AMD Athlon 3200+

[Civrules]

Looking at the AMD Athlon 3200+ processor performance test, I get a little suspicious about the test results shown here. Does the 3200+ really outperform a Pentium 4, 3.0 GHz with HT technology?

I bring this up because somewhere I read that it is equivalent to 2.2 GHz...

 

[DreadCthulhu]

The AthlonXP 3200+ runs at 2.2ghz; AthlonXP processors are faster clock per clock than Pentium 4 processors. This is why AMD uses the model number thing; generally you can compare model number to ghz in a Pentium 4,(a AthlonXP 2000+ will be consistanly faster than a 2ghz Pentium 4) though this system breaks down at around the 2600 mark for AthlonXP processors.

The AthlonXP 3200+ will win some benchmarks, when compared with a Pentium4 at 3ghz; it will lose others, especially things like divx or mp3 encoding; though overall I would rate Pentium4 slightly faster. Of course, the AthlonXP 3200+ is considerablly cheaper than a 3ghz Pentium 4 - an OEM AthlonXP 3200 will cost $181 on www.newegg.com ; the OEM 3ghz Pentium 4 is either $210 or $214, depending on whether or not you get the newer, slower, and hotter running Prescott core, or the older, faster, and cooler running Northwood core.

Then there is the Athlon64s, which I would rate as somewhat faster than Pentium4s with the same ghz to model number. AMD just did a price drop on its Athlon64 as well - an Athlon64 3000+ (which I would rate as faster than an AthlonXP 3200 or Pentium4 3ghz) are now available for only $167.

 

[Civrules]

And how good is the 3200+ with high-end games?

 

[DreadCthulhu]

The AthlonXP 3200+ is pretty good in games - try looking at these 3 reviews. The AthlonXP 3200+ tends to run behind the 3ghz Pentium4; but remember the Athlon is cheaper.

Though if I were building a game machine, I would go with an Athlon64, which rocks at games. An Athlon64 3000+ (which is cheaper than either the AthlonXP 3200+ or the 3ghz Pentium 4) will out run a 3.4 ghz Pentium 4 in Unreal Tournament 2003, for example.

 

[Civrules]

Thanks a lot. Very informative.

 

[muppet]

I'm looking to get an Athlon64 3000+. I'm thinking of getting the Gigabyte GA-K8VT800 Pro or Gigabyte GA-K8N Pro motherboards. Are there better boards for less than $100 more, would it be worth it? I've been considering one of these cases too: Raidmax Scorpio, or NZXT Guardian.

 

[Comraddict]

I think that Athlon 64 is much better than Athlon XP. I would rather by 64 3000+ than XP 3200+. Unlike Athlon XP rattings, Athlon 64 are very realistic.

 

[Mikoyan]

I have an Athlon64 3200+. Worth every dime spent.

 

[steviejay]

I'm running the AMD k7 3000+ and I've no complaints

 

[Civrules]

Thanks for the feedback all.

 

[Ankka]

The Athlon64 will also get even faster when programs start to use 64 bit architechture instead of 32 bit.

 

[Civrules]

Well, I will be using this for gaming and I'm basically split between the XP 3200+ with 128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForceFX,
and a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz with integrated graphics. Heck, if in the next two, maybe three years new and high-end games run great on my first choice, I rather just get it the Athlon and not the Pentium because of the graphics card.

 

[Ankka]

intagrated graphics are waful. No way anybody should by anything like that, especially not for gaming!

If those are the choices, I'd suggest the Athlon one.

 

[Civrules]

Yeah, I know integrated graphics suck. And the NVIDIA GeForceFX is awesome for gaming.

 

[Ankka]

ATI ones are good too, even better sometimes, except the SE ones, they're crippled.