amd

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
3000.
Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.

Thanks

Smokeyone

PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
3800...........

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 2 Nov 2004 01:13:45 -0800, mailstarclipper@btopenworld.com (Smokeyone)
wrote:

>Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
>3000.
>Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
>is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.

Yep - it's time... you'll see a huge difference.

>Thanks
>
>Smokeyone
>
>PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
>3800...........

3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a bit
of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing the
price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that level.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <e264a9ed.0411020113.6420d695@posting.google.com>, from the
wonderful person Smokeyone <mailstarclipper@btopenworld.com> said
>Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
>3000.
>Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
>is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.

Yes, but assuming you're going to be running WinXP on the new system,
you need at least 512MB of RAM .. 1GB for some purposes, since XP chews
up more than Win98 did.

>Thanks
>
>Smokeyone
>
>PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
>3800...........

Not enough to justify the price difference, not if you can live with the
4 year old system so far.

A lot of the speedup will be down to faster disks, and faster graphics
card. CPUs these days spend an awful lot of their time (95%+ for most
people) in the 'idle' loop.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On 2 Nov 2004 01:13:45 -0800, mailstarclipper@btopenworld.com (Smokeyone)
> wrote:
>
> >Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
> >3000.
> >Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
> >is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.
>
> Yep - it's time... you'll see a huge difference.
>
> >Thanks
> >
> >Smokeyone
> >
> >PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
> >3800...........
>
> 3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a bit
> of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing the
> price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
> www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that level.

An Athlon XP3000+ is a great chip for running business software, and a
great buy for a pc for a typical office(although the XP2600+ seems to give
the best bang for the buck for this). For a home user running games, Photoshop,
or multimedia, an Athlon 64 3000+ would make much more sense than an
Athlon XP.

>
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<41881F7C.5F8A2BF4@netscape.net>...
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
> > On 2 Nov 2004 01:13:45 -0800, mailstarclipper@btopenworld.com (Smokeyone)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
> > >3000.
> > >Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
> > >is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.
> >
> > Yep - it's time... you'll see a huge difference.
> >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Smokeyone
> > >
> > >PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
> > >3800...........
> >
> > 3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a bit
> > of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing the
> > price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
> > www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that level.
>
> An Athlon XP3000+ is a great chip for running business software, and a
> great buy for a pc for a typical office(although the XP2600+ seems to give
> the best bang for the buck for this). For a home user running games, Photoshop,
> or multimedia, an Athlon 64 3000+ would make much more sense than an
> Athlon XP.
>
> >
> >
> > Rgds, George Macdonald
> >
> > "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Thanks for the advice everyone

Smokeyone

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41881F7C.5F8A2BF4@netscape.net...
>
>
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
> > On 2 Nov 2004 01:13:45 -0800, mailstarclipper@btopenworld.com
(Smokeyone)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
> > >3000.
> > >Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
> > >is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.
> >
> > Yep - it's time... you'll see a huge difference.
> >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Smokeyone
> > >
> > >PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
> > >3800...........
> >
> > 3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a
bit
> > of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing
the
> > price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
> > www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that
level.
>
> An Athlon XP3000+ is a great chip for running business software, and a
> great buy for a pc for a typical office(although the XP2600+ seems to give
> the best bang for the buck for this). For a home user running games,
Photoshop,
> or multimedia, an Athlon 64 3000+ would make much more sense than an
> Athlon XP.
>
I've been running an XP2000 for about 2 years w/ 512megs... It handles
everything I throw
at it. graphics, games, etc. I'm sure some newer games would bite it, but I
run
Photoshop, paint shop pro, freehand, flash and dreamweaver simultaneously
all the time....


