AMD 3000+ or 3500+??

Geoff

Geoff

VIP Member
Im debating between 2 processors, they have all the same specs (cache, process, core, fsb, ect). the AMD 64 3000+ is about $145, and the AMD 64 3500+ is about $250. What one should i choose? and i am only 16 so i dont have an unlimited amount of money, but i want to build a nice gaming machine, will either one be good for running Halo, HL2, ect?
 
Whats the difference between them if the specs are the exact same...

If i could run HL2 with a Mx440 video card, 512MB of DDR400 and a AMD DURON 1200Mhz good enough, I think that AMD643000+ could run those game's quite nicly.
 
ye, whats up with that?
i mean, what the difference between a 3000+ venice and a 3500+ venice? (excep the higher frequenty) is the 3500+ just an oc'd 3000+?
 
as long as you have a good graphics card and enough ram that the 3000+ and the 3500+ shouldn't make a big difference. My friends runs halo pretty darn well with the 3200+ and 6600GT.
 
flame1117 said:
Whats the difference between them if the specs are the exact same...

If i could run HL2 with a Mx440 video card, 512MB of DDR400 and a AMD DURON 1200Mhz good enough, I think that AMD643000+ could run those game's quite nicly.
Click to expand...

running HL2 with those specs must be a strain on your eyes
 
Lol, I can run HL2 on my old machine with a GeForce 2 MX, 256 mb. RAM, and a Pentium 4 1.8 GHz.... it's not pretty, or fast, but t works....
 
thats what im asking, so would you i go with the 3000+, then upgrade to a FX later on?
Click to expand...
If you want an FX why spend extra money on a 3500+?
i mean, what the difference between a 3000+ venice and a 3500+ venice? (excep the higher frequenty) is the 3500+ just an oc'd 3000+?
Click to expand...
That's the only real difference between any processors that are the same core.
 
well, i wouldnt get an FX for a long time (a year at least), so i would want somehting good in the meantime.

And i would be running the comp with an ATI X800PRO 256MB, 1GB Corsair ValueSelect, and maybe one of the 10K drives.
 
Well considering you will be getting a new processor in a years time, I would get the cheaper one so you can save some money for the new processor down the road. Why spend more for a processor you are only going to use for a year when there's only a little difference between the two?

I'd go with the 3000+. It'll play new games fine for the time being and it will last until your next purchase.
 
geoff5093 said:
well, i wouldnt get an FX for a long time (a year at least), so i would want somehting good in the meantime.

And i would be running the comp with an ATI X800PRO 256MB, 1GB Corsair ValueSelect, and maybe one of the 10K drives.
Click to expand...

we'll if you want a prosessor as fast as a fx-55 (slightly faster) get a venice, and OC it to 2,7 GHz (4400+ or something like that) at 2,7 ghz, the venice outrun's the fx55 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top