for general purpose use why get A64 instead of Barton

Fike

Senior member
Oct 2, 2001
388
0
0
I am getting ready to build a pc with an athlon processor. I am cheap. I want to spend less than $200 and use my current RAM, video card and hard drives. I have reviewed the office application benchmarks that claim to compare applications like photoshop, and the Barton 3000 comes in very close to the A64 3000 benchmarks. the only benchmarks where the A64 beats barton is in pure memory tasks. Is that a real world test?

I think I will go with a barton 3000 with an ABIT KV7 el-cheapo motherboard.

tell me why I am wrong, crazy, deranged or otherwise misinformed.

 

11427

Senior member
May 9, 2003
412
0
71
I'm with you, for the most part. My three XP machines run neck and neck with my A64, there is no seat of the pants difference. In most benchmarks my OC'd XP 2500+ mops the floor with my stock A64 3000+. Once OC'd the A64 pulls ahead.
I'd have no problem spending $75 for a mobile Barton, and $90 for an A7N8X-E and OC to at least 2.2
Of course you could also do a 939 and A64 for real close to $200.
 

ts3433

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,731
0
0
How cheap is the KV7? How expensive is the XP3000?

I'd imagine you could do better for the money (especially considering how expensive high-end Bartons often are) with a no-frills S754 board and an A64 2800+ (usually is better than the XP3200) or maybe one of the 90nm Semprons.
 

rogue1979

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2001
3,062
0
0
Why not go with a mobile Celeron (256k L2 cache) 1.8GHz for $50 and a P4S800-MX for $55?

Put it on a 166MHz fsb for 3.0GHz, use your existing memory (plenty of memory divider options, 200-400MHz).

Real cheap, the 256k L2 version is very close to P4 territory for office applications, falling about 10% behind the real P4 in 3D gaming.

This is not a 128k L2 Celeron.

Best bang for the buck right now for a budget setup.
 

CaBoOse999

Senior member
Feb 25, 2005
240
0
0
The Xp3000+ might have a SLIGHT edge in some of those apps but it all depends what you want to do with it.
 

11427

Senior member
May 9, 2003
412
0
71
Agreed,.....so, Fike are you into games or other stuff? If it is just a matter of money an OC'd XP (2.2 - 2.4) will really do as good or better than an A64 for less $$$, just depends on what your goals are.
 

batmanuel

Platinum Member
Jan 15, 2003
2,144
0
0
Originally posted by: 11427
Agreed,.....so, Fike are you into games or other stuff? If it is just a matter of money an OC'd XP (2.2 - 2.4) will really do as good or better than an A64 for less $$$, just depends on what your goals are.

Yeah, but most 2800+ or 3000+ model Athlon 64 chips (depending on your choice of socket) can usually also make it into the 2.2-2.4 GHz range, assuming you don't get the runt of the processor litter. At those speeds, they will eat an OC'd mobile XP for lunch.

I'd get one of the low end A64s that have some OC potential instead of an Athlon XP and overclock the heck out of it. I'd even be willing to spends a bit more to get a solid nForce 4 board in order to get an upgrade path to dual core goodness.
 

Fike

Senior member
Oct 2, 2001
388
0
0
I play some games, but I am not obsessed with graphics performance. I have been playing COlin Mcrae rally 05. I will probably want to play AOE III when it comes out. I think my graphics card will have a bigger impact on these games--especially since I can tolerate lower framerates.

I have gone around and around on this. The mother of all benchmarks at Tom's Hardware really shows how muddy the water is when it comes to making a value pick. My latest choice after my temptation with the barton is an EPOX 8KDA3I with either a sempron 3100 or A64 2800. My biggest concern is the ability to put 1.5 GB of RAM in and have photoshop work efficiently. I am working with some graphic images that are 500 MB and they really drag my current system so that some filters/operations take 3 or 4 minutes to complete. Extra RAM is critical for Photoshop, so I am speculating that the beter RAM access performance of the A64 might make the A64 2800 on a 754 board the best value bang for my $$$$.

