Benchmarks for A64s

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:28 pm

Anyone got any?
Id like to know the differences from 3000 to 3500.. and tomshardware is just to fucking hard to get around for the newer vince cores..

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:29 pm

I'm on 3200

Post by **SplishSplash** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:39 pm

there's no real difference between venice and the older ones (winchester I guess).

The only real difference is that venice offers SSE3 and anandtech said performance-wise, that really doesn't make a difference.

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:45 pm

Id just like to know if its REALLY worth getitng more than a 3000.. its quite a bit more for the 3500 and well the 3200 is only a few bucks cheaper than the 3500.. sigh..

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:47 pm

toms hardware dot com cunt

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:48 pm

i know this sir.. id like to see a A64 shootout not some fucking gigantic chart with 400000 cpus on it..

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:51 pm

well, the A64's are in the chart you lazy cock-gobbler

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:51 pm

Yeah, not the vinces tho.. :P

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:52 pm

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.htm ... 2&chart=26

marked in red

no there are not Venices, but they have no real increase in performance

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:56 pm

So.. basicly, what im looking at, is paying 100 MORE for 8-12 fps in any random game..

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:58 pm

yes, processor price != performance

Post by **SplishSplash** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:03 pm

SOAPboy wrote:So.. basicly, what im looking at, is paying 100 MORE for 8-12 fps in any random game..

The difference may be bigger in RTS games and others which have a lot of physics and/or AI but basically what you're saying is correct.

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:04 pm

Going for bang for buck on the CPU here.. im happy with my P4 2.8C but yeah, i have to upgrade due to PCI-E im stuck upgrading my CPU as well..

I suppose i might just go with the 3000, its "faster" gaming wise than my 2.8c and just a little bit slower on everything non gaming..

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:49 pm

Yeah, gonna go with the 3000.. unless i see something that says its shit..

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:50 pm

that's what I would do, then you can get yourself an A64 X2 next year when they are reasonably priced

Post by **neh** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 5:54 pm

i'm a 3700 and its pretty damn quick - very noticably quikcer than 3000 i had before it - extra 500k cache helps too

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:18 pm

neh wrote:i'm a 3700 and its pretty damn quick - very noticably quikcer than 3000 i had before it - extra 500k cache helps too

Well im not dropping dime on a 3700..

3500 maybe, 3200 more likely, 3000, prolly

Post by **bag0shite** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:24 pm

I'd stump the extra $$$ for a 3800+ X2 if you're going PCI-e and s939.

Post by **Don Carlos** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:06 pm

SOAPboy wrote:
neh wrote:i'm a 3700 and its pretty damn quick - very noticably quikcer than 3000 i had before it - extra 500k cache helps too
Well im not dropping dime on a 3700..

3500 maybe, 3200 more likely, 3000, prolly

Venice core over clock so much better its silly
I know someone on a forum that runs his 3700 @ 4300 speeds
So i guess you could get your 3500 running @ 4000 ?

Any graphics card news?

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:08 pm

bag0shite wrote:I'd stump the extra $$$ for a 3800+ X2 if you're going PCI-e and s939.

K, send me the extra for it then.. im already spending 500 on a fucking video card.. :icon32:

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:17 pm

Wow.. seems people are getting crazy overclocking on stock cooling with this 3000... which is great news because well, im being a cheap ass on the cpu as i know ill be upgrading it again in 4 months..

Post by **Cool Blue** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:40 pm

I have a 4400+ just sitting on my desk waiting for more parts to arrive.

At least the prognosis is good for performance.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:49 pm

bag0shite wrote:I'd stump the extra $$$ for a 3800+ X2 if you're going PCI-e and s939.

WHY? There's absolutely no reason. Especially the dual cores do absolutely nothing for game performance as long as there aren't any games that take advantage of it. And by the looks of it, that won't be anytime soon.

The 3000+ is dirt cheap right now and the framerate difference to a 4000+ for example in most games is about 10 maybe 15 fps (in cases where the framerate is well above 40 anyway).

Post by **SOAPboy** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:54 pm

SplishSplash wrote:
bag0shite wrote:I'd stump the extra $$$ for a 3800+ X2 if you're going PCI-e and s939.
WHY? There's absolutely no reason. Especially the dual cores do absolutely nothing for game performance as long as there aren't any games that take advantage of it. And by the looks of it, that won't be anytime soon.

The 3000+ is dirt cheap right now and the framerate difference to a 4000+ for example in most games is about 10 maybe 15 fps (in cases where the framerate is well above 40 anyway).

Fucking exactly..

Post by **Cool Blue** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:08 pm

Daily computing on a dual core processor in inherently smoother and faster than a single core. And worth EVERY penny.