What to do? New system w/ Athlon 64 or XP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bnason

n00b
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
44
Hi all,

This is my first post -- was directed over here from PC Stats and it's awesome to find another great board.

I'm currently building a brand new comp., and am torn between going with an Athlon 2500 XP+ or a 3200 64-bit AMD chip. I've never oc'd before (always just used prebuilt Falcon NW systems, which are great, but price), so don't want to bite off more than I can chew for the first time here.

Also, I know that a lot of the tech. for the 64-bit chips is changing in the near future (ie., new socket, new vid. card technologies, new BX mobo. factor, etc.) ... I don't know a lot about all of this, but, I've read enough that makes me hesitant to jump into a 64-bit system when there is so much new stuff on the threshold. Granted, that's always the case, but...

So, any thoughts would be great. I do mostly gaming, a little website design, and possibly a little DVD work too. But definitely mostly gaming. Price is an issue, but not *the* issue (but a big one nonetheless).


Thanks!
bnason
 
There is a large price difference between the two setups - do you have a range in mind? I would go with the 2500+ now to hold off until the socket939 chips come out. Then you can build a system with that chip.
 
Ok allow me to share. I am in much the same boat. Everything I am getting is from the most advertised reseller you can find on the [H]. That's right. Newegg.

AMD 64 3200+
1 gig 3200pro corsair <2x512>
9800 Pro video card
MSI K8T800 <errr yea> mobo
XP Pro <cause I want a real license>
and a 16xdvd 48xcd lite on cdrom drive <cause my old 6x is done.>

<checking parts again to make sure>

Total is a little over a grand. I am going retail when and where I can. Now I am not going to OC.


About new tech on the horizon I work for IBM and can see a lot of the new tech on the horizon long before it comes out. PCI-X We have had it for years in our P-Series hardware, and the hardware it originated from even years before that in our AS400 hardware. This stuff does trickle down but it takes time. Do the upgrade when you have the desire/money to spend. Best advice I can offer is don't buy the VERY top of the line because it will piss you off when a month later it drops 200 bucks in price and is no longer the best to have. Trust me. Just settle up for the second best <still going to loose value but not as fast and it brings down your TCO (Total Cost of Ownership> significantly.

Basically yes something better is going to come along. The best advice I can offer <unless you want to constantly be upgrading your system> is to simply purchase the best that you can reasonably afford right now. Then you won't feel a NEED to upgrade for a while.

My old box <not sure if it is in my sig any more> and current box untill my new parts arrive is an T-Bird 1.4 with a ATI 9000 video card, and 512 megs of ram on a Gigabyte Mobo. I got the mobo when my old mobo's active heatsink for the northbridge died and I did something stupid and PULLED really hard at the plastic studs because I was pissed at the time. <sigh> 120 dollar lesson learned eh.

So ya see I keep trying to wrap this post up.

Get what you can afford now to the limit of what you can afford and plan to be happy with it for some time to come. Don't "settle" on any pos hardware with plans to upgrade later. THAT you will hate and it will bug you every time you use your computer.
 
go A64.

choices:
1. A64 3000+ == budget choice.
2. A64 3200+ == cash for cache.
3. A64 3400+ == useless, just get the 3200+ and OC it this far (it'll make it, even though it's not that great of an OCer).
 
I know the albatross board is the best to go with for the a64 - 3200... (I think - the k8x800 Pro II), but what would the best memory / vid card combo be?
 
RAM is a matter of preference, obviously everyone loves the Mushkin and Corsair. With video cards, you can go 9600XT or 9800XT, or 9800Pro or 9700Pro...etc
 
Is that Albatron mobo the best bet?? I'm looking to just OC this a bit up to 3200 or 3400 speeds, no more, and want a good, solid, reliable mobo.
 
I think I'll stick with the Albatron :p

OOC -- The 3200 Athlon64 is just a single mem controller, right? Does anyone know? I can't remember if its dual or single, or if its the 3000 that is single...
 
