Personal experience with 3000+ & 3200+ ?

A

artimusbill

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
341
Anyone have any experience with the difference between a s939 3000+ and a s939 3200+? Does the additional 200mhz make much of a difference? I don't plan on doing very much OC'ing, if any. I am looking for a videocard upgrade, but dont want to buy an agp card, so I will be replaceing a P4c 2.4 + P4P800 mobo + 9500pro videocard with an nforce4 mobo. Anyhoo, I am looking for something other than benchmark links. I have seen most of those, and ust wonder what people think of these once they get their hands on them.
 
IMHumble O, yes, the extra 200 mhz makes a diff. Remember these cpu's are multi locked up, unlocked down. So you're buying a higher multiplier. For the price diff it makes sense to me. Again, just my very humble opinion.
 
Here's they way I'll look at it...

Athlon 64 3000+ $155
Athlon 64 3200+ $196

I took data from this article.
Gaming Benchmarks = fps advantage from 3200+ to 3000+ then price per FPS.
Quake 3
33.2 fps or $1.23 per frame extra
Unreal Tournament 2004
8.92 fps or $4.60 per extra frame
Aquamark 3
3.5 fps or $11.71 per extra frame
Far Cry
10.22 fps or $4.01 per extra frame
Doom 3
5.4 fps or $7.89 per extra frame

If that is worth it to you then I would say go for it. Definately not worth it to me.
 
MAngelo said:
you're buying a higher multiplier.
Click to expand...
That's basically it. There will be a performance difference at stock also, but if you would take the saved money and invest it in a better video card or RAM, you'd probably get more out of it that way. If you don't really need the $50 or whatever, I'd go for the 3200+.

Make sure you get the Winchester too (should be the default by now); they're more power/thermo efficient.
 
Well from what I've seen, people have been getting better overclocks with the 3000+ then the 3200+, not to say the the 3200+ is a bad chip, I mean I got a 600MHz overclock from stock on my chip, and that is pretty much the norm.
 
I'm testing my 3000+ @2700mhz currently, i'm not sure if i'm gonna stick with it though, i have to run my memory at looser timings to make it work. runs 2600mhz real good though. I think as long as you get a motherboard that can handle the high fsb a 3000+ has just as much chance of being a good overclocker as a 3200+. And with these chips you definetly should put the money into a better videocard unless your already at 6600gt performance or better.
 
All I've heard is amazing OC's on the 3000+. I got to 289 FSB no problem with mine, on stock cooling (and an Asus A8N-SLI :D )

From what I've seen, the 3200+'s top out around 2.5 ghz, with exceptions (obviously).

Most people with 3000+'s are clocking around 2.4-2.6, again with exceptions.

The 3200+ gives you a higher multiplier, the 3000+ seems to take to FSB overclocking better.

But getting a near 50% overclock out of the box on stock cooling is one hell of a feeling, and that alone was worth the 3000's cost (and the 30 bucks saved didn't hurt at all either)
 
I'm shocked eclipse hasn't posted in here with some anti winchester propaganda.
 
7718 said:
I'm shocked eclipse hasn't posted in here with some anti winchester propaganda.
Click to expand...

since when is eclipse anti winchester?

He and I are both waiting for the next revision and find it wise for someone with a 754 system wait aswell. Where is all this propaganda?
 
Yeah, I have a 3000+ Winnie, and that higher mult would come in rather handy. Because with the 3000+ you're down a mult, it's imperative that you get a board that will give you a high FSB, along with good memory that you can keep the timings low on, otherwise the board is going to run out of steam before the CPU does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top