Its it worth it

I have a XP2500+ Oc'd to 3000+ speeds.

Is it worth me getting a Athlon 64 3000+ ? I play tons of games and do lots
of video editing. I mean can these babys be overclocked easily?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:07:09 +0000, del wrote:

I have a XP2500+ Oc'd to 3000+ speeds.

Is it worth me getting a Athlon 64 3000+ ?

That's something you will have to determine, but it will be considerably
faster than what you have now.

I play tons of games and do lots of video editing.

AFAIK, It's the fastest game cpu around. Don't recall how it does in video
editing.

I mean can these babys be overclocked easily?

I overclocked my 3000+ (old hammer core) from 2000MHz default to 2330MHz
very easily on an old Jetway S755MAX board (SIS755 chipset) without a PCI
lock (10x233).

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

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:18:27 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

:On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:07:09 +0000, del wrote:
:
: I have a XP2500+ Oc'd to 3000+ speeds.
:
: Is it worth me getting a Athlon 64 3000+ ?
:
:That's something you will have to determine, but it will be considerably
:faster than what you have now.
I thought unless your using Windows XP 64bit then the difference is
virtually nothing about 5% performance increase in 32bit.
:
: I play tons of games and do lots of video editing.
:
:AFAIK, It's the fastest game cpu around. Don't recall how it does in video
:editing.
:
: I mean can these babys be overclocked easily?
:
:I overclocked my 3000+ (old hammer core) from 2000MHz default to 2330MHz
:very easily on an old Jetway S755MAX board (SIS755 chipset) without a PCI
:lock (10x233).

-----
Lee.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:41:26 +0000, Lee wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:18:27 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:
:On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:07:09 +0000, del wrote:
: I have a XP2500+ Oc'd to 3000+ speeds.
: Is it worth me getting a Athlon 64 3000+ ?

:That's something you will have to determine, but it will be
:considerably faster than what you have now.

I thought unless your using Windows XP 64bit then the difference is
virtually nothing about 5% performance increase in 32bit.

Nope. In some apps it may be as much as 40% faster. Just compare the A64
3000+ to the XP 3200+ here and that should give you an idea.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2275&p=10

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

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.11.21.20.18.17.992586@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:41:26 +0000, Lee wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:18:27 GMT, Wes Newell

wrote:
:On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:07:09 +0000, del wrote:
: I have a XP2500+ Oc'd to 3000+ speeds.
: Is it worth me getting a Athlon 64 3000+ ?

:That's something you will have to determine, but it will be
:considerably faster than what you have now.

I thought unless your using Windows XP 64bit then the difference is
virtually nothing about 5% performance increase in 32bit.

Nope. In some apps it may be as much as 40% faster. Just compare the A64
3000+ to the XP 3200+ here and that should give you an idea.


Wes, is the performance increase derived from the higher FSBs? Has raw cpu
clock speed or Ghz rating become irrelevant? A cpu rated at 2.0-.2.2ghz
doesn't look too attractive, but the performance of the A64s compared to the
Athlons can't be denied.

jakesnake

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:20:48 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

Wes, is the performance increase derived from the higher FSBs? Has raw cpu
clock speed or Ghz rating become irrelevant? A cpu rated at 2.0-.2.2ghz
doesn't look too attractive, but the performance of the A64s compared to the
Athlons can't be denied.

The performance increase of the K8 line is exactly the same as the K7 over
the P4 only more so. Roughly a K7 performs about 1.4 IPC (Instructions
Per Clock) over a P4, and the K8 is about 1.7 compared to the P4. CPU
clock speed has always been irrelevant when comparing different cores.
These days with on chip cache size differences, et.c even more so.

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

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.11.22.10.17.03.216017@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:20:48 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

Wes, is the performance increase derived from the higher FSBs? Has raw
cpu
clock speed or Ghz rating become irrelevant? A cpu rated at 2.0-.2.2ghz
doesn't look too attractive, but the performance of the A64s compared to
the
Athlons can't be denied.

