 |
colintheriot
Super Moderator
Registered: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 8 |
AMD 3000+ 3200+ 90nm CPU Review
Today we have more than a couple of choices in 64bit computing. It's popularity is quickly becoming mainstream. AMD has recently released it's next generation of 64bit cpu's with the introduction of the Winchester core line built on the new 90nm fabrication process. These cpu's are now made to fit in a 939 pin socket versus the 754 pin socket of previous Athlon64 cpu's which were built on a 130nm process so you will have to replace the motherboard if you want to run these cpu's if you are coming from a socket 754 setup. Today we take a look at the 300+ and 3200+ models, both socket 939.
Read the Review
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
11-19-2004 02:47 PM |
|
|
| |
|
masher
K-6
Registered: May 2004
Location:
Posts: 2 |
Is this a joke?
A 'head to head' review of these two CPUs, and you only felt it neccesary to post the benchmark results from one of the chips? Is this some sort of sick joke?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
11-19-2004 05:05 PM |
|
|
| |
|
colintheriot
Super Moderator
Registered: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 8 |
Re: Is this a joke?
quote:
Originally posted by masher
A 'head to head' review of these two CPUs, and you only felt it neccesary to post the benchmark results from one of the chips? Is this some sort of sick joke?
That would be my fault. I sent out the mailer for the article and mistakenly listed it as a head to head, when it was more of a general review. Sorry about that. No sick joke, just a minor mistake.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
11-19-2004 06:44 PM |
|
|
| |
|
gravy
Habitual Geek
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: ATL-USA
Posts: 113 |
if there had been more time there may have been a head to head comparison, but due to motherboard and time restrictions it would have been a waste of time, one is 200Mhz faster than the other, not really gonna make much difference, now one may have overclocked better than the other, but never got the chance to get it to work in that particular motherboard
glad you liked it
__________________
XP Pro SP2
P4 3.0E
TT Spark 7+ HSF
Abit IC7-G Max II
512MB OCZ PC3200
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB @ 300/600
19" CRT monitor
10 fans in my case to cool things off ;-)
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
11-19-2004 10:55 PM |
|
|
| |
|
masher
K-6
Registered: May 2004
Location:
Posts: 2 |
What I was really looking for-- and what the promo email suggested the article would give-- was an indication of the performance boost from Socket 939. Any thoughts or indications here? I'm currently looking to upgrade an A64 2800, and I'd like to know whether to just buy a faster chip, or upgrade the mobo as well.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
11-19-2004 11:41 PM |
|
|
| |
|
gravy
Habitual Geek
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: ATL-USA
Posts: 113 |
You definitely know that through SEO, your business will benefit hugely, so you have to make sure to find the right Link Building Company that can help you gain your goals SEO on lookup motor rankings, finding the best Link Building Company for your business is a lot more crucial than ever. Link building Company will help you | Simple Website Templates. Every great website and web design needs a starting place or point. Our own newly redesigned website started from a basic template that was heavily modified to suit our needs and the same can be done for you. Using our simple sea website templates on our site you can buy website templates thanks for the inquiry masher
probably the biggest difference in the fact that the socket 939 will accomodate dual channel DDR ram as opposed to the socket 754, whose cpu's on-die memory controller can only handle single chanell
for an idea of how much difference that makes in this type of setup, see my ram review and as far as synthetic benchmarks go, you're effective memory bandwidth doubles
now will that make the system run twice as fast, of course not, but it will make anything relying heavily on the memory subsystem run faster, however, a bottleneck somewhere else may make the performance gain go unrealized
i would go 939 if it was me, but i still run intel, so go figure
__________________
XP Pro SP2
P4 3.0E
TT Spark 7+ HSF
Abit IC7-G Max II
512MB OCZ PC3200
GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB @ 300/600
19" CRT monitor
10 fans in my case to cool things off ;-)
Last edited by gravy on at 04:36 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
03:48 PM |
|
|
| |
|
bigapl
Lost Yankee
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216 |
Aquamark and 3DMark03 scores are highly graphics intensive, the scores are moxnix in a processor review. I would run PCMark or 3DMark05 where a processor score can be compared better. Possibly try to get your hands on a bit newer video card for future reviews if possible.
You mention the board but show no system specs to compare with also.
I don't wanna look like I am being picky but this review looks as if it was just put out for shiz and giggles!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
11-29-2004 03:55 AM |
|
|
| |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26 PM. |
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
| AMDReview
2001-2004 AMDReview All Rights Reserved
|
Sitemap
| |
