PDA

View Full Version : help with AMD buying decision


Joe
November 14th 04, 04:51 AM
I remember when AMD switched from rating processors by megahertz to there
current method the idea was the rating would be based on I think the 1000
MHZ Athlon. For example if you bought an Athlon 2400 even though it was not
2400 MHZ you could expect it to perform 2.4 times as fast as the 1000 MGHZ
Athlon. If this is correct would an Athlon XP Barton 2800 perform any
differently than an Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800. I just want some way to make
an intelligent buying decision. When I look at NewEgg where I buy all my
parts you can get in retail box;

A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152

Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be the
fastest of the three so buy it.
Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating system as
apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so buy the sempron
it's the cheapest.
Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it should be
the fastest of the bunch.

Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was socket
A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities. Now There is
Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced but I think I heard
AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want to buy a 754 if its lifespan
is only going to be 2800-3600. I somewhat feel like I got burnt on my first
AMD purchase ever as I bought a 650 SLOT A and Slot A was dead a few hundred
MHZ later.

I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an Athlon 64
Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but also do not want
to tie my hands on upgrade options.

Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?

Joe

General Schvantzkoph
November 14th 04, 05:36 AM
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:51:20 -0600, Joe wrote:

> I remember when AMD switched from rating processors by megahertz to there
> current method the idea was the rating would be based on I think the 1000
> MHZ Athlon. For example if you bought an Athlon 2400 even though it was not
> 2400 MHZ you could expect it to perform 2.4 times as fast as the 1000 MGHZ
> Athlon. If this is correct would an Athlon XP Barton 2800 perform any
> differently than an Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800. I just want some way to make
> an intelligent buying decision. When I look at NewEgg where I buy all my
> parts you can get in retail box;
>
> A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
> A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
> A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152
>
> Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be the
> fastest of the three so buy it.
> Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating system as
> apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so buy the sempron
> it's the cheapest.
> Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it should be
> the fastest of the bunch.
>
> Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was socket
> A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities. Now There is
> Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced but I think I heard
> AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want to buy a 754 if its lifespan
> is only going to be 2800-3600. I somewhat feel like I got burnt on my first
> AMD purchase ever as I bought a 650 SLOT A and Slot A was dead a few hundred
> MHZ later.
>
> I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an Athlon 64
> Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but also do not want
> to tie my hands on upgrade options.
>
> Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?
>
> Joe

A 939 pin Athlon 64 is the best choice today unless your decision is
totally based on price. The 939 and 940 pin A64s have four DIMM
sockets on their motherboards, the 754 pin A64s can only handle two DIMMs
at 400MHz or three at 333MHz. The larger memory system is reason enough to
pick a 939 pin A64 over a 754 pin part. Even if you never upgrade anything
else over the life of the system the one thing you are likely to do is to
add memory at some point. Having four sockets instead of two means that
you can add DIMMs in the future without having to throw away the DIMMs you
already have. As for XP systems, you don't even want to think about buying
one of those. Not only is the Athlon XP processor obsolete but so are the
chipsets and motherboards that go with it. What you want is an 939
pin Athlon 64 and an Nvidia Nforce 3-250GB or Ultra chipset. There are
also NForce 4 boards starting to come out but I'd wait on those for
several months until the bugs are out.

Wes Newell
November 14th 04, 09:34 AM
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:51:20 -0600, Joe wrote:

> A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
> A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
> A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152
>
> Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be the
> fastest of the three so buy it.

That would be correct.

> Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating system
> as apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so buy the
> sempron it's the cheapest.

And that would be a big mistake. See Sempron in link in sig.

> Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it should
> be the fastest of the bunch.
>

Another big mistake.

> Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was
> socket A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities.
> Now There is Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced
> but I think I heard AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want to
> buy a 754 if its lifespan is only going to be 2800-3600. I somewhat feel
> like I got burnt on my first AMD purchase ever as I bought a 650 SLOT A
> and Slot A was dead a few hundred MHZ later.
>
And that's why I waited for socket A, but don't sell the socket 754 short.
A socket 754 Sempron 3100+ overclocked is probably the best bang for the
buck around, and If I hadn't already bought an A64 3000+ some time back,
that might be what I'd buy now. You're going to hear almost everyone here
say to go with 939 because of the dual channel ram. Well that dual
channel doesn't really do much for you in reality. So get your priorities
together. Is a 3% increase in performance worth all the extra money 939
will cost compared to a 754 cpu clocked at the same speed? If so, then get
939, if not.......


