Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What performs better? A64 3000+ or AXP 3000+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 9, 2005 12:19:20 PM

I'm looking to buy a gaming system, but now I'm just wondering if I really need to go 64 bit?

I know the subject says AXP3000+ but I was thinking of OCing a 2500+ barton.

If I get good RAM 2*512
and I've heard about 6600GT graphics card being good value so might go with that.

I'm thinking about ABIT NF7-S with AXP barton 2500+ OCd to however high it can go safely.

OR

Pat on the forum suggests Soltek K8AN2E-GR with A64 3000+ (754) I don't know how much that can OC to as I don't have much experience with A64.

I'm not really going to go with the extreme overclocking, I just want safe overclocking with stock cooling.

That in mind... My questions are as follows.

1. Which of the two set ups would perform better overall
2. As far as I can see the main difference in price between the two setups is that the A64 is almost double the price of the barton 2500+, it's not THAT MUCH, so does that make it more sensible to go 64 to be slightly future proof.

I'm sure there are other questions, but I can't remember them right now.



-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 9, 2005 1:12:25 PM

For gaming, I really suggest going with AMD64 CPU, as they poerform well and cool. As for overclocking, I can run my board at 10x215, which give me 2.15 GHz on the CPU. Islowed it down to 10x210 for assured stability and component long term reliability as I often sell both the cpu and board when I upgrade again. I run stock cooling and I have a fan controller to cut in hale the speed of my cases's fan, to have a very silent PC. I do watch movies with my computer connected to my TV on my living room, and that matte to me... much more than a few more MHZ...

Coupld with a fast videocard, the 754 3200+ will perform well enough without overclocking or with mild overclocking as I did. Or you can buy the 939 3200+ and overclock it to get at least the speed of the 754 3200+ ... because they are really slow CPU...see, a 3200+ socket 939 is only a little bit faster than a 3000+ 754...That why I guess peoples overclock them...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 9, 2005 1:32:02 PM

Most games today make use of the SSE2 extension and the Athlon XP does not have it.

Athlon 64 has SSE2 extension and integrated memory controller, so it is a lot more suitable for modern games.

<A HREF="http://www.clancas.net" target="_new">clan CHAOS</A>
Related resources
January 9, 2005 2:34:53 PM

There is no question that the A64 is the better gamer. Shoot OC, the AXP to 400MHz higher, it's still far behind an A64. Months ago, an new AXP still made sense for a value gamer. But where are you getting your prices from? The price difference isn't that huge now from what I have seen.

Memory is the same, the mobo can cost about the same depending on the socket A64 or features you want, and the CPU difference isn't that huge anymore(almost the same) as A64's have come down and AXP's have gone up. (Here in the USA anyway). Whole system wise, you could do S754 A64 3000+ for $20 over NF2 AXP-3000+. Or spend a little more on both mobo and cpu for S939.

IMO, A mobile XP OC'ed is still an option. But honeslty comparing a whole system cost, stepping up to an A64 isn't that much more costly. It's virtually identical.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
January 9, 2005 4:12:05 PM

I think the Mobile XP clocked to 2.4ghz will score about the same as an A64-3000+ with the same GPU in 3dMark. This would indicate that the A64 is about 20% faster at the same clock speed. The Mobile won't run Win 64 worth a damn tho! Barton for back-up PC? Fine. Barton for primary PC? Why?

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
January 9, 2005 5:34:03 PM

I'd just like to say thank you for responding so quickly and convincingly.

Up until now I didn't really know how much better an A64 platform would be and just had the misconception that it would cost a lot more.

I guess I will go A64.

So if you guys don't mind persevering a little more with me......

I have seen that PCI-E graphics cards are better priced than AGP. It's my understanding that for PCI-E I would need to go 939. Is that right or is it, if I want to go PCI-E I would have to go NForce 4? Is it possible to get 754 with PCI-E?

I have chosen to go for Corsair value select RAM matched pair 2*512 cl2.5, Anybody know if this RAM would reach 210-215 fsb? The reason I'm going for this is that the price is good.

