Support NeoGAF

[marsomega]

Ok, I had an impulse buy unfortunately but I think it was for the better. Or so I believed but now that I read more like I would of if I had been planning this purchase but instead went on impulse. (I hate you, instant gratification. You are my downfall.)

Anyway, this is important and must be clear. If you bought an Athlon 2500+ XP, don't upgrade. Forget about upgrading until a year after Dual Cores are moderately priced and can be had on a budget or until you feel it is about time you give longhorn a try. (Of course, I mean not buying loghorn on launch rather when they fix the first release bugs.)

My Athlon 2500+ XP was really a Athlon 3200++ in disguise. Clocked like an Athlon 3200 and with Sandra System benchmark, it was a hair in 3D becnhmarks faster then an actual 3200. What was even better was that this ran at about 46c on stock cooling idle and 53c load. Since I don't like overclocking I bought a 25 dollar fan and HSF at CompUSA (mad dog one). This processor was overclocked higher (not significantly higher) and according to the benchmark and some 3D benchmarks, was decently much faster.

Now to my owning.

The impulse buy was on an AMD Athlon 64 3000 cpu, 1 gig of PC3200 (2x512), and an ABIT uGuru motherboard. I figured I'd go with 939 for future processor support and get a decent priced Athlon 64 CPU. I did not care for PCIE especially since the spec will have a major overhaul sooner then you think plus all next gen videocards will hit AGP as well. (Don't care for SLI/AMR.)

Anyway, I'm looking at all these places and it turns out, my Athlon 2500+ XP out performs my Athlon 64 3000. Least so far it looks like it. I'm not sure which 939 Athlon 64 cpu I have though. I assumed it was Winchester because when I looked up each name under google, search results for Winchester came in the form of 939 cpus. Though the clocks don't exactly match. The Newcastle Athlon 64 3000 is clocked faster (2000 MHz compared to 1800 MHz Winchester in the benchmarks) while my mobo reports my cpu at 1900 MHz on normal operation(Benchmarks in the link shows Winchester at 1800 MHz). ( I currently have it on the quiet setting where it underclocks to 1830. Cool n' Quiet feature.)

EDIT: Winchester confirmed as well as 1900 MHz from CPU-Z.

I guess you can take into account the 100 MHz difference but I still cry foul on this one. Apparently AMD doesn't think there is much difference at all between the Newcastle and the Winchester Athlon 64 3000 cpus to change the name. (Is it really too hard to call it an Athlon 64 2900?)


Anyway, here are the links to my ownage. (Winchester in this benchmark is clocked at 1800 MHz.) The benchmarks start on this page and continues.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-22.html

Ouch. My pride. :-(

 

[demi]

http://members.fortunecity.com/jd83/whammy-hammer.wav

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I dont see an overclocked processor on the charts they all seem stock. Good advice at any rate..except on the waiting till dual core processors are budget heh that may be a long while aways my friend. I wonder how well an OC'd barton would do against the OC'd A64 3000. I think you should also mention that the A643000 is the value processor in the A64 line just like the 2800 is, as im sure you remember the A643200 was the base processor in the K8 line. This really isnt surprising news considering the 2500 , just like the mobile 2700 was the final barton core from the 3200 on down to the 2500.

 

[Diablos]

I'm happy with my 2400+ slightly over (and under) clocked. I have the external CPU speed at 1.83GHz, but increased FSB to 333MHz. In effect this keeps the CPU a few degrees cooler but I still get better performance than the stock settings, because 266FSB -> 333FSB is a huge performance gain for Athlon XP's. 2.0GHz to 1.83GHz does absolutely nothing noticable in terms of a performance loss.

Can't do too much overclocking with T-Breds, they get too hot.

My only complaint now is that I only have 256k of L2 cache... maybe if the 2500+ ever gets below $50 I'll buy one to replace this.

 

[marsomega]

Good advice at any rate..except on the waiting till dual core processors are budget heh that may be a long while aways my friend. I wonder how well an OC'd barton would do against the OC'd A64 3000.

Well the idea is, don't upgrade for another two years.

I went back and cleared up a couple of things. The speed advantage was clear on my 2500+ versus a real 3200. Even more so when I installed a retail cooling fan and HSF I bought. I thought an A6400 3000 would be some where above the Athlon 3200. I was wrong on that one. But to my surprised Newcastle out performs it (and clocked much higher as well), moreover, the Athlon 3200 actually comes out on top (my 2500+->3200 even more so). Though after reading some articles I read that the Winchesters can be made with much less cache and still be as fast etc...

Whether it is AMDs budget line or not, naming this specific processor as an Athlon64 3000 is foul. They don't perform close to the Newcastle Athlon64 3000 based cpu's. It is obvious I'm disappointed in the Winchester Athlon64 3000 but my cry for foul comes from the performance compared to the Newcastle going by the same name. To add insult to this painful injury, even the Barton 2600 though 3000 perform higher in some of the benchmarks as well. I mean, W...T...F... is up with that?