It's all single channel, if that's what you mean. Only the FX is dual, and it needs registered RAM.

Oh, and I'd go Abit or Asus on the mobo, not Albatron. Albatron is generally considered a knock-off cheapo brand, not known for stability or speed...

And those new techs will take a LONG time to go mainstream. Don't expect BTX to blow ATX away for at least 2 years, and don't expect PCI-X to be major for another year, at least. Sockets for AMD aren't changing much (754 will remain, 940 is opteron. 939 is new FX) and neither is the archetecture.

Get the 3200+.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve

Oh, and I'd go Abit or Asus on the mobo, not Albatron. Albatron is generally considered a knock-off cheapo brand, not known for stability or speed...

Get the 3200+.
Click to expand...

What's a good board that you'd recommend?
 
A few things I read said the MSI K8T Neo boards were working great with A64 3000+ models. That's the one I've been planning on getting; it's $90 over at mwave and newegg has the LIS2R model which is about $30 more. I honestly have no clue what the difference is between the LSR and the LIS2R, other than the price.
 
Get the AMD64 and ignore Burningrave. He's proven to not know what he's talking about in this case. You'll love the chip, and the socket/etc will be around for a long time to come. Prescott isn't going to change that. Neither is S939.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
Get the AMD64 and ignore Burningrave. He's proven to not know what he's talking about in this case. You'll love the chip, and the socket/etc will be around for a long time to come. Prescott isn't going to change that. Neither is S939.
Click to expand...

Um i believe everything i've said is true except for possibly the 64-bit chunks and i already stated that it was in fact able to do 64-bit chunks AND 64-bit math. Other then that everything else is true, you can try to prove it wrong but i doubt you will be able to. I wish there would be more people that could make statements from a non bias standpoint in that they use Intel and AMD both instead of one or the other. I use both and will probably buy an A64 when 939 socket and new motherboards come out. If i was a big AMD fan and didnt like Intel then i'd say to ignore me too cause i wouldn't want to know the truth about the performance difference in the processors.

Socket 939 will be on .09 micron and is supposed to have a dual channel controller like the FX-51. You also cannot lock the AGP/PCI bus on the VIA and Nforce 3 chipsets.

The only thing that lopoetve and leukotriene have been able to do is quote from articles released in march 2003 and september 2002 for the basis of their information, especially on whether or not Intel will use the A64 extensions. Needless to say the news and rumors have changed since then.
 
I still say go with the A64 proc. It is as fast as the 3.2 P4 in most applications. Overall I would say it is an equally fast chip/system. Not faster but fast as.

Only thing I haven't really seen tests on that intrests me is how the memory access works out for AGP with the onboard memory controller for the A64.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Um i believe everything i've said is true except for possibly the 64-bit chunks and i already stated that it was in fact able to do 64-bit chunks AND 64-bit math. Other then that everything else is true, you can try to prove it wrong but i doubt you will be able to. I wish there would be more people that could make statements from a non bias standpoint in that they use Intel and AMD both instead of one or the other. I use both and will probably buy an A64 when 939 socket and new motherboards come out. If i was a big AMD fan and didnt like Intel then i'd say to ignore me too cause i wouldn't want to know the truth about the performance difference in the processors.

Socket 939 will be on .09 micron and is supposed to have a dual channel controller like the FX-51. You also cannot lock the AGP/PCI bus on the VIA and Nforce 3 chipsets.

The only thing that lopoetve and leukotriene have been able to do is quote from articles released in march 2003 and september 2002 for the basis of their information, especially on whether or not Intel will use the A64 extensions. Needless to say the news and rumors have changed since then.
Click to expand...

No, leukotriene has shown over and over again that the AMD64 is a true, full 64bit cpu, something that you have ignored. Something that I am now going to do to you, and highly recommend everyone else does: Ignore.

