AMD Athlon 64 processors

[moderate_rock48]

what are the major differences between the amd athlon 64 2800+, 3000+, 3200+, 3400+, 3700+ etc? and can the amd athlon 64's be overclocked? Also, this is not a cpu related question, but i thought i would save space, can you put any hardrive with a socket 754 motherboard?

[rcrevolution]

ok umm the difference between those cpus is the speed, and core, also the 2nd cache 512Kb or 1MB. The Amd 64 3400+ is probaly the best bargin cpu there, yes they can be overclocked, but trust me once you see the power these things have you'll forget about overclocking. and yes you can put any harddrive with it, but the newer SATA 7200rpms or 10000RPms harddrives are probaly best to keep the system balanced.

[szukalski]

There are 2 cores, Clawhammer and Newcastle, and two revisions, CO and CG.
Clawhammer comes in CO and CG revisions, whilst Newcastle comes in CG revision only, although I've heard there are some earlier Newcastles which are modified Clawhammers, and, as such, have CO revision. (Not really a Newcastle after all).
CG is better for overclocking and supports both 1T and 2T memory settings.
The speed usually correlates with the 2nd level cache, you will usually find the same model number (ie. 3400+) with 1Mb level 2 cache is 200MHz slower than the same model with 512Kb level 2 cache. There are two implications of this:
1-Bigger level 2 cache. If both cpus are running at the same speed due to overclocking, then the one with bigger level 2 cache will run faster.
2-Larger multiplier. The cpu with the greater stock speed will have a greater multiplier (ie. 12x for a 2.4GHz, 11x for a 2.2GHz). The bigger multiplier will be beneficial if you're overclocking your RAM to keep up with your HTT/FSB since you should be able to run the RAM at 1:1 with the HTT/FSB, hence getting the most out of the system performance.
As for hard drives, keep this in mind. On my DFI Lanparty nF3 250Gb running 2 SATA drives, I cannot get past 270MHz HTT/FSB on stock chipset voltage without the SATA drives failing to be detected. With IDE, I have no such problem. This shouldn't be that much of an issue with minor overclocks or 1:1 RAM overclocks, but if you're wanting to get extreme.. it MAY be something to think about. Personally, I don't need the HTT/FSB that fast, and the faster transfer speeds of SATA make the decision easy.

[JonnyBlazexx]

what are the major differences between the amd athlon 64 2800+, 3000+, 3200+, 3400+, 3700+ etc? and can the amd athlon 64's be overclocked? Also, this is not a cpu related question, but i thought i would save space, can you put any hardrive with a socket 754 motherboard?

the difference is in performance (obviously, haha, not trying to sound like a jerk :p ) Most of the processors you listed on the older socket, that is going to be phased out. I would reccomend if you are in the market for a processor to go with a socket 939 processor, which not only would give you expandability if you wished it, but allows for dual channel memory to be used.

Oh, also, as the titles of the cpus give a 2800+ really is comparative to a pentium 2.8ghz in most respects. In saying this I am sure someone will criticize me, but it is the truth.. in most cases. This cannot be said for all cases. I however, do have a 3500+ (130nm process) which marginally better than my friends 3.4ghz cpu in just about every benchmark we could find. We had similiar set ups, although I did have better harddrives. Also in that comparison he had ddr2 and i had the power of the amds hypertransport.. but anyways thats me getting off onto a tangent. Back to the matter at hand.

I would say that unless you need bleeding edge, to avoid the 3700+. It is significantly higher priced than the others for not all that large of performance difference. Now is the 3700+ a lot better than the 3400+? well yes it is, but not enough to justify the price jump. Probably the best bang for the buck of the processors you listed would be the 3200+. I myself think that hands down, the new 3500+ on the 90 nanometer process is by FAR the best bang for the buck, not to mention a kickass processor.