From all the rage these CPU's got you'd figure compared directly with their older barton equivalents they would outperform them not perform worse. When there are that many processors above this one with older barton cores and lower PR ratings, you want a damn answer.

I'm going to stop right there. Thanks for the comments though.

My only complaint now is that I only have 256k of L2 cache... maybe if the 2500+ ever gets below $50 I'll buy one to replace this.

I don't know about barton 2500's in general however with the barton 2500 I had I really got lucky. Regardless, I already bought the uGuru motherboard and processor so at this point I'm stuck with this decision. I'm selling my Asus A7N8X and barton 2500 though.

 

[AntoneM]

but in gaming benchmarks, the Winchester 3000 does outperform the Barton 3200.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

wait I have a plain ol 3000XP cpu (barton), 32 bit



I should keep it for 2 more years?

 

[marsomega]

Dual Cores may be getting cheap sooner then you think actually, been reading up.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20826

CUSTOMERS OF INTEL have been tipped the wink on proposed pricing of Smithfield dual core 840 (3.2GHz), 830 (3GHz), and 820 (2.8GHz) processors, and at the same time the chip giant has settled on a date for the launch of its 6XX range.

At launch they will be $528, $314, and $240 respectively.

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00712/

"Price War In Dual Core?"

"Second quarter" means Intel will get these chips out at or before any dual-core Opterons will show up. The price tags for the latter two CPUs, especially for the 2.8GHz, is pretty shocking. $240 for a dual-core CPU is almost Celeron pricing.

Right now, AMD officially charges $418 for two dual-capable 1.6GHz Opterons and $632 for two dual-capable 1.8GHz Opterons. Intel charges the same for 2.8/3Ghz Xeons Ds.

Can you say "price war"?

Hopefully my new motherboard will be compatible with these dual cores. I read that AMD will bring 939 Opetrons as well. Hopefully... please make them compatible. 8(

 

[Diablos]

Dual core dual schmore. I'm probably not going to build another comp until late 2006 to mid 2007. The next Unreal Tournament will force me to. That's around the time Longhorn should be released as well, right?

Until then, my semi-2500+, 1GB of dual channel, 9800 Pro a 10,000RPM SATA drive will keep me going.

 

[teh_pwn]

Dual Core won't mean anything until games are made for it. I'm guessing the only thing that it could benefit from initially is running two games at once, or a game and some apps.

Yea I agree Diablos. Your system is fine. Everything is balanced. If you got a new video card or processor, you'd have to upgrade the other.

 

[Diablos]

Hmm, I dunno. I bet a year from now I could get a graphics card that would give me a decent performance boost. That being said I'm not going to blow my money on one. What I *WILL* spend my money on is a fanless 9800 Pro if they get really cheap (like $60 or less). This card is considerably loud, and I like to keep my PC as quiet as possible...

 

[marsomega]

Dual Core won't mean anything until games are made for it. I'm guessing the only thing that it could benefit from initially is running two games at once, or a game and some apps.

Yea I agree Diablos. Your system is fine. Everything is balanced. If you got a new video card or processor, you'd have to upgrade the other.

Well, I'm hoping to see improvements from dual cores from other areas besides gaming really. Like when I work with Adobe Creative Suite Premium or Adobe video Collection standard (image/video editing). To be honest, gaming is rather down the list. I was hoping down the line I could move towards an 939 Opteron (dual core) just for working with the things I mentioned. I was thinking of this option further down the line around 2006 next year if I really got into working image/video editing as hobby and moved on to 3D/2D rendering/Animation etc...

 

[tedtropy]

Hmm, I dunno. I bet a year from now I could get a graphics card that would give me a decent performance boost. That being said I'm not going to blow my money on one. What I *WILL* spend my money on is a fanless 9800 Pro if they get really cheap (like $60 or less). This card is considerably loud, and I like to keep my PC as quiet as possible...

If you want a fairly inexpensive way to make the 9800 much more quiet, here ya go...

http://www.svc.com/vga-rev3.html

$21.99, although I've seen it cheaper at other places. I personally own this cooler and it is MUCH more quiet than the stock one, which doesn't even cool all that well to begin with. It's basically a giant heatsink that shoots the warm air directly out of the back of your case, instead of just circulating it around the card. It has two speed settings - virtually silent on low, but I keep it on normal to keep the card cooler.

 

[Diablos]

If you want a fairly inexpensive way to make the 9800 much more quiet, here ya go...

http://www.svc.com/vga-rev3.html

$21.99, although I've seen it cheaper at other places. I personally own this cooler and it is MUCH more quiet than the stock one, which doesn't even cool all that well to begin with. It's basically a giant heatsink that shoots the warm air directly out of the back of your case, instead of just circulating it around the card. It has two speed settings - virtually silent on low, but I keep it on normal to keep the card cooler.