The 754 Athlon64 has proven it's power, and it's longevity is in the AMD roadmap. There is no reason to spend the extra money on the FX.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
No, leukotriene has shown over and over again that the AMD64 is a true, full 64bit cpu, something that you have ignored. Something that I am now going to do to you, and highly recommend everyone else does: Ignore.

The 754 Athlon64 has proven it's power, and it's longevity is in the AMD roadmap. There is no reason to spend the extra money on the FX.
Click to expand...

OMG LoL. You still dont get it. Nither one of you has posted links to prove anything different then what im saying. Yes it will compute 64bit chunks and do 64bit math thats been established and i agree to that. But theres no such thing as full 64bit yet lol. They are only EXTENSIONS. They are 64bit extensions added to the core to make it 64bit. Its not called full 64bit damn it lol. Even the Itanium can address more RAM and Virtual memory then the A64. Full 64bit addressing can be implemented later on but now it is not and yes i know it will be a while before we need that much RAM but nobody knows how long. But thats all beside the point. The only thing that the 754 Athlon64 has proven is that it can beat the competition in 32bit at gaming by a small margin usually if they processor is an equivilant to the Pentium 4 in speed. A 3400+ is not equivilant to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz in speed no matter what it costs. 3400 = 3.4GHz. Thats why the Pentium 4 3.2GHz beats the 3200+ in way over half of the benchmarks. And teh 3200+ even has a full 1MB of L2 cache that does little for its performance.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000/index.x?pg=1

And wheres the longetivity in it? You dont know how long 754 is going to last after 939 becomes standard. Is there even a 754 pin A64 on the AMD roadmap after the 3700+? The 4000+ on the 754 pin is a maybe.

You are right on one thing. There is no reason to spend the extra money on the FX.
 
I'm not going to respond to any of your ignorant babbling other than the socket 754 crap you're spouting, which can be corrected here:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00495/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1947

Both of which show the Socket 754 staying around for a good while. It is AMD's value platform, and will perform nicely if history is any indicator. 754 IS the FF for Athlon64.

Oh, and I might point out... XP-64 is out in beta, has been for a while. You can even get it pretty easily, if you're in the industry. So, if intel was NOT using x86-64, that would kinda leave them either:
a. Without an OS, or
b. Making MS redesign the entire os, which they won't.

Try again.
 
If your primary use is gaming then definitely go with the A64, either the 3000+ if you're cost concious or the 3400+ if you want balls out performance.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
I'm not going to respond to any of your ignorant babbling other than the socket 754 crap you're spouting, which can be corrected here:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00495/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1947

Both of which show the Socket 754 staying around for a good while. It is AMD's value platform, and will perform nicely if history is any indicator. 754 IS the FF for Athlon64.

Oh, and I might point out... XP-64 is out in beta, has been for a while. You can even get it pretty easily, if you're in the industry. So, if intel was NOT using x86-64, that would kinda leave them either:
a. Without an OS, or
b. Making MS redesign the entire os, which they won't.

Try again.
Click to expand...

You can't respond to any of my "ignorant babbling" because its the truth and you dont have any links that say otherwise.

And are you just trying to hang yourself with those links?

Based on this information, we think it particularly unwise to buy a socket 754 platform for a performance system.
Click to expand...

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00495/

And in the second link the only upcomming 754pin A64 shown is the 3700+.

As of now, the fastest Socket-754 CPU will be the Athlon 64 3700+
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1947

XP-64 has been out since back in September 2003 at least and everyone knows that. If you have an MSDN subscription then you can get it. How many of you have one? lol. Its available in beta for businesses not for gamers. They dont have to redesign the entire OS. For all you know Microsoft already has Intel's Yamhill x86-64 extensions and are emplimenting them into XP-64. Windows Xp 64 will then detect which processor extensions you are using. That has been the latest news and rumors. I'm not going off what they said two years ago.

If you find anything else you think im wrong about please let me know lol.
 
