AMD 3500+ prossesors

Matt

Matt

Oblivion Junky
i was at my local pc shop today and some guy there said that he had only heard bad things about the 3500+ prossessors. I havent. Have any of you come across any problems with these cpu's of heard of any misbehaving. I pesume he was talking about socket 939.

I believe strongly that i musnt believe anything i hear unless ppl at hwf confirm it so pls tell me what to believe.
 
That's a new one. There may have been a bad batch that they got, but I'm unaware of any issues with the 3500+ in 939 or AM2 varieties.
 
3500+'s are gone well cheap, around 70pounds. thats how much i bought my athlon xp 2800+ for about 9 months ago
 
Will a 3500+ be able to run smoothly games like BF2, CoD2, Quake 4, bla bla bla with a good graphics card and ample memory? The main reason why I ask is because I was reading on them and 512KB L2 cache isn't really that much.
 
I run a 3000+ and I play Doom 3-based games just fine. What's going to hold me back in more intensive titles is my GeForce 6600GT, but I can play the FEAR demo at 1024x768 fairly well. Cache helps, but only to a certain extent. If you want 1MB of cache, you'll need a 1xx Opteron (the 1xx is available in Socket 939, all others are Socket 940 only). Cache is important, but it's one of many factors affecting CPU performance. You might be able to tell in benchmarks, however, this does not guarantee a noticeable performance in real life.
 
I just got an amd am2 3500+ and its a dream. So to answer my own thread: theres nothing to worry about in 3500+'s

>why do p4s have bigger caches? and still run slower in games.
>I think what B. is saying above is that gpu is way more important than cpu when playing the games
.
 
The shop probably makes more profit on Intel chips (my guess). People that work in computer shops aren't always the best people to take advice from unfortunatley. Thats what these boards are for.

\suck mode off
 
LORD said:
The shop probably makes more profit on Intel chips (my guess). People that work in computer shops aren't always the best people to take advice from unfortunatley. Thats what these boards are for.

\suck mode off
Click to expand...

yeh thats wat i wud av probably thought. they just want u to purchase the intel chip so they can make more profit out of u and rob u.
 
Well... Í have an Athlon 64 3200+, and I can run BF2 on nearly high, full AA
4x with 100% distance scale, I have dynamic light and shadows at medium, and I get no lag, even on 64 Player servers

So YES the 3500+ will perform even better than mine, I was even considering O/Cing mine, probably with a 6600GT or higher, and possible just over a gig of RAM, you could run EVERYTHING on high
 
I know you're excited about your new box, but you don't need to post that pic every time you post. kthxbye
 
I am running a socket 939 AMD 64 3500 and it is spectacular.. more than I could ask for. That guy is either out of his mind, or heard it from someone that is out of their mind. I beat quake 4 doom 3 etc with that cpu and a nvidia 6800 and I dont have any problems. It has been completely rock solid, even through me frying my motherboard, stick of ram, and a video card.
 
Big B said:
I know you're excited about your new box, but you don't need to post that pic every time you post. kthxbye
Click to expand...
I dont think so, that he is posting this picture again and again. Its his signature :P
 
Intel may have beefy L2 cache's but it's L1 caches are dinky between 12 and 18k compaired to AMD's 128k L1 caches. That's where instuctions end up first and the L1 cache is much faster than the L2 cache so in the end (while there are numerous factors involved here, like pipeline efficiency and integrated fsb etc.) AMD can make up for it's lesser L2 caches with a large L1 cache allowing it to execute much more data clock for clock.
 
Matt said:
>why do p4s have bigger caches? and still run slower in games.
>I think what B. is saying above is that gpu is way more important than cpu when playing the games
.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone ask that question, but AMDs have their memory controllers on the processor. Intel's are on the motherboard. This means that AMD can get away with having less. When AMD has their 65nm processors next year, they should outdo Intel's current line - I'm curious to see what will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top