speed difference

anark1 · 10th July 2008, 1:36 PM

im building up a pc for my inlaws.

going from a celeron 1.1 with 256 mb ram and a 15gb hard disk

to a 3000 + a64 with 1gb ddr400 and an 80gb disk and a ti geforce card

would it be safe to say that the pc im building would be twice as fast ?

Nippy · 10th July 2008, 1:43 PM

ten fold easy. lol.

Celeron 1.1 and 256mb ram... oh dear.

RAtSAcK · 10th July 2008, 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anark1

would it be safe to say that the pc im building would be twice as fast ?

Twice as fast? Hell no! 3 or 4 times as fast, hell yes!

ford ftw · 10th July 2008, 2:06 PM

Twice as fast but still not very fast at all. are 3000+'s 1.5ghz? is it single core?

anark1 · 10th July 2008, 2:28 PM

yeah 3000 would be a single core. they would be around either 1.8 or 2ghz right ?? it is the socket 939 ver if that makes a diff.
i have no clue if they made a 3000+ socket 754 ?

its is just for them to browase the net and do office work on.

cant have their pc faster then mine lol.

i couldnt stand to see them struggle anymore on that slow piece of shite pc.

TommyV · 10th July 2008, 3:17 PM

3000+ is 1.8GHz, well my socket 939 was, you can oc it to 2.0GHz+ but no real reason here. The increase in RAM will be the thing that will give you the performance boost (I'm assuming you're running XP). XP struggles A LOT on 256, 1Gig will free up it's potential significantly especially if you've upgraded from SDRAM to DDR. Programs will load much much much faster, I wouldn't be surprised if some programs load up 10 to 20 times faster.

seems like a sweet little basic unit to do basic jobs on

Captain-Nasty · 10th July 2008, 3:23 PM

It might be worth while selling the Ti graphics card and getting a passive gf4 mx440 or something like that and putting the money towards more RAM or possibly a new SATA hdd.

That 3000+ pc you've listed would be a huge step up for them and I doubt they were running XP on the celeron so things should be a lot easier for the oldies to work out now.

anark1 · 10th July 2008, 3:25 PM

yeah i thought it would be perfect for what they are after.

im getting conflicting reports online as to whether its 1.8 or 2ghz ?
different cores/sockets could be different speeds i assume.

well case/dvdrw and ram has arrived i am waiting on hard disk/mobo/vga and cpu to come any day now.

yes old pc was and new pc will be running xp.
xp on 256mb of ram = not doing anything fast.

anark1 · 10th July 2008, 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain-Nasty

It might be worth while selling the Ti graphics card and getting a passive gf4 mx440 or something like that and putting the money towards more RAM or possibly a new SATA hdd.
.

nah not worth it, i got a great deal on the card/mobo and cpu so i am happy
and the rest of the pc will suffice for what they are after.

pH@tTm@N · 10th July 2008, 3:38 PM

depends on what you measure as being fast.
for a lot of novice users, its how long from when you turn it on to how long they can surf the web. actuall processor has little to do with it.

sometime a good ram upgrade and a clean up of old apps, a defrag and they get another happy year out of it.

anark1 · 10th July 2008, 3:42 PM

they would consider wait times for apps to load and boot up times to be the area they most complain about.

i think these areas will help everything along
1.1ghz celeron to a64 3000+
256mb sd to 1gb ddr
15gb which prolly was 5400 to 80 gb 7200
modem that was plugged into usb moved to ethernet port on new mobo.

and a fresh install of xp

ok i now can see that 754 3000 was at 2gz but the 939 is 1.8.
i have a 939 and thus it will be 1.8ghz.
judging by this
http://www.amdboard.com/athlon_64_3000.html

Captain-Nasty · 10th July 2008, 5:18 PM

It was running XP

Even windows 2000 uses ~100mb at idle, I bet they had such a hard time doing just basic operations in explorer.

I'm pretty sure the 939 1.8ghz has the 333mhz FSB while the other has 266? I could be wrong though, I should know since most of my friends have all had 3000+ bartons at some stage

EDIT: opps its a A64 mybad

@sia@home · 10th July 2008, 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain-Nasty

It was running XP

Even windows 2000 uses ~100mb at idle, I bet they had such a hard time doing just basic operations in explorer.

I'm pretty sure the 939 1.8ghz has the 333mhz FSB while the other has 266? I could be wrong though, I should know since most of my friends have all had 3000+ bartons at some stage

EDIT: opps its a A64 mybad

They all use 200MHz FSB. I've had a 3000+ s754 and a 3000+ s939.

The 3000+ s754 was 10x200, and the 3000+ s939 was 9x200.

s754 did not support dual channel ram
s939 added support for dual channel ram and dual core cpus.