I choose not to argue with you. Arguing with deluded fool is pointless, since you choose not to read or understand the world around you, and make up your own suppositions without backing. Everyone here knows what is right, as the overwhelming opinion shows. Get a clue. Please.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
I choose not to argue with you. Arguing with deluded fool is pointless, since you choose not to read or understand the world around you, and make up your own suppositions without backing. Everyone here knows what is right, as the overwhelming opinion shows. Get a clue. Please.
Click to expand...

Thats because this thread was moved to the strictly AMD forum where people like yourself dwell all day and the majority of everyone here is a fanboy especially yourself. Every hardware board out there is ither primarily Intel or AMD bias in one way or another and you can usually tell by the boards sections. HardOCP is definately largely AMD fans because of how much traffic the strictly AMD section get compared to the Strictly Intel.So its me thats having to argue with deluded fools. I like AMD and Intel. I'm pointing out key features you people dont seem to be sensible enough to understand. You can believe the A64 is far superior all you want or that it doesn't even use extensions for that matter. But anyone with a good knowledge of both processors can look and tell you that they are equals as far as performance and the Pentium 4 is overall better if you include a wide array of benchmarks and its benched against an A64 of equal speeds according to AMD's rating. They rate them so as to how well they perform in comparison to a Pentium 4. Of course the A64 will be better with a 64bit OS and 64bit applications but so far we dont have a windows 64bit released so it being 64bit is a mute point.

Another reason why you dont want to argue with me is cause you dont have a point and you even prove yourself wrong with the links your provide.
 
Buddy, every processor change since the 8086 has been extensions, nothing more. Get with it. We compare by price, not by arbitrary number. The 3400 costs as much as the 3.2, and outperforms it. The 3400 is therefore better. Dollar for dollar, the 3400 is better. Period.
 
after 3700 or 4000 the 754 pin will be soley xp chips, it will become the budget line when they finish the 939 platform
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Socket 939 will be on .09 micron and is supposed to have a dual channel controller like the FX-51.
Click to expand...

True


Originally posted by burningrave101
You also cannot lock the AGP/PCI bus on the VIA and Nforce 3 chipsets.
Click to expand...

Un true. The Nforce3 chipset has a locked PCI/AGP but has a halfspeed hypertransport link. The Via chipsets cannot lock PCI/agp speeds but have a full speed hypertransport link.
The Sis 755 chipset has neither of those limitations but unfortunately only ECS(crappy low price maker) has a 755 based board out. Word is that Asus might bring one out and that's what I'm trying to find out because if so that's what I'm getting.
 
Originally posted by mAcOdIn
Un true. The Nforce3 chipset has a locked PCI/AGP but has a halfspeed hypertransport link. The Via chipsets cannot lock PCI/agp speeds but have a full speed hypertransport link.
The Sis 755 chipset has neither of those limitations but unfortunately only ECS(crappy low price maker) has a 755 based board out. Word is that Asus might bring one out and that's what I'm trying to find out because if so that's what I'm getting. [/B]
Click to expand...

When did the Nforce 3 chipset become AGP/PCI lockable? Did they recently release a board revision or BIOS update? When they were first released i didn't think any of the boards were PCI/AGP lockable.
 
Originally posted by mAcOdIn
True




Un true. The Nforce3 chipset has a locked PCI/AGP but has a halfspeed hypertransport link. The Via chipsets cannot lock PCI/agp speeds but have a full speed hypertransport link.
The Sis 755 chipset has neither of those limitations but unfortunately only ECS(crappy low price maker) has a 755 based board out. Word is that Asus might bring one out and that's what I'm trying to find out because if so that's what I'm getting.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you're swapped on that last part. Apparently, the Via solution has a locked bus, and the NF3 doesn't (Nvidia lied, again...). There are several articles about this... I don't remember if http://www.hardwareseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=71173 mentions it, but I'm sure you can find it. It's been in this forum as well.

At least, I'm 99.9% sure I've read that in my research recently.
 
Well I know for a fact that the Nforce3 only has a half speed hypertransport link, but maybe I was fooled on thier pci/agp lock but I really think they do have it.

