• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

64 bit 3200/3400 better than o/c'ed 2500?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

TombKeeper

Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Would a 64 bit 3200 or 3400 be better and or faster than a 2500 oc'ed to 2.5Ghz?

I'm trying to decide what to tell my brother what to do....He may even go for dual 64 bit cpus. He wants to run a sort of server in his home as an entertainment 'thing' - record tv, watch stored dvd movies, listen to music, etc,etc....

But, at the moment, what's better between the above 2?
 
hitechjb1 said:
...

Comparing 754 to Barton

Roughly speaking, when clocking to the same frequencies of CPU, FSB, HT, memory,
the top line FX-53 (which 939 would resemble) is better than a barton by about 24-32% (average over a range of progarms, should look at the detailed breakdown as listed in the links).

An A64 754 with 1 MB L2 would be close to the FX-53 except for memory bandwidth and memory intensive programs. For memory intensive applications, the 939/940 would have an edge on performance over the 754 (with same L2 size and running same frequencies) ranging from 20-80%, as seen from those benchmarks.

An A64 754 with 512 KB L2 would be 2-10% worse than an A64 754 w/ 1 MB L2.
....

A 754 512 KB L2 A64 + 250 GB motherboard is around $100 more (as of May 04) compared to a Nforce2 + mobile Barton, but in return, one gets a NEW system with the A64 technologies + 15-25% average gain over a Barton (at same frequencies).

A 754 1 MB L2 A64 + 250 GB motherboard is around $150 more (as of May 04) compared to a Nforce2 + mobile Barton, but in return, one gets a NEW system with the A64 technologies + 20-30% average gain over a Barton (at same frequencies).
....

Link to entire post on performance comparison of various A64's, Barton, P4's:
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=2748998&postcount=7
 
Thanks...but do you think that kind of increase in performance is noticeable?
 
TombKeeper said:
Thanks...but do you think that kind of increase in performance is noticeable?

IMO, yes. For a new build, $100-150 more is worth the 20-30% performance difference, assuming it is OK with the budget. That $100-150, when spreading over the total system cost would be even less in %. And also assuming you cannot wait towards end of this year for something better.

I'd let others who actually are using such system to comment on feel and noticeability of an A64 system.
 
Last edited:
but when you say 20-30% gain you are comparing both processors running at their default frequencies? However the 2600+ mobile seem to easily overclock by 20-30% while the the A64 may/may not over clock quite as much. So if we were to compare two processors which are both over clocked then the difference may not be as much as 20%.
 
kulki said:
but when you say 20-30% gain you are comparing both processors running at their default frequencies? However the 2600+ mobile seem to easily overclock by 20-30% while the the A64 may/may not over clock quite as much. So if we were to compare two processors which are both over clocked then the difference may not be as much as 20%.

ex a 2.0 ghz A64 3000 is about equivalent to a Barton at 2.8-2.9 a 3000 or 3200 running at 2.2 is on par to a P4 at 3.2+ at 2.4ghz a A64 is @3.4-3.6 in gaming it is better than a Barton and smoother. I may not be exact but what I have stated is pretty close

Overall the A64 is just faster and better than a Barton I have had both returned to an nforce 2 setup and now once again sold it as I got a deal on a nice A64 combo. A dualy would be to kill for, but it is not needed not for an entertainment rig anyways. Comparing the Barton to A64 for me it was a well worthwhile upgrade and that was after I had a P4 2.4c at 3.4, although the P4 was still better at encoding, but the A64 better at gaming

ck
 
kulki said:
but when you say 20-30% gain you are comparing both processors running at their default frequencies? However the 2600+ mobile seem to easily overclock by 20-30% while the the A64 may/may not over clock quite as much. So if we were to compare two processors which are both over clocked then the difference may not be as much as 20%.

Not comparing to stock frequency.

The 20-30% better gain is assumed they all clocked to the same frequencies of CPU, memory, system bus (which I always specify), for the sake of comparison.

It is true that on air, a mobile barton 2600+ may have a 100-150 MHz higher overclock bias than an A64 CG 1 MB L2, assuming to 2.5 GHz (most believe it should currently, before further maturity). So you can assume if both CPU are clocked to thier best, the mobile 2600+ has about 5% advantage.

But to make up the performance of a system, CPU raw power is part of the equation. That is why I always say "when clocked to the same frequencies" (plural), meaning the memory bus, the system bus (FSB for XP, internal FSB and external HT for A64).

So even the mobile barton may clocked higher by 5%, the totality of performance would still be close to 20-30%, may be 17-28% then.

Further, very importantly, I plan and expect to clock an A64 system memory to run between 250 - 300 MHz ASYNC, HT bus to 800-1000 MHz. As such, they will more than compensate for the 100-150 MHz CPU frequency from a mobile Barton on the overall system performance.
 
Back