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 9, 2005 5:39:15 PM

PCI-E only available in socket 939. The ram may or may not go there. Want to be sure? Buy PC3500.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
January 9, 2005 6:02:17 PM

I am running samsung generic pc3200. It has been running for about 3 months @ 222mhz and cl2.5. Of course, a lot depends on the on die memory controller, and the traces on the mobo. Truth is that if it wont run at higher speeds, you dont loose much by choosing lower speeds. You can set the mem bus to 166/333 speeds, and have to go to about 201 to get the same perf as 200/400 with the 210 oc.
Most decent ram is good for 10% no sweat.
January 9, 2005 6:17:06 PM

Here's an interesting read about overclocking a mobile barton which you costs about $95. Athlon64 costs 118-174.

Depending on your budget.. XP gets stomped in memory benches.. so depending on what your going to do with your computer...

And keep in mind these benches are for a mobile barton at 200x12. These chips can do much more than that.

<A HREF="http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlonxp-m-2500/in..." target="_new">http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlonxp-m-2500/in...;/A>

<b>"These are my thoughts, your mileage may vary."
January 9, 2005 7:14:56 PM

PCIe for 754 should be available shortly, as some company, like Soltek has announced some board. I dont know how long to have them thou...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 9, 2005 9:40:58 PM

That was a very interesting read, thanks for the link, short and sweet, not to mention well written.

Hmmm so PCI-E will be available on 754.....couple of things there...which I'm thinking. a) I have to wait for it to come out. b) I checked the prices of the 754 3000+ and the 939 3000+ and there's nothing in it, the price is almost the same.

The only reason to hesitate is as Pat said in another thread, why be a guinea pig for the 939 platform and the dual channel on 939 seems to make a very small difference in performance. But if the CPU costs are similar, I haven't actually checked yet but I doubt mobo prices will be so different either.

Why not go 939 all the way? Any reasons not to?

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 9, 2005 10:16:53 PM

For me, I don't do much extreme gaming, so pushing the barton core to 260mhz FSB, in my mind would help to close the gap in memory performance against the 64. And as far as pure x86 apps, raw horespower reigns, and pushing the barton into the 3ghz range definately puts it on par with the 64.

As far as I've read to date the AGP8x and early PCI-E are neck and neck. But I could be wrong.

Happy gaming, hope you enjoy whatever you decide to choose. Cheers.

<b>"These are my thoughts, your mileage may vary."
January 9, 2005 10:26:14 PM

To be honest I didn't understand

"Truth is that if it wont run at higher speeds, you dont loose much by choosing lower speeds. You can set the mem bus to 166/333 speeds, and have to go to about 201 to get the same perf as 200/400 with the 210 oc."

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 9, 2005 11:17:11 PM

What surprise me is how fast the 753 3400+ is! A computer based on this chip with a good video card could well last long enough before the need to upgrade happen again in your life.
And dont forget that with the mobile, you'll nee to buy a HSF, which come standard on the A64... This increase the price.

So, by going the Barton road, you'll have to buy a chip and a HSF, which will make it to cost almost as much as an A64 and you'll end up with an old chip that have to be overclocked to hold is own (which it cannot really do) against newer A64 and risk stability issue and longetivity loss instead of getting a fast and cool chip right off the box that will last long enough before the need tu upgrade againé Oh, and the mobile is warranty only 3 month(maybe less too, I dont remember) while A64 are warranty 3 years...

So depending on my budget, the XP is a dead end that will make me spend more for less cpu value, even if it is cheaper.

Unless you want to play the overclocking game, then the XP definitively are to be avoided in new system now.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 9, 2005 11:27:46 PM

I dont said being a guinea pig for socket 939. 939 is as robust as 754, only slower for comparative chip. PCIe is what I'll avoid right now.

the 3000+ 939 may cost the same as the 3000+ 754, but to get the same performance than the 754 3000+, you'll need the 3200+ 939 which cost more. Unless you overclock the 3000+ 939...