As for Via having pci/agp locks I think you're wrong and don't have them.

"As for your inability to tweak the frequencies of the AGP and PCI bus during FSB overclocking, this is a characteristic trait of the VIA K8T800 chipset and you can’t do anything about that. CPU overclocking is limited, since you are more likely to reach the maximum operational frequency of your AGP and PCI devices rather than the highest operational frequency for your Athlon 64. VIA Technologies is working on a way to eliminate this drawback in the next version of their chipset, VIA K8T800 Pro, which is due in late Q1 of the current year."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/abit-kv8-max3_7.html

"Setting the CPU Operating Speed option to User Define enables the CPU FSB Clock(MHz) option for user manipulation. This single setting controls all system FSBs, including the CPU, PCI, AGP, and HyperTransport FSBs. In its current revision, the K8T800 chipset does not support asynchronous CPU/HT/AGP/PCI FSB settings, instead using a preset divider method. The dividers available according to the ABIT BIOS are as follows (CPU:AGP:pCI): 1:6 (200:66:33); 1:7 (233:66:33); and 1:8 (266:66:33). With the CPU FSB Clock(MHz) option set to an FSB of 300, both the AGP and PCI were well out of spec since the 1:8 divider was in effect according to the ABIT BIOS."
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTM5LDI=

"CPU frequency can be set from 200 ~ 300MHz. Do notice that the BIOS does not cater for FIX PCI/AGP. It seems to operate based on a divider which increases the PCI to 38MHz before lowering it down to 33MHz. We menaged 223MHz during oc test. 226 POSTs but unstable."
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2003/abit/kv8max3/kv8max3gallery4.htm

"Starting things off with overclocking, the KV8-MAX3's BIOS offers CPU bus speeds between 200 and 300MHz in 1MHz increments. Unfortunately, the BIOS doesn't offer dividers to keep the AGP or PCI busses in-spec at overclocked speeds, but this appears to be a limitation of the K8T800 chipset rather than any oversight on Abit's part."
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/abit-kv8max3/index.x?pg=5



Now I did hear that via may come out with a bios rev that adds locked pci/agp divisors but I don't buy that or they would've done that long ago.
 
I can't find the thread atm, but I'll keep looking. I KNOW I read that somewhere, I just don't know where :(

Either way, Via or SiS are the ones to get.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
...HardOCP is definately largely AMD fans because of how much traffic the strictly AMD section get compared to the Strictly Intel...
Click to expand...

Hhmm, on this one point the facts don't support you.

FACT
1) Strictly Intel has 76382 posts with 7201 threads
2) Strictly AMD has 49589 posts with 5434 threads
3) The majority of CPU and mobo reviews in 2003 were Intel based. Only since the AMD 64 hit the market rencently has the reviews and articles started to swing the other way.

OPINION
It may have been in the past but since I have been here (Dec 2002) this site seemed to focus much more on Intel than AMD.

I doubt this site is married to one or the other but whatever is smoking at the moment.
 
Originally posted by bnason
I'm currently building a brand new comp., and am torn between going with an Athlon 2500 XP+ or a 3200 64-bit AMD chip. I've never oc'd before (always just used prebuilt Falcon NW systems, which are great, but price), so don't want to bite off more than I can chew for the first time here...

So, any thoughts would be great. I do mostly gaming, a little website design, and possibly a little DVD work too. But definitely mostly gaming. Price is an issue, but not *the* issue (but a big one nonetheless).
Click to expand...
Most of the talk here has been about the A64, but don't forget that you can get an athlon XP2500+ for $90 :)

Granted the A64 3000+ is an awesome chip, the fact is that it's almost 2.5 times the price of the XP2500 should be taken into account. The A64 3200+ is $270 and is even better, but it is fully 3 times the price of the XP2500+...

So you pay 2.5 or 3 times more for them, but do you get 2.5 or 3 times the performance? Hardly.

I'd say if price is an issue, which you said it is, go for the xp2500.

