Athlon XP 3000+ versus AMD 64 3000?

My current machine (Asrock MB) has a AMD XP 2400+. I need to get some
more speed, primarily for photo editing and mpeg encoding (no games).
I can upgrade by just putting in a AMD XP 3000+ (FSB 333) or
alternatively building a new machine, probably with a AMD 64 3000
(socket 939).

It's not clear to me which would be faster. The software I run doesn't
use 64bit and I would be just running XP Pro. The XP 3000+ is an older
chip but much cheaper and I would not have to build a new machine

Thanks for any advice/experiences

Socket A is a long dead socket. I would go with the AMD64 3000+
socket 939

it has a FSB of 1000 (2000HT)
where as the XP 3000 only has a fsb of 333.

That a big improvement






On 14 May 2006 14:40:28 -0700, wrote:

My current machine (Asrock MB) has a AMD XP 2400+. I need to get some
more speed, primarily for photo editing and mpeg encoding (no games).
I can upgrade by just putting in a AMD XP 3000+ (FSB 333) or
alternatively building a new machine, probably with a AMD 64 3000
(socket 939).

It's not clear to me which would be faster. The software I run doesn't
use 64bit and I would be just running XP Pro. The XP 3000+ is an older
chip but much cheaper and I would not have to build a new machine

Thanks for any advice/experiences

On Sun, 14 May 2006 14:40:28 -0700, lchiu7 thoughtfully wrote:

My current machine (Asrock MB) has a AMD XP 2400+. I need to get some more
speed, primarily for photo editing and mpeg encoding (no games). I can
upgrade by just putting in a AMD XP 3000+ (FSB 333) or alternatively
building a new machine, probably with a AMD 64 3000 (socket 939).

It's not clear to me which would be faster. The software I run doesn't use
64bit and I would be just running XP Pro. The XP 3000+ is an older chip
but much cheaper and I would not have to build a new machine

Thanks for any advice/experiences
Can you safely overclock that MB/cpu? I thought more memory helped
with photo edititng more than speed.

Sounds like a high price for such a small gain. You should look at
50% speed increase over your current system or other significant
performance enhancements (coolnquiet, SATA, RAID) before dropping coins.
Otherwise, help wifey or enjoy the kids after starting the encoding.

Actually I do have 1G in the machine. The main speed issue is just the
time it takes to encode MPEG2 which is taking more about 120% realtime
from DV or MJPEG sources I capture. I dont' think the application is
I/O bound - it's purely CPU so that's why I thought going to an Athlon
XP 3000+ would help. I could overclock the 2400. The fan and heatsink
are pretty large. Just need to find out how to do it

In article .com,
wrote:

Actually I do have 1G in the machine. The main speed issue is just the
time it takes to encode MPEG2 which is taking more about 120% realtime
from DV or MJPEG sources I capture. I dont' think the application is
I/O bound - it's purely CPU so that's why I thought going to an Athlon
XP 3000+ would help. I could overclock the 2400. The fan and heatsink
are pretty large. Just need to find out how to do it

There are charts here, but you have to be very careful interpreting
the results. If the encoding process really depends on memory
bandwidth, then you need to know what kind of memory the processor
was using in this chart. Some of the motherboard configs would be
single channel, and others dual channel. You can see the Athlon64
is winning over the Barton 3200+ here (the two processors marked
in red).

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=67&model2=259

The Athlon64 in dual channel (S939) configuration, has a lot more
memory bandwidth to offer, than the poor single channel equiv
that the AthlonXP has got.

Paul

wrote:


My current machine (Asrock MB) has a AMD XP 2400+. I need to get
some more speed, primarily for photo editing and mpeg encoding (no
games). I can upgrade by just putting in a AMD XP 3000+ (FSB 333)
or alternatively building a new machine, probably with a AMD 64
3000 (socket 939).

It's not clear to me which would be faster. The software I run
doesn't use 64bit and I would be just running XP Pro. The XP 3000+
is an older chip but much cheaper and I would not have to build a
new machine

I upgraded from the Athlon 2400 to the 400 MHz version of the Athlon
XP 3000. Boosting the memory speed from 266 did pretty well. I also
like having a 10,000 rpm hard drive that is meant to be left on
24/7. Good luck.

If you bought a new motherboard/processor/ram bundle with an Athlon 64
single-core CPU, you could add a dual-core processor at at later date,
because, at most you just have to update the BIOS to use a dual-core
CPU, and that would give your new setup added longevity.

You could also upgrade the video card to PCI Express.

Eric,
PC Buyer Beware!
http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/

I think I am going to see if I can find an Athlon 3000 (FSB 333 since
that's all my MB supports) as a stopgap measure. If I can get a 20-30%
reduction in encoding then I would be happy. Not sure if my version of
the 2400+ is multiplier locked and if even the Asrock MB supports
changing it. The only docs I can read say, beware of changing the
frequency since it affects all frequencies including the PCI Bus and
video card