Originally posted by: lepper boy
I think i'm leaning more and more to the 3200+ venice chip..
But I am currenly sitting here looking at the venice and the winchester chips..
Which really don't seem to be much if any difference between the two. I did see that the winchester ( Ithink it's the 3500+) comes with a 1 mb of L2 cache.. and is rated at a 2.2 ghz, Would the speed increase over the 3200+ warrent the extra cost??
thanks.
dave
Originally posted by: lepper boy
ah, okay thanks for that tid bit of info.. one of them chips I thought I saw with a 1 mb l2 .. woulc htat be noticiably faster??
and I'm pretty sure my overclocking days are behind me..
d
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
You came to the wrong place if you want an unbiased opinion.
Single-core Solution : AMD hands-down. No bias or anything, they are the best bang for the buck. Make sure you get a Socket 939 mobo and a Venice Core CPU.
Dual-core Solution : Depends on your price range. Intel is at the lower end of the price market, making them appealing to people who want dual-core but don't want to spend crazy amounts of money. AMD is at the other end, and their dual-cores are quite powerful, and equally expensive.
Originally posted by: lepper boy
I have noticed on some of the 3200, 3500 ect.. it says, 1 ghz FSB.. others say integrated into chip..... so which one gives you the better performance?
d
Originally posted by: lepper boy
are the x2 3800 out on the market someplace? I can't seem to find it at newegg or mwave.. or anyplace else. thinking that might be the one for me.. and I guess if I Can't find that one I'll go for a venice 3800..
d