Athlon 2100XP v Athlon 64 bit 3000

spike111 · Mar 15, 2004, 11:25 PM

Hi

I'm in the stages of upgrading my computer, and I've got my eyes fixed on the Athlon 64 series.
I'm currently running an Athlon 2100xp, that is 2 yrs old, and I'm wondering would I see a noticable improvement if I upgraded to an Athlon 64 3000?

I'm a novice when it comes to CPUs. The old Athlon 2100XP is 1.7ghz and the new on is 2.2ghz, this doesn't seem much of an improvement to me, but I believe it's the FSB that makes the overall difference, if I'm correct?

I think the Athlon 2100 has a FSB of 133 compared to the 333 from the Athlon 64.

Cheers

Goat_Guy · Mar 16, 2004, 12:50 AM

Ill just give a quick answer, and let the big boys go into details..... The main difference is that the 2100 is a 32bit processor, while the Athlon 64 is a 64 bit processor...there are currently no OS's out for 64 bit (windows based, there is linux) yet, but the speed increase should be quite a bit!

Vampyromaniac · Mar 16, 2004, 12:54 AM

You should definitely see a noticeable improvement in most games (depending if you have a powerful video card,) video encoding, RAR compressing . . . but not really much in MP3 encoding. It all depends on what you use your computer for.

Incidentally, your numbers are a little off . . . The Athlon64 3000+ is 2000 MHz.
The Athlon64 doesn't really have a FSB, it uses a newer bus called HyperTransport, which is 200 MHz internally, 800MHz to the chipset.
Also, don't forget the A64 has 512 KB of cache, your xp2100 has 256.

But I think the main factor in the performance improvement over the AthlonXP is the new, advanced architecture of the Athlon64.
The Athlon64 can do more work at the same clock speed as the AthlonXP.
Check this link out to see a general look at different CPU's: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html
It doesn't include the 64-3000+, or your xp2100, but it can help give you an idea of what's going on.

One more thing: the 64-bit capability of the A64 is not a factor in it's better performance right now, since we're still using 32-bit apps.

toddsmack2k · Mar 16, 2004, 10:58 AM

I went from a 2100@stock speeds to a 3200 A64 and was very impressed by the difference in speed. Everything loads so much quicker and it can handle quite a few tasks at the same time. Also like Vamp said on a 3000 the speed is 2.0Ghzwith 512 L2 cache. Where as the 3200 is 2.0Ghz with 1MB of L2 cache.

A couple points of interest will also be your memory and PSU. Get at least 400Mhz memory and a 400W PSU is a minimum for the chips. They require a very strong 12v rail for them to even run.

Again like Vamp said the biggest gains are made in the memory speed, larger L2 cache and overall architecture from the new 64 bit chips.

spike111 · Mar 16, 2004, 09:45 PM

Cheers guys, interesting info.

Clearly the 64 bit chipset sounds good compared to the 2100xp, but I'm wondering if I decided to go for e.g. a Barton 2800XP, would I still be able to see noticable improvement because firstly it's cheaper and as you say, why pay for something which is 64 bit when programs won't be able to take advantage of it.

btw, I've got a 450W PSU, Excalibur 9800 pro.

No_Style · Mar 16, 2004, 09:49 PM

The larger cache isn't the biggest leap in performance. The greatest performance gain comes from the fact that the Memory Controller is sitting right next to the CPU. So, yes. The AMD64 will kick you in the butt with it's speed.

Mar 15, 2004, 11:25 PM	#1
spike111 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 0	Athlon 2100XP v Athlon 64 bit 3000 Hi I'm in the stages of upgrading my computer, and I've got my eyes fixed on the Athlon 64 series. I'm currently running an Athlon 2100xp, that is 2 yrs old, and I'm wondering would I see a noticable improvement if I upgraded to an Athlon 64 3000? I'm a novice when it comes to CPUs. The old Athlon 2100XP is 1.7ghz and the new on is 2.2ghz, this doesn't seem much of an improvement to me, but I believe it's the FSB that makes the overall difference, if I'm correct? I think the Athlon 2100 has a FSB of 133 compared to the 333 from the Athlon 64. Cheers

Mar 16, 2004, 12:54 AM	#3
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 74 System Specs	You should definitely see a noticeable improvement in most games (depending if you have a powerful video card,) video encoding, RAR compressing . . . but not really much in MP3 encoding. It all depends on what you use your computer for. Incidentally, your numbers are a little off . . . The Athlon64 3000+ is 2000 MHz. The Athlon64 doesn't really have a FSB, it uses a newer bus called HyperTransport, which is 200 MHz internally, 800MHz to the chipset. Also, don't forget the A64 has 512 KB of cache, your xp2100 has 256. But I think the main factor in the performance improvement over the AthlonXP is the new, advanced architecture of the Athlon64. The Athlon64 can do more work at the same clock speed as the AthlonXP. Check this link out to see a general look at different CPU's: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html It doesn't include the 64-3000+, or your xp2100, but it can help give you an idea of what's going on. One more thing: the 64-bit capability of the A64 is not a factor in it's better performance right now, since we're still using 32-bit apps. __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Mar 16, 2004, 10:58 AM	#4
toddsmack2k It Never..... Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,173 Rep Power: 0	I went from a 2100@stock speeds to a 3200 A64 and was very impressed by the difference in speed. Everything loads so much quicker and it can handle quite a few tasks at the same time. Also like Vamp said on a 3000 the speed is 2.0Ghzwith 512 L2 cache. Where as the 3200 is 2.0Ghz with 1MB of L2 cache. A couple points of interest will also be your memory and PSU. Get at least 400Mhz memory and a 400W PSU is a minimum for the chips. They require a very strong 12v rail for them to even run. Again like Vamp said the biggest gains are made in the memory speed, larger L2 cache and overall architecture from the new 64 bit chips. __________________ [color=blue]*Bleeding From the Inside Pouring Out, The* *DriverHeaven* Spiral, We Shall Never Let Go Of.[/color]

Mar 16, 2004, 09:49 PM	#6
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	Larger Cache on AMD The larger cache isn't the biggest leap in performance. The greatest performance gain comes from the fact that the Memory Controller is sitting right next to the CPU. So, yes. The AMD64 will kick you in the butt with it's speed. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Mar 16, 2004, 12:50 AM	#2
Goat_Guy DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 100 Rep Power: 0	Ill just give a quick answer, and let the big boys go into details..... The main difference is that the 2100 is a 32bit processor, while the Athlon 64 is a 64 bit processor...there are currently no OS's out for 64 bit (windows based, there is linux) yet, but the speed increase should be quite a bit!

Mar 16, 2004, 09:45 PM	Thread Starter #5
spike111 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 0	Cheers guys, interesting info. Clearly the 64 bit chipset sounds good compared to the 2100xp, but I'm wondering if I decided to go for e.g. a Barton 2800XP, would I still be able to see noticable improvement because firstly it's cheaper and as you say, why pay for something which is 64 bit when programs won't be able to take advantage of it. btw, I've got a 450W PSU, Excalibur 9800 pro.