So, my point is, if you want a fast system NOW, not for the future, get a socket 754 with nforce3 mobo and get a fast AGP video card. see, 754 board can be bought for less than 939, which often come with tons of RAID capability which is not every pople need, firewire which is usefull only fo DV and some external device, ... So, just getting a plain, fast board with only the feature you need, a fast CPU and a fast video card is the best option for a gaming system.

When sound cards, sata adapter card, network card, modem card, ... will start to appears as PCIe device, then I will consider to switch, but for now, only to have a video card, welll, that doesnt worth it to pay more for the board as there is more choice of videocard in AGP style.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 10, 2005 1:01:56 AM

We'd have to see his budget also, something he didn't mention. Valid point you made too. Only reason I would go the a64 route would be the imporved memory bandwith... but I would think an xp with a 260fsb would be fairly close to a 200fsb 64.

<b>"These are my thoughts, your mileage may vary."
January 10, 2005 5:32:23 AM

An xp, with a 260/520 fsb? Do you know smeone who has cranked one that high?
January 10, 2005 5:47:14 AM

I'll dig up some sights.. but have seen posts on other forums with 250+fsb on DFI lanparty boards.

<b>"These are my thoughts, your mileage may vary."
January 10, 2005 6:14:43 AM

Nice thread, but those guys are "extreme" in thier OCing. I still didn't see anyone there over 240.
January 10, 2005 6:42:08 AM

most are still using pc3200 also... I'll dig up some more.

<b>"These are my thoughts, your mileage may vary."
January 10, 2005 6:24:26 PM

Quote:
I think the Mobile XP clocked to 2.4ghz will score about the same as an A64-3000+ Winchester with the same GPU in 3dMark

For me it took 2.6 GHz with the mobile XP to almost = what the A64 3000+ did at stock speed in 3dmark2001se. Same Video card at stock speed and same dual channel ram just cpu/mobo difference.

Mobile XP 2500+ @ 2.6 GHz(13*200)/ Abit NF7 rev 2 18,649 3dmarks
A64 3000+ @ stock 1.8GHz / MSI K8N Neo2 platinum 18,688 3dmarks

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 01/10/05 03:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 10, 2005 8:39:40 PM

deleted a double post, sorry!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by hatimh on 01/10/05 05:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 10, 2005 8:40:20 PM

260FSB to equal and A64????? Damn, why the hell am I even still thinking about XP? Forget that right now!

Pat, what you said makes sense about raw power, however I saw that there is a difference in price between a PCI-E card and AGP cards, PCI-E being quite a bit cheaper.

I actually would like to have SATA raid, I've heard all about the extra hdd speed. I'd love to have to 80GB/120GB HDDs running in RAID.

Hmmm I didn't tell you guys my budget and I guess I haven't been completely clear on what the system will be used for, it will be used for things other than games. However with all your advice Here's what I'm leaning towards.

A64 3000+ Winchester 939 moderately overclocked to get a bit of extra value for money.
1GB (2*512) RAM PC3200/PC3500 - 3500 might be a bit too expensive.
PCI-E GF6600GT (SLI? XFX?)
939 Mobo with RAID and SATA

Pat has swayed me to also accept a 754 solution as long as I can get RAID and SATA on it though. Then I suppose I can settle for an AGP 8x graphics card.

It's not a top of the range PC, but I'm hoping it'll be good enough to run Doom 3 and Half Life 2 happily.

I'm looking for the sweet spot for price/performance.

As for budget well it's about £600/1000$ but really just looking for best value price/performance.


-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 10, 2005 9:00:27 PM

I have a system very similar to the specs you propose... and both of those games will run fine on that system.
January 11, 2005 9:20:16 AM

What Mobo do u use and what RAM, Graphics etc?

Does anyone have suggestions for good Mobos which would satisfy the criteria I set out?

Many thanks in advance.

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 11, 2005 6:12:42 PM

Any suggestions or is this thread too stale now?

Going 754, I know people have said NForce3, is the KT800 754 chipset far behind?