The performance increase of the K8 line is exactly the same as the K7 over
the P4 only more so. Roughly a K7 performs about 1.4 IPC (Instructions
Per Clock) over a P4, and the K8 is about 1.7 compared to the P4. CPU
clock speed has always been irrelevant when comparing different cores.
These days with on chip cache size differences, et.c even more so.


My question is why the A64 kills the Athlon 3200+ like it does in those
benchmarks, irrespective of the P4. Is it the same thing, simply higher IPC
at the core?

jakesnake

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:58:37 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

My question is why the A64 kills the Athlon 3200+ like it does in those
benchmarks, irrespective of the P4. Is it the same thing, simply higher IPC
at the core?

In general, yes. This is a lot more complicated than most would think.
Things that have to be taken into consideration are how many cycles each
op code requires to complete. This is where the core gets it's speed,
along with how well the designed pipeline works, etc. then things like on
board cache and memory access come into play. The core used to just be the
actual CPU logic, These days they've thrown in on board cache and memory
controllers, and then there's the extended instructions sets, etc. IPC is
just really a general overall performance term as I used it. There's so
many things in the mix now that's why you'll see the differences in CPU's
with one blowing another away in one benchmark and maybe the other way in
another. To truely get the best for you, you have to compare the apps you
need the speed in and compare the different cpu's with those apps.
Overall, I think AMD beats Intel by a long shot, but there are a few spots
where the P4 still wins. So whats good for the goose may not be good for
the gander.

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

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.11.22.22.08.11.229547@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:58:37 +0000, jakesnake66 wrote:

My question is why the A64 kills the Athlon 3200+ like it does in those
benchmarks, irrespective of the P4. Is it the same thing, simply higher
IPC
at the core?

In general, yes. This is a lot more complicated than most would think.
Things that have to be taken into consideration are how many cycles each
op code requires to complete. This is where the core gets it's speed,
along with how well the designed pipeline works, etc. then things like on
board cache and memory access come into play. The core used to just be the
actual CPU logic, These days they've thrown in on board cache and memory
controllers, and then there's the extended instructions sets, etc. IPC is
just really a general overall performance term as I used it. There's so
many things in the mix now that's why you'll see the differences in CPU's
with one blowing another away in one benchmark and maybe the other way in
another. To truely get the best for you, you have to compare the apps you
need the speed in and compare the different cpu's with those apps.
Overall, I think AMD beats Intel by a long shot, but there are a few spots
where the P4 still wins. So whats good for the goose may not be good for
the gander.

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

Thanks, Wes. You're an asset to this newsgroup.
By and large I do two things with my primary computer (over and above
websurfing, Excel, word proc, etc): I play games (not usually the bleeding
edge games, but relatively late-generation) and digital picture editing.
I'm reluctantly but inevitably moving toward video editing, as I'm
accumulating miles of DV that desperately needs to be edited down to
something watchable. I get by okay with my mobile 2500 at 2.3ghz, 1gb
pc3500 RAM, and a 9800Pro 128mb. However, when I saw the bench on the A64
3100 I really got interested, because I find myself waiting on Photoshop
batch files, large image manipulation, filters, etc. The games I play at
this time are handled well by my machine, so there's no real issue there. I
have done enough video editing to know that I will waste WAY too much of my
life watching the Premiere edit status bar inch along if I go that route
heavily with something like my current rig. However, I'm not interested in
constantly chasing the bleeding edge in cpu's so that my home movies are
more bearable for my relatives. I guess it's all about compromise.

jakesnake

jakesnake66 wrote:




My question is why the A64 kills the Athlon 3200+ like it does in those
benchmarks, irrespective of the P4. Is it the same thing, simply higher IPC
at the core?

jakesnake




The on-chip memory controller contributes a lot to the higher IPC.