Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3500+ vs 3400+ vs 3400+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 9, 2004 9:03:35 AM

I am looking to build a system here in the next month or so, and I have a dilemma. It will be a gaming machine first, and in distant second, everything else. The first decision is between a the 512k cache 2.4 ghz 3400+, or the 1mb cache 2.2 ghz 3400+. Same price, so which is better for gaming? Also, should I spring for socket 939 and the 3500+? I don't know if it is worth the extra money or not. I am on a budget (1600 dollars), and I plan on getting a 74 gb raptor (200) and the 6800 GT (400) so I don't have money to burn...

"Go forward until the last round is fired and the last drop of gas is expended...then go forward on foot!" -Patton

More about : 3500 3400 3400

July 9, 2004 11:42:25 AM

The Socket939 solution would be more futureproof and upgradable. The 3500+ is a bit faster than the 3400+ (2.4GHz/512K).

But I agree that the 3400+ at 2.4GHz is a better choice. But, if you plan to do some overclocking the 2.2GHz 3400+ can run at 2.4GHz without much trouble. And this overclocked CPU would beat even the 3500+.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
Related resources
July 9, 2004 6:36:32 PM

Depending on what else I cut/downgrade from my system I may get watercooling. If the 2.2ghz one can easily hit 2.4, would that be the better choice? Or could I O/C the 2.4 to 2.6?

"Go forward until the last round is fired and the last drop of gas is expended...then go forward on foot!" -Patton
July 9, 2004 7:10:57 PM

First, it's not necessary to get watercooling to run an Athlon 64 at 2.4GHz. You may have to reach vCore and the CPU will heat up a bit, but it's fairly easy to get a 2.2GHZ A64 to run at 2.4GHz.

On the other hand O/C to 2.6GHz will be harder, because 2.6GHz is near the limit of the actual A64 stepping. The higher your CPU is running at stock sped, the less overhead you have to overclock. So, if you are not very experimented in overclocking, you will find it easier to push the 2.2GHz higher. And don't forget that 2.2GHz chip have 1Meg of cache, so even if you O/C the 2.4 to 2.6, it will still have 512K of cache and a 2.4 with 1Meg of cache will be nearly as fast.

And even if you get watercooling, the 2.2GHz chip have a better overclocking potential. So in most case the 2.2GHz with 1Meg of cache is the right CPU to get. The 2.2GHz can reach 2.4+GHz on air, so with watercooling, you might reach 2.5/2.6GHz with a good MB/memory.

NOTE : If you buy no-name DDR400 ram, you might have hard time trying overclong your A64.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
July 9, 2004 7:13:48 PM

Do I have to get the uber RAM (XMS, HyperX)? Or can I get the regular stuff, like regular kingston? Just not value...

"Go forward until the last round is fired and the last drop of gas is expended...then go forward on foot!" -Patton
July 9, 2004 7:28:42 PM

Quote:
Do I have to get the uber RAM (XMS, HyperX)? Or can I get the regular stuff, like regular kingston? Just not value...

No, you don't need HIGH-END ram, Kingston or Corsair DDR400 modules should be enough. My personal favorite for A64 overclocking is the OCZ 3500EB (but they are not cheap - 299$ for 2x512Megs).

Get Kingston or Corsair "value ram". OCZ Performance series is not that much more expensive 2x512megs of DDR433 comes at 220$ on NewEgg. But, getting "value ram" may limit your O/C. Fer example, if your ram max. speed 220MHz, your O/C potential at ratio 1/1 will be limited to 2.42GHz.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
!