I currently have a MSI m/b (800FSB) with a P4 - 2.8Ghz CPU and would like to know if it will be worth it to upgrade to a MSI m/b (1000FSB) (socket 939) with a AMD Athlon64 3500+ CPU?
Is there quite an increase in speed between these two processors?
I have been searching for quite some time now on the internet to compare the two CPU's. I have also read many reviews etc., but I cannot find a clear answer as to how much faster the AMD 3500+ CPU is in games.
I have gathered the following info thus far:
Quake3 is 30 FPS faster on 3500+ than 2.8Ghz (1024 x 768)
Wolfenstein is 24 FPS faster on 3500+ than 2.8Ghz (1024 x 768)
UT2004 is 40 FPS faster on 3500+ than 2.8Ghz (1024 x 768)
Far Cry Creation time is 77 seconds faster on 3500+ than 2.8Ghz (1024 x 768)
(The FPS above does not seems like a lot, but I am not an experienced person in this field.)
Thus, I would like to know if it is worth to upgrade to an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ CPU just for the fact that it is faster. (and how much faster is the AMD CPU?)
Have you tried overclocking? I've been using an msi 865pe board with 2.8c for about 1 year, and it runs very stable at 260 fsb (about 3640). At this speed, the amd 3500 wouldn't be that much faster to justify an upgrade.
Even at stock speeds, I doubt you'd see any difference. If your games are lagging a little then a Gfx card upgrade is more likely to show an improvement than a CPU one.
Plus, as suggested a mild overclock would bring CPU performance up should you need to. I've never heard of a 2.8C P4 that wouldn't easily exceed 3.2Ghz on the stock cooler, although your RAM might limit you, depending on exactly what it is (even that isn't necessarily a problem - you can just run it at a 5:4 FSB:RAM ratio to keep the RAM in spec).
So in short, no. You won't see any real improvement if it was a 2.8B (533FSB) then it might prove more worthwhile, but there you go.
<font color=red>"Life is <i>not</i> like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your a<b></b>ss tommorrow."