 3000 or 3500 for say a year..then once the x2 comes down in price then get that...

nutbar
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:13 pm

Post by nutbar » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:33 pm

A64s with the VENICE core will all go about the same speed if you're willing to overclock. The increase in cache from 512k to 1mb results in an insignificant performance increase, the clock speed is what really makes these chips sing. Unlike Pentiums which need gobs of cache just to keep from tripping over themselves.

If you by an overclock friendly motherboard, it's not hard to get the chip to 2500mhz. In some data I've seen from overclocker sites, more than 50% of the Venice chips can reach 2700mhz (like mine) with proper cooling. I'd say get the 3000, a nice cooler like the Ninja, an overclocker friendly motherboard (NF4 based) and run these settings:

FSB (external clock, "cpu") 250mhz
HT 4x (from 5x) for a speed of 1000 (same as stock)
Memory at DDR333 divider which will run it at 205mhz (almost stock)

This will put your CPU at 2250mhz. 25% faster than stock, 50mhz faster than the 3500+. I bet you could do this on the first try, if your heatsink is attached properly. Probably even with the STOCK heatsink :)

Or you could get the 3200+ which has a nicer 10x multiplier and do the same settings for 2500mhz. You'd want to use a nice aftermarket cooler for this one, though it is possible on stock cooler. I assume since you post here you'll want a big quiet aftermarket cooler :)

madd02
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:15 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by madd02 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:30 pm

yeah my main motivation is quiet then second speed.

Im only running photoshop cs, macromedia flash and possibly some premier pro. With some gaming, most likly CS and dayOfdefeat. I think a stock 3000+ should cover this, i guess i only wanted the extra power for dvd ripping.

then later if i need it i can get an x2 cpu upgrade.

I have an xp120 heatsink and abit sli (with heatpipe on the NB) nf4 mb sitting around waiting for me to decide =)

I guess cool (silent) and powerful is the goal... well a balance in favour of silence betweent the 2.

Thanks for the overclocking info, do you have a fan on your ninja for that, if so what volt you running it on ?

madd02
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:15 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by madd02 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:36 pm

Does anyone know why there are 2 3200+'s with different speeds listed ?


[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+ 1.8GHz
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, W/HEATSINK & FAN, OEM

$262.35



[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+ 2.0GHz
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, W/FAN, OEM

$279.15

stromgald
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:45 pm
Location: California, US

Post by stromgald » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:02 pm

I think the second one may be a clawhammer and the top one is either a winchester or venice core. I know they decreased the clock speed when going from clawhammer to winchester/venice, and they decreased it again when going from venice to san diego cores. However, they don't make 3200+ versions of the San Diego core.

darthan
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by darthan » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:10 pm

No, it's an error. Even the new 3200s are 2.0GHz. The slower one is a 3000.

If you are planning to upgrade in the next year or two, get the 3000. It saves you the most money while still having plenty of bang for your purposes.

nutbar
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:13 pm

Post by nutbar » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:02 pm

If you're really set on dual core, I agree with getting the 3000.

With the XP120 you should have no trouble running it at least 2200, the speed of a 3200+. I say if you've got the ability to go faster with NO downside, why not do it? "Small" overclocks on this processor breed are a no brainer and you can't go wrong. 10% speed increase for free! You have the right motherboard for the job, too.

CA_Steve
Moderator
Posts: 7503
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Post by CA_Steve » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:33 am

madd02 wrote:
I think a stock 3000+ should cover this, i guess i only wanted the extra power for dvd ripping.
Sort of on-topic...I wonder where the limiter will be in ripping speed for your system?
- Needing a CPU faster than 3000+?
- The FSB speed /memory management?
- The speed of your HDD/ data transfer rate?
- The speed of your ODD / data transfer rate?

I recently added a newer ODD to my barton 2800 system and watched the CD rip rates go from an average of 7x to 20x. Wondering if there are any articles out there that provide decent background info on this data transfer chain...

eboe
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: columbus, oh
Contact:

Re: AMD 64 CPU Choice ?

Post by eboe » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:29 pm

madd02 wrote: .................................................OPTIONS....
[AMD] ATHLON 64 3000+
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, RETAIL BOX

$250.65



[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+ 1.8GHz
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, W/HEATSINK & FAN, OEM

$262.35



[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+ 2.0GHz
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, W/FAN, OEM

$279.15


[AMD] ATHLON 64 3200+
SOCKET 939, 512K L2 CACHE, RETAIL BOX

$313.65





[AMD] ATHLON 64 3500+ 2.2GHz
SOCKET 939, FSB 800, 512K L2 CACHE, RETAIL BOX

$371.35
where the heck are these prices from? are they for the CPU alone, or with a motherboard? they just seem high for the CPU only, that's all. at newegg you can get an athlon 64 3000+ for $146 retail.

Al
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:48 am
Location: UK

Re: AMD 64 CPU Choice ?

Post by Al » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:37 pm

eboe wrote:where the heck are these prices from?
Them be New Zealand dollars...
madd02 wrote:Im looking at a price range of 250 up to 400NZD
Al

eboe
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: columbus, oh
Contact:

Post by eboe » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:38 pm

oops. nevermind me.

slacy
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:52 am

Re: AMD 64 CPU Choice ?

Post by slacy » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:41 pm

eboe wrote: where the heck are these prices from? are they for the CPU alone, or with a motherboard? they just seem high for the CPU only, that's all. at newegg you can get an athlon 64 3000+ for $146 retail.
For reference:

$250 NZD = $173 USD
$300 NZD = $208 USD
$350 NZD = $243 USD
$400 NZD = $277 USD

Steve

ronrem
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Santa Cruz

Post by ronrem » Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:10 am

From your response-I'd say a 3000 Venice stock. It's really a powerful chip,and a cool runner. Overclocking gets you "free" power-but at the expense of more heat. With that heatsink you could run the fan in the under 1000 rpm area,with a single very slow case fan,a slow psu fan and it would be pretty quiet. As I understand it,while you can OC a 3000 up to the equal of a 3200,it will be hotter than the stock 3200. The nice thing with a 3000 is it's cool enough that undervolting is not essential and powerful enough that most won't need more power-or overclocking. An X2,being dual core has merit if you multi-task. In a year or 18 months a 3800 X2 will cost a lot less than today.

Post Reply