What performs better? A64 3000+ or AXP 3000+

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
260FSB to equal and A64????? Damn, why the hell am I even still thinking about XP? Forget that right now!

Pat, what you said makes sense about raw power, however I saw that there is a difference in price between a PCI-E card and AGP cards, PCI-E being quite a bit cheaper.

I actually would like to have SATA raid, I've heard all about the extra hdd speed. I'd love to have to 80GB/120GB HDDs running in RAID.

Hmmm I didn't tell you guys my budget and I guess I haven't been completely clear on what the system will be used for, it will be used for things other than games. However with all your advice Here's what I'm leaning towards.

A64 3000+ Winchester 939 moderately overclocked to get a bit of extra value for money.
1GB (2*512) RAM PC3200/PC3500 - 3500 might be a bit too expensive.
PCI-E GF6600GT (SLI? XFX?)
939 Mobo with RAID and SATA

Pat has swayed me to also accept a 754 solution as long as I can get RAID and SATA on it though. Then I suppose I can settle for an AGP 8x graphics card.

It's not a top of the range PC, but I'm hoping it'll be good enough to run Doom 3 and Half Life 2 happily.

I'm looking for the sweet spot for price/performance.

As for budget well it's about £600/1000$ but really just looking for best value price/performance.


-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
 
What Mobo do u use and what RAM, Graphics etc?

Does anyone have suggestions for good Mobos which would satisfy the criteria I set out?

Many thanks in advance.

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
 
Any suggestions or is this thread too stale now?

Going 754, I know people have said NForce3, is the KT800 754 chipset far behind?



-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
 
Go nforce3. The VIA chipset is maybe a little faster in some benchmark, but the nforce3 perform better overall, thanks to its better HDD controller and Gbit ethernet that use less CPU cycle. I think it is more stable and less prone to problems.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
The reason to go nforce is the single chip chipset. It will keep your setup way cooler.
It is also nice that nforce has a reputation for stability, while via's is the opposite
 
I went with the MSI Neo2 plat mobo, and I must say it has probably impressed me the most out of all my components, with a great BIOS and easy install, and I have read a number of reviews that place it at a very high performance/price ratio. I also have the Gainward 6800GT, it's been good, but I wish that I had done a little more research on this one, I think I could have done better for the money (although, I shouldn't complain, it has been good to me so far).

If I was to do it all over again, I might have put alot more thought into the 754 vs 939 battle... but I decided to go with the 939. For me they were too close in price not to take it.
 
Problem with 939 vs 754 costing the same is that they dont perform the same. Socket 939 3000+ is slower than 3000+ 754, while costing about the same. But to have comparable performance, you need the 3200+ 939 which cost more that the 3000+ 754 and that's where, performance and budget wise, 754 make sense.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
The interesting thing is that I bought ALL of my components from one place and they were really pushing the 939 3200+ and gave me a deal, which worked out to be $22 more than the 754 3000+. This was before I had seen the link that someone gave to the anandtech comparisons of the 754 to 939 though, so if I had seen that I MIGHT have thought about it more (in the end it's only 22 bucks though).
 
That's my dilemma too. They are so close in price.

What I'm thinking is that getting the PCI-Express graphics card (slightly faster than agp version) could make up for some of the performance.

The other thing to think about is how much each of the CPUs overclock.

I'm looking to do a moderate stock cooling overclock.

Does anybody know which overclocks better and what are the likely results?

A64 3000+ 939 (1800 MHz)
A64 3000+ 754 (2000 MHz)

I am so close now, I think it's after the answers to this post I will make my final decision.

So far this is what I am hoping to get. Let me know what you guys think.

Abit AV8 OR ASUS A8V OR MSI K8T Neo2-FIR
64bit Athlon 3000+ Socket 939
1GB 2*512 PC3200 Corsair RAM
2 x 80GB HDD (8MB cache) DUAL SATA RAID (Striped)
PCI Express nVidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB
Sony DWD22A 16x DVD R/RW Dual Layer
Sony 52x32x52x CD R/RW

OR

Soltek K8AN2E-GR (nForce3)
64bit Athlon 3000+ Socket 754
1GB PC3200 Corsair RAM
2 x 80GB HDD (8MB cache) DUAL SATA RAID (Striped)
AGP nVidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB
Sony DWD22A 16x DVD R/RW Dual Layer
Sony 52x32x52x CD R/RW

Cheers.

