I have been pondering a couple of questions regarding AM2+ vs. AM3 motherboards, and I'd like some opinions.
If someone is building new, I would normally recommend AM3 over AM2+ if only because it is newer, has an upgrade path, and supports DDR3. BUT, for someone upgrading, or someone on a very tight budget, and for whom time (especially only a few %) <> money:
1. Given an equivalent chipset (e.g. 785G or 790G / SB710 or SB750), is there a compelling reason to upgrade an AM2+ mobo to AM3? I'm specifically not referring to those cases where the AM2+ board is older, for example only offering 1000HTs. Assume also that a RAM upgrade beyond an initial 4GB is extremely unlikely, so the increasing cost of DDR2 vs. DDR3 is a minor factor at most. Expansion slots, e.g. # of SATA, RAM and PCIE x16/x8/x4 are also equivalent or not relevant (i.e. buyer will run same GPUs).
2. Once again, assuming that time <> money, if the person is on a tight budget, would recommending an AM2+ board as having [near] equivalent performance be ethically questionable? The CPU would be the same, e.g. a Phenom II.
Overclocking is not a factor, as any variance could be attributable to the luck of the draw on the CPU; as mentioned the chipsets are equivalent (e.g. both would have ACC).
Although it looks like there's a small (3%?) difference due to DDR3 vs. DDR2, this appears not to matter. Am I missing something? Thanks.
If someone is building new, I would normally recommend AM3 over AM2+ if only because it is newer, has an upgrade path, and supports DDR3. BUT, for someone upgrading, or someone on a very tight budget, and for whom time (especially only a few %) <> money:
1. Given an equivalent chipset (e.g. 785G or 790G / SB710 or SB750), is there a compelling reason to upgrade an AM2+ mobo to AM3? I'm specifically not referring to those cases where the AM2+ board is older, for example only offering 1000HTs. Assume also that a RAM upgrade beyond an initial 4GB is extremely unlikely, so the increasing cost of DDR2 vs. DDR3 is a minor factor at most. Expansion slots, e.g. # of SATA, RAM and PCIE x16/x8/x4 are also equivalent or not relevant (i.e. buyer will run same GPUs).
2. Once again, assuming that time <> money, if the person is on a tight budget, would recommending an AM2+ board as having [near] equivalent performance be ethically questionable? The CPU would be the same, e.g. a Phenom II.
Overclocking is not a factor, as any variance could be attributable to the luck of the draw on the CPU; as mentioned the chipsets are equivalent (e.g. both would have ACC).
Although it looks like there's a small (3%?) difference due to DDR3 vs. DDR2, this appears not to matter. Am I missing something? Thanks.