I'd go with the upgrade congo, assuming your going to continue the overclocking, then I'd have thought you'd get a considerable improvement over the O/C'd 2800!

"Real world" useage, i.e. FS9 IL/2 FB etc I'd doubt if you'd notice much improvement.
In Tasks such as video editing and mpeg encoding,however, you will reap a considerable benefit.

If its performance from 3D apps (games!) your looking for, then I'd be sticking with the O/C'd 2800 and go for a 6800 series graphics card - 6800's are cpu limited by cpu's under 3.0ghz (or the relative AMD speed rating) your 2800 O/C'd would be at this level I'd guess.....  

Having recently tried a 3.2ghz p4 Extreme Edition in place of my existing O/C'd 2.6c p4, I can honestly say , for my next upgrade my cpu is stopping where it is, and my AGP slot is expecting a new resident!  Better (very much!) at encoding as the 3.2 EE p4 was, in game performance was no better - no doubt my FX5600 holding things up   Ultimately, your money, your choice.  

Regards friend,

Paul.  

I don't think that result for the MSI 64bit mainboard, 2 slots above my result in the chart above, can be right. That system should be pushing close to 6000mb/s memory bandwidth, or at least 5000 mb/s.

The benchmark is PC memory bus bandwidth, in other words, throughput capacity I guess, which is basically potential overall processing power.

From what I've read, it doesn't look like the socket 939 has much, if any bandwidth advantages over the socket 754 platform on current chipsets.

The cheapest 6800's are over $500 here, I'll have to wait a while for that to come down.....

A 64bit socket 939 mainboard and CPU (3500+) will set me back $788 while the socket 754 equivalent is $587, a serious enough price difference. And then I'd need new RAM as well, another $360

I think Paul got it right though, and Gixer's 3Dmark results would tend to confirm that....... That a video upgrade to a nv6800 would give me the best upgrade option at the moment, rather than a very expensive platform change.

I'm still proud of my little 2800+ Thorton core CPU.

I think the upgrade is gonna be on hold a while yet.

Thanks for your replies.

Just got that Everest thingy for a laugh.  I like it coz it says my PC kicks ass!!! 







Sweeet, gonna get that Sandra thing and have a go see what that comes up with 

There is a bit of info coming out here, so I'll try to clarify it.

The Everest memory bandwidth benchmark is done in two parts seperately, read and write. My pic is the READ benchmark. My write was 1107 marks! Gixer ran both read and write, and you see by his results that there is a massive difference between my PC's memory bandwidth and his.

The CPU DOES HAVE AN EFFECT on the memory bandwidth benchmarks, as it is a measure of throughput, the CPU must process the data being transferred on the FSB. Any CPU variation would surely have an impact on the result. This could be verified by changing the multiplier on an AMD CPU and retesting. As my CPU multiplier is locked, I cannot verify this myself.
If I am full of it on this point, please set me straight.

Paul, the only mark I can verify is my own, as it is a test of actual THROUGHPUT on the FSB, as is, as set up. Any slight configuration change, such as RAM latency timings, will have an effect on the bandwidth. The test reads pure bandwidth and measures the amount of data that can be moved along the FSB over a time period.

The test doesn't particularly care how that data is moved, or the architechture used in doing it, and so it represents a fair comparison between different architectures / PC's.
(DDR, multiple pipes etc., do not matter, it's the end result that is measured here!)

The other systems listed are test results that Everest has listed for other PC configurations, and I would assume from the marks, (I have been studying these benchmarks through time and several updates to this type of software), that the systems tested are set up very well indeed, as I have a challenge matching their scores at standard clock settings.

I guess the reason for my post has been clarified, well, almost, as Gixer has the Socket 939 based 64bit platform, and the platform I wanted to see clarification on is the Socket 754 based system. From what I've read, there isn't a lot of difference between those two in actual performance.

From the above info, I can only assume that the 64bit MSI socket 754 mark in Everest is indeed in error. If there is anyone who has a socket 754 64bit machine, maybe they could run the test and post their results here.

Gixer, in the SiSoftSandra tests, you need to click the double blue arrow REFRESH button at the bottom to activate the test, you will then get your results and be able to compare them to the listed results.

Gixer's PR rating of his 64bit XP3500+ CPU is interesting, although perhaps he should run the CPU arithmetic test to consolidate the reading.

To me, this indicates a nasty trend for AMD CPU naming, in other words, they are giving indications of a higher P4 equivalency than they are actually capable of. The reverse has been true until recently, as AMD were actually under-rating them in my opinion.

I built a system this week using a new Thorton cored XP2600+ with 512mb L2 cache on chip. The new 2600+ benched noticeably lower than the older XP2600+ CPU's!      It was running too hot as well, around 60* at idle. I haven't resolved the heat issue yet, the heatsink that came with the CPU looks great. (?)

Paul, the plain vanilla 6800 is 207 British pounds here. GT is 300, ultra is 446 pounds. So I guess they are not that different in price, we just need to use seashells for currency soon I guess.....  

Figured it out



Going by the Dhrystone test my CPU is equal to a P4 3.4Ghz

Those P4's do excellent on the Whetstone test!!