AMD vs. AMD

dannnyjos

dannnyjos

Big Geek
Hey guys. I was looking for a good AMD 939 CPU for my new rig. So far I've found 2 that call my attention. The 64-bit Athlon 3200 and 3500. They're both Venice core.
You can see them here:

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2000MHz HT Socket 939 Processor - Retail at Newegg.com

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 2000MHz HT Socket 939 Processor - Retail at Newegg.com

My question is: is it worth it to spend $50 more dollars on the 3500 compared to the 3200? So far the only difference I've seen is their operating frequency.

What do you guys think? :read:
 
Actually, the performance jump is pretty significant. The A64's performance has a lot more to do with clock speed than with the memory bandwith (although it's not going to hurt). If you're not planning to do some overclocking, the 3500+ would be a better way to go in particular.
 
It usually depends on your spending and requirement. If you are a heavy gamer then you should go for higher versions. They are better thats why they costs more. But if you are a casual user then a 3200 will not be a problem for you and if you find that your interest is increasing in the gaming side then you can upgrade it upto 4800 (i think).
 
get a 3500, 3200 is a budget chip (since AMD stopped making the 3000) and the 3500 is midrange, for few dollars, I think the performance and price gaps between the two should lead me to go for the 3500 and since you game (like me =) I would get all the performance i could get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top