Ok im close to being done with my new computer but im thinking of either getting a 3000+ or a 3200+ each would be venice. I know how to overclock really well so i was wondering if the 3000+ is really just a underclocked 3200+ and if i should just go with that and overclock it? It would save me like 50 bucks but im not sure if its a good idea.
new processor question.
- Thread starter Tenken
- Start date
- Status
Dark_Sniper*
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,743
they both can OC to the speeds of 3800 i dont know y but i would jsut go with the 3000 it goes the same speeds when OCing.
kingcorona1212
Baseband Member
- Messages
- 31
I would go for the 3200+ it is a more stable processor when overclocking and NO it is not just a 3000+ overclocked like the 3400+ and the 3500+ there are similar but are not the same at all. But then again do what you can with your budget.
damasta55r
In Runtime
- Messages
- 457
Every chip is different so its impossibel to predict so just disregard every comment ^^^. Getting the 3200+ probably will enable you to oc higher and it'll be stable.
Roger
Roger
lol yea every chip is differant but most 3000+ will get 3800 without to much trouble especially if you make sure u get a week 17 (check the stepping)
the reason that most are the same is beacause amd has a very high yeild of good chips so most 3000 are only 3000 cos they can't sell that many 3800. but yes they do lock the multi lower in the slower chips but you can just raise the fsb
the reason that most are the same is beacause amd has a very high yeild of good chips so most 3000 are only 3000 cos they can't sell that many 3800. but yes they do lock the multi lower in the slower chips but you can just raise the fsb
- Status
Similar threads
