View Single Post
  #8  
Old August 8th 04, 04:52 PM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 07:31:40 +0000, Mike B wrote:

My new athlon XP system just got fried..

I have some questions. I've heard the Athlon64 3200+ can beat a P4 3.2 EE in
most tests.


Yes.

Is this true, and is there any reason why one would buy the P4
over the A64 other than bias?

Some apps that make use of HT will outperform the A64. If you use these a
lot, then a P4 might be the way to go.

Also, i'm a bit confused now.. I see A64 3200+ listed at pricewatch..
some are listed as 1600mhz, and some listed at 2.2ghz. is the 1600mhz
just describing the fsb? and do they all run at 2.2ghz?

The 1600MHz is referring to the hypertransport bus.AFAIK, there's two
models of the 3200+, one is 2GHz with 1M cache, the other is 2.2GHz with
512K cache. Get the 2.2 model. It will be faster in most cases.

Lastly, i see there are some that have 1mb of cache as apposed to 512
for around the same price. Is there a catch that i'm missing?


The clock speed of the cpu is faster on the one with less cache.. There's
many reviews of all the models at tech sites. I suggest you review them
for your applications.before buying. Since the bandwidth of the onboard
controller is so much better than the older method, dual channel doesn't
really bring a lot to the table except to get in your pocketbook. Socket
754 is very close to the performance of 939 all other things being equal.
But the max cpu speed slated for 754 is 3700+, so if you want faster than
that now then 939 would be the way to go. Otherwise, save your cash.
Prices are changing daily, so do your homework.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm