AMD Athlon 3000 STILL HAS GOOD PERFORMANCE OR INTEL S PD805

The one on the first floor, now the Athlon64X2 3600+ is out of stock, and the price is only 400, don't brag about it, indeed, the dual-core performance is definitely higher than the single-core performance, so the Pentiumd 805 is better than the Athlon64 3000+, and the overclocking is not inferior.

It depends on what you do.

Personally, I feel like it's in terms of cartography. Intel's processors are much more powerful than AMD's. The calculations are much faster.

If it's about playing games. AMD's processor is good. And AMD's processors are very cost-effective.

What cartography game? Do you think it's all like this? I don't look at the object either! The PD805 surpasses the AMD Athlonon 3000+ in every aspect!christan0013 I don't want to say anything about you!

The PD805 processor is a dual-core chip.

The athlon 64 3000+ is single-core.

The price/performance ratio is athlon 64 3000+ high.

Objectively speaking, the 805 chip overclocking can be extremely strong, and if you use a good water cooling radiator. It's easy to get the best value for your money. The Athlon3000+ is much worse.

On the practical side, though, the 805 can be a bit wasteful for applications with your computer. **Pretty much, why don't I buy a better one.

This chip is the best CPU that can be found on the market right now...You buy it wisely. Can you find any other CPU that can overclock 80% without power?

The PD805 processor is a dual-core chip.

The athlon 64 3000+ is single-core.

But the overall price/performance ratio is athlon 64 3000+.

The athlon64 3000+ is stronger in single-task and gaming performance, and its heat generation and power consumption are also much lower than those of the 805. The 805 will perform better in a multitasking environment.

The PD805 is dual-core. The Athlon's 64 3000+ is no match for multitasking.

Dizzy. It's been a long time, and now I can't be superstitious about AMD.

Although all the machines I installed were all AMD's, now, Intel's U is obviously more cost-effective.

PD805, Athlon-2800+. There is no need to compare, definitely PD805 is stronger.

But the Athlons 2800+** are cheaper than the PD805. The choice depends on whether you have money or not.

Drawing, if you have more **, use 805.

The game uses AMD, each with its own specialty.

PD805 garbage, it is better to buy Athlon3200.

The current AMD Athlon® 3000+ is cost-effective, only 600 yuan.

AMD is not why.

Just because he's AMD

3000+ performance is better than 630, I used 3000+ some time ago, and now I have replaced it with Haolong 144, and I still feel that 3000+ is more worth buying.

In terms of PR value, it is equivalent to Pentium 4.

Specifically, the P4 depends on the core of the Athlon3000+.

Level 2 cache of p4 and 1m.

Slightly inferior to the P4 630 and 631 because it has a 2m L2 cache.

AMD's processor frequency algorithm is different from Intel's, but in order to make it easier for people to identify, its naming method is similar to Intel's, this 3000+ is.

I feel like you get what you pay for, how much is this, go to intel to find a similar price, the performance is like that.

If you look at the name, you can see that it is comparable to P4.

It should be said that the game performance =

Don't belittle P4 too much ...

Not necessarily. It depends on which model. But the gaming performance is definitely better than Intel. Office performance is not necessarily, but most of them are better than Intel P4.

The AMD Athlon™ 3000+ is much better than the Intel P4, but the office performance is about the same as the Intel P4!

Generally playing games with AMD is OK.

If you want to talk about computing power, I think it's still P4

Processes graphics at the same frequency as games, AMD's is stronger, and other P4 is stronger.

Look at the model, but the same **, AMD is better.

In terms of gaming, AMD's advantage over the 430 is somewhat greater.

But if you consider it in many ways, the 430 is a little stronger than AMD's.

If you are not just playing games, it is recommended that you buy 430

Don't look at what the main frequency is, when you buy a good CPU, you have to look at the cache, production process, and number of cores, and the rest is to look at the main frequency of the CPU.

Choose AMD to play the game

I choose 430 without pursuing a game

It's all about the same, it's hard to afford a big game, and a small game is fine.

Both of these are CPUs of the same level

The performance is about the same.

3000+ is the K8 architecture, and the 430 is the core architecture, although it is also a single core, but the K8 architecture is worse than the Core architecture, so the 430 is stronger, about 20% stronger

Personally, I feel that it should be a little bit of Intel Ben Semi, but 3000+ is not bad, the key is how much is the difference? This kind of CPU you're looking at? Second-hand computers with this kind of CPU will not exceed 500 hosts...

Don't believe what others say about discrete graphics cards to add a lot of money or something.,At that time, the discrete graphics card was not as good as the current integrated graphics card.。。。 If it's not very bad, you can match a brand new, add a 17-inch LCD monitor for 2000 yuan, how can you get it!

It depends on what you're doing.

If you only go online, look up information. If you don't play big games, choose Intel's.

If you're playing big games, choose AMD. Because AMD is definitely good at playing games.

Of course, AMD3000+ is better, a generation higher than that high-tech.

Intel technology is a little better, AMD is a little more cost-effective. Personally, though, I think AMD is pretty good, except on laptops. In its class, AMD has an advantage in terms of both performance and hope.

What is Intel? Pentium? Celeron?