Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparison between AMD Athlon XP and Athlon 64

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
October 3, 2004 11:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

How much faster is a 3000 A64 than a 3000 XP??

Thanks,
Steve
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
October 3, 2004 11:04:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

How much faster is a 3000 A64 than a 3000 XP??

Thanks,
Steve


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
The XP 3000 is 2.16 ghz and can be used with dual channel memory motherboard.
The 754 pin 64 3000 is 2.0GHz and is single channel memory controller built
into the CPU. The 939 pin 64 3000 is 1.8GHz and has a built in dual channel
memory controller. All three have 512 L2 cache. I would say the 939 pin 64 3000
would be the fastest of the 3 because the memory controller is faster on the
939 because it has less latency than the socket A boards and the FSB is higher
on the 939 64-3000 which is 2000 MHz. The 939 is the fastest but cost about
$60 more than the 3000 XP. DOUG
heres the AMD web site with the Athlon 64 specs.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...
%5E10248,00.html
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
October 3, 2004 11:04:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

In a rather limited context (Doom3):

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

the 64 bit chip is quite a bit faster than the XP 3000. (In fact, the Athlon
64 3000+ is the recommended bargain CPU for Doom3.) That doesn't say that
this will be duplicated for general computing purposes.

Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Steve" <bond_youknowtherest_uk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2sat9kF1j1bb6U1@uni-berlin.de...
> How much faster is a 3000 A64 than a 3000 XP??
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
October 4, 2004 1:49:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Steve" <bond_youknowtherest_uk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2sat9kF1j1bb6U1@uni-berlin.de...
> How much faster is a 3000 A64 than a 3000 XP??
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
According to AMD's own PR rating system they both have the same performance
(i.e. 3000+)... Who are we to argue?

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
October 4, 2004 2:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:04:35 +0100, Steve wrote:

> How much faster is a 3000 A64 than a 3000 XP??
>
Well, they should be about the same since they're both 3000+'s, but they
aren't. I feel the XP 3000+ is over rated by at least 100, and all the
A64's are underated by comparison. At stock speeds, the A64 is
considerably faster in most things. Even the A64 2800+ beats the 3000+ XP
in most things. You can compare the two here.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=203...



--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
October 4, 2004 6:30:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2sbejcF1iiud7U1@uni-berlin.de...
> In a rather limited context (Doom3):
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...
>
> the 64 bit chip is quite a bit faster than the XP 3000. (In fact, the
> Athlon 64 3000+ is the recommended bargain CPU for Doom3.) That doesn't
> say that this will be duplicated for general computing purposes.

What? it's the recommended bargain CPU for Doom3? Who would be insane enough
to upgrade to a 64 bit machine just for doom3. It's not a very well
optimized game.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
October 4, 2004 11:10:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

An AMD 64 3000+ and mainboard can be had for less than $250 (US) total.

The price for an nVidia Geforce 6800 GT or ATI Radeon X800 Pro is $350-400.
Lots of people got one of these (or the higher end versions, for $100 more)
to play the latest games.

This isn't to say that getting an AMD 64 CPU fro a gaming machine isn't
crazy, but it's relative.

"tjones" <tjones@abnt.com> wrote in message
news:4160d138@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2sbejcF1iiud7U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> In a rather limited context (Doom3):
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...
>>
>> the 64 bit chip is quite a bit faster than the XP 3000. (In fact, the
>> Athlon 64 3000+ is the recommended bargain CPU for Doom3.) That doesn't
>> say that this will be duplicated for general computing purposes.
>
> What? it's the recommended bargain CPU for Doom3? Who would be insane
> enough to upgrade to a 64 bit machine just for doom3. It's not a very well
> optimized game.
>
October 5, 2004 1:03:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041003145120.10984.00001344@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> How much faster is a 3000 A64 than a 3000 XP??
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
> The XP 3000 is 2.16 ghz and can be used with dual channel memory
> motherboard.
> The 754 pin 64 3000 is 2.0GHz and is single channel memory controller
> built
> into the CPU. The 939 pin 64 3000 is 1.8GHz and has a built in dual
> channel
> memory controller. All three have 512 L2 cache. I would say the 939 pin 64
> 3000
> would be the fastest of the 3 because the memory controller is faster on
> the
> 939 because it has less latency than the socket A boards and the FSB is
> higher
> on the 939 64-3000 which is 2000 MHz. The 939 is the fastest but cost
> about
> $60 more than the 3000 XP. DOUG
> heres the AMD web site with the Athlon 64 specs.
>
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...
> %5E10248,00.html


I don't know what news reader you are using, but is their anyway you can
configure it to show the original text indented with a > sign as above? I
am sure it would be of benefit to the many readers of your posts. And apart
from anything else, goodness knows how you would make multiple comments, 1
after each of several lines of text. It would be impossible to read.

Thanks

Chip.
October 5, 2004 1:07:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2se3jfF1kdstsU1@uni-berlin.de...
> An AMD 64 3000+ and mainboard can be had for less than $250 (US) total.

But you forget that an XP2500+ Mobile and mainboard can be had for perhaps
$120 total. And running at 2500MHz (which they will usually do), it will
outperform even an overclocked AMD 64 3000+.

XP2500+ Mobiles are still the best price/performance ratio you can buy.

Chip
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
October 6, 2004 12:49:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:07:05 +0100, Chip wrote:

>
> "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2se3jfF1kdstsU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> An AMD 64 3000+ and mainboard can be had for less than $250 (US) total.
>
> But you forget that an XP2500+ Mobile and mainboard can be had for perhaps
> $120 total. And running at 2500MHz (which they will usually do), it will
> outperform even an overclocked AMD 64 3000+.
>
No it won't.

> XP2500+ Mobiles are still the best price/performance ratio you can buy.
>
No, 2500+ XP's are. $59. Mobiles are over $80.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
October 6, 2004 2:57:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.10.05.20.51.26.399272@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:07:05 +0100, Chip wrote:
>
>>
>> "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:2se3jfF1kdstsU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>> An AMD 64 3000+ and mainboard can be had for less than $250 (US) total.
>>
>> But you forget that an XP2500+ Mobile and mainboard can be had for
>> perhaps
>> $120 total. And running at 2500MHz (which they will usually do), it will
>> outperform even an overclocked AMD 64 3000+.
>>
> No it won't.
>
>> XP2500+ Mobiles are still the best price/performance ratio you can buy.
>>
> No, 2500+ XP's are. $59. Mobiles are over $80.

Depends where you buy them. Here in the UK there isn't a lot of price
difference between the two.

And anyway, is it worth an extra $21 for the ability to be able to run
10x240MHz instead of perhaps 11x200? I would say YES.

I stand by my assertion above.

Chip
!