Athlon 64 2800+ - tell me about it - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Schwan · 11-02-2005, 05:52 AM

Hello all. I want to upgrade my CPU - the old 1.4 Athlon is too slow to keep up with stuff I want (gaming mostly). Anyhow, I'm not really all that up-to-date with PC stuff. The problem is that the magic of the numbers speaks to me. My friend suggested I should get an Athlon 64 2800+. The problem is that it seems to be a tad slower than what I'd expect from a new CPU. Besides, it seems I can get a much faster standard Athlon for that money. So do the 64 bits make that much of a difference?

Kadath · 11-02-2005, 08:03 AM

I have the 64 bit 3000+. What sort of applications are you trying to get fast performance for? If you just want sexy numbers on your PC, then buy numbers. Here's an article comparing 32 bit to 64 bit:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665

Schwan · 11-02-2005, 08:16 AM

Gaming and Adobe/Macromedia software (nothing fancy, no long renders, anything like that). I'll have to do some sound editing and recording, too. I know, I should get a Mac, but I'm stuck with this ATM. On top of that the usual - word processing, web, p2p and porn - lots of porn.

Schwan · 11-02-2005, 11:50 AM

Thanks for the link. Even though I don't understand most of it, I get the general idea

muckluck · 11-02-2005, 04:08 PM

A Athlon 64 2800+ should be fine for what you do with it. I know people buying 4200+ X2s to game

.

MooseMan3000 · 11-02-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwan

I know, I should get a Mac, but I'm stuck with this ATM.

NO! WRONG! Whoever told you this is an elitist idiot. It may have been true 10 years ago, but there's simply no legitimate basis for this statement any more.

Macs are not better for art, they are not better for music, they are not better for multimedia. Yes, a new G5 is good for all those things. But for the price you pay for a G5 with, say, Final Cut Pro, you can get twice the machine out of a PC, along with lots of good software, and still have some change leftover. Macs are more stable for everyday use, true. But guess what: in processor heavy applications (as in anything media related), they still crash. Anyone who tells you this isn't true has never used the computer to its full potential. If you're pushing a computer to its limits, at some point it will crash.

Furthermore, the range of software and peripherals is simply much, much larger on a Windows based machine. You can do so much more with a good PC setup than you can with a Mac.

-MooseMan3000, 20 year Mac user, 6 year PC user. I saw the light. For the price you pay for the Apple name, you can get one fuckload of a PC machine. I realized this 6 years ago, and I don't plan on going back.

Pragma · 11-02-2005, 06:42 PM

On the other hand, if he wants to get rid of his PC, I'd be glad to take it off his hands

Schwan · 11-03-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

NO! WRONG! Whoever told you this is an elitist idiot. It may have been true 10 years ago, but there's simply no legitimate basis for this statement any more.

Macs are not better for art, they are not better for music, they are not better for multimedia. Yes, a new G5 is good for all those things. But for the price you pay for a G5 with, say, Final Cut Pro, you can get twice the machine out of a PC, along with lots of good software, and still have some change leftover. Macs are more stable for everyday use, true. But guess what: in processor heavy applications (as in anything media related), they still crash. Anyone who tells you this isn't true has never used the computer to its full potential. If you're pushing a computer to its limits, at some point it will crash.

Furthermore, the range of software and peripherals is simply much, much larger on a Windows based machine. You can do so much more with a good PC setup than you can with a Mac.

-MooseMan3000, 20 year Mac user, 6 year PC user. I saw the light. For the price you pay for the Apple name, you can get one fuckload of a PC machine. I realized this 6 years ago, and I don't plan on going back.

I work in an ad agency, and we use a G5 for the graphics. I can't really imagine why someone would NEED a Mac, short of doing hardcore multiinstrument true sound recording. But it does have it's upsides. It's pretty. It's designed real well, with no cables and whatnot inside. And the OS is friendly. But it's not a PC, and I've been a PC user for a long time.

kofspades · 11-04-2005, 07:39 PM

I'd go with an Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+. These are about the best for the buck right now.

skaven · 11-06-2005, 04:08 PM

I think a more appropriate question in response to yours is this: Are you planning on upgrading the motherboard? If you're just looking to upgrade your CPU and nothing else, you're going to have to stick with the standard Athlon line (and the Socket A Athlons at that). The fastest Socket A Athlon is the XP 3200+ (*not* the A64 3200+), which is going for around $150 on pricewatch right now. You'll need to check your motherboard's specs to see what front-side-bus speeds it supports. If it only supports up to 166Mhz (DDR333) then get the "regular" 3200+, and if it supports 200Mhz (DDR400) get the fancy DDR400 model -- they're the same price; the only difference is the multiplier.

Since no new chips will ever be released by AMD for Socket A, go for the gusto and get the best one -- it'll be a superb upgrade for just $150...

Schwan · 11-08-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skaven

I think a more appropriate question in response to yours is this: Are you planning on upgrading the motherboard? If you're just looking to upgrade your CPU and nothing else, you're going to have to stick with the standard Athlon line (and the Socket A Athlons at that). The fastest Socket A Athlon is the XP 3200+ (*not* the A64 3200+), which is going for around $150 on pricewatch right now. You'll need to check your motherboard's specs to see what front-side-bus speeds it supports. If it only supports up to 166Mhz (DDR333) then get the "regular" 3200+, and if it supports 200Mhz (DDR400) get the fancy DDR400 model -- they're the same price; the only difference is the multiplier.