Venice Core s939 3000+ cpus are very good overclockers. My particular sample did nearly 50% overclock on air.

anark1 · 10th July 2008, 5:47 PM

cheers for clearing that up

i thought that they may use those combos of fsb and multipliers.

i would assume this pc would give similar results to my old pc 3200 a64 with 1gb of ram which i was happy with......

until i went to dual core 4000+ and 2gb ram

10th July 2008, 1:36 PM	#1
anark1 Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: melbourne Posts: 1,323	speed difference im building up a pc for my inlaws. going from a celeron 1.1 with 256 mb ram and a 15gb hard disk to a 3000 + a64 with 1gb ddr400 and an 80gb disk and a ti geforce card would it be safe to say that the pc im building would be twice as fast ?

10th July 2008, 1:43 PM	#2
Nippy Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 353	ten fold easy. lol. Celeron 1.1 and 256mb ram... oh dear. __________________ System: i7 950 @ 3.8 (UP12P) \| 6GB DDR3 1600 \| Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 \| GTX580 & GTS450 \| OCZ RevoDrive 120gb \| 2 x G.Skill Falcons 64gb Raid 0 \| Corsair 950w PSU \| SilverStone TJ07 \| 3 x 24" Acer P244WB + 50" Plasma \| [ NvidiaOwners Club Member [#25]

10th July 2008, 2:28 PM	#5
anark1 Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: melbourne Posts: 1,323	yeah 3000 would be a single core. they would be around either 1.8 or 2ghz right ?? it is the socket 939 ver if that makes a diff. i have no clue if they made a 3000+ socket 754 ? its is just for them to browase the net and do office work on. cant have their pc faster then mine lol. i couldnt stand to see them struggle anymore on that slow piece of shite pc. Last edited by anark1; 10th July 2008 at 2:34 PM.

10th July 2008, 3:17 PM	#6
TommyV Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Adelaide Posts: 136	3000+ is 1.8GHz, well my socket 939 was, you can oc it to 2.0GHz+ but no real reason here. The increase in RAM will be the thing that will give you the performance boost (I'm assuming you're running XP). XP struggles A LOT on 256, 1Gig will free up it's potential significantly especially if you've upgraded from SDRAM to DDR. Programs will load much much much faster, I wouldn't be surprised if some programs load up 10 to 20 times faster. seems like a sweet little basic unit to do basic jobs on __________________ Main Rig - P5Q Pro Turbo, Q6600 @ 3.4, 9800GT, 2x2G Apacer DDR2, CM 690 Case. Media PC - P5N-E SLI, e6400 @ 2.4, 9600GT, 2x1G Cruicial, CM Extreme 550w, CM Elite 360 Lappies - Acer Travelmate 4230, Toshiba Portege M200 and M400 Last edited by TommyV; 10th July 2008 at 3:22 PM.

10th July 2008, 3:25 PM	#8
anark1 Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: melbourne Posts: 1,323	yeah i thought it would be perfect for what they are after. im getting conflicting reports online as to whether its 1.8 or 2ghz ? different cores/sockets could be different speeds i assume. well case/dvdrw and ram has arrived i am waiting on hard disk/mobo/vga and cpu to come any day now. yes old pc was and new pc will be running xp. xp on 256mb of ram = not doing anything fast. Last edited by anark1; 10th July 2008 at 3:27 PM.

10th July 2008, 2:06 PM	#4
ford ftw Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,442	Twice as fast but still not very fast at all. are 3000+'s 1.5ghz? is it single core?

10th July 2008, 3:38 PM	#10
pH@tTm@N Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: BRISBANE Posts: 1,816	depends on what you measure as being fast. for a lot of novice users, its how long from when you turn it on to how long they can surf the web. actuall processor has little to do with it. sometime a good ram upgrade and a clean up of old apps, a defrag and they get another happy year out of it. __________________ pH@tTm@n OCAU Projects:-[HT DIY Speakers HUGE Sub] [MAME Arcade Sticks] [Supra NA 2 TwinTurbo 2 Big Single Turbo] \|XEON X5650 6core@??Ghz\|3xCorsair 4Gb 1600MHz DOMs \|2x GTX560Ti OC SLi\|OS 100Gb SSD \| RAID0 2xRaptor 72Gb, Apps RAID0 4xRaptor 36Gb \| 3x DELL 24"\|

10th July 2008, 3:42 PM	#11
anark1 Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: melbourne Posts: 1,323	they would consider wait times for apps to load and boot up times to be the area they most complain about. i think these areas will help everything along 1.1ghz celeron to a64 3000+ 256mb sd to 1gb ddr 15gb which prolly was 5400 to 80 gb 7200 modem that was plugged into usb moved to ethernet port on new mobo. and a fresh install of xp ok i now can see that 754 3000 was at 2gz but the 939 is 1.8. i have a 939 and thus it will be 1.8ghz. judging by this http://www.amdboard.com/athlon_64_3000.html Last edited by anark1; 10th July 2008 at 4:42 PM.

10th July 2008, 5:47 PM	#14
anark1 Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: melbourne Posts: 1,323	cheers for clearing that up i thought that they may use those combos of fsb and multipliers. i would assume this pc would give similar results to my old pc 3200 a64 with 1gb of ram which i was happy with...... until i went to dual core 4000+ and 2gb ram Last edited by anark1; 10th July 2008 at 5:49 PM.