> I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an Athlon
> 64 Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but also do
> not want to tie my hands on upgrade options.
>
> Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?
>
Well 754 will limit you a little on the top end, but not by much.
Personally, for under $200 I would get a Sempron 3100+ on S754 and clock
it to about 2.5GHz or more. It's a great overclocker. If you need 64bit,
then maybe a new A64 2800+ core and do the same.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Alan Walpool
November 14th 04, 04:07 PM
>>>>> "General" == General Schvantzkoph > writes:


General> A 939 pin Athlon 64 is the best choice today unless your
General> decision is totally based on price. The 939 and 940 pin A64s
General> have four DIMM sockets on their motherboards, the 754 pin
General> A64s can only handle two DIMMs at 400MHz or three at 333MHz.
General> The larger memory system is reason enough to pick a 939 pin
General> A64 over a 754 pin part. Even if you never upgrade anything
General> else over the life of the system the one thing you are
General> likely to do is to add memory at some point. Having four
General> sockets instead of two means that you can add DIMMs in the
General> future without having to throw away the DIMMs you already
General> have. As for XP systems, you don't even want to think about
General> buying one of those. Not only is the Athlon XP processor
General> obsolete but so are the chipsets and motherboards that go
General> with it. What you want is an 939 pin Athlon 64 and an Nvidia
General> Nforce 3-250GB or Ultra chipset. There are also NForce 4
General> boards starting to come out but I'd wait on those for
General> several months until the bugs are out.

Having recently done this I would recommend the 939. I have a 754 and
could use some more memory but my only option is lower my bus speed if
I add another dimm or replace the dimms, which would be a waste. You
pay a little more for the motherboard but the 939 has the most
flexiable memory options, and it has a faster memory bus which
probably won't make a real difference for most applications, but nice
to have ;-).

Good luck.

Alan Walpool
November 14th 04, 04:09 PM
>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:

Wes> Well 754 will limit you a little on the top end, but not by
Wes> much. Personally, for under $200 I would get a Sempron 3100+ on
Wes> S754 and clock it to about 2.5GHz or more. It's a great
Wes> overclocker. If you need 64bit, then maybe a new A64 2800+ core
Wes> and do the same.

Curious is the multipler unclocked in this cpu, or is this FSB
overclocking?

Thanks

Wes Newell
November 14th 04, 07:47 PM
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:09:19 -0600, Alan Walpool wrote:

>>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:
>
> Wes> Well 754 will limit you a little on the top end, but not by
> Wes> much. Personally, for under $200 I would get a Sempron 3100+ on
> Wes> S754 and clock it to about 2.5GHz or more. It's a great
> Wes> overclocker. If you need 64bit, then maybe a new A64 2800+ core
> Wes> and do the same.
>
> Curious is the multipler unclocked in this cpu, or is this FSB
> overclocking?
>
Multiplier locked. FSB at 280MHz at default (1.40v) voltage.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3100-oc.html

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Alan Walpool
November 15th 04, 03:24 AM
>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:

Wes> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:09:19 -0600, Alan Walpool wrote:
>>>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:
>>
Wes> Well 754 will limit you a little on the top end, but not by
Wes> much. Personally, for under $200 I would get a Sempron 3100+ on
Wes> S754 and clock it to about 2.5GHz or more. It's a great
Wes> overclocker. If you need 64bit, then maybe a new A64 2800+ core
Wes> and do the same.
>> Curious is the multipler unclocked in this cpu, or is this FSB
>> overclocking?
>>
Wes> Multiplier locked. FSB at 280MHz at default (1.40v) voltage.

Wes> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3100-oc.html

Wow that is a fast FSB speed. May just buy one to check it out.

Thanks for the link.

