Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is this Athlon64 a good chip for gaming?

  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • Chip
Last response: in CPUs
December 13, 2003 6:00:15 AM

It's the Athlon64 3000. Since it's around 200 I was going to pick it up. Is this a bad chip? Or shoudl I pay double and get the athlon 64 3200? If so, what are the diffwerences between the A64 3000, and the A64 3200?

More about : athlon64 good chip gaming

December 13, 2003 6:23:05 AM

Although there are not any reviews available yet since this chip has just been released, I believe it's an excellent choice for a new system. It should perform about 5-6% slower than the A64 3200+ but at $215 it's an excellent value. I suppose it is a little bit slower than the 3.0c but don't forget it is also $60 cheaper!

My opinion is go for it, especially since you want to use it for gaming. This way you can easily upgrade your CPU to a 3700+ when you need one, sometime ine 2004 or 2005, without the need to replace your motherboard or memory again.
December 13, 2003 10:54:36 AM

I think it's clock speed is 1.8 GHz, not 2.0 GHz (it's 3200+ speed). At 1.8 GHz, A64 is faster than P4 3.0C for gaming and P4 3.0C is better for multimedia.

For gaming, I would get A64 3000+ over A64 3200+/P4C 3.0-3.2 GHz

<b><A HREF="" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
Related resources
December 13, 2003 11:22:06 AM

The Athlon64 3000+ at newEgg has 512 Kbyte L2 Cache Size, if the picture they provide shows the cpu they have in stock. I hear rumors of another Athlon64 3000+ that runs at 1.8Ghz with 1Mbyte L2 Cache Size.
December 13, 2003 12:39:28 PM

It would be overall a bit slower then the P4C 3Ghz and abit faster then the P4C 2.8Ghz.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
December 13, 2003 2:32:19 PM

Plus, I think it would OC to 3200+ levels without prob. Should anyway, no reason for it not to.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>
December 13, 2003 2:55:58 PM

Sounds like a good deal

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.775)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/700)
December 14, 2003 12:00:23 AM

Judging by <A HREF="" target="_new">today's reports on OCWorkbench</A>, it seems that the A64 3000+ is a 2GHz part with a reduced 512Kb cache.I can only assume that the 1.8Ghz ones with 1Mb cache (such as Hexus') must have been early samples.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]
December 14, 2003 12:41:04 AM

You're probably right there.I doubt that the smaller cache makes quite the equivalent of a theoretical 200MHz frequency deficit (which AMD essentially suggests)in most cases.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]
December 14, 2003 12:45:50 AM

AWWW CRAP. Right when I upgraded too. I was really waiting for a 64 bit chip. Ah well, I can just pawn this off in a few months to someone and get a new cpu + mobo. Should be decent in a little while.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.