Question about AMD cpu's :P

Ok, stupid me i made a typo..
he suggested the 3200+..... not the 3000+

so... that would be better im assuming?

 

still a venice core? yeah it would

 

yep, still a venice..
i heard some guy oc'd his an extra 1500mhz, which is pretttty damn good

i hope i actually see a difference though. my g-card is going to bottle neck it (for now, new one commin soon) . i have a geforce fx 5700 le

 

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

compare them up on benchmark tests

that should help

 

awsome
easy to compare the 64 to my old one now..
i dont see the venice there though

 

expect a small boost in the venice cores, im guessing 2-5% from older 939 socket processors and they also add in SSE3 and other technologies which add onto the values and time that you can use them

 

nice page that, can compare things quickly and easily

 

hmm, so why not just get the athlon 64 fx55? thats the fastest amd on the list!

i bet thats quite a bit of money though

 

thats why im a big fan and recommend tomshardware to anyone

if you're ever interested in other benchmarks, browse the site, they have graphics benchmarks and mobo and other ones, definately worth considering if you ever want to upgrade :good:

 

wow
GOD DAMMIT GUYS!
stop being so helpful!
lol


thats an awsome site.
thanks

 

no problem man, anytime, if you ever need anything, HF is definately the place to come, cheers on the upgrade

 

FX-57 is faster but they dont have that on the list....also what about the X2 4800+...

 

they have FX-57 benchmarks on a seperate article, press cpu on the top toolbar, should show you a list of articles, should be on top

 

Well about the whole 1.8Ghz seeming slow there are a lot of other factors that contribute to cpu speed other than clock speed as you may know now. The Athlon 64's have an integrated front side bus into the chip itself so data can zoom along with out haveing to travel the extra to the actual processor. Cache is also a factor as Max pointed out, particualrly L1 as data reaches this point first. The 64's also have an on die memory controller so off loading instructions is a breeze.
When I say 1.8Ghz for the first time when it come out I thought, man that's pretty lame but the Venice cores overclock so well you can push it up to beyond 2.6Ghz no problem. And you'll definately notice that
You don't need to spend all that extra cash on an FX 55/57, they're amazing chips but way overpriced. You get similar performance for far less with an Athlon 4000 which cost less than half the price. And overclocked 3000+ would even be able ot compete almost, and that's really something to concider. Heck you could fry your 3000+ 7 times before you could just have bought a FX57

 

nice
well, im going for it the
btw, like i mentioned, i made a typo before. i will be getting the 3200+ (or maybe the 3400+ , who knows)
i was wondering though, even though the venice is aparently good for overclocking, if i wanted to reach 2.6 ghrz like you said, would i need to get a tricked out case with liquid cooling and stuff like my friend has?
or would an extra fan or two be good enough?

thanks again

 

Oh yeah, sorry, most Venice chips overclock about the same so you wont notice a big difference if you do decide to OC it but higher stock speeds never hurt anyone.
2.6Ghz can easily be done with a good CPU cooler and a few normal case fans. No water cooling is necessary at all.
As the regulars know I'm a huge fan of Arctic Cooling, I would highly recommend the Arctic Freezer 64. very efficient cooler and one of the quietest around too

 

:O
i wont notice a big difference if i overclock?? ugh. computers are too complicated. i should just give you the money so you can buy it for me

Im trying to compare my current cpu with the one suggested on toms hardware benchmark, but i dont see the venice version of the 3200 there
shitty

 

I'd get the venice 3000+ and save money. Buy some good, low latency, ddr500 ram and you will get a good OC out of it with a good cooler and decent airflow.

 

Wow, sorry, I really garbled what I meant there. Yes you'll notice a good improvent with a seveal hunderd MHz OC. But the 3000 and 3200 overclock about as well so you won't notice a difference between a 3000 @ 2.6 and a 3200 @ 2.6Ghz. Hope that makes more sence, I typed only about half of what I was thinking last post, sorry.

 

oh, i get it now no real difference between the 3000 and the 3200 in terms of overclocking.
i guess im gonna go with the 3000+ then, although my friend swore he literally kill me if i didnt get the 3200+ venice
well, tomorrow i gotta go order it, so exfoliate and ninja, can you give me a quick, straight forward reccomendation for a mother board and cpu, based on what we were just talking about??
thanks!