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
 
Right now, between both system, the 754 should perform better because the cpu is faster. as for oc, I run mine at 2.1 GHz instead of 2.0.. It run stableat 2.15 too, but I rather keep it cool and silent and not pushing too much because it is plain fast as it is right now.

I dont know about oc potential of the 939 socket, as I havent tryied it. I've discovered silent PC and I like that. You dont hear them while watchig movies or listening to music. And cool n quiet feature just speed up the fan when I play some game, and slow it down when it cool back to idle temperature..dont ask me about my temp...I dont really care as my system is rock stable and silent when it have to.

When I'll need faster thing, later, I'll check what is available then and upgrade with what will be the best performance/price ratio once there. but for now, I dont care about future...too much thing could happen...



-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
Yeah...it wasnt that bad, but did you check the price difference in motherboard, Maybe this could have give you anothe 25$ so arounf 50 more $ to spend on a faster video card... and that what would have give you an edge in performance. IMHO, money spent on CPU is like wasted compared to a good video card or fast HDD... especially HDD as it is really the slowest component of your system.

I know it is not easy, but once you stop thinking about future, you just make better system now that you may enjoy for a longer time too, without feeling the need to upgrade sooner.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
What are clawhammer, winchester and newcastle in the names of the Athlon 64s?

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
 
Problem with 939 vs 754 costing the same is that they dont perform the same. Socket 939 3000+ is slower than 3000+ 754, while costing about the same. But to have comparable performance, you need the 3200+ 939 which cost more that the 3000+ 754 and that's where, performance and budget wise, 754 make sense.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link showing this? I'd like to read it. I could be wrong as I rememer the MHz differences with newcastle leaving most people to believe MHz over cache was the better deal. BUT, It was my understanding that the 3000+ WInchester was by a little, the fastest performing A64 3000+.

While not a direct comparison, Anand states that the 90 nm were consistently faster than the 130nm chips. I figure this lead per MHz would enable the Winchester to keep up with a S754 3000+.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=7" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=7</A>

"Gaming Performance was consistently faster on the new 90nm than the existing 130nm processors. This varied from 2% in Aquamark3 and Doom3 to 7% in Quake 3. Overall, gaming averaged about 3% faster on the new 90nm chips. While 3% is not a huge increase and it will likely not even be noticed by the average user, it was still impressive to see the new 90nm chips perform a little better than the older 130nm chips."


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
 
260FSB to equal and A64????? ...quote]

It was a 200 fsb * 13 multiplier for 2.6GHz. But even so, it's no A64 killer by any means. Good performance per $ though.

Now 3dmarks aren't everything of course, but 2001se does help compare performance gains in Overclocking the CPU. I think the very best you can hope for with overclocking an Athlon XP, even with a mobile, is only putting you about at A64 2800+ - 3000+ stock performance at best. And unless you are liquid cooling that overclocked barton (which I am not), the noise difference is unbeliveable. This 3000+ Winchester in the MSI K8Nneo2p is unbelieveable quiet with Cool and Quiet. MHz->voltage->heat->fan RPM->noise was a big reality with the overclocked barton for me so although it could do more, I only gamed with that Mobile XP @ 2.3 or sometimes 2.4GHz, so I could turn down my voltage and fan seed. The noise of a Jet 7+ on full speed is just aweful to say the least. It Took me a while to take the A64 plunge, but I am sold now. I have used more Socket A than anything by far, but I am feeling it's now cheap enough with enough mobo choices to switch to A64 in most situations except the extreme budget. And for the gamer, A64 is just the way to go. Just need more availablity of PCI-e mobos to be able to throw a nice speedy <A HREF="http://shop.ati.com/product.asp?sku=2599078" target="_new">$300 X800XL</A> in it. :smile:


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
Click to expand...
 
"Do you have a link showing this? I'd like to read it. I could be wrong as I rememer the MHz differences with newcastle leaving most people to believe MHz over cache was the better deal. BUT, It was my understanding that the 3000+ WInchester was by a little, the fastest performing A64 3000+."

