Which AMD would be faster

ohnoesaz

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2004
109
0
18,680
Whats faster, after you overclock it?

Take into accound the average overclock thats usually made when you answer this question...

The Athlon 64 2800+ or the XP 3200?

The 64 2800+ is $60 cheaper... but also clocked (i think) at 1.8ghz. While the 3200xp is clocked at 2.2(i think)

The athlon 64 is 64bit, obviously, while the 3200 is 32bit.

And take into account overclocking. Can the 64 make it up to 2.2? Can the 3200+ go much over its stock 2.2?

besides the fact that the 3200 is $60 more and Id need a new mobo for the athlon64, just tell me what would be faster?
 

slb132

Distinguished
Mar 21, 2003
116
0
18,680
I would go for the Athlon 64 2800+ here. The Athlon XP 3200+ is not worth the money. If you're going the Athlon XP route get an Athlon XP-M 2600+. It's cheaper than either the Athlon XP 3200+ or Athlon 64 2800+. It will give you the best overclocking for a Socket A processor.

However, the Athlon 64 2800+ will perform better than the Athlon XP 3200+ at stock speed and it can overclock to put it way above an Athlon XP 3200+ or what an Athlon XP-M 2600+ could overclock to. But in my opinion if you're going to spend money on an Athlon 64, get atleast the 3000+ model which can be overclocked to 2.2GHz or more. Also keep in mind the added bonus of 64-bit on top of the performance.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2425MHz (220.5 X 11.0), OCZ Enhanced Bandwidth PC3700 2X 256MB 220.5MHz 1:1 @ 2.5-2-2-8 Dual Channel, ATi Radeon 9600 Pro @ 468MHz/346.5MHz
3dMark2001SE: 14,076
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
Get A64 2800+

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
 

bosshoss

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2004
163
0
18,680
I also agree with the 2800. I have tinkered with a few of those systems and they seem to be faster than my 2500m at 3200xp speeds. They booted up quite a bit faster which I have to believe has a lot to do with the on-die memory controller. And besides that, you can go 64-bit if M$ ever decides to get off their kiesters and grace us with xp 64-bit. And one side note on M$ while I am at it. The M$ rep tells me that X-Next will not be backwards compatible with the current xbox games which really really urks me. And according to him, now that Longhorn will not include the supposedly really cool file catoregorizing system, it will pretty much just be a beefed up xp, and he told me which I think is total bull-crap, that Longhorn will actually be a 128-bit os because M$ has a problem with xp 64-bit having quite a few security holes that can be exploited.

<i> If the creator of the human body is "The Ultimate Engineer", why did he put a recreation site right next to a waste treatment area? </i>
 

addiarmadar

Distinguished
May 26, 2003
2,558
0
20,780
Goog question but really the a64 2800 would be faster than barton 3200 overall

<i><font color=red>Only an overclocker can make a computer into a convectional oven.</i></font color=red>
 

addiarmadar

Distinguished
May 26, 2003
2,558
0
20,780
Good question but really the a64 2800 would be faster than barton 3200 overall

<i><font color=red>Only an overclocker can make a computer into a convectional oven.</i></font color=red>