• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

which AMD 64 would be the one to go for best price to performance ratio?

edmundoab

edmundoab

Diamond Member
I know the AMD FX55 is an overkill... FX53 isn't cheap either..
but I've heard alot of good things with the 3500+, and some going for 4000+ in substitute for the FX series
what u guys think?

 
if you have more money, you can wait for venice, which i think will be 3800+

that is, if you dont mind waiting




oops, i meant to push "edit", not "reply"

im sleepy 😛
 
if you are overclocking, you would have to be pretty retarded to get the 3500+ seing as how it overclocks the exact same as the 3000+ winchester which is way cheaper. you might want the 3200+ for the 10x multi though. most winchesters make it to 2.6GHz on stock cooling with 1.5v which is FX-55 speeds, w/o the extra cache that dosn't do all that much anyway.
Nick
 
I agree with Zakee00,

The best price to performance ratio is the 3000+ Winchester ($155 retail box w/HSF) or the 3200+ Winchester which is $30 to $40 more. Both these CPU's can easily OC 2.5Ghz to 2.6Ghz with the retail HSF that comes with them.

The 3000+ has a 9x multi, and the 3200+ has a 10x multi, so if your mobo cannot reach 300 LDT/HTT (FSB) then you would be better off with the 3200+ because of its higher multiplier if you want to reach 2.6Ghz. I have a 3000+ and Abit AV8 mobo and i had to stop at 2.5Ghz because my mobo has pblms with the AGP lock at high LDT/HTT speeds. If i had the 3200+ i could have reached 2.6Ghz+ depending on how my stock air cooling was holding up.
 
so what would be the ideal mobos to go along with the 3000+ and 3200+ as suggested?
seems promising with air cooling. Yes I am planning to OC
 
My Abit AV8 only costs $100 (U.S.), i got mine to Overclock my 3000+ from 1.8Ghz to 2.5Ghz, but alot of AV8 owners are having pblms getting over 2.3Ghz because of AGP lock pblms with the board.

From what i have read on the Official ABIT forums i would say that you have a 95% chance of OCing a 3000+ winnie to 2.3Ghz with this board, and probably 30% chance of hitting 2.5Ghz with it. The AV8 is a good OC mobo, but not great, too many bios bugs currently, like AGP locks that flake out when the ldt is greater then 260Mhz. I got mine to 2.5Ghz by using a 8:2:1 divider instead of the AGP lock.
 
best price to performance ratio?

Always the lowest chip in series.

Example?
For 939

3000 is 1800Mhz for $150
3200 offers 10% theoretical performance increase but costs 33% more money, very poor value.
3500 offers 20% theoretical performance increase but costs 100% more money, horrendous value.
3800 offers 30% theoretical performance increase, but costs a whopping 400% more money, O.M.G!!


Well you get the idea.. then overclock, all that x-tra cash is just a waste.

Because they are all same CHIP, with same potential, dispite what AMD says and set multiplier as...

FX/4000 is exceptions here due to 1MB lvl2 but still offer terrible bang for buck for overclcokers probably worse than 3800 comapred to 3000.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Always the lowest chip in series.

Example?
For 939

3000 is 1800Mhz for $150
3200 offers 10% theoretical performance increase but costs 33% more money, very poor value.
3500 offers 20% theoretical performance increase but costs 100% more money, horrendous value.
3800 offers 30% theoretical performance increase, but costs a whopping 400% more money, O.M.G!!


Well you get the idea.. then overclock, all that x-tra cash is just a waste.
Click to expand...

Very informative !!!!

Think Zebo's just got me to see the light, I was going to wait for the revision E's and get an 3500+, but sack it , I'll get a 3000+ and safely overclock !😀

 
You could probably buy a 3000+ now and oc it and then upgrade later when the prices drop on the 3800+. It should be plenty to tie you over. I ordered one this past weekend for around $150 and I don't think there is a better bang for the buck out there right now.

-show
 
ok so waiting for the 3800+ would meant spending a bomb on the CPU. thats gonna make me out of budget by then LOL

ok gotcha the 90nm 3000+

how about a good mobo to get along with it.
As we read on the thread the Abit is a good overclocker but has bugs on its Bios,
was asking what u guys think about Asus then?
 
Yep 3000+ Winnie. Can't really go wrong with that. I believe the 3000/1.8GHzx9,3200/2.0GHzx10,3500/2.2GHzx11, and 3800/2.4GHzx12 all have about the same potential as far as overclock is concerned so why buy anything higher than 3000+? Unless you just like a higher multiplier. Us poorfolk cant afford the 3800+, 4000+, FX-53 or FX-55.

I believe the 4000+/2.6GHzx13, FX-53/2.4Ghzx12, and the FX-55/2.6GHzx13 all have 1MB of L2 cache. I believe the FX-53 and FX-55 are the only ones with unlocked multipliers.

The 3800+ makes the least amount of since to me out of all of them.
 
For a Mobo I would get something with a Nforce4 chipset for best scalability and futureproofing. DFI NF4 Lan Party Ultra or SLI if you got the cash. MSI is good too. With the Nforce4 you will get PCIe 16x/1x and potentially SLI if you get one of the higher end boards. PCIe medium range video cards seem to be cheaper at them moment as well. 6600GT for example which is a good performer.
 
Here are THE mobos you should be looking at:
If you want PCIe, go with the DFI NF4 Lan Party Ultra (strongly recommended if you are also looking for a new video card)

If you want AGP, go with the MSI K8N Neo 2. best NF3/S939 board out there. (only get this if you already plopped down a ton of money on a 6xxx or an x800 AGP version) I can get over 300HTT on it, but the ram voltages really stink, 2.85v max. not really a huge deal.

diffenately look into OCZ ram if you are getting new ram they make the best stuff evar for AMD, and have gr8 support.

also, obviously get a good brand name PSU over 400w. Antec TruePower 430 is great, but you can always go higher.
HTH,
Nick
 
Originally posted by: richardrds
If you want to save some money you can buy 1G (512Mx2) of Value Ram and use a Mem Divider. There is not that much of a differance Performance wise between $150 Vaue Ram and $250 High Performace ram when used with A64 CPU's. Read this thread by Zebo as he proves this point:



half decent LL PC3200 is the lowest ram i would get. any slower/cheaper it limits your OCing potential.
link
dont know how well it OC's though, google for a review 😉
this is all assuming you are even getting new ram
Click to expand...
 
Us poorfolk cant afford the 3800+, 4000+, FX-53 or FX-55.
Click to expand...

Poors got nothing to do with it. Anyone with a job or a credit card can afford an FX.

Any first year economics course will explain price/performance curves and how they affect consumer spending. The sensible consumers are the ones that take a detached, unemotional view of buying. This leads to money saved and spent elsewhere where it can better accumulate. It's a fundamental accepted concept. It's so childish, they don't even bother writing a formula for it. If something costs twice as much it should be twice as good. Or in the case of CPU's twice as fast.

Most prudent buyers take this approach to puchasing. They had a rough idea what level of performance would satisfy their requirements, and they compared many products to see which one offered the most performance for the least money. Rationally, intrinsically, they understand that the 400-600% price premium would be better spent elsewhere than for 10-30% performance gains. They are not cheap, or poor, or tight-fisted. They simply would rather use that money for something more productive. Like a better video card .. Huge monitor. etc.
 
Poors got nothing to do with it. Anyone with a job or a credit card can afford an FX.

Any first year economics course will explain price/performance curves and how they affect consumer spending. The sensible consumers are the ones that take a detached, unemotional view of buying. This leads to money saved and spent elsewhere where it can better accumulate. It's a fundamental accepted concept. It's so childish, they don't even bother writing a formula for it. If something costs twice as much it should be twice as good. Or in the case of CPU's twice as fast.

Most prudent buyers take this approach to puchasing. They had a rough idea what level of performance would satisfy their requirements, and they compared many products to see which one offered the most performance for the least money. Rationally, intrinsically, they understand that the 400-600% price premium would be better spent elsewhere than for 10-30% performance gains. They are not cheap, or poor, or tight-fisted. They simply would rather use that money for something more productive. Like a better video card .. Huge monitor. etc.
Click to expand...

very well said :thumbsup:
 
If that approach was totally true then why do they sell so many of the top end processors. They have been marking the top 2 or 3 processors up for years. Alot of technical type people or computer savy individuals will not settle for anything less than the best regardless of any decision based on economics. If it didn't work the manufacturers wouldn't still be doing it. =D Do you remember 1GHz CPUs a few years ago? Same hype today.

While I am not poor I cannot validate to my significant other spending 800.00 on a processor. So I buy one with good performance and zap it with some extra voltage to get something near top end performance. =D

When it comes to the arrogant people in the community of computers and IT in general, manufacturers know that alot of people will settle for nothing less than best regardless of a cost to benefit analysis or bang for the buck, if you will. The majority of times it is only about bragging rights.

When I said "us poorfolk cant afford the 3800+, 4000+, FX-53, or FX-55", it was sarcasm and should not be taken literally. Its a southern thing, I guess and what those of us with our heads not crammed in a economics 101 book would call a joke. You most be really bored to give us an economics lesson. It's all good though. I am bored as well.
 
Originally posted by: stnick80
If that approach was totally true then why do they sell so many of the top end processors. They have been marking the top 2 or 3 processors up for years. Alot of technical type people or computer savy individuals will not settle for anything less than the best regardless of any decision based on economics. If it didn't work the manufacturers wouldn't still be doing it. =D Do you remember 1GHz CPUs a few years ago? Same hype today.
Click to expand...


Honestly?

Why $15000 rolex so poplular? A $24 timex will last longer and tell more accurate time.

They want the best and pay a heavy premium for it. In fact they like paying a premium because it sets them apart from the rest of the rabble as being refined, in tune, special.....something powerful that they can brag about. There is a definite sense of community because they know that the vast majority of people have not invested as much money into their computers. They ae highly emotional and like feedback on thier premium goods.. Probably wear a $15000 Rolex too if they could.
 
I totally agree, the 3000+ is a no brainer.

And at $150 bucks, overclock the &*%$ out of it. In the unlikely event that it dies before your ready to upgrade, buy another one at a cheaper price and you've still saved a ton of cash!
 
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I totally agree, the 3000+ is a no brainer.

And at $150 bucks, overclock the &*%$ out of it. In the unlikely event that it dies before your ready to upgrade, buy another one at a cheaper price and you've still saved a ton of cash!
Click to expand...

1. buy a 3000+
2. find the OC point at which it fries
3. buy a new one and oc it a bit lower

you still saved money 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top