-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 11, 2005 6:41:14 PM

Go nforce3. The VIA chipset is maybe a little faster in some benchmark, but the nforce3 perform better overall, thanks to its better HDD controller and Gbit ethernet that use less CPU cycle. I think it is more stable and less prone to problems.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 11, 2005 8:39:49 PM

The reason to go nforce is the single chip chipset. It will keep your setup way cooler.
It is also nice that nforce has a reputation for stability, while via's is the opposite
January 11, 2005 8:57:46 PM

I went with the MSI Neo2 plat mobo, and I must say it has probably impressed me the most out of all my components, with a great BIOS and easy install, and I have read a number of reviews that place it at a very high performance/price ratio. I also have the Gainward 6800GT, it's been good, but I wish that I had done a little more research on this one, I think I could have done better for the money (although, I shouldn't complain, it has been good to me so far).

If I was to do it all over again, I might have put alot more thought into the 754 vs 939 battle... but I decided to go with the 939. For me they were too close in price not to take it.
January 11, 2005 9:27:46 PM

Problem with 939 vs 754 costing the same is that they dont perform the same. Socket 939 3000+ is slower than 3000+ 754, while costing about the same. But to have comparable performance, you need the 3200+ 939 which cost more that the 3000+ 754 and that's where, performance and budget wise, 754 make sense.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 11, 2005 10:04:46 PM

The interesting thing is that I bought ALL of my components from one place and they were really pushing the 939 3200+ and gave me a deal, which worked out to be $22 more than the 754 3000+. This was before I had seen the link that someone gave to the anandtech comparisons of the 754 to 939 though, so if I had seen that I MIGHT have thought about it more (in the end it's only 22 bucks though).
January 11, 2005 10:06:45 PM

That's my dilemma too. They are so close in price.

What I'm thinking is that getting the PCI-Express graphics card (slightly faster than agp version) could make up for some of the performance.

The other thing to think about is how much each of the CPUs overclock.

I'm looking to do a moderate stock cooling overclock.

Does anybody know which overclocks better and what are the likely results?

A64 3000+ 939 (1800 MHz)
A64 3000+ 754 (2000 MHz)

I am so close now, I think it's after the answers to this post I will make my final decision.

So far this is what I am hoping to get. Let me know what you guys think.

Abit AV8 OR ASUS A8V OR MSI K8T Neo2-FIR
64bit Athlon 3000+ Socket 939
1GB 2*512 PC3200 Corsair RAM
2 x 80GB HDD (8MB cache) DUAL SATA RAID (Striped)
PCI Express nVidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB
Sony DWD22A 16x DVD R/RW Dual Layer
Sony 52x32x52x CD R/RW

OR

Soltek K8AN2E-GR (nForce3)
64bit Athlon 3000+ Socket 754
1GB PC3200 Corsair RAM
2 x 80GB HDD (8MB cache) DUAL SATA RAID (Striped)
AGP nVidia GeForce 6600GT 128MB
Sony DWD22A 16x DVD R/RW Dual Layer
Sony 52x32x52x CD R/RW

Cheers.

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 12, 2005 2:13:25 AM

Right now, between both system, the 754 should perform better because the cpu is faster. as for oc, I run mine at 2.1 GHz instead of 2.0.. It run stableat 2.15 too, but I rather keep it cool and silent and not pushing too much because it is plain fast as it is right now.

I dont know about oc potential of the 939 socket, as I havent tryied it. I've discovered silent PC and I like that. You dont hear them while watchig movies or listening to music. And cool n quiet feature just speed up the fan when I play some game, and slow it down when it cool back to idle temperature..dont ask me about my temp...I dont really care as my system is rock stable and silent when it have to.

When I'll need faster thing, later, I'll check what is available then and upgrade with what will be the best performance/price ratio once there. but for now, I dont care about future...too much thing could happen...