The rest of the system should follow suit. Don't get the top of the line $150 motherboard, that's just throwing away money. You can get a nice, solid, full featured nforce2 motherboard for $93 (by DFI), or a basic, yet solid one for $61 (by Albatron)... Both are good for overclocking, which is easy, trust me. You can get XP3200+ speed easily, just by raising the front side bus from 166 to 200, and maybe raising the voltage to 1.70 or 1.75 if necessary. It's simple. Just make sure you get PC3200 memory. Don't try to get the top of the line, low latency memory either, as you will do very well with something like buffalo, crucial, etc...

If anything, the money you save will allow you to round out your system much better... maybe get a DVD burner, or a bigger hard drive, or better video card (9800PRO/XT) if you're a heavy gamer.

Sure the xp2500 has been out for a while, but in my opinion, it still rocks, and I'll be keeping mine for a good long time. And the way it performs at 220mhz front side bus, oc'd to 2.2ghz, I surely am not feeling a lack of power :cool:
 
Originally posted by mlbstar10
and yes, the 3400+ beats the 3.2c, and that IS a fair comparision.
Click to expand...

Yes it beats the 3.2c in well over half the benchmarks.

The 3.2c beats the 3200+ in well over half the benchmarks.

The only difference between the 3400+ and 3200+ is 200Mhz.

The 3.2c is cheaper then the 3400+.

The 3400+ will only overclock on average 200MHz.

The 3.2c will overclock 400-600Mhz on average.

The 3400+ is rated 3400+ because it competes against a 3.4Ghz Northwood.

Since they both cost about the same then go ahead and compare them against each other but overclock the 3.2 to 3.4 so its actually a fair comparison. You might as well go out and compare a 3400+ to a 3200+ and say HAHA THE 3400+ BEATS IT! Yea no shit.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Yes it beats the 3.2c in well over half the benchmarks.

The 3.2c beats the 3200+ in well over half the benchmarks.

The only difference between the 3400+ and 3200+ is 200Mhz.

The 3.2c is cheaper then the 3400+.

The 3400+ will only overclock on average 200MHz.

The 3.2c will overclock 400-600Mhz on average.

The 3400+ is rated 3400+ because it competes against a 3.4Ghz Northwood.

Since they both cost about the same then go ahead and compare them against each other but overclock the 3.2 to 3.4 so its actually a fair comparison. You might as well go out and compare a 3400+ to a 3200+ and say HAHA THE 3400+ BEATS IT! Yea no shit.
Click to expand...

No, we compare stock, price to price. We're not going to OC the 3.2. If it costs the same, it SHOULD compare. It doesn't. It's slower. The Athlon64 is the better buy. When are you going to understand this absurdly simple fact? We compare BASED ON PRICE. 3400+ to 3.2c. The 3.2c is slower. You are guaranteed NO overclock, you're buying a 3.2ghz processor. Yes, you can make it faster, but comparing stock to price, the 3400+ is faster. Period. END of discussion.

You cannot guarantee that a processor will overclock, just as you can't guarantee 100% yields, etc. So you compare based on price.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
No, we compare stock, price to price. We're not going to OC the 3.2. If it costs the same, it SHOULD compare. It doesn't. It's slower. The Athlon64 is the better buy. When are you going to understand this absurdly simple fact? We compare BASED ON PRICE. 3400+ to 3.2c. The 3.2c is slower. You are guaranteed NO overclock, you're buying a 3.2ghz processor. Yes, you can make it faster, but comparing stock to price, the 3400+ is faster. Period. END of discussion.

You cannot guarantee that a processor will overclock, just as you can't guarantee 100% yields, etc. So you compare based on price.
Click to expand...

Then why does everyone on this board recommend the XP 2500+ and not the XP 3200+? lol. Do you compare the 2500+ at stock to everything else? Surely not. Seems like if you go through any thread asking which Athlon XP they should buy nobody ever says the 3200+. I wonder why :rolleyes: . Maybe its cause the 2500+ will overclock to a 3200+? Naa it can't be that cause you just said everyone only compares stock to stock. Overclocking can't be figured in.

