AMD 3000+ vs. 2800+ Barton

[mordeth]

Just wondering what you guys would recommend choosing between the 3000+ (2.16GHz) and the 2800+ (GHz) Bartons (512 L2 Cache) when there is approximately a $100 difference. Is the $100 justified in performance?

 

[nick1985]

how rich are you?

 

[mordeth]

ack let';s jsut say that if the 3000+ was a lot better than the 2800+ I would pay the $100

 

[dullard]

I'd say the speed difference would be unnoticible in real use. You will see a slight difference if you run a lot of benchmarks - but certainly not enough to justify that price difference for the vast majority of people. Unless you are doing something where speed is absolutely essential I'd go with the cheaper one.

Example of someone who spending more on a slightly faster processor is justified: in my job I do a lot of complex calculations. A simulation that takes 8 hours on one computer would take 7 hours and 12 minutes for a computer that is 10% faster. That nearly saves me a full hour - letting me set up a second simulation before I leave for home at the end of the day. Thus I'm much more efficient and that saves money - savings that will add up to easilly justify the extra processor cost.

Example of someone who spending more on a processor is not justified: the typical user. Suppose a task like spell checking takes 5 seconds on one computer. A computer that is 10% faster gets it done in 4.5 seconds. Is that half second savings worth $100? For most people the answer is no. What about gaming. Suppose one computer gets 30 fps in a game. A 10% faster computer would get 33 fps. But since many games are video card bottlenecked and not CPU bottlenecked, the faster CPU won't increase it that much - so lets say it gets you 31 fps. People cannot tell the difference between 30 fps and 31 fps and that $100 was a waste. I could go on.

 

[Intelman07]

I have a solution just go with Intels 2.4B for $163! But seriously I believe you would be fine with the 2800+.

 

[chizow]

Get the 2800+ and spend the extra $100 on more or better RAM. Then increase your FSB by 5 or 6MHz and you'll have a 3000+. Its only an 83MHz speed bump for $100, so no, I'd say it isn't worth the extra money. If you could find a T-bred B for 2800+ for cheaper than both, that might be a consideration as well. They're hard to find, but a 2.25GHz operating frequency might negate any benefits of the increased L2 cache and would be a greater benefit in apps that don't benefit from the additional cache (like multimedia and non-predictable branch apps.)

Chiz

 

[mordeth]

Just wanted to say thanks all, i'll go for the 2800+

 

[cralston]

Get a 2500+ and save even more $$. From what I've read around here, you can get them above 2 Ghz fairly easily.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: cralston
Get a 2500+ and save even more $$. From what I've read around here, you can get them above 2 Ghz fairly easily.

My thoughts exactly

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Compare the improvements ratio given by the 3000+ compared to the 2800+ and then the price increase ratio and it speaks for itself. Also, AMD is cutting prices to counteract the 800mhz FSB cpus with HT so some of the cpus are coming down by as much as 40%. You may want to wait for that cut, its already happened at some places, googlegear for one if I remember correctly.