Alan

dawg
November 16th 04, 01:44 AM
I'd have to say the A64 2800+ is the better deal. The Sempron 3100+ is the
only 64bit Sempron,but it has meen crippled badly. If you get an Nforce 3
250(10/100 ethernet) or 250gb(gigabit ethernet)motherboard and the 2800+ or
bettr you get most of the advantages of 939 except for dual channel.
"Wes Newell" > wrote in message
news:[email protected] .net...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:09:19 -0600, Alan Walpool wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:
> >
> > Wes> Well 754 will limit you a little on the top end, but not by
> > Wes> much. Personally, for under $200 I would get a Sempron 3100+ on
> > Wes> S754 and clock it to about 2.5GHz or more. It's a great
> > Wes> overclocker. If you need 64bit, then maybe a new A64 2800+ core
> > Wes> and do the same.
> >
> > Curious is the multipler unclocked in this cpu, or is this FSB
> > overclocking?
> >
> Multiplier locked. FSB at 280MHz at default (1.40v) voltage.
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3100-oc.html
>
> --
> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

papasurf
November 19th 04, 08:40 AM
"dawg" <don't > wrote in message
...
> I'd have to say the A64 2800+ is the better deal. The Sempron 3100+ is the
> only 64bit Sempron,but it has meen crippled badly. If you get an Nforce 3
> 250(10/100 ethernet) or 250gb(gigabit ethernet)motherboard and the 2800+
> or
> bettr you get most of the advantages of 939 except for dual channel.
> "Wes Newell" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected] .net...
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:09:19 -0600, Alan Walpool wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Newell > writes:
>> >
>> > Wes> Well 754 will limit you a little on the top end, but not by
>> > Wes> much. Personally, for under $200 I would get a Sempron 3100+ on
>> > Wes> S754 and clock it to about 2.5GHz or more. It's a great
>> > Wes> overclocker. If you need 64bit, then maybe a new A64 2800+ core
>> > Wes> and do the same.
>> >
>> > Curious is the multipler unclocked in this cpu, or is this FSB
>> > overclocking?
>> >
>> Multiplier locked. FSB at 280MHz at default (1.40v) voltage.
>>
>> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3100-oc.html
>>
>> --
>> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
>
>
"The Sempron 3100+ is the slowest and cheapest embodiment of the K8
architecture in silicon. Targeting low-end systems, it has just some of the
characteristics the top-end models (Athlon 64 and Opteron) have. The two
main deficiencies:

a.. The amount L2 cache memory is reduced in the Sempron 3100+ to 256KB
compared to 512 or 1024KB in Athlon 64 processors;
b.. The Sempron 3100+, although based on the K8 architecture, does not
support the AMD64 technology. In other words, the Sempron 3100+ is a 32-bit
processor."

Wes Newell
November 19th 04, 11:36 AM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:40:26 -0800, papasurf wrote:

> "The Sempron 3100+ is the slowest and cheapest embodiment of the K8
> architecture in silicon. Targeting low-end systems, it has just some of the
> characteristics the top-end models (Athlon 64 and Opteron) have. The two
> main deficiencies:
>
It's only the slowest at default speeds. When the clockspeed is raised,
it's close to the top in performance, coming very close to the speed of
the A64 4000+ and beating the 3800+ in some benchmarks.

> a.. The amount L2 cache memory is reduced in the Sempron 3100+ to
> 256KB compared to 512 or 1024KB in Athlon 64 processors;

And that's why it's about 3% slower than the 512K models.

> b.. The Sempron 3100+, although based on the K8 architecture, does not
> support the AMD64 technology. In other words, the Sempron 3100+ is a
> 32-bit processor."

Bad terminology. It does have AMD 64 technology, just not the 64 bit
instruction set (at least not enabled).

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

BF
November 25th 04, 12:55 AM
Joe wrote:
> I remember when AMD switched from rating processors by megahertz to there
> current method the idea was the rating would be based on I think the 1000
> MHZ Athlon. For example if you bought an Athlon 2400 even though it was not
> 2400 MHZ you could expect it to perform 2.4 times as fast as the 1000 MGHZ
> Athlon. If this is correct would an Athlon XP Barton 2800 perform any
> differently than an Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800. I just want some way to make
> an intelligent buying decision. When I look at NewEgg where I buy all my
> parts you can get in retail box;
>
> A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
> A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
> A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152
>
> Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be the
> fastest of the three so buy it.
> Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating system as
> apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so buy the sempron
> it's the cheapest.
> Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it should be
> the fastest of the bunch.
>
> Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was socket
> A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities. Now There is
> Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced but I think I heard
> AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want to buy a 754 if its lifespan
> is only going to be 2800-3600. I somewhat feel like I got burnt on my first
> AMD purchase ever as I bought a 650 SLOT A and Slot A was dead a few hundred
> MHZ later.
>
> I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an Athlon 64
> Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but also do not want
> to tie my hands on upgrade options.
>
> Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?
>
> Joe
>
>
Buy the fastest 939 pin AMD64 you can afford. Forget about everything else.