939 3000 vs 939 3200

[macewank]

ok.. i cant find a 3200 anywhere around here (locally) but i CAN find a 3000...

should i wait? or should i pick up the 3000...

right now im thinking the 3000.. its cheaper, and im not sure what, if any, significant performance decrease there would be


thoughts?

 

[MustISO]

Are these Winchester or Newcastle cores? Some of the Winchester (.90nm) are clocked slower than the same speed rated Newcastle (.130nm) CPU's.

This will show you the difference in all the CPU's:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/images/cpu_table_amd_big.gif

 

[Reiniku]

all 3000+'s and 3200+'s for s939 are winchester

 

[Appledrop]

they will both overclock about the same, assuming your motherboard can handle the FSB, so i'd get the 3000+ with a good ocing motherboard and some cheap pc3200 ram, and run a divider to overclock

 

[Idleuser]

actually if you get a good week for the 3200+ u can go above the 3000+ with better stability. 98% of all 3000+ caps out about 2.5-2.7ghz (stability) while the 3200+ can get into the 2.6range-2.8range with easy. You also have an a 10x multiplier to work with.

 

[macewank]

well.. think im going with the 3000... i cant wait a week for the 3200 as i'll be just about past the RMA date on a few components by that time. my plan is to OC the 3000 to 3200 and call it a day.. i hadnt planned on OC'ing the 3200 to begin with, so that should yeild satisfactory results...

 

[nealh]

ok..where are you getting your cpu..I have not seen 3200 hitting 2.7-2.8 reliably..still very much YMMV

2500 is very good bet, 2600 with a real good chip, 2700 you are very lucky

 

[nealh]

crap doube post....

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: nealh
ok..where are you getting your cpu..I have not seen 3200 hitting 2.7-2.8 reliably..still very much YMMV

2500 is very good bet, 2600 with a real good chip, 2700 you are very lucky

Yeah... I'd say 2400-2500 is common... above 2500 is a crapshoot. 2.7 is definately rare... just cause there are 10-20 people on these forums that have their's at 2.6-2.7 doesn't make it noraml, there are also MANY more that don't make it that high.

 

[Idleuser]

Nealh: I never said I had a 3200+ I actually have a 3000+ myself but you can check out the database at XS forum: As you can see the 2.6-2.8 range is feasiable while the 3000+ hits 2.5-2.7ghz range

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52420

 

[macewank]

3000+ and 3200+ should, in theory, be able to achieve the same speeds.. aren't they cast from the same die?

 

[Link]

Originally posted by: Idleuser
Nealh: I never said I had a 3200+ I actually have a 3000+ myself but you can check out the database at XS forum: As you can see the 2.6-2.8 range is feasiable while the 3000+ hits 2.5-2.7ghz range

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52420

2.6~2.8? out of 3000 and 3200? and on air ? GOOD LUCK!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Link

Originally posted by: Idleuser
Nealh: I never said I had a 3200+ I actually have a 3000+ myself but you can check out the database at XS forum: As you can see the 2.6-2.8 range is feasiable while the 3000+ hits 2.5-2.7ghz range

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52420

2.6~2.8? out of 3000 and 3200? and on air ? GOOD LUCK!

I agree! Posting a screenie and being prime stable is two different things.

With my 3200+ I can boot to windows and get a screen shot at 2.7, I can run for days playing all the top games, benchmark SuperPI,3dmark05,Aquamark,PCmark, etc... at 2601mhz but prime errors after a few hours. The best that I can prime for 12hrs is 2565mhz.

So when you see people post screenies showing over 2.6ghz take it with a grain of salt, because chances are its nowhere close to prime stable.

 

[chinkgai]

plus those who actually post are trying to "show off" their results while there are the many others who do NOT post because there isnt anything to show off! haha