-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 12, 2005 2:22:46 AM

Yeah...it wasnt that bad, but did you check the price difference in motherboard, Maybe this could have give you anothe 25$ so arounf 50 more $ to spend on a faster video card... and that what would have give you an edge in performance. IMHO, money spent on CPU is like wasted compared to a good video card or fast HDD... especially HDD as it is really the slowest component of your system.

I know it is not easy, but once you stop thinking about future, you just make better system now that you may enjoy for a longer time too, without feeling the need to upgrade sooner.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 12, 2005 2:23:39 AM

fact is, I would have try harder to have a deal on a video card than a CPU....


-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 12, 2005 8:09:18 PM

What are clawhammer, winchester and newcastle in the names of the Athlon 64s?

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.
January 12, 2005 9:18:58 PM

Quote:
Problem with 939 vs 754 costing the same is that they dont perform the same. Socket 939 3000+ is slower than 3000+ 754, while costing about the same. But to have comparable performance, you need the 3200+ 939 which cost more that the 3000+ 754 and that's where, performance and budget wise, 754 make sense.

Do you have a link showing this? I'd like to read it. I could be wrong as I rememer the MHz differences with newcastle leaving most people to believe MHz over cache was the better deal. BUT, It was my understanding that the 3000+ WInchester was by a little, the fastest performing A64 3000+.

While not a direct comparison, Anand states that the 90 nm were consistently faster than the 130nm chips. I figure this lead per MHz would enable the Winchester to keep up with a S754 3000+.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=224..." target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=224...;/A>

"Gaming Performance was consistently faster on the new 90nm than the existing 130nm processors. This varied from 2% in Aquamark3 and Doom3 to 7% in Quake 3. Overall, gaming averaged about 3% faster on the new 90nm chips. While 3% is not a huge increase and it will likely not even be noticed by the average user, it was still impressive to see the new 90nm chips perform a little better than the older 130nm chips."


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
January 12, 2005 9:45:28 PM

Quote:
260FSB to equal and A64????? ...quote]

It was a 200 fsb * 13 multiplier for 2.6GHz. But even so, it's no A64 killer by any means. Good performance per $ though.

Now 3dmarks aren't everything of course, but 2001se does help compare performance gains in Overclocking the CPU. I think the very best you can hope for with overclocking an Athlon XP, even with a mobile, is only putting you about at A64 2800+ - 3000+ stock performance at best. And unless you are liquid cooling that overclocked barton (which I am not), the noise difference is unbeliveable. This 3000+ Winchester in the MSI K8Nneo2p is unbelieveable quiet with Cool and Quiet. MHz->voltage->heat->fan RPM->noise was a big reality with the overclocked barton for me so although it could do more, I only gamed with that Mobile XP @ 2.3 or sometimes 2.4GHz, so I could turn down my voltage and fan seed. The noise of a Jet 7+ on full speed is just aweful to say the least. It Took me a while to take the A64 plunge, but I am sold now. I have used more Socket A than anything by far, but I am feeling it's now cheap enough with enough mobo choices to switch to A64 in most situations except the extreme budget. And for the gamer, A64 is just the way to go. Just need more availablity of PCI-e mobos to be able to throw a nice speedy <A HREF="http://shop.ati.com/product.asp?sku=2599078" target="_new">$300 X800XL</A> in it. :smile:


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
January 12, 2005 11:12:57 PM

"Do you have a link showing this? I'd like to read it. I could be wrong as I rememer the MHz differences with newcastle leaving most people to believe MHz over cache was the better deal. BUT, It was my understanding that the 3000+ WInchester was by a little, the fastest performing A64 3000+."

Well, in this <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new"> thread</A>, I had some <A HREF="http://www.presence-pc.com/article-178-4.html" target="_new">benchmarks</A>. They are in french, but you can still look at the graph. I had some other, but lost them...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pat on 01/12/05 08:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 12, 2005 11:41:07 PM

pat I couldn't agree with you more... it is a great idea to spend more money on the video card over the CPU... and in my case I got a mobo/CPU deal and you are right that I might have even been able to save a little more on the mobo if I went 754, and possibly this could have given me another $50 dollars to work with, but to spend $50 on stepping up from a Gainward 6800GT wouldn't have done me a lot of good. What I really needed was to save an extra $239 so I could get a Raptor HDD but I wasn't going to do that by saving $50 on my mobo/CPU.