I overclocked my XP 1600 when I first got it, but that processor ran hot, so I went back to standard settings. The fan I got made my system sound like a ramjet. I might be inclined to overclock one of the 90nm chips like the sempron 3100 because I understand the 90nm parts run cool. Stability is very critical to me when doing photo work, so it would have to be rock solid. Right now I am looking at a mobo and processor for about $180....for either sempron 3100 or newcastle 2800.
 

sangyup81

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2005
1,082
1
81
It really depends on what price point you are going on. If you want low end bang for the buck and don't care for gaming, I'd go with a mature ECS motherboard with good reviews and a mobile T-Bred if you can find one.

But that's a roughly $100 price point. You said $200 so you're best off with an EPOX s754 MB and a Sempron 2600+ or 2800+. That'll run you 130-150 and will give you better potential overclocking headroom.

If you really want to go socket A, you're better off going with ebay since the prices of Bartons don't go down anymore. Ebay would have a better measure of true demand.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,661
12,586
136
Just a thought, but you might have problems using 1.5 gigs of RAM in a socket 754 system unless you drop to 2T or DDR333 speeds. You need to do some research and testing to make sure you can use that much RAM comfortably. I'm assuming you're going to be using 3x512mb DIMMs?

That aside, i just recently built a budget-overclock system. It's stable up to 2.4 ghz, and I'm sure the chip could go higher with a better board, HSF, and possibly power supply, but hey, I was on a budget. The Sempron 2800+ and a Chaintech VNF3-250 set me back $146 from Mwave.com. I currently run it at 290HTTx8 at stock vcore, and it's 100% stable. If you're willing to blow $30-$40 more on the motherboard, you can get the DFI Lanparty instead. You'll probably have more luck with it. More info on the 90 nm Semprons can be found here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=1528904

Alternatively, you could just get a 3400+(if you're willing to cough up the dough) and get one of the best, if not the best bang-for-your-buck Athlon64s out there. You'll have twice the l2 cache I do, stock 2.4 ghz speeds, and the potential to OC a bit if you feel like it. Ooooorrr, if you can get an AX-stepping Athlon64 2800+, that sucker should OC well. Zap can probably tell you more about them.
 

Mik3y

Banned
Mar 2, 2004
7,089
0
0
Originally posted by: BlindBartimaeus
I would go with the Socket A with the concern of memory. Overclock the XP and you will be more than fine.

i would go athlon 64 even because of hte memory. u'll still get better longevity and better performance.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
If memory is important to you, save up another $100 and wait a few weeks, and get a venice core 3000+ 939, they have the new improved memory controller that is supposed to handle 3 or 4 sticks of ram without a performance loss, and will likely be a mad overclocker. One of these and an entry level 939 board will set you back $250-300, but should be well worth the extra bucks and satisfy your needs for several years.

Even if you don't want to wait for Venice core, with current pricing going with anything less than a 939 system just doesn't make sense to me. You can get an NF3 board that supports the older harddrives and video cards like the EPOX for $89, and a 3000+ winchester for $140-150, and most likely get 2.6ghz FX55 performance for less than $250. If saving $100 is worth settling for 5yr old technology vs. the new stuff, then you should just keep what you have
 

Fike

Senior member
Oct 2, 2001
388
0
0
For better or worse, I took the plunge this morning. I got:

EPOX 8KDA3I
A64 Newcastle 3000+

By all indications, the motherboard should support my three 512 MB chips. I don't care about it not being the latest and greatest. Right now I have a 4 year old computer that is pretty good. I hate working at the bleeding edge because you end up doing the R&D for products that really aren't ready for prime time. In this business, I am not sure any new technology rolls out without issues that need to be addressed later in BIOS revisions etc... I work for a semicounducter company (not amd or intel) and it is rare that things roll out perfectly the first time.

I think I am going to see some huge performance gains. I have been taking performance measurements on some reference images in photoshop to be able to compare after the installation is done. For example, it currently takes 46 seconds to open a 531 MB psd file. then it takes 1 minute 35 seconds to flatten the image which has 16 layers. I will report back what the difference looks like after the new processor is installed.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,661
12,586
136
Looks like a good pick, Fike. I just hope you find a way to run all your memory at 1T. If you can't , running at DDR333 isn't a huge loss, especially if you do it with tight timings.

Happy OCing.