help with AMD buying decision

I remember when AMD switched from rating processors by megahertz to there
current method the idea was the rating would be based on I think the 1000
MHZ Athlon. For example if you bought an Athlon 2400 even though it was not
2400 MHZ you could expect it to perform 2.4 times as fast as the 1000 MGHZ
Athlon. If this is correct would an Athlon XP Barton 2800 perform any
differently than an Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800. I just want some way to make
an intelligent buying decision. When I look at NewEgg where I buy all my
parts you can get in retail box;

A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152

Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be the
fastest of the three so buy it.
Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating system as
apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so buy the sempron
it's the cheapest.
Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it should be
the fastest of the bunch.

Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was socket
A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities. Now There is
Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced but I think I heard
AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want to buy a 754 if its lifespan
is only going to be 2800-3600. I somewhat feel like I got burnt on my first
AMD purchase ever as I bought a 650 SLOT A and Slot A was dead a few hundred
MHZ later.

I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an Athlon 64
Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but also do not want
to tie my hands on upgrade options.

Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?

Joe

Joe wrote:
I remember when AMD switched from rating processors by megahertz to
there current method the idea was the rating would be based on I
think the 1000 MHZ Athlon. For example if you bought an Athlon 2400
even though it was not 2400 MHZ you could expect it to perform 2.4
times as fast as the 1000 MGHZ Athlon. If this is correct would an
Athlon XP Barton 2800 perform any differently than an Athlon 64
Newcastle 2800. I just want some way to make an intelligent buying
decision. When I look at NewEgg where I buy all my parts you can get
in retail box;
A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152

Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be
the fastest of the three so buy it.
Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating
system as apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so
buy the sempron it's the cheapest.
Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it
should be the fastest of the bunch.

Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was
socket A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities.
Now There is Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced
but I think I heard AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want
to buy a 754 if its lifespan is only going to be 2800-3600. I
somewhat feel like I got burnt on my first AMD purchase ever as I
bought a 650 SLOT A and Slot A was dead a few hundred MHZ later.

I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an
Athlon 64 Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but
also do not want to tie my hands on upgrade options.

Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?


AMD will indeed move toward Socket 939 for the desktop. The A64 3200+ S939
is only $60 more than a 32-bit processor and will provide the longest
upgrade path.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2139

Joe wrote:

I remember when AMD switched from rating processors by megahertz to there
current method the idea was the rating would be based on I think the 1000
MHZ Athlon. For example if you bought an Athlon 2400 even though it was not
2400 MHZ you could expect it to perform 2.4 times as fast as the 1000 MGHZ
Athlon. If this is correct would an Athlon XP Barton 2800 perform any
differently than an Athlon 64 Newcastle 2800. I just want some way to make
an intelligent buying decision. When I look at NewEgg where I buy all my
parts you can get in retail box;

A Sempron 2800 @ 2GHZ for $109
A Athlon64 2800 @ 1.8GHZ for $130
A XP Barton 2800 @ 2.08GHZ for $152

Based on my computer knowledge I would think the Athlon 64 would be the
fastest of the three so buy it.
Based on what I remember AMD saying when they went to this rating system as
apposed to MHZ naming they should all perform the same so buy the sempron
it's the cheapest.
Based the idea you get more when you spend more buy the Barton it should be
the fastest of the bunch.

Then you get into Socket choice. Time was everything 1200 to 3000 was socket
A. This allowed a cheap build with major upgrade capabilities. Now There is
Socket A, 754,939 and 940. Now the 754's are best priced but I think I heard
AMD was moving everything to 939. I do not want to buy a 754 if its lifespan
is only going to be 2800-3600. I somewhat feel like I got burnt on my first
AMD purchase ever as I bought a 650 SLOT A and Slot A was dead a few hundred
MHZ later.

I am thinking about going ahead and spending $210 and buying an Athlon 64
Winchester core 939 as I want the most bang for my buck but also do not want
to tie my hands on upgrade options.

Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?

Joe

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:53:16 -0600, "Joe" wrote:

Am I completely lost? If I am can you straighten me out?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-3100-oc.html
--
Regards, SPAJKY ®
& visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
"Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##