AMD XP 3200+ vs. AMD 64 2800+

[Shortass]

I know there has been a lot of talk about the advantages of the 64-bit processors, but I'm still not sure whether or not it's worth it. I have a few questions.

1) Is there some sort of comparison chart that compares the Athlon XP 3200+ to the Athlon 64 2800+? Or, if you know it, what are the advantages of each, if there are any for the 3200+?

2) I know the 3200+ supports up to DDR400, but for the 2800+ is says that the FSB is intergrated...what does that mean in terms of performance and access to the DDR400 or above?

3)The specs of the 2800+ say that it clocks at 1.8GHz, and the 3200+ clocks at 2.2GHz. Is there a reason for that?

4) Would it be worth it to get the slowest 64-bit AMD (2800+) or to get the top-of-the-line parts for the FX series?

5) Finally, should I just bite the bullet and go for the Athlon 64 3200+? What are the performance benefits?

Sorry if they were badly worded or redundant, I am just confused as to whether or not I want the 64-bit processor (which seems useless as there isn't really any software that utilizes it) or the best of the FX line. I'm into pretty intense gaming (looking forward to great graphics in Half-life 2, etc).

[Force Flow]

Basically, the only advantage is the 64-bit process, but unless you're running a 64-bit flavor of unix, you're just wasting your money on it.

There is a 64 3200+ CPU, not just a 2800+, so you can compare the same speed.

Yes, when it comes to the 64-bit process, they're not useful. You won't be utilizing it, thus you'll be paying for an immature piece of hardware for a feature on it that you'll never use.

[Tin]

heres a good A64 2800+ review (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=33), you will see it easily crushes a 3200+ XP, and hangs right up there with a 3.2C ;)

[Shortass]

What is the FSB of the Athlon 64 2800+?

[mikezel]

The FSB of the Athlon 64 2800+ is 400mhz

mike

[Shortass]

Alright, I am most likely just going to go with the FX 3200 for budget purposes, and I need to get something cleared up. What are the differences of the Abit NF7-S and the Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe? The ladder costs about $30 more, but it seems that the former is more popular.

[Tin]

the A64 2800+ is actually cheaper than the XP 3200+, by about $20.

[Shortass]

Originally posted by Tin Canary
the A64 2800+ is actually cheaper than the XP 3200+, by about $20.

Yeah, but the motherboard you have to buy to use the 64-bit processor kills that gain.

On another note, it seems that many, many people have used the Barton 2500+ and OCed it up to the 3200+, saving a great deal of money in the process. Has anyone tried this/ what are the potential downfalls of this?

[Shortass]

Okay, by many people's opinions I've changed routes and decided to go with the Athlon 2600+ Mobile. I've heard that the Abit NF7-S v2.0 and the DFI NFII Ultra Infinity are the best choices, but which is better for overclocking to high levels?

[imbest123]

Get an Athlon XP 2400+ mobile instead because it can reach just as high speeds as the 2600+ mobile when it is overclocked, both can reach about 2.5 - 2.7Ghz with the right stepping, ram, and cooling. For overcloking the DFI board is a bit better but the Abit is more stable and almost as good as an overclocker, if it were me id get the Abit.

[pam123]

Before you give up on the A64 2800+ read this article : http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/x800_pro_athlon_xp/

If you can afford an X800 pro you might want to rethink.

[Tin]

if i were to build a new system right now, it would be with a 2800+ A64. its the new best bang for the buck processor out there. not only that, but a good VIA KT800 or nforce3 motherboard isnt that much more expensive than an AXP mobo. the $20 you save on a 2800+ A64 will be put towards the mobo. the cost pretty much evens it out. go 64, the current 32-bit CPUs are a bottleneck to the new wave of video cards.