Changed Topic: Best CPU for the $$$

[sincraft]

OK I have changed the topic of this message to the best cpu for the money.
Here is the original message:

Ive been looking around and noticed that the new castle on toms hardware had a better 'intel like' experience for many multitasking and etc type tasks vs the Venice. Although the Venice had a FEW more fps (if that) in gaming mode. That said seems like the new castle is better but I may not be looking at apples to apples.

Maybe someone can give me suggestions on the best 3200+, then second and why?

THANKS!

S

 

[SidVicious]

Ive been looking around and noticed that the new castle on toms hardware had a better 'intel like' experience for many multitasking and etc type tasks vs the Venice. Although the Venice had a FEW more fps (if that) in gaming mode. That said seems like the new castle is better but I may not be looking at apples to apples.

Maybe someone can give me suggestions on the best 3200+, then second and why?

THANKS!

S

Do you mind linking the articles in question ?

Consider that S754 CPUs are clocked higher than their S939 counterparts while sharing the same model #. Clock for clock, the difference between a Venice and a Newcastle core will be marginal, with a slight advantage toward the Venice due to some tweaks and SSE3 ops. Overclocking really sets the two cores appart since Venices usually top out at much higher frequencies.

 

[cisco]

I would definately get the venice, it supports SSE3 and dual channel memory. Venice being a 939 chip allows you to upgrade again later on to a faster dual core 939 processor. Socket 754 is not only older technology but doesn't allow for any real upgrade in performance later on without purchasing another motherboard. Plus the 939 overclocks better.

 

[sincraft]

Hmm I guess the other question is, there is a 3000+ venice running at 2000MHz, and there is on the cpu comparison benchmarks on tomshardware - only shows the venice with 1800mhz. So when I run the comparison between the slightly more expensive (113 vs 154) 3200+ running at 2000mhz, there seems to be a large gap - but like I said after further review, teh 3000+ on THW benchmarks only shows it at 1800 mhz.

I then stretched things a bit further and was looking at the 3500+ venice and notice a large difference between the 3200+ venice and the 3500+ venice.

So what's the most bang for the buck. If the 3000+ is 113 and the 3500+ is only $96 more, but MUCH more worth it..I sure would pick the better chip. I guess it's a matter of budget and finally picking a red line to stop the upgrade madness. I originally set out to build a 'DECENT' machine at around 500 bucks, but have already upgraded my 7600gs to a GT, if for any reason, because of the lack of a fan on the heatsink and overclocking.

HELP - i'm swimming in options here lol

OH and there are Clawhammer and Venice options on the 3500 also! ARGH

OK ANOTHER OPTION TOO - E3 or E4...?!??! God tihs is going to take longer to research this minor build (first since 2001) and by then things will be outdated!
S

 

[SidVicious]

Hmm I guess the other question is, there is a 3000+ venice running at 2000MHz, and there is on the cpu comparison benchmarks on tomshardware - only shows the venice with 1800mhz. So when I run the comparison between the slightly more expensive (113 vs 154) 3200+ running at 2000mhz, there seems to be a large gap - but like I said after further review, teh 3000+ on THW benchmarks only shows it at 1800 mhz.

I then stretched things a bit further and was looking at the 3500+ venice and notice a large difference between the 3200+ venice and the 3500+ venice.

So what's the most bang for the buck. If the 3000+ is 113 and the 3500+ is only $96 more, but MUCH more worth it..I sure would pick the better chip. I guess it's a matter of budget and finally picking a red line to stop the upgrade madness. I originally set out to build a 'DECENT' machine at around 500 bucks, but have already upgraded my 7600gs to a GT, if for any reason, because of the lack of a fan on the heatsink and overclocking.

HELP - i'm swimming in options here lol

S

As I explained it in my previous post, the 2GHz 3200+ is a Socket 754 CPU, which is clocked 200MHz higher than the 3200+ for Socket 939.

As cisco pointed out, a Socket 939 platform has many advantages over Socket 754, the main one being a longer and more varied upgrade path, the secondary difference being the dual channel memory controller found on Socket 939 CPUs.

Just take your time, read reviews and ask questions, it will allow you to see through that ball of confusion, that's what the (hardware) world is today, hey hey !