All amd 64's overclock fairly well. I say fairly well in that I have no previous experience in overclocking, but I do find that overclocking with my 3500+ is pretty good. I can get stable overclocks of 350mhz with my 3rd party heatsink/fan. I could get 200mhz without it though.. it was just scary playing doom 3 for long lengths of time because of temps (with the overclocko and oldheatsink/fan that is) With my new heatsink/fan combo, i reach overclocks of 466mhz. Which is pretty good I think. But take all of this as you will.

Huge suggestion though, if you are planning on overclocking, buy a good heatsink and arctic silver 5 before you do anything. Dont run your processor and then switch to a better heatsink later, i would do it right away. i know i wish that i would have. Even if you are thinking about overclocking and watn to keep the stock heatsink/fan (which isnt bad, really. amd gave a decent setup) I would buy arctic silver 5 and use that instead of the pad that they supply.

Oh, about the harddrives.. I woudl think that most harddrives would work, for sure pata (the normal ide harddrives) and i am pretty sure (well depending on motherboard of course) that just about any sata harddrive will work as well. Just check motherboard listings that have the socket you are looking for

But again.. i would go with the socket 939!!

-JonnyBlaze

[JonnyBlazexx]

As for hard drives, keep this in mind. On my DFI Lanparty nF3 250Gb running 2 SATA drives, I cannot get past 270MHz HTT/FSB on stock chipset voltage without the SATA drives failing to be detected. With IDE, I have no such problem. This shouldn't be that much of an issue with minor overclocks or 1:1 RAM overclocks, but if you're wanting to get extreme.. it MAY be something to think about. Personally, I don't need the HTT/FSB that fast, and the faster transfer speeds of SATA make the decision easy.

I have a very similar problem. I have 2 sata harddrives as well. When I get my HTT to 243 mhz, no matter what i do to voltages, the sata drives fail to be detected as well. What is going on here? do you know? I wish i could get to 270mhz, with 1:1 ram could of course do it, i think cpu could too. The temps at max load with 242 mhz is like 120 farenheit.

[oenone]

Actually, in my opinion the 3000+ 90nm is the best, bang for your buck. Believe it or not, the max the 3000+ 90nm can oc to (and still be stable) is the exact same as the maximum oc for a 3500+ (90 nm), the only difference is that the 3000+ needs to have a slightly higher voltage to maintain stability. the 3000+'s maximum overclock is actually faster than the maximum overclock for the .13 micron model of the 3500+. Buying a 3000+ is a great way to save over $100 without losing ANY performance (if you can do a decent oc)

[JonnyBlazexx]

Actually, in my opinion the 3000+ 90nm is the best, bang for your buck. Believe it or not, the max the 3000+ 90nm can oc to (and still be stable) is the exact same as the maximum oc for a 3500+ (90 nm), the only difference is that the 3000+ needs to have a slightly higher voltage to maintain stability. the 3000+'s maximum overclock is actually faster than the maximum overclock for the .13 micron model of the 3500+. Buying a 3000+ is a great way to save over $100 without losing ANY performance (if you can do a decent oc)

It is fact that the 130 nm 3500+ doesnt perform as well as the 90nm (to my regret. I bought a 130 2 months before the 90 info was released)

However, I do not agree with you. I am not saying you are wrong... i just find it very hard to believe that the 3000+ could reach levels that the 3500+ could, if they are both on the 90 nm process. I think you would be damned hard pressed to overclock the 3000+ to the level that you could the 3500+. With increased voltage comes increased heat, as I know that you know. With the ammount that you would have to overclock (to get to 2.6hz even) woudl be unbelievable ammounts of heat without custom cooling. I am sure that the 3500+ can smash 2.6ghz.

Not that I dont agree that the 3000+ might be the best bang for the buck.. but in my opinion I believe that the 3200+ or 3500+ would be better. I would be willing to pay another 80~100 for the 3500+ over the 3000+. But again, we are both entitled to our own opinions. From the countless hours of research that I have done (when i bought my 3500+) and all the real life experience I have with overclocking my own (even though it is 130nm) I feel that I can be a fair judge of these things. I do have to admit though, if you have real life experience in this matter than you could very well prove me wrong! :mrgreen:

[szukalski]

I have a very similar problem. I have 2 sata harddrives as well. When I get my HTT to 243 mhz, no matter what i do to voltages, the sata drives fail to be detected as well. What is going on here? do you know? I wish i could get to 270mhz, with 1:1 ram could of course do it, i think cpu could too. The temps at max load with 242 mhz is like 120 farenheit.

Does your board have two SATA controllers?
On the DFI there are two controllers, one (SATA 3/4) will let me boot <= 270MHz, whereas the other one (SATA 1/2) is known to have issues in overclocking > 240MHz.
I don't really need to go above 220MHz since my RAM will only oc to 217MHz on 3.0v vDimm before it starts to fail MemTest, a pity since 220MHz was my goal (220x12), but I stick with SATA 3/4 for peace of mind.
If you have more than one controller, try the other one, it may work better when oc'd.

[oenone]

It is fact that the 130 nm 3500+ doesnt perform as well as the 90nm (to my regret. I bought a 130 2 months before the 90 info was released)

However, I do not agree with you. I am not saying you are wrong... i just find it very hard to believe that the 3000+ could reach levels that the 3500+ could, if they are both on the 90 nm process. I think you would be damned hard pressed to overclock the 3000+ to the level that you could the 3500+. With increased voltage comes increased heat, as I know that you know. With the ammount that you would have to overclock (to get to 2.6hz even) woudl be unbelievable ammounts of heat without custom cooling. I am sure that the 3500+ can smash 2.6ghz.

Not that I dont agree that the 3000+ might be the best bang for the buck.. but in my opinion I believe that the 3200+ or 3500+ would be better. I would be willing to pay another 80~100 for the 3500+ over the 3000+. But again, we are both entitled to our own opinions. From the countless hours of research that I have done (when i bought my 3500+) and all the real life experience I have with overclocking my own (even though it is 130nm) I feel that I can be a fair judge of these things. I do have to admit though, if you have real life experience in this matter than you could very well prove me wrong! :mrgreen:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=5 3000+ needed only .12V more for CPU and .05 more for memory.

[JonnyBlazexx]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=5 3000+ needed only .12V more for CPU and .05 more for memory.

I have the seen that article, I read that when it was first posted ( i frequent anantech) I do not choose to believe very much in that article. They did a lot of testing, but I have read elsewhere of similar attempts to no avail. I will have to find where I read this, maybe [H]ard|ocp. But as far as the article goes, you got me there. 90nm process is legit. I still dont think that it competes with the 3500+ but maybe you are right

JonnyBlaze

[rcrevolution]

how about the 3400+? no one likes it anymore? i do!

[Shadowgrip]

I love my 3400+ it's the newcastle core and i got it up to 2.69 GHz stable, I read somewhere, it may have been another forum where the sata controller was being oc'd along with the fsb, and the second controller on the mobo was locked at the stock speed, so all they had to do was move the HD's to the other controller and it allowed them higher overclocking. I'm new to overclocking, so I might be missing something there, so i guess, don't quote me on that. lol. A friend of mine was telling me that they used special ram in that article that's really hard to find, it runs really well at higher clock speeds, i don't know the specifics of it all, but it has something to do with the ram as to why they could do that.

[adaminist8tor]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2242&p=5 3000+ needed only .12V more for CPU and .05 more for memory.

I believe the article but Inoticed it uses default voltage on the 3500+. meaning that could have the voltage juiced up too increasing its performance above that in the article.

nice research tho!

im thinking about a 3200+ at the mo

:cool:

[NuGG]

Ive got my AMD 64 3200+ overclocked, but it wont go any faster than 2.5GHz before crashing. Not only that, it makes the system very unstable. i wouldnt recomend overclocking unless you have a good cooling system.

P.S. Try the 64bit Windows XP trial version. Its F***ing cool.