Well, in this <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=196205#196205" target="_new"> thread</A>, I had some <A HREF="http://www.presence-pc.com/article-178-4.html" target="_new">benchmarks</A>. They are in french, but you can still look at the graph. I had some other, but lost them...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pat on 01/12/05 08:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
pat I couldn't agree with you more... it is a great idea to spend more money on the video card over the CPU... and in my case I got a mobo/CPU deal and you are right that I might have even been able to save a little more on the mobo if I went 754, and possibly this could have given me another $50 dollars to work with, but to spend $50 on stepping up from a Gainward 6800GT wouldn't have done me a lot of good. What I really needed was to save an extra $239 so I could get a Raptor HDD but I wasn't going to do that by saving $50 on my mobo/CPU.

But on all accounts I agree with you, the performance was comparable on the 754 rigs that you showed us (and that was a good link BTW, why doesn't THG do that same kind of comparison).
 
HDD are often forgotten when performance is needed in a system, and that bad, because, even if you have the fastest CPU on earth, the OS or programs that is it running are often waiting for data from the HDD, so the less they wait, the less you wait. Level loading in game, you know? Farcry is one game that get better with a fast HDD.. Windows swapfile?? having it on a fast HDD speed up the process too.

But that is not something that is easily mesurable in benchmark. It is mor a question of..feeling..Is you computer just compute fast or feel fast?



-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
I assume that you run a Raptor then?? would I be correct in this assumption??

I agree with you that HDD is often overlooked when considering performance... which is why I intend on buying a Raptor fairly soon (as soon as I can afford it)... but I do want to get the 74Gb so that I will have room for OS as well as my games, and then just store video/music/pics on my other HDD.
 
I run 2x160 gigs Seagate SATA in RAID0 configuration. Raptor doesnt have enough capacity... Even the 74 gigs. With a WD 40gigs...and a 200 gigs maxtor...and a 120 gigs WD in an enclosure... mostly full of multimedia (?) stuff...

I know, I should get a life ...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
I'm thinking of getting an ata 33 for games. I like the anticipation, and the brief respits that hdd loading gives. The slow pagefile is a different story, but lots of ram cures that.
 
That's what I dont understand. If I have more than 8 gigs on my drive, it's cleaning time. With so much stuff on there, how can your computer find anything? That's what makes a hdd slow.. Where did I put that 2 gig file? Well, a little here, a little there, where was that other part?
 
Thx, I'll look into that although counting from 1-19 is about the limits of my french. :smile:

I am going to do some searching on this myself, you have my curiosity up.

Ther are some advantages to S939 listed <A HREF="http://www.amdreview.com/reviews.php?rev=3000-3200-90nm" target="_new">here</A>.

And it seems <A HREF="http://www.madshrimps.be/printart.php?articID=230" target="_new">here</A>,that the S939 3200+ beats out the 1MB Cache S754 3200+ both running 2.0GHz. But I am yet to see a review of all three 3200+'s with the 512MB cache 2.2GHz S754 included. That's gonna bug me. Hopefully there is a better googler out there who can find one. :tongue:


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 01/12/05 10:39 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Well, I created partitions.
RAID Array:
60 gigs for OS and programs/games some storage too of misc data
100 gigs, for capturing, editing and other misc files and backup of some personnal data
100 gigs, for storage of movies, divx
40 gigs DVD rip and some .. well, lots of MP3
5 gigs for stuff I download of the internet

then the 40 gigs for more DVD rips
then the 200 gigs for again more DVD rips ..

and the 120 gigs in the portable enclosure for files backup and tools for reinstallation as well as stuff that I dont really know where to put nor if I really need it, so I let it there in case of I may need it and if after a while, I didnt install/look at them, I delete them.

Everything is pretty well organized, so I dont really look for my files.

I must cross my finger as I never had a drive that fail. I dont mind about loosing most of my files, as my precious personnal data is well secured on DVD and CD. With that amount of files, backuping them all in out of question.

But I dont keep my HDD very long. I buy new componant when I can sell the old one. I dont keep HDD more than one year, but I could keep my seagate longer as they have a 5 years warranty so I guess that they should be good.

See, if someone need a 40 gigs, I will sell the one I have and just reorganize my files...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom