• 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.

Wich has best overclock for the money?

Originally posted by: Ioo
the 3200 or the 3500, because you start out with a higher multi than the 3000
Click to expand...


Is your name short for "loon"?

For the money the 3000+ followed closely (only if you can find it under 180) by the 3200+. The 3500+ doesnt even belong in there.
 
Originally posted by: BW86
3200+ you get the 10x multi.
Click to expand...


the 10x doesnt matter if you have a good setup. The money you save buying a 3000+ and not a 3200+ allows one to more easily get that 'good' setup. Then overall your entire system will last longer.
 
either the 3200 or 3000, they all should hit about the same top speed, but with the 3000 you will need a board that can handle the higher FSB it will need to hit those speeds.
 
if you go with the 3000+ as i did, get some good ram. i'm stuck at around 2.43 - 2.47 ghz because of my ram. i don't think it can handle much more than where it's at now. i really don't want to set the divider at 133 either.

see my sig.
 
Below is the setup I'm pretty much settled on - Is this a good setup to take advantage of the 3000?

CPU: AMD Athlon64 ?Winchester? 90nm <socket 939> 3000+
MB: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe <socket 939> PCI-E
Memory: Corsair Value Select Dual Channel 1GB (512x2)
Case: Antec Sonata w/ 380W TruePower
Video: Leadtek Winfast PX6600GT TDH PCI-E
Audio: Creative Labs Audigy2 PCI
TV: Leadtek Winfast TV 2000XP Expert
HDD: Maxtor DiamondMax Plus9 200GB SATA
DVD: NEC 3520A 16x8x4x
FDD: Mitsumi 7 in 1 Floppy & Card Reader

If I don't intend to OC should I go with 3200?

Any other recommendation?
 
Originally posted by: eddieaikau
if you go with the 3000+ as i did, get some good ram. i'm stuck at around 2.43 - 2.47 ghz because of my ram. i don't think it can handle much more than where it's at now. i really don't want to set the divider at 133 either.

see my sig.
Click to expand...


I can hit 2,610mhz (stable) with Corsair Value Select@ 2.5 3 3 7 1T.What's wrong with a 133 divider?

Going back to the topic,i kinda wished i paid the extra 70 bucks for the 3200 for its 10x multiplier.
 
Some say 3000, some say 3200... tell me this, if no overclocking was done how much difference would you notice between the two - is it noticeably different?
 
Originally posted by: leepark
Some say 3000, some say 3200... tell me this, if no overclocking was done how much difference would you notice between the two - is it noticeably different?
Click to expand...

Not noticable. Bearly noticeable @ 3500
 
If that's so, we should NOT bother overclocking at all. 3000, 3200, 3500 run at all about the same speed. 🙂
Anyone has benchedmarked REAL APPLICATIONs with before and after OC? Probably won't make much difference at all.
some game Fps, some winrar time, ..... show me some numbers.

3000 all the way, much cheaper!!!!! use the $ on graphic cards, ram, or a nice book to read on a balmy night.
 
if memory is not an issue, then the 3000+ is the best value. However, since you are liquid cooling, it sounds like you have ambitions to clock in the 2.6-2.8GHz range, and in order to achieve these speeds with a 3000+, you'd need a mobo and memory that can handle at least a 300MHz FSB, which is a pretty tall order. With at 3200+, that 10x multi is nice, since you can probably hit those speeds with "only" a 260-280MHz FSB, which is possible with high end ram. The 3500+ will hit it without much trouble in terms of memory speeds, but if you have the memory that can do it, cranking the memory higher will actaully allow equivalently clocked processors to perform better with the lower models, so it's hard to recommend it. If you look at it this way, the price difference between the 3000+ and a 3500+ can pay for a good chunk of the watercooling, and since they can hit the exact same speeds, i'd say there is no reason to go with the 3500. As it stands right now, my 3000+ is sitting at 2.2GHz, on stock cooling, without breaking a sweat, and i'd clock it higher if my memory had any potential for overclocking (value select is nice for the money, but i can't even get it to hit 420MHz!)
 
Originally posted by: gobucks
if memory is not an issue, then the 3000+ is the best value. However, since you are liquid cooling, it sounds like you have ambitions to clock in the 2.6-2.8GHz range, and in order to achieve these speeds with a 3000+, you'd need a mobo and memory that can handle at least a 300MHz FSB, which is a pretty tall order.With at 3200+, that 10x multi is nice, since you can probably hit those speeds with "only" a 260-280MHz FSB, which is possible with high end ram . The 3500+ will hit it without much trouble in terms of memory speeds, but if you have the memory that can do it, cranking the memory higher will actaully allow equivalently clocked processors to perform better with the lower models, so it's hard to recommend it. If you look at it this way, the price difference between the 3000+ and a 3500+ can pay for a good chunk of the watercooling, and since they can hit the exact same speeds, i'd say there is no reason to go with the 3500.As it stands right now, my 3000+ is sitting at 2.2GHz, on stock cooling, without breaking a sweat, and i'd clock it higher if my memory had any potential for overclocking (value select is nice for the money, but i can't even get it to hit 420MHz!)
Click to expand...

Memory does not really have to be High End.And yes,your value select is fine.Just use a divider and push that CPU.😎
 
I can hit 2,610mhz (stable) with Corsair Value Select@ 2.5 3 3 7 1T.What's wrong with a 133 divider?

Going back to the topic,i kinda wished i paid the extra 70 bucks for the 3200 for its 10x multiplier.
Click to expand...

hah, ok, i guess i'll try that. 😛
 
Originally posted by: fireontheway
Memory does not really have to be High End.And yes,your value select is fine.Just use a divider and push that CPU.😎
Click to expand...

Is 1GB (512x2) retail package the same as 2 separate 512M packages? Any diff. in performance?
http://www.newegg.com/app/View...tion=20-145-480&depa=1
over
2x http://www.newegg.com/app/View...tion=20-145-026&depa=1

btw, what is Cas Latency (eg, Corsair has one with 2.5 and another with 3, everything else the same)? What specs exactly should I be looking for when buying memory?
 
Originally posted by: mrscintilla
If that's so, we should NOT bother overclocking at all. 3000, 3200, 3500 run at all about the same speed. 🙂
Anyone has benchedmarked REAL APPLICATIONs with before and after OC? Probably won't make much difference at all.
some game Fps, some winrar time, ..... show me some numbers.

3000 all the way, much cheaper!!!!! use the $ on graphic cards, ram, or a nice book to read on a balmy night.
Click to expand...


They are not all about the same speed. A 3000+ will be slower than a 3200+. Over a days time it could save you many min worth of processing time. Is this noticeable? No. 3500+ is slightly noticable and can save you ~%20 processing ti me. %20 is about the minimum change thats worth anything these days (depending on what you have to do to get it).

An overclocked 3000+ to 2.6Ghz is about a 4000+.
 
Originally posted by: gobucks
if memory is not an issue, then the 3000+ is the best value. However, since you are liquid cooling, it sounds like you have ambitions to clock in the 2.6-2.8GHz range, and in order to achieve these speeds with a 3000+, you'd need a mobo and memory that can handle at least a 300MHz FSB, which is a pretty tall order. With at 3200+, that 10x multi is nice, since you can probably hit those speeds with "only" a 260-280MHz FSB, which is possible with high end ram. The 3500+ will hit it without much trouble in terms of memory speeds, but if you have the memory that can do it, cranking the memory higher will actaully allow equivalently clocked processors to perform better with the lower models, so it's hard to recommend it. If you look at it this way, the price difference between the 3000+ and a 3500+ can pay for a good chunk of the watercooling, and since they can hit the exact same speeds, i'd say there is no reason to go with the 3500. As it stands right now, my 3000+ is sitting at 2.2GHz, on stock cooling, without breaking a sweat, and i'd clock it higher if my memory had any potential for overclocking (value select is nice for the money, but i can't even get it to hit 420MHz!)
Click to expand...


use divider, nerd.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas
An overclocked 3000+ to 2.6Ghz is about a 4000+.
Click to expand...

Is it difficult to overclock it to that speed? Would it be noticeably faster? What is involved when OCing? Do I need to change any of the components (eg, PSU, RAM, etc.) I am planning to buy? Can the stock PSU in a Sonata handle this? Is the 3000 better for this than a 3200?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: leepark
Originally posted by: fireontheway
Memory does not really have to be High End.And yes,your value select is fine.Just use a divider and push that CPU.😎
Click to expand...

Is 1GB (512x2) retail package the same as 2 separate 512M packages? Any diff. in performance?
http://www.newegg.com/app/View...tion=20-145-480&depa=1
over
2x http://www.newegg.com/app/View...tion=20-145-026&depa=1

btw, what is Cas Latency (eg, Corsair has one with 2.5 and another with 3, everything else the same)?What specs exactly should I be looking for when buying memory?
Click to expand...

That's basically the difference,the single 512mb stick on the lower link has lower latency.Overclocking using Low Latecy memory can give you more headroom by relaxing the timings.(we're a bit off topic now so ill end here)

Anyway if you are puchasing memory for an A64,read the first topic on thig category(posted by zebo).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top