I keep going back and forth between the two. The 3000 is cheaper, but the 3200 is faster and has the 1MB of cache over the 512. I have a MSI K8T800 motherboard. I could afford the 3200, but I want to make sure the price jump is worth it. I bought most of my system geared for the 3000, but I am having second thoughts right before I get it.
I am all about gaming, I dont care about much else. Please help an indecisive guy actually FINISH his computer =)
The two are about the same in 32bits;but in 64 the 3200+ will be much better(cache times 1/2),also the neofis2r is not on amd's recommended list for the 3000;but is for the 3200.If you've got the cash get the better cpu.
I was reading Tom's end of year price guide, and he mentioned something about the 3200 having a defect in its L2 cashe?
"1 MB of L2 cache makes up more than half of the almost 106 million transistors on the Athlon64. That means that at a realistic yield of 40-50%, more than one in two dies will have a transistor defect. Ideally, and provided they are in a disconnectable area within the L2 cache, these dies (with reparable defects) will simply produce an Athlon64 3000+.
In practice, the problems lie not only in the area of the L2 cache. However, AMD is in a position to use the process to offer a cheaper Athlon64 and to minimize rejects. A choice must be made in any case if the aim is to appeal to as many different customer segments with the products to match - the Mobile Athlon64 is another example."
To the best of my knowledge (which is pretty limited) it sounds like a defect has the potential to drop the L2 cache on the A64 3200 by 50%. Am I correct?
This may be silly, but the K8 Neo will run the 3000 just as well as the 3200? I couldent find it on thier reccomended list of mobos, but I dont know if that means anything. Maybe it wasent out when the 3000 came out.