Performance difference in memory clocks

ATM I have a 266MHz FSB socket A CPU. In about a month I am planning on moving to an Athlon64 2800 or 3000. Right now I have 512MB of PC2100. How much performance difference (particularly in games) would there be between 512 of PC2100 and 512 of PC3200? Eventually I will buy some 3200, but I was curious if it was very necessary right off.

a huge difference, the memory wont run at 400fsb so the processor will have to run at 266mhz fsb speed. If you unlock the processor you can change the multiplier to overlclock the snot out of it at the lower fsb speed to compensate but it wont do u that much good, and you run the risk of hooping the processor. However im not entirely sure what would happen b/c the processor has its own memory controler and the 64bit athlons are a completely new breed. Best to just bite the bullet and wait for the upgrade. You will need a new mobo as well, and not many out there will unlock the processor for you (usually just the expensive ones, however again im not sure with the 64bit).

a huge difference, the memory wont run at 400fsb so the processor will have to run at 266mhz fsb speed. If you unlock the processor you can change the multiplier to overlclock the snot out of it at the lower fsb speed to compensate but it wont do u that much good, and you run the risk of hooping the processor.No he won't. If you bump up the multiplier at a lower FSB, you still end up with the same clock in the end. (i.e. a processor with 200x10=2000MHz is the same as 100x20=2000MHz) except obviously one is more efficient. You won't fuck up the processor, assuming it'll take that FSB.

However im not entirely sure what would happen b/c the processor has its own memory controler and the 64bit athlons are a completely new breed. Best to just bite the bullet and wait for the upgrade. You will need a new mobo as well, and not many out there will unlock the processor for you (usually just the expensive ones, however again im not sure with the 64bit).
Err... processors don't have their own memory controller on it. It's on the motherboard.

But the bottom line is that you (he) shouldn't be using PC2100 on a new processor. If the CPU is capable of doing 200 (400) FSB, the memory should match it as well.

PC3200 is the way to go.

AMD 64bit processors have their own memory controllers now.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_doc s/24659.PDF
Read the first page of that ;)
owned
oh and one of the reasons they have it is to run this driver :)
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/utilities/AMDPowernowver3.04.EXE
Edit:
This is what the driver does:
"AMD Athlon 64 Processor PowerNow! Software for Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0 & Windows 2000 Version (exe) 3.0.4 - AMD PowerNow! Technology allows the system to dynamically and automatically select CPU speed, Voltage and Power combination that match the instantaneous user performance need. These changes can happen as often as 30 times per second."
It automaticly overclocks itself.

I stand corrected about the memory controller thing.

But that PowerNow! thing really doesn't have anything to