 

[sincraft]

All the ones of interest are Socket 939's...maybe I am missing something in your post...links here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537
(the first one I was interested in)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103568
second: here's one that confused me...soemthing about E6...costing about 30 more than the first but the same stats overall (3000+ venice 2000mhz)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103535
Third.. only about 40 bucks more..no true benchmarks to view the differences though found.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103572
yes another...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103514
devils advocate #'s to look at

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103622
what appears to be a nice chip, but a bit pricey for me..unless the cost is highly justified.

Anyway - maybe I am missing something in your post, these are mostly all venice (with the last two as an exception but benchmarks show them doing nicely..although no overclocking discussed) and also , they are 939's.

I would love to know the differences between some of the similiar models also. Like E3 E4, G6 etc etc/!?!

S

 

[cisco]

Get the venice over the clawhammer. Venice is newer, SSE3 and 90nm vs 130nm on the clawhammer. Its a tough call between the 3200 and 3500 if you have the extra 55.00 get it. 2.0ghz vs 2.2ghz with the 3500. But if your a gamer you would be better off spending that extra money on the video card.

 

[SidVicious]

As I explained it in my previous post, the 2GHz 3200+ is a Socket 754 CPU, which is clocked 200MHz higher than the 3200+ for Socket 939.

Sorry for the confusion, I typo'ed 3200+ instead of 3000+

Those links are allright but you're reading the description wrong :

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice 2000MHz HT 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor - Retail

2000MHz HT simply indicate that it complies with a 1GHz full duplex HyperTransport bus, the CPU stock frequency is found a few scrolls down :

Operating Frequency 1.8GHz

Compare it to a Socket 754 3000+ :

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice 1600MHz HT 512KB L2 Cache Socket 754 E6 Processor - Retail

A 800MHz full duplex HT bus, compliant with Socket 754, now let's scroll down a bit...

Operating Frequency 2.0GHz

Ah ha ! It is clocked 200MHz faster than the S939 3000+

Meaning that if you saw a 3000+ outperform an other 3000+ and nearly match a 3200+ in a benchmark, chances are that you were comparing a S754 with one of its S939 sibling.

As for the E3 vs E4 vs E6 codes, they indicate a different core stepping and/or downbinned cores as you can see Here .

You most likely noticed the difference in core size, here's why :

Some Venice cores are in fact a San Diego core with half its cache disabled or even a Manchester with one core disabled. Likewise, a San Diego can be a Toledo with a disabled core and some Manchesters are Toledoes with half their cache disabled.

None of that is relevant unless you are out to buy the best OC'ing chip.

 

[sincraft]

Hmmm welp is this a typo then?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103537

Says it is running at 2000mhz but in the specs 1.8. Cornfused I am.

I also wonder if the E6 stepping version is worth the extra 30 bucks, or should I spend it on the 3200+... The logic is jiving with me, sorry.

LOL! I have to keep telling myself that this is just supposed to be a 'step' / extra computer. BUT IT'S SO HARD LOL. I just need another computer right now to work on some of my networking garbage - but then I thought...hmmm maybe Intel is not the way to go these days. And thus, started the madness. I posted in here after a few days researching comp builds (after not having done so or even glancing at such things since 2001) - the topic was...$500 rig. THEN I started diving into things as much as time would allow to find the best bang for the buck.

All told, I probably could have taken a part time job at the local coffee house and been able to afford a better system intsead of reading and reading and reading about it, the games that are available...and the other forks in the road I keep taking

Anyway - this is not supposed to be my super gaming rig. I definetely see a 'line' where it JUMPS from pricing, from a fast fast system to the bleeding edge technology... and usually thats where I buy. I figure a system like that would cost me about 1200 bucks, possibly 1500 if I go a little overboard.
This system is just to get me back into some of the games I am missing out on, to be able to play some of the newer games on lower settings, then in a year - possibly a bit more, possibly a bit less - I will pop on a proper rig. At 34 (oh god it happens so fast) I have other responsibilities unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at things) that force me to yield to my wants and take care of the families needs

I'm so damn responsible!..................


SO - Thanks Cisco and Sid! I really appreciate it. Oh btw Sid, I was very excited with your post on the cores...that was Elite! Thanks!

S