How hard is it to install?

 

[VPhys]

If you bought an Athlon 2500+ XP, don't upgrade.

If you had asked I would have told you that and saved you allot of time. Anything at Barton speeds or faster is still pretty good nowdays. The only things that will tax it are HL2, Doom3 and a few other new games. Doom3 sucks, so that leaves HL2 which will still run VERY NICELY on a Barton level or faster CPU provided you have a decent videocard.

 

[marsomega]

How hard is it to install?

Unfortunately that is the deal breaker with these videocard retail cooling solutions (at least for me). Especially when cooling the memory is an absolute requirement.

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/arctic_cooler_nv5_silencer/index.shtml

This one installs once of those coolers on a 6800 Ultra. I can't calm my nerves playing with thermal paste and redoing the whole set up until it is right. Especially with the fear of burning stuff out. However, this is just me though. Read the review up top, should give you an idea of what you are in for.


By the way, anyone know those cases with the side fan like this?

With that set up, isn't the side fan suppose to be blowing air in not out?

 

[Neo_ZX]

You never want fans blowing in. Never.

 

[marsomega]

You never want fans blowing in. Never.

Please, don't just say so. Please say why. I posted that not only to know which way but also to know more about it in general.

 

[Neo_ZX]

I think its pretty self explanitory. I might make stuff cooler in the beginning but when the dust starts layering, well it isn't fun to clean.

 

[teh_pwn]

If that case had an equivalent fan on top, I'd have the side blowing in to cool the video card, and the top going out since heat naturally rises.

Dust shouldn't cause problems unless you have a huge OC going with a huge air cooled CPU HS. At work we have like P2 (1998?) machines that probably have like an inch of dust inside and they run all the time.

 

[marsomega]

This is the one I have, it looks so much nicer in person plus it matches my HDTV LCD Flat Panel display. I guess I could modify the top to do that. You can see in the picture the metal of the actual inside exposed under the handle. However, the case and the inside look really nice, getting a thick layer of dust would make it look ugly. I know things will run fine with dust but after a while it has to be routinely cleaned since it will actually increase your temperatures. Sucks because I think the side fan has a oppourtunity to take in much more cooler air then passively letting the air come in.

Also, I was under the "Hot Air out in one direction, Cool air in the opposite direction" mantra. This case has hot air being extracted from the side and the back (PSU Fan). I don't see where a decent amount of cool air would flow in from. Here is no where left for air to flow besides the back metal mesh.

I've seen some side fans with some metal meshes or filter. How good do those filters work?

 

[Neo_ZX]

Dust shouldn't cause problems unless you have a huge OC going with a huge air cooled CPU HS. At work we have like P2 (1998?) machines that probably have like an inch of dust inside and they run all the time.

This is true. I regularly bring PCs from our distribution department (read - warehouse) that are absolutely COVERED in the thickest layers of dust imaginable inside and out and they usually run fine for ages. These are Pentium II-early PIII era PCs that I've wasted a can of compressed air on EACH and it doesn't even get it all out..

HOWEVER the problem is that components have become much more sophisticated since then requiring more power which generates more heat. Not to say that this guarantees failure, but the potential is certainly there. In fact the later model PCs we have seem to be much more prone to dust related problems.

In a house it basically just means you'll have to clean it out once every few months. Aside from that annoyance, there's always the chance that your fan gets clogged. If you're on 24/7, something might die on you and you'll never know until it's too late. I wouldn't want to lose a $700 video card even if it was worth $100 when it died.

 

[Diablos]

Fans are overrated. I have my 400W PSU, an 80mm case fan (vantec stealth) and a Thermaltake Silent Boost for my 2400+.

CPU temps don't exceed 55C, idles at 49C, typically is at 51-53C. Hot, yeah, but considering the maximum heat spec is like 85C or whatever, it doesn't really matter.

 

[marsomega]

Fans are overrated. I have my 400W PSU, an 80mm case fan (vantec stealth) and a Thermaltake Silent Boost for my 2400+.

CPU temps don't exceed 55C, idles at 49C, typically is at 51-53C. Hot, yeah, but considering the maximum heat spec is like 85C or whatever, it doesn't really matter.

Actually, there is something I read up on (while looking at case cooling guides.) Those temperatures are not really accurate.

Keep in mind that the onboard measurement facilities are often inaccurate and may report temperatures that are too low. This is especially the case with motherboards that use a thermal sensor below the CPU to "guess" the CPU temperature. The temperature values displayed by the BIOS have usually a correction value added, to compensate for this problem - but in some cases this correction value may be too low, or the sensor might not be in good contact with the CPU.

Good read on understanding CPU temperatures as well as your own.
http://www.heatsink-guide.com/casecool.htm