Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-29-2005, 06:54 PM   #11
Fully Optimized
 
Nik00117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,025
Send a message via AIM to Nik00117 Send a message via MSN to Nik00117 Send a message via Yahoo to Nik00117
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

100 bucks for 200 MHz isn't worth it unless you really need that extra 200 MHz. I run my system on 1.2 GHz just fine. (Upgrading to 2.2 here soon)
__________________

Nik00117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 07:52 PM   #12
In Runtime
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 427
Default

Look at it this way-

The 3000 is one of the best buys, and runs cool at 1.4v...

The 3500 is a dual Giga speed beast...
__________________

r53s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 08:43 PM   #13
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

I say go with the 64 3000+... I got mine pushed to 2.2GHz...
Giancarlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2005, 09:06 PM   #14
Fully Optimized
 
Bahawolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2,604
Default

I'll likely see what my money can do at that time.. but keep giving me advice to help if you'd like.
Bahawolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 11:18 AM   #15
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

I'd get one that has a 939 pin chip, since it'd be easier to update when you want to with a new chip since this is the newest type. (Tthats if your motherboard doesn't only support 754)

I don't think you'd notice that much difference though, no. I would spend more money on a good graphics card though like TRDCorolla suggests.

But if you can, try and get the latest core, the Venice too, yeah since it has a few extra features to improove things over the Winchester core, and that'll be 939. So good choice there.

I think you can get a 3200+ like this, so look out for it (the venice core i've heard doesn't cost hardly anything more) or the 3000+, whichever.

I have the 3500+ (Winchester), though wouldn't say i'd notice that much of a difference over my mates 3200+ (Clawhammer) to tell the truth, only mine has better graphics and so performs better in games, and more RAM. So that would be the cause of it.

I don't know myself why I spent that much more on a CPU when I could have upgraded my so so 9800 Pro graphics card
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 11:23 AM   #16
xxcobraxx
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 6,224
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
I say go with the 64 3000+... I got mine pushed to 2.2GHz...
Agree, me and Gian have the same CPU'S and they are brilliant for O'C and stable wise
__________________
Liveleaker
IAntDemo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 11:33 AM   #17
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

He said he didn't want to overclock, but I said I wasn't going to, but want to. You'll need a more decent cooler though, though Athlon64 ones are really cheap and yet deliver much more cooling than the standard one.

As for the 3000+ getting to 2.2ghz, thats great! Thats equivilent to the 3500+ without spending that much more since that runs at 2.2ghz too, though if they all use the same fan, you could probably push it to that with the default one...

How much do you think I could push this 3500+? Just interested I doubt it'd be that much though, and do need extra cooling.

Though I have to warn you that it would mean having a really good motherboard and RAM too to push it this far, don't you think? Wouldn't just matter about getting the 3000+ and thinking you can overclock it as much as you two have straight away. I'd guess it would need some work

If you really don't want to overclock though, settle in the middle and get the 3200+ Thats my opinion. Though the 3000+ wouldn't be that worse, though is clocked at 1.8ghz I think.
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 11:35 AM   #18
Fully Optimized
 
Bahawolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2,604
Default

Would you suggest going for the 6800GT then, as a better video card?
I could get the 6000GT for 170 (128MB)..
And the 6800GT for 365 (256MB).

Reccomended?

I'm going to stick with the 3200 though, as its not that much difference and it is a venice core and the specifications look nice, so I'm sure it'll run great.
Bahawolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 11:39 AM   #19
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

That's a big difference in price between those video cards. The 6800GT is a better video card for those who is willing to pay nerly $400 for them.

As for OC the CPU, it's better to OC the memory too for better stability.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2005, 11:40 AM   #20
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: A 3500 or 3000

Yeah, the 3200+ with Venice is great

As for the card, it depends all on what you want to do.

The 6600Gt is a nice cheap option yet will run all new games at medium res's and at high settings, yet wouldn't last you as long as the 6800gt but you get hit back on price. If you have the money though that yuo were going to spend on a more expensive processor, go for it, as you'll get more of a speed boost on games.

If you only go as high as 1200x1024 on games for example, and this card can go up to 1600x? + then you'll get more of a performance boost for longer, since you'll be able to keep at high settings for more games to come, than if you shoved all the res's up for all games.

Its all up to how you play games. In my opinion, games are meant to be played at full settings and such, so if you have the money, go for the 6800Gt as you will notice a boost from the 6600Gt in Frames Per Second.
__________________

__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0