Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD XP 3000+ or AMD64

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 16, 2004 11:51:10 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Is it worth me paying a little bit more for an AMD64 Processor/Mainboard
combo or should I stick with the slightly older 3000+ processer / mainboard
combo?

What are everyones views?
thanks

More about : amd 3000 amd64

August 16, 2004 11:51:11 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Prices on the AMD64 have dropped considerably since I bought mine. Given the
choice, I would certainly opt for the 64. Even without a 64bit OS, it's an
improvement over the Athlon chip because of the way it handles memory.

If you do go with the AMD64, get quality memory, and I would suggest a
minimum of PC3500. If you read the AMD forums, you'll see a lot of post
concerning memory problems. I had to change Kingston HyperX PC3200 to
Mushkin Level 1 PC3500 to stop random reboots (regardless of application).
The system is now stable, and runs very well.

Fitz
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 16, 2004 12:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:42:22 -0800, Fitz wrote:

> Prices on the AMD64 have dropped considerably since I bought mine. Given the
> choice, I would certainly opt for the 64. Even without a 64bit OS, it's an
> improvement over the Athlon chip because of the way it handles memory.
>
> If you do go with the AMD64, get quality memory, and I would suggest a
> minimum of PC3500. If you read the AMD forums, you'll see a lot of post
> concerning memory problems. I had to change Kingston HyperX PC3200 to
> Mushkin Level 1 PC3500 to stop random reboots (regardless of application).
> The system is now stable, and runs very well.
>
> Fitz

The Athlon 64 is screaming fast. For a desktop I'd go with a 939 pin part
which has twice the memory bandwidth and a lower load on each bus (2
rather than 3 dimms). I have an A64 laptop (754 pin, 3400+), all my
benchmarking shows it to be equivalent to a 4-5GHz Xeon (depending on
application). Mandrake 10.0 AMD64 edition installed without a problem.
Related resources
August 16, 2004 1:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Are you building a new pc, or do you already have an XP3000+?
What types of software do you run? If you run only business
applications, then an XP3000+ would be fine. If you run multimedia,
games, or other large bandwidth applications, then you should get
an Athlon 64.

*** JB wrote:

> Is it worth me paying a little bit more for an AMD64 Processor/Mainboard
> combo or should I stick with the slightly older 3000+ processer / mainboard
> combo?
>
> What are everyones views?
> thanks
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 16, 2004 2:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"*** JB" <invalid.invalid@email.invalid.com> wrote in
news:41205954$0$20250$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

> Is it worth me paying a little bit more for an AMD64
> Processor/Mainboard combo or should I stick with the slightly older
> 3000+ processer / mainboard combo?
>

Definitely worth it. Onboard memory controller alone makes it worth it.
And the idea that one day you may have a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of
Doom3 or a 64-bit Windows port of UT2k4 is just icing on the cake.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 16, 2004 11:37:34 PM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:51:10 +0100, "*** JB"
<invalid.invalid@email.invalid.com> wrote:

>Is it worth me paying a little bit more for an AMD64 Processor/Mainboard
>combo

Yes


--

AvengerĀ©
webweaver@CATihug.com.au
"Put the CAT out to reply"
*I DETEST Spam - A Spam Hater since 1951*
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2004 12:41:21 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

cheers for all the advice guys - looks like i'll go for the AMD64 Combo soon
:) 
"*** JB" <invalid.invalid@email.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:41205954$0$20250$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> Is it worth me paying a little bit more for an AMD64 Processor/Mainboard
> combo or should I stick with the slightly older 3000+ processer /
mainboard
> combo?
>
> What are everyones views?
> thanks
>
>
August 17, 2004 6:44:50 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p an.2004.08.16.12.45.14.660762@yahoo.com:

> The Athlon 64 is screaming fast. For a desktop I'd go with a 939 pin part
> which has twice the memory bandwidth and a lower load on each bus (2
> rather than 3 dimms). I have an A64 laptop (754 pin, 3400+), all my
> benchmarking shows it to be equivalent to a 4-5GHz Xeon (depending on
> application). Mandrake 10.0 AMD64 edition installed without a problem.
>

Which laptop did you finally decide to get?

Thanks.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2004 6:44:51 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:44:50 +0000, -- wrote:

> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:p an.2004.08.16.12.45.14.660762@yahoo.com:
>
>> The Athlon 64 is screaming fast. For a desktop I'd go with a 939 pin part
>> which has twice the memory bandwidth and a lower load on each bus (2
>> rather than 3 dimms). I have an A64 laptop (754 pin, 3400+), all my
>> benchmarking shows it to be equivalent to a 4-5GHz Xeon (depending on
>> application). Mandrake 10.0 AMD64 edition installed without a problem.
>>
>
> Which laptop did you finally decide to get?
>
> Thanks.