If you buy a 3.2c that can't overclock 200Mhz then you just got completely screwed and you should definately send it back for a replacemnt and just say it doesn't work right cause it doesn't. I've yet to have a Pentium 4 that wouldn't overclock at least 400Mhz and i dont know anyone else personally thats gotten one that couldn't ither.

I suppose HardOCP gave the Pentium 4 2.4c the CPU of the year award because of the fact it was the fastest processor at stock this year right? Yea your right dont compare it overclocked cause then the A64 isn't so fast any more.

If you guys weren't such fanboys you wouldn't keep going on about only using stock and not figureing in overclocking. If it was the other way around and the Pentium 4 beat it at stock but the A64 overclocked like a mother you would all say the exact opposite.

I'm not basing the performance from overclocking on what a FEW people get or even what ALOT of people get. I'm basing the overclocking potential of these two CPU's on what the MAJORITY as in MOST get. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want to figure in the 1% that can't get a 200Mhz overclock on their Pentium 4 then go ahead.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Then why does everyone on this board recommend the XP 2500+ and not the XP 3200+? lol. Do you compare the 2500+ at stock to everything else? Surely not. Seems like if you go through any thread asking which Athlon XP they should buy nobody ever says the 3200+. I wonder why :rolleyes: . Maybe its cause the 2500+ will overclock to a 3200+? Naa it can't be that cause you just said everyone only compares stock to stock. Overclocking can't be figured in.
Click to expand...


You are not guaranteed an overclock. Ever. We recommend that because bang-for-the buck, it's as fast as the P4 2.4, and is much cheaper. Overclocking is nice, but it's not guaranteed.


If you buy a 3.2c that can't overclock 200Mhz then you just got completely screwed and you should definately send it back for a replacemnt and just say it doesn't work right cause it doesn't. I've yet to have a Pentium 4 that wouldn't overclock at least 400Mhz and i dont know anyone else personally thats gotten one that couldn't ither.
Click to expand...

No, you got what you PAID for. It works PERFECTLY right. Exactly to spec. Just because you can't get it to run beyond spec doesn't mean ANYTHING. You voided your warranty, you got unlucky, doesn't matter. They won't take it back. A company sells a product to spec. Not beyond.

I suppose HardOCP gave the Pentium 4 2.4c the CPU of the year award because of the fact it was the fastest processor at stock this year right? Yea your right dont compare it overclocked cause then the A64 isn't so fast any more.
Click to expand...

No, because generally you COULD get it to OC like that. It was a solid gamble, especially for the price. But, when you get to the high end, buying a 3.2c on the hope that it will make 4.0 is NOT a good gamble, or the 3.2 would have gotten the award

If you guys weren't such fanboys you wouldn't keep going on about only using stock and not figureing in overclocking. If it was the other way around and the Pentium 4 beat it at stock but the A64 overclocked like a mother you would all say the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

If you weren't such a fanboy you'd realize that the era of the 2.4c as the processor to own has come to an END. If the A64 OC'ed I tell them that. It's faster at stock, and generally overclocks well. You are RELYING on a processor overclocking to make it faster. Never rely on something performing out of spec.

I'm not basing the performance from overclocking on what a FEW people get or even what ALOT of people get. I'm basing the overclocking potential of these two CPU's on what the MAJORITY as in MOST get. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want to figure in the 1% that can't get a 200Mhz overclock on their Pentium 4 then go ahead.
Click to expand...
I'm saying, that for the price, you shouldn't bet on the 3.2 getting an overclock that lets it perform better than the 3400+. The 3400+ costs the same, is faster to start with, and can overclock some as well. Assuming that a chip, or anything will work beyond spec is not only stupid, but asinine. I don't gamble with $400, neither do most people. When you want the best, you buy THE BEST. You don't hope that an inferior product will manage to perform that well. You buy the one DESIGNED for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top