PDA

View Full Version : Athlon64 (939 pin) 3500+ vs. 3800+



unpolloloco
1st January 2005, 09:31 PM
I'm thinkin about buyin a new comp, and was looking around at several computer configurators. I noticed that it was about $300 to upgrade from a Athlon64 3500+ to a 3800+, while it was only anout $100 to upgrade from a 3200+ to a 3500+, 3800+ to a 4000+, and from a 4000+ to a fx-55. Why so much of a jump between the 3500+ and 3800+? Looking at the specs, the only difference i noticed was a 200 mhz difference in the chips' cores. Is there some new technology in the 3800+ that would make it worth the upgrade?

Intel_Hydralisk
1st January 2005, 09:52 PM
It is not worth the money. I'd go with the 3500+

I read some benchmarks online, and the 3500+ only performed on an average 10% slower than the FX-55 (yea... the best AMD chip)... The 3500+ is a great chip for the money.

The best chips (like the Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition"... 1000 dollar chip) are real rip offs for the performance they give.

unpolloloco
2nd January 2005, 11:46 AM
I figured i would probably go with the 3500+, but i was just wondering if there was some different technology in the 3800+ that was better, and therefore making the 3800+ the better deal.

John Basedow
2nd January 2005, 12:25 PM
Go with the cheaper version and OC it.

Arctic Silver 5 - $7

High performance air cooler with copper core - $35

Currently, I'm OCing my Athlon XP 3000+ (2.1ghz) to 2.5ghz. I have the shitty stock cooler, but once I buy liquid cooling, I'm thinking of pushing the multiplier up to 16x, 17x, maybe 18x. And I'm not losing any chip life either. The temperature stays at a cool 99-101 deg Farenheit most of the time!

OCing is a very nice alternative to buying a more expensive chip, since most cooling systems are interchangeable.

TheOne
2nd January 2005, 09:19 PM
It's a shame AMD used that naming system.
I mean they say it's in reference to something, But it sounds so much like clock speed naming...