939 3000+ vs 939 3200+

[MrCodeDude]

Money doesn't matter, my old 754 3200+ chip died and my CC is giving me $200 as the estimated value heart: Amex Wararnty). I barely used the 3200+ and am looking to OC to ~2.5GHz. This should be easily achievable with the 3000+ (or so I'm told), but what about the 3200+?

I haven't heard much about this chip? And it seems most people either have the 3000+ or 3500+. Is there some kind of flaw with the 3200+ that I don't know about?

 

[Mykl]

Are you getting a new motherboard?

 

[Ike0069]

When OC'ing, the 3200+ gives you a 10x multiplier. It makes the OC'ing a little easier. That would be my choice.

 

[MrCodeDude]

Originally posted by: Mykl
Are you getting a new motherboard?

Epox 9NDA3J

 

[2thAche]

I have an overclocked 3000+. I would rather have the 3200+ and get more clock speed out of 4x HTT. In fact I wish I started with the 3200+.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Ike0069
When OC'ing, the 3200+ gives you a 10x multiplier. It makes the OC'ing a little easier. That would be my choice.

Ditto.

 

[Regs]

A 3000 939 @ 2.4 GHz is actually equal to a 3800. That's if you run it at a divider. If you have ram that could handle the overclock which would be 240x10 - then your computer would be running faster than a 3800 since not only are you overclocking the CPU, you are also OC'ing the bus rate transfer.

However Zebo's memory matrix thread pointed out that overclocking the bus to DDR500+ speeds has little real world effect as the Crucial Ballestix bested all of them at or around DDR400 speeds.

I guess I say this because a 3000 can reach 2.4 GHz with little problem but a 3200 could reach 2.6 with the right voltage adjustments and proper RAM.

 

[n7]

3200+ simply for the 10x multipler.

If cash is really tight though, then get the 3000+

 

[Corporate Thug]

the 10x is worth it