ummm would be better 3800?

[E-2k5]

I... wanted to spend some more money so i wanna know if 3800 makes a difference between 3500 and this one, i mean, good enough to buy it instead of 3800

 

[E-2k5]

i was talkin about the AMD 64

 

[Warbie]

Wait for the new venice cores - which are coming out next month. They're meant to have great memory controllers, so you can run your memory super fast (assuming it's good enough)

Wait till then, pick up a nice cheap one and overclock it

 

[E-2k5]

lol what are venice cores... and when are they arriving? lol sorry for my ignorance... If i buy 3800 it would be a lot better than 3500 right? ^^

 

[Warbie]

I doubt you'd notice much difference between a 3500 and a 3800.

My understanding of 'cores' is very limited, it's best you ask Asus, or look it up.

I think that basically the process of making the chips for cpus gets refined and improved upon over time and new revisions are released. The latest core at the mo is the Winchester core (which is what you'll end up with if you get a 3500) Next month the venice cores will be released. As far as I know they'll keep the same specification and naming scheme (3200+, 3500+ etc) they will just be a little better than the Winchesters (particularly the memory controller)

If you're not planning on overclocking, or have ram that can reach high htt, there's little reason to wait. However, if I were you i'd get a venice 3000+ or 3200+ and overclock it.

My 3000+ winchester reaches 2.7 gig (which is much faster than my old 3500) without too much fuss. I'm on air cooling - so run it at 2.6 to keep it under 50c at load. It won't allow me to run the memory at 290 mhz tho - which is why i'm waiting for the venice cores

 

[[w0f]Oblivion]

You would notice very little difference. Wait for the new cores that are comin out soon.

 

[DrDevin]

Dont buy the 3800 as you wont find much of a performance increase over your current CPU.

Benchmark: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/prescott-08.html

Not very much of a performance increase 3FPS in doom 3, 10FPS in Unreal Tournament 2004, 8FPS in far cry, 8 seconds faster MP3 encoding.

Wait for the dual core AMD 64 CPUs due out later this year.

AMD provided other interesting news on their dual core processors, including that all currently available socket 939 motherboards that have the ability to support the Athlon 64 FX-55 processor will support dual core Athlon 64s; all that is required is a BIOS update. All the dual core processors will be manufacturered on the 90nm process and will have a maximum power usage of 110w, only 6w higher than the current Athlon 64 FX processors. Because of that, even the current heatsinks that are in circulation for the Athlon 64 processors should be efficient enough for the dual core processors.

Taken from: http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=23989

 

[E-2k5]

hmm i c? and if i buy 4000 ?

 

[Asus]

If you just want to spend money, buy a good CPU cooler. Then OC your 3500+ til it dies and fries your board too. Then buy new parts.
JK

But OCing wouldn't be a bad idea if you think you have an interest. Otherwise wait...
FYI, your CPU doesn't have Hyperthreading but Hypertransport.

 

[Warbie]

hmm i c? and if i buy 4000 ?

Unless you can get a good price for you're 3500 the performance increase you'll get with a 4000 will be very poor in terms of value for money.

Try overclocking what you have - there's a very good chance it'll perform as good as, if not better than, a 4000. Overclocking may seem daunting, but there really isn't that much to it (spend an evening looking up the basics and ask questions you're unsure).

My 3000+ performs as well as, if not better than, a 4000 - and cost 1/3 of the price. Be sensible as there's very little risk. Infact i've had 5 A64's now, all have clocked higher than 3500 and have been sold to very happy customes.

 

[E-2k5]

lol in www.ibuypower.com it says Hyper Threading... so blame them not me . And yeah i want to spend money so i will waste some money in the 1mb cache CPU, the 4000 ^^ .

 

[Warbie]

In that case i'd get some TCCD based memory - coupled with a nice A64 this stuff flys (it regulalrly hits 300 mhz (600 ddr) - your current ram runs at 200 mhz (400 ddr))

The extra cahe won't make a great deal of difference (and will still be slower than a 3000+ running at 2.6 gig)

The good thing about the 4000+ is that it'll probably clock very well - it's certainly not worth the extra money if you're planning on running at stock settings tho.

Wait for the new cores - they're only a month or so away.

 

[E-2k5]

can u please let me know when the new cores become available? :bounce:

 

[Warbie]

Sure (not that you need it )

Your current system is great - even if get the best cpu money can buy you're not going to notice much difference.

As I said in a previous post - these new cores should be better, but mainly for overclockers. If you're running them at stock settings there's little point to wait.

Your sig says you have a 4000 - which, imo, makes your choice simple. Either spend an obscene amount of cash on a FX-55 (and notice little improvement) or stay with what you have (which is very cool)

Enjoy your pc - don't worry about upgrading for a while, it's not needed

 

[E-2k5]

thanks warbie , i was just asking this because i really want to play games like BF 2, FEAR and HL2 with no lag or slowdowns... so thank u again

 

[PunisherUSA]

If you have that much money, the FX-55 is the best AMD out, but I would recommend waiting for the new core technologies/ architectures.

As warbie said.... you're system should run anything to come out for a good year at high details.

 

[E-2k5]

kewl... i'll just wait for the new cores

 

[NikolaX]

OMG
just my comment on this tread.
cheers.