I got the Compaq R3000z with an Athlon 64 3400+, 1G RAM, 60G drive,
1680x1050 screen and built in 802.11G. The 802.11G card was free
otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it since it's useless (no Linux drivers
and no 64 bit Windows drivers which are necessary for ndiswrapper). The
Compaq R3000z and the HP zv5000z are identical except for color. The HP
cost $200 more, not clear why. The big screen is nice but It makes the
laptop a little unwieldy, I think if I had it to do over I'd get the
smaller screen. The one thing I absolutely would not buy again is the HP
carrying case, it's not much better than a shopping bag. The case came in
a bundle with a mouse and a USB cable, skip it and just get a third
party mouse and case.

I put Mandrake 10.0 AMD64 edition on it. It installed without to much
fiddling. The only thing that required any hacking was the XFConfig file
to get it to support the 1680x1050 screen. If you get the standard screen
it will work right out of the box. The other thing that I had to do was
build a 2.6.8.1 kernel to get the Cool & Quiet clock speed control to
work. That was very simple to do. Once you have a kernel that supports
Cool & QUiet, switching clock speeds is trivial, just echo the clock speed
into the scaling_setspeed file.

echo 2200000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_setspeed
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2004 6:27:59 PM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:11:22 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
<schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The HP
>cost $200 more, not clear why.

Check again. They are within `$25.00 if identical options are selected.

regards

Dud

--

Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter
when they come at you rapidly.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 17, 2004 8:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:27:59 -0400, Duddits wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:11:22 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
> <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The HP
>>cost $200 more, not clear why.
>
> Check again. They are within `$25.00 if identical options are selected.
>
> regards
>
> Dud

Not even close,

With the following features
Athlon 64 3400+
XP Pro
1680x1050 LCD
64MB Nvidia
1G DDR (2x512)
60GB drive
DVD + CDRW
54g 802.11b,g
12 Cell Lithium battery

Compaq R3000z $1523
HP xv5000z $1823

That's $300 difference not $25
August 18, 2004 6:55:58 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p an.2004.08.17.04.11.20.296477@yahoo.com:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:44:50 +0000, -- wrote:
>
>> General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:p an.2004.08.16.12.45.14.660762@yahoo.com:
>>
>>> The Athlon 64 is screaming fast. For a desktop I'd go with a 939 pin
>>> part which has twice the memory bandwidth and a lower load on each
>>> bus (2 rather than 3 dimms). I have an A64 laptop (754 pin, 3400+),
>>> all my benchmarking shows it to be equivalent to a 4-5GHz Xeon
>>> (depending on application). Mandrake 10.0 AMD64 edition installed
>>> without a problem.
>>>
>>
>> Which laptop did you finally decide to get?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I got the Compaq R3000z with an Athlon 64 3400+, 1G RAM, 60G drive,
> 1680x1050 screen and built in 802.11G. The 802.11G card was free
> otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it since it's useless (no Linux
> drivers and no 64 bit Windows drivers which are necessary for
> ndiswrapper). The Compaq R3000z and the HP zv5000z are identical
> except for color. The HP cost $200 more, not clear why. The big screen
> is nice but It makes the laptop a little unwieldy, I think if I had it
> to do over I'd get the smaller screen. The one thing I absolutely
> would not buy again is the HP carrying case, it's not much better than
> a shopping bag. The case came in a bundle with a mouse and a USB
> cable, skip it and just get a third party mouse and case.
>
> I put Mandrake 10.0 AMD64 edition on it. It installed without to much
> fiddling. The only thing that required any hacking was the XFConfig
> file to get it to support the 1680x1050 screen. If you get the
> standard screen it will work right out of the box. The other thing
> that I had to do was build a 2.6.8.1 kernel to get the Cool & Quiet
> clock speed control to work. That was very simple to do. Once you have
> a kernel that supports Cool & QUiet, switching clock speeds is
> trivial, just echo the clock speed into the scaling_setspeed file.
>
> echo 2200000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_setspeed

Thanks for the detailed report. Two questions:

1) How noisy or quite is this laptop?
2) What are your impressions of the nVidia video card?

Thanks again.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
August 18, 2004 6:55:59 AM

Archived from groups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> Thanks for the detailed report. Two questions:
>
> 1) How noisy or quite is this laptop?
> 2) What are your impressions of the nVidia video card?
>
> Thanks again.

When the clock speed is cranked up to 2.2GHz and it's crunching it's a
little noisy, at slower clock speeds it's quiet. The Nvidia card is fine
for everything I do but I don't play games.
!