For $300 you can do much much better man. What exact mobo is it that you have?
Did I say MHz means anything? No.. that's why I questioned a 3200+ outperforming my 3.2C, because I know MHz means nothing. :???: Chris lately you've been putting words in my mouth, why?ChrisRay said:The Barton model was released to compete with the P4 3.0 Ghz B, And it did that fairly well. Everyone by now should know mhz means absolutely dick. If Intel wouldnt dick around with its FSB so much and just stick "Mhz Means everything" strategy it originally intended. Then 3.0 Ghz CPU was very comparable to a 3200+.
The p4C CPUS were released months after the Barton model first appeared and the extra bandwith does make a difference. And yes. My 2.4 Ghz athlon 64 outperforms a 3.8 Ghz Pentium 4 by rather extreme margins in games. Please. Mhz means absolutely nothing these days. Memory bandwith/Bus/Cache are far more important.
Read the edit. I wasnt referring to you. I havent put any words into your mouth either.cooliscool said:Did I say MHz means anything? No.. that's why I questioned a 3200+ outperforming my 3.2C, because I know MHz means nothing. :???: Chris lately you've been putting words in my mouth, why?
Esturk said:Hahaha. How could a 2.2Ghz processor outperform a 3.2Ghz processor? Doesn't make sense to me. When I bought my AMD processor, I wasn't expecting it to come even close to a P4. AMD's PR rating has become more and more outrageous over time.:lol:
Esturk said:I see ChrisRay. I figured as much, but I'm new to high end processors. I'm so used to having Celeron's below 1Ghz. But that's cool anyways, I knew the 2500+ was a steal of a deal. I'm actually quite amazed at how well it performs with my 9800 Pro.
Thanks for the information Chris.