New system, amd 64 3000 vers 3200

[phughes200]

I am in the process of setting up a new computer to be used for
surfing, word processing, games (not graphics intensive), photo editing
(minor) and minor CAD (learning not production).

I am trying to decide if it is worth the extra $50 to buy the AMD 3200
Winchester core 939 cpu instead of the 3000 version. Is there really
not much difference?

I am considering the following components:

Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra 939 Motherboard (based on Nvidia Nforce3 Ultra)
Corsair VS1gbkit400 (2.5 cas)
Nvidia Quadro FX 500 (current workstation card, 8X agp, plan to upgrade
later)
120 GB Maxtor 7200 RPM 133 ATA drive (current drive)
Windows XP Home
Antec SX6300II case (Antec 300 watt power supply)
Plextor PX712A (current DVD/CD writer)

Any suggestions?

 

[Ruel Smith]

I am trying to decide if it is worth the extra $50 to buy the AMD 3200
Winchester core 939 cpu instead of the 3000 version. Is there really
not much difference?

From what I understand, the 3200+ is the darling of overclockers, so they
must be getting lots of mileage out of them.

 

[John Weiss]

If you'll be happy with a 7200 RPM HD and XP Home, you'll probably not
notice any CPU performance decrement.

 

[phughes200]

I don't plan on overclocking.

 

[Xeno Chauvin]

I am in the process of setting up a new computer to be used for
surfing, word processing, games (not graphics intensive), photo editing
(minor) and minor CAD (learning not production).

I was in your boat in so far as "thinking" of up-grading.
I've decided to put the whole thing off for awhile because.
1. There is no OS ,except Linux which I care to know nothing about.
2. MS has no target date for release of their OS and has even discontinued
the free beta.
3. If that guy from Intel is right ,that technology doubles every 18 months,
then by the time
Microsoft comes out with an OS and two service packs to get it right, then
your
3200 will only be the entry point for 64Bit technology.
In my opinion 64 Bit technology "today" is like a 10 year old boy with a 12
inch penis.
He has no use for it, and his friends have no idea of what he's bragging
about and it will be a long time 'till he gets full performance from it.
Xeno

 

[O'Toole]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:26:38 GMT, "Xeno Chauvin"

In my opinion 64 Bit technology "today" is like a 10 year old boy with a 12
inch penis.
He has no use for it, and his friends have no idea of what he's bragging
about and it will be a long time 'till he gets full performance from it.
Xeno

Obviously you didn't have one

 

[phughes200]

John.

I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?

 

[Richard Dower]

John.

I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?

No, since no SATA drive can even come close to 150mb/s....it's PR and spin.

 

[Gary C]

No, since no SATA drive can even come close to 150mb/s....it's PR and spin.


http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs.php?masterid=683289

 

[John Weiss]

I am curious. I currently have an ATA 133 drive. Is a SATA drive with a
transfer rate of 150 mb/sec really that much better? And what is the
drawvback of XP? What would you recommend?

Right now, the limit for single drives appears to be the physical
limitations of individual HDs (spindle speed and cache size), not the bus.

WD has the 10K RPM, 8 MB cache Raptor drive available in SATA, which is not
matched by any HD I know of in EIDE. Further, more MoBos have SATA RAID
capability on board, which gives a potential for significant performance
gains.

I have seen various reports on XP vs Win 2K, and they have been mixed
regarding performance. XP does require more resources "out of the box,"
though. If you have 512+MB RAM and a fast CPU, I don't think there is a
significant performance difference. XP will be more supportable in the
future...