Since no new chips will ever be released by AMD for Socket A, go for the gusto and get the best one -- it'll be a superb upgrade for just $150...

I'm going with the motherboard, too. And RAM. Luckily, my video card is okay, so it won't be that bad.

Dragonknight · 11-08-2005, 04:00 AM

I'm running the A64 3200+, in my New baby and it's running fine. I can do pretty much whatever I want and have no problems.

shortynickel · 11-09-2005, 09:05 PM

i just built a epox mb that supports both athlon 64 and the sempron processors. i have the 3100+ 1.8 ghz processor with 512mb of ddr(400) ram. it seems to run almost as fast as the athlon (at least in 32 bit windows), and its alot easier on the checkbook.

ols · 11-19-2005, 09:18 AM

Schwan - the video card is the key component if you want to play games. what types of games are you wanting to play? anything new like battlefield 2 or call of duty 2. wil kill your system if it doesnt have at least a gig of ram and a 128mb video card. the new 6800sg' look like a decent card. Ive built 3 AMD systems in the last 3 months, and the 3000+ venice is actually your best bargain. spend the money on the graphics card.

11-02-2005, 05:52 AM	#1 (permalink)
Schwan A boy and his dog Location: EU!	Athlon 64 2800+ - tell me about it Hello all. I want to upgrade my CPU - the old 1.4 Athlon is too slow to keep up with stuff I want (gaming mostly). Anyhow, I'm not really all that up-to-date with PC stuff. The problem is that the magic of the numbers speaks to me. My friend suggested I should get an Athlon 64 2800+. The problem is that it seems to be a tad slower than what I'd expect from a new CPU. Besides, it seems I can get a much faster standard Athlon for that money. So do the 64 bits make that much of a difference?

11-02-2005, 08:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I have the 64 bit 3000+. What sort of applications are you trying to get fast performance for? If you just want sexy numbers on your PC, then buy numbers. Here's an article comparing 32 bit to 64 bit: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665 __________________ it's quiet in here

11-02-2005, 04:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
muckluck Psycho	A Athlon 64 2800+ should be fine for what you do with it. I know people buying 4200+ X2s to game . __________________

11-02-2005, 06:42 PM	#7 (permalink)
Pragma I am Winter Born Location: Alexandria, VA	On the other hand, if he wants to get rid of his PC, I'd be glad to take it off his hands __________________ Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

11-04-2005, 07:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
kofspades Crazy	I'd go with an Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+. These are about the best for the buck right now. __________________ Even if you stop the clock, it gives the right time twice a day. Once we get out of the eighties, the nineties are going to make the sixties look like the fifties.

11-02-2005, 08:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
Schwan A boy and his dog Location: EU!	Gaming and Adobe/Macromedia software (nothing fancy, no long renders, anything like that). I'll have to do some sound editing and recording, too. I know, I should get a Mac, but I'm stuck with this ATM. On top of that the usual - word processing, web, p2p and porn - lots of porn.

11-02-2005, 11:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
Schwan A boy and his dog Location: EU!	Thanks for the link. Even though I don't understand most of it, I get the general idea

11-06-2005, 04:08 PM	#10 (permalink)
skaven Insane Location: Austin, TX	I think a more appropriate question in response to yours is this: Are you planning on upgrading the motherboard? If you're just looking to upgrade your CPU and nothing else, you're going to have to stick with the standard Athlon line (and the Socket A Athlons at that). The fastest Socket A Athlon is the XP 3200+ (not the A64 3200+), which is going for around $150 on pricewatch right now. You'll need to check your motherboard's specs to see what front-side-bus speeds it supports. If it only supports up to 166Mhz (DDR333) then get the "regular" 3200+, and if it supports 200Mhz (DDR400) get the fancy DDR400 model -- they're the same price; the only difference is the multiplier. Since no new chips will ever be released by AMD for Socket A, go for the gusto and get the best one -- it'll be a superb upgrade for just $150... Last edited by skaven; 11-06-2005 at 04:14 PM..

11-08-2005, 04:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	I'm running the A64 3200+, in my New baby and it's running fine. I can do pretty much whatever I want and have no problems.

11-09-2005, 09:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
shortynickel Addict Location: Central PA	i just built a epox mb that supports both athlon 64 and the sempron processors. i have the 3100+ 1.8 ghz processor with 512mb of ddr(400) ram. it seems to run almost as fast as the athlon (at least in 32 bit windows), and its alot easier on the checkbook. __________________ What type of... "Parents have forgotten how to be parents" Aaron Lewis "Get your ass back here, your a white boy walking thru the ghetto" - at the end of a bachalor party said to the bachalor while walking home.

11-19-2005, 09:18 AM	#14 (permalink)
ols Insane	Schwan - the video card is the key component if you want to play games. what types of games are you wanting to play? anything new like battlefield 2 or call of duty 2. wil kill your system if it doesnt have at least a gig of ram and a 128mb video card. the new 6800sg' look like a decent card. Ive built 3 AMD systems in the last 3 months, and the 3000+ venice is actually your best bargain. spend the money on the graphics card.