--
<B0N3H3@D>
"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." Albert Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:59:56 -0500, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 2 Nov 2004 01:13:45 -0800, mailstarclipper@btopenworld.com (Smokeyone)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Before I purchase a new system, could I check please about the AMD xp
>> >3000.
>> >Is this going to be like chalk and cheese to my existing system which
>> >is 4 years old, amd500 and win98.
>>
>> Yep - it's time... you'll see a huge difference.
>>
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Smokeyone
>> >
>> >PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
>> >3800...........
>>
>> 3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a bit
>> of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing the
>> price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
>> www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that level.
>
>An Athlon XP3000+ is a great chip for running business software, and a
>great buy for a pc for a typical office(although the XP2600+ seems to give
>the best bang for the buck for this). For a home user running games, Photoshop,
>or multimedia, an Athlon 64 3000+ would make much more sense than an
>Athlon XP.

Yes we have a few XPs in the office - 2500+ thru 3000+ and they're fine.
All I'm saying is that, right now, for the relatively small difference in
price between the XP 3000+ and the A64 3000+, I would get the A64 for the
better performance and the comfort of 64-bit.

BTW have you noticed the supply of socket 939 mbrds is drying up,
especially nForce3 - the MSI & Epox ones are back-ordered for 2 weeks at
NewEgg and other vendors. The Gigabyte is the only one available at NewEgg
and it doesn't appeal to me... plus I have a grudge against them, dating
back to my 1st 486 PC.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <4tdho0lh97djaa79oaif1usk4aif0ao21t@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com>
said
<snip>

>>> >PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
>>> >3800...........
>>>
>>> 3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a bit
>>> of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing the
>>> price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
>>> www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that level.
>>
>>An Athlon XP3000+ is a great chip for running business software, and a
>>great buy for a pc for a typical office(although the XP2600+ seems to give
>>the best bang for the buck for this). For a home user running games,
>>Photoshop,
>>or multimedia, an Athlon 64 3000+ would make much more sense than an
>>Athlon XP.
>
>Yes we have a few XPs in the office - 2500+ thru 3000+ and they're fine.
>All I'm saying is that, right now, for the relatively small difference in
>price between the XP 3000+ and the A64 3000+, I would get the A64 for the
>better performance and the comfort of 64-bit.

Me too, although the Mother board cost differences may be an issue.
However the OP asked about 3800 .. while I might shell out for an AMD64
I certainly wouldn't for a 'bleeding edge' AMD64 3800.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:51:47 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>Bitstring <4tdho0lh97djaa79oaif1usk4aif0ao21t@4ax.com>, from the
>wonderful person George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com>
>said
><snip>
>
>>>> >PS Is there a lot of difference between the 3000 and the
>>>> >3800...........
>>>>
>>>> 3800 what?... that'd be an Athlon64 - no?... and yes there is quite a bit
>>>> of difference. I don't know how things are in the U.K. but comparing the
>>>> price of an A64 3000+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+, here in the U.S. -- see
>>>> www.newegg.com -- the XP doesn't make a lot of sense to me at that level.
>>>
>>>An Athlon XP3000+ is a great chip for running business software, and a
>>>great buy for a pc for a typical office(although the XP2600+ seems to give
>>>the best bang for the buck for this). For a home user running games,
>>>Photoshop,
>>>or multimedia, an Athlon 64 3000+ would make much more sense than an
>>>Athlon XP.
>>
>>Yes we have a few XPs in the office - 2500+ thru 3000+ and they're fine.
>>All I'm saying is that, right now, for the relatively small difference in
>>price between the XP 3000+ and the A64 3000+, I would get the A64 for the
>>better performance and the comfort of 64-bit.
>
>Me too, although the Mother board cost differences may be an issue.
>However the OP asked about 3800 .. while I might shell out for an AMD64
>I certainly wouldn't for a 'bleeding edge' AMD64 3800.

Yes but, by comparing the XP 3000+ and "3800", it wasn't clear that he knew
he was looking at two different CPUs. Of course, if all he needs is a bit
more oomph than he currently has, for general work, and is looking for a
low cost upgrade, something less than a XP 3000+ would still be a big
performance boost.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??