XP3000+ or AMD64 3000+ 1

[mjbanks]

My cpu has seen better days (AMD XP2500+) and was looking around for a replacement. In my travels, I found that the AMD64 3000+ (socket 939) is the same price as the AMD XP3000+. Is it worth it to upgrade to this processor? The motherboard I was looking at to go along with it is an Asus K8T800 chipset.

Also, The AMD64 3000+ is cheaper in the Socket 754 chipset. I don't know too much about the new AMD64 chipsets. What is the main difference between 754 and 939 and is there a performance increase in going with 939 (K8T800 motherboard) over 754 (nforce3 motherboard)?

 

[g0ste]

I just upgraded from a XP2000+ to a 64 3500+ and bought new motherboard (939 - same as processor) and new ram, and a new gfx card to go with the mpotherboard (pci-e only - got a gforce 6600 GT). However, when i fire it up, nothing shows on the screen :< think wisely mjbanks!

 

[mjbanks]

Well I don't plan on going that far right now

I was going to upgrade cpu/motherboard and keep my 1gb (2x512mg) ddr333 (kingston) for a few months until I can afford to get some new ddr3500 or better. I'm also keeping my radeon 9800xt agp8x video card.

 

[g0ste]

yeah, i wanted to keep most of my stuff, just the motherboard i selected has 2 pci-e (Asus A8N SLI Deluxe) ports (i only have agp card - so i had to buy new gfx card. oh well ), but i get no signal on the screen. maybe i should start a help ME thread. I hear that AMD are phasing out socket 754, so 939 would be the wiser option. But thats what I hear, I have not read anything official yet, because I am lazy and jetlagged.

 

[mjbanks]

I was looking at that Asus A8N SLI Deluxe, but didn't want to spend $250 on it and also didn't want to buy a new video card, since mine is still very good. I was looking at the Asus AV8 Deluxe with the VIA K8T800 chipset (also because it has an AGP slot)

 

[felixc]

Upgrading from 2500 to 3000 sounds to me like a big investment for just a small improvement. Even if you're a gamer, your graphics card is already in the top range so you wouldn't see much difference going to 3000. I would wait another 6 months, until CPUs in the 3800-4000 range become more attractive pricewise, and then accompany it with quicker memory.

 

[mjbanks]

Well the reason I need to buy now is my cpu is on it's way out (I bought OEM 2 years ago so now warranty). An XP3000 is $150, same price as the 64bit 3000+ socket 939. To just replace my XP2500 is $95. For the extra $55, I'm just wonder if it's worth it to more up to the 64bit platform. I'm planning on replacing the motherboard with an Asus either way (I really don't like this MSI I have no), so it's just a matter of which CPU is the best balance of performance and price.

 

[franklin97355]

That's $55 for the CPU then you need to add the price of the new MOBO. ($100?)

 

[mjbanks]

I'm not considering the price of a new motherboard in the equation. I hate the MSI board I have now, and will be replacing it with an Asus board regardless of what CPU is purchased.

My main question is... is it worth an extra $55 to go from XP2500+ with nforce2 chipset motherboard to an AMD64 3000+ (socket 939) with a via k8t800 chipset motherboard? (both performance and price-wise and why?)

 

[mjbanks]

In the same price range for cpu, the new P4 lga755 chipset 2.8ghz, 800mhz fsb, 1mb L2 cache HT chip is the same price as the 64bit 3000+. Would this be a better option than the AMD64 (if it's even worth it to move up to either chip right now)?

 

[paulrw1]

I say fo with the AMD 64. IF you can afford it, go with the 3200 64 bit. I have one and love it!!!! It's fast!!!

Here at work, I have a Intel 3.0 GHZ machine and it's no where as fast as my AMD. Could also be that I have a SATA drive on my home pc which is also fast.

I've never really been impressed with Intel chips. Have had AMD for many years now and can'tr really see myself ever buying an Intel chip.

 

[g0ste]

heh, I have a 3500+ (64) and a sata drive. if i could only get my pc to boot so i see a bios screen!

 

[cdogg]

mjbanks:

It sounds as if you need a dose of

http://www.tomshardware.com.

First of all, the socket 754 chipset is worth it's price but is not a good option if ever plan on upgrading your CPU. Like g0ste said, it's on its way out the door and only supports up to 3700+. Also the hypertransport system did not run at full speed with that chipset (only up to 800MHz), and it doesn't support dual-channel. But still, the 754 is about $40 cheaper on average compared to a 939 chipset, so it's not always an easy call.

