AMD Athlon64 Model Differences

[WaxHaX0rS]

This is the first of many questions I will be asking over the next month in preparation for the building of my new computer. It is about the various Athlon64 models. Until recently, I only had a vague idea of what all the numbers mean, and now I would like to know what the differences are between the various models with the same cache sizes, such as 3200, 3500, and 3800. Is it purely clock speed, or are there major architectural differences that warrant the higher model number? If it is purely clock speed, what part of it is higher: the multiplier or the fsb (I still don't understand FSB 100% yet)? I ask this because I'm on a budget of no more than $1100 (that's $100 more than it was this morning, the more I research, the more the budget goes up, haha) and I originally had planned to get a 3500 and a 6600 GT card. After reading,it seems people seem to suggest getting the 3200, overclocking it to 3500 speeds or so, and then spending a little more to get the 6800 GT, rather than doing what my original plan was. If my assumption of the potential to overclock a 3200 to equal a 3500, what heat is involved? Is there an equal amount of heat to an overclocked 3200 as there would be with a 3500 or is there some design that allows the 3500 to resist heat rising at higher clock speeds? Finally, what different "cores" lend themselves best to overclocking?

I know I asked a lot of questions, feel free to only answer a few of them if you can't answer all of them. Thanks.

 

[steffeo]

Hi!

The models that have the same cache size, it only depends on the clock speed, atleast on the same socket. You might notice that the s 939 is 200 mhz below the s 754 in clockspeed on the same model. But the difference between the 4000 and 3800, is the the 4000 has i mbyte of cache, the 350 has only 512kb.

The clockspeed, is only determinded by the multiplyer.

When it comes to suggestion's as to what you should get, it depends on you needs really. There isnt much difference in performance between the 3200 and the 3500, and there is always the risk of getting a bad OC'en chip, so that really depends on what you are satisfied with.

Also, I see the the GT 6600 is a great mid-end when comparing graphics cards, and getting the 6800, I think, would be throwing money out the window, because that kind of performace you wont need in years.

But it is upp to you, check out anandtech.com and also tomshardware for benchmarks concerning what graphics card to get.

Good luck!

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: steffeo
and getting the 6800, I think, would be throwing money out the window, because that kind of performace you wont need in years.

Newer games today can already stress these cards out, let alone years later.