But on all accounts I agree with you, the performance was comparable on the 754 rigs that you showed us (and that was a good link BTW, why doesn't THG do that same kind of comparison).
January 13, 2005 12:31:10 AM

HDD are often forgotten when performance is needed in a system, and that bad, because, even if you have the fastest CPU on earth, the OS or programs that is it running are often waiting for data from the HDD, so the less they wait, the less you wait. Level loading in game, you know? Farcry is one game that get better with a fast HDD.. Windows swapfile?? having it on a fast HDD speed up the process too.

But that is not something that is easily mesurable in benchmark. It is mor a question of..feeling..Is you computer just compute fast or feel fast?



-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 13, 2005 12:55:53 AM

I assume that you run a Raptor then?? would I be correct in this assumption??

I agree with you that HDD is often overlooked when considering performance... which is why I intend on buying a Raptor fairly soon (as soon as I can afford it)... but I do want to get the 74Gb so that I will have room for OS as well as my games, and then just store video/music/pics on my other HDD.
January 13, 2005 1:02:43 AM

I run 2x160 gigs Seagate SATA in RAID0 configuration. Raptor doesnt have enough capacity... Even the 74 gigs. With a WD 40gigs...and a 200 gigs maxtor...and a 120 gigs WD in an enclosure... mostly full of multimedia (?) stuff...

I know, I should get a life ...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 13, 2005 1:04:37 AM

I'm thinking of getting an ata 33 for games. I like the anticipation, and the brief respits that hdd loading gives. The slow pagefile is a different story, but lots of ram cures that.
January 13, 2005 1:10:14 AM

That's what I dont understand. If I have more than 8 gigs on my drive, it's cleaning time. With so much stuff on there, how can your computer find anything? That's what makes a hdd slow.. Where did I put that 2 gig file? Well, a little here, a little there, where was that other part?
January 13, 2005 1:20:26 AM

Thx, I'll look into that although counting from 1-19 is about the limits of my french. :smile:

I am going to do some searching on this myself, you have my curiosity up.

Ther are some advantages to S939 listed <A HREF="http://www.amdreview.com/reviews.php?rev=3000-3200-90nm" target="_new">here</A>.

And it seems <A HREF="http://www.madshrimps.be/printart.php?articID=230" target="_new">here</A>,that the S939 3200+ beats out the 1MB Cache S754 3200+ both running 2.0GHz. But I am yet to see a review of all three 3200+'s with the 512MB cache 2.2GHz S754 included. That's gonna bug me. Hopefully there is a better googler out there who can find one. :tongue:


<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 01/12/05 10:39 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 13, 2005 1:34:04 AM

Well, I created partitions.
RAID Array:
60 gigs for OS and programs/games some storage too of misc data
100 gigs, for capturing, editing and other misc files and backup of some personnal data
100 gigs, for storage of movies, divx
40 gigs DVD rip and some .. well, lots of MP3
5 gigs for stuff I download of the internet

then the 40 gigs for more DVD rips
then the 200 gigs for again more DVD rips ..

and the 120 gigs in the portable enclosure for files backup and tools for reinstallation as well as stuff that I dont really know where to put nor if I really need it, so I let it there in case of I may need it and if after a while, I didnt install/look at them, I delete them.

Everything is pretty well organized, so I dont really look for my files.

I must cross my finger as I never had a drive that fail. I dont mind about loosing most of my files, as my precious personnal data is well secured on DVD and CD. With that amount of files, backuping them all in out of question.

But I dont keep my HDD very long. I buy new componant when I can sell the old one. I dont keep HDD more than one year, but I could keep my seagate longer as they have a 5 years warranty so I guess that they should be good.

See, if someone need a 40 gigs, I will sell the one I have and just reorganize my files...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
!