Now should you go with an Athlon 64 or XP? Since you've said that you are changing out the motherboard anyway, then it only makes sense to get the 64. The 64 3000+ outperforms the P4 2.8EE in most benchmarks as well. One thing to keep in mind is that if you don't already have DDR 400, you're going to have to upgrade that either way.

See the benchmarks in this article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/index.html

~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[mjbanks]

Well I'd rather go with 939 than 754, because of the hypertransport. I read somewhere that the 64 3000+ will work with ddr333? I was going to stick with that temporarily until I found the $$$ to get the ddr400. I want to run dual channel ram, so I'm staying away from socket 754.

 

[kmcferrin]

OK, all Athlon 64 CPUs have Hypertransport, not just the socket 939 chips. Hypertransport is the bus connection between the CPU and chipset components.

If you are looking at an Athlong 64, you want one in the socket 939 format. The socket 754 format is on it's way out, and the fastest CPU that it supports is the Athlon 64 3700+. They are not going to make anything faster in the 754 format, while 939 already has a 3800+ and 4000+. Socket 939 has more of a future upgrade path.

That being said, I wouldn't sink any more money into a socket A system. I know that you're thinking that the XP3000+ and the Athlon 64 3000+ should be about the same speed, but they aren't. The Athlon 64 is definitely faster. Socket A is pretty much a dead platform. If you're going to upgrade to a faster CPU, go ahead and put the money in a platform that could be upgraded yet again in a year or two. Go with a socket 939 Athlon 64.

 

[mjbanks]

I purchased an AMD 64 3200+ (winchester core, socket 939), Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard (VIA K8T800 chipset), Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 heat sink/fan, 2x512mb Corsair XMS TwinX DDR400 ram (2-3-3-4 timings). Can't wait to get it all and fire it up

Thanks for the help everyone!

Should I install WinXP Pro x64 RC1?

 

[kmcferrin]

Unless you are an MSDN subscriber, you won't be able to get RC1 at the moment and Microsoft's Customer Preview Program is still using build 1218 (RC1 is build 1289).

If this is going to be your only system, don't install the beta software as your primary OS. Set it up with dual boot between XP32 and XP x64. Since the OS isn't a release product, it still has a number of bugs and it is entirely possible that something could happen that would result in complete data loss. Also, since the software is in beta they do not provide any security updates/patches/etc so the system is not as secure as an XP32 install. There is also no upgrade path, so if you install the CPP build (1218) today, then when they release RC1 to the CPP you'll have to completely wipe your system and reinstall to get that version running. The same thing will happen when they release RC2 and the gold version, you'll have to basically fdisk and start over.

That much being said, unless you're fairly technically savvy I wouldn't install the beta software. XP x64 will be great when it ships, but it can be frustrating in it's pre-release state, especially when it comes to finding drivers. I see dozens of messages a day from people who for some reason thought that they were getting a finished product who complain because it doesn't do everything that they want it to do, or drivers don't exist for all of their hardware, or there's a bug that keeps them from doing something critical, or there's an application that won't install.

 

[mjbanks]

I do a lot of beta testing for some other software companies (won't name them here), so beta software doesn't bother me at all. The main reason I asked was because of all I've heard about driver issues (not being able to find them, etc). What I'll probably do is just dual boot WinXP Pro (32bit) and Fedora Core 3 (64bit) until WinXP x64 goes gold and I buy that. I wonder if they'll have any special pricing when it first gets released - something like full version for the price of the upgrade version for current WinXP Pro 32bit users (I'm hoping, because I don't want to spend a ton on it).

 

[kmcferrin]

Well, XP x64 will be OEM only, so there won't be an upgrade path. Microsoft has indicated that there aren't plans for any sort of trade-in or upgrade program for users who bought 32-bit Windows. However, if you bought an Athlon 64 or Pentium EM64T system with 32-bit XP, your OEM may decide to offer a free or reduced price upgrade.

The only problem with the drivers is that many hardware manufacturers either haven't released them or aren't planning to release them yet. It's not up to MS to fix the lack of drivers, so the odds of it being "fixed" in the release version are slim. The exception would be if hardware manufacturers are sitting on x64-based drivers that they don't want to release until x64 ships.

 

[mjbanks]

Where did you see it would be OEM only? If newegg sells the OEM version, I'll buy it from there. I've built all my machines, so I always buy OEM OS software when I buy all the parts.