3200+ vs AMD64

[Homerboy]

Im currently running a AMD Barton 2500+ at 32000 speed and have been contemplating the advantages if I jumped to a AMD64 and what type of speed boost I would see?

Any suggestions... $ is a concern, so the boost should be cost affective

Thanks!

 

[Darkstar757]

hey homer i have you exact system and I am upgrading to a Clawhammer 3400 this weekend. Ill let you know how I feel about the new system and its performance vs the 2500 @ 3200

 

[Homerboy]

cool please send an update along!

 

[11427]

I don't think it's cost effective at all. My 2500+ XP at 3200+ beats my 3000+ A64 in just about every app I have/use. Now if you want to OC then it gets a little better. Once the A64 hits 2.2ghz it starts to pull away. In general use though I cannot tell a difference between the two.

 

[Homerboy]

anyone else with opinions on this topic?
Im getting ready to drop some $

 

[slash196]

The performance advantage now is slight, but your chip is wearing out its welcome. If you can snag a 3000+ Venice and OC like a madman, you'll see some major performance. Plus, 64 bit instruction sets. There's no downside to upgrading if you've got the cash.

 

[sangyup81]

Since you OC your Barton, I think it's pretty safe to assume you will OC an Athlon 64? Like 11427 said, then it will be worth it.

 

[Hyperlite]

Yep, MSI K8N Neo2 Plat+Venice 3000 LBBLE 0516 (though i guess that part is just luck) ought to yield 2.6ghz easy if you have at least high quality PC3200.

If you go with this setup, i suggest consulting THIS thread for some pointers.

 

[fstime]

My friend had a 6800U in his 2600-m at 2.5-2.6 ghz and it was a bottle neck in HL2.

s939 3200+ and NF4 PCI-E motherboard, for graphics, I reccomend the x800XL.

 

[birdpup]

An AMD64 3000+ Venice (Rev. E) 90nm chip can typically overclock to 2.4 or 2.6GHz with some able to go up to 2.75 or even 2.8GHz. This chip can be obtained for $150 at NewEgg, ZipZoomFly, or Monarch.

I just overclocked mine at both 2.4 and 2.6GHz and here are some results you can compare with your own processor to see if it is worth it.

2.4GHz
Super Pi 1M 0:36, 2M 1:23, 32M 33:51 minutes
MemTest86 16:03 minutes for one pass of 9 tests

2.6GHz
Super Pi 1M 0:34, 2M 1:24, 32M 31:56 minutes
MemTest86 15:40 minutes for one pass of 9 tests

Here are some typical SETI times that I have found:
733MHz P3 Intel can run SETI in 12 hours
1.7GHz P4 Intel can run SETI in 3 hours
1.8GHz Venice AMD64 can run SETI in 4 hours
2.0GHZ Venice AMD64 can run SETI in 3 hours
2.4GHZ Venice AMD64 can run SETI in 2 hours 40 minutes
2.6GHZ Venice AMD64 can run SETI in 2 hours 20 minutes

 

[Sentential]

Well perhaps this will help. I saw a large gain going to an a64. Eventhough overall my P4 score was the highest, it was an anomoly. Had my A64 clocked worth a damn + the ram I have now it would eassily overpower it. Either way ill list my scores:

AXP: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8084488
A64: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8227276
Pent4: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8490269


Overall the A64 was quite a large jump in terms of CPU power as the scores suggest. Not to mention that that I was coming from a 261x10 AXP. You should see even larger gains.

However despite the reccomendation of getting a 3000+ I wouldnt. If you plan to buy a high clocking A64 I wouldnt buy anything less than a 3200+. I personally would buy either a 3500+ or a 3700+

 

[Diasper]

I'm in a similiar situation (see sig) but I'm waiting as I don't have the money to spare and can't justify a 200 upgrade of cpu and mobo and then having to go with a new PCI-E graphics card on top when my current setup does such an admirable job - 1280x1024 at high detail typically (Far Cry and HL2). Sure I don't get quite all the candy turned on but then I don't game that much and even if I did I couldn't justfy the extra 200+. Anyway, with my LCD I'm limited to 1280x1024 so so long as it plays that well I'm happy.

In short, unless you can't play things as you want, I'd recommend you save money. I'm happy to be behind the curve now and remain so - I may only upgrade in a year to single core 939 despite dual cores probably being properly out. Maybe I'd upgrade if I didn't have to change my graphics card - but as it stands even if I sell all my old components to offset the cost it's still too much - probably about 290 to upgrade to a Venice 3200, DFI and ATI X800XL


edit - I'd also need a new PSU making it another 50 or so extra.

So 340($650?) I'd get maybe a 25% increase in performance but that'd only be seen in allowing me to play games only at a slightly higher detail and AA/AF setting - really not worth it when I don't play that much. Moreover, I might only see that increase in a couple of games - I can think of a hundred other things I have as a higher priority to spend my money on.

 

[Diasper]

You know you'd benefit far more if you learnt to disable all the unneeded processes (spyware?) running in the background and cut back on the legacy. Heck that'd probably go a long way to catching up with an A64 which didn't cut back on anything. (Looking at AMD64 dual-cores; they can equal a processor 200mhz or so lower than it and remember that's in a test system benchmark where as little as possible has been installed in the background unlike your regular user...)

Ask yourself what is your cpu limiting you back in? The AMD XP handles alot of games rather well eg Half Life 2 which is among the most CPU intensive games out it does very well in it competing very favourbly with P4s.

I'd say tweak your cpu to get a little bit more out of it like I've done - I used to be at 200x11 but at 213x10.5 I think I get another 6% in 3dmark2001. Add on removing extraneous processes etc and it'd be greater and run everything happily. (Ironically also my setup runs cooler at 213x10.5 than 200x11?!)

An XP3200 is not a bad chip - it may be slower than other things out now but that doesn't mean it's slow in itself or too slow to run things well. Regards playing games you'd probably get much more benefit out of a new graphics card which would be more cost effective.

If it can run everything happily at 40+fps I'm happy and I don't care if an AMD64 can do 100fps - it doesn't mean anything to my eyes. Besides if I migrated to an AMD64 I wouldn't be able to play with any extra eye candy with a 9800Pro - I'd need to upgrade my graphics card before any real change was apparent and I could increase graphics settings.

 

[n7]

I had a Barton 2500+ slightly OCed, & i upgraded to a s754 A64 3200+.

The difference was extremely noticeable.

I don't have any benches anymore, since it was a long time ago, but everything was much faster.

I would say it's worth the upgrade for sure.

 

[imported_BadKarma]

Since you're on a budget, is there anything you do that requires the extra speed?
From your OC, I'm pretty sure the 2500+ is serving you very well right now.
The thing with technology is that you pay less for more as time progresses.
So, I say hold off for now. Dual cores are coming and it will drive the price of the A64 down even further.

 

[selfbuilt]

What do you use your computer for? Despite claims by others, I saw no noticeable performance difference when going from an AXP Barton 2500+ running @2.45Ghz (a 30% o/c) to a A64 NC 2800+ running @2.34 (also a 30% o/c). My synthetic mem benchies went up of course, and my games were typically 5-15% faster (limited by a 9800XT), but can't say the comp feels any faster. You may see more of a benefit for video encoding/processing tasks, but I know I doubt the cost effectiveness of my upgrade (I had hoped for a higher o/c on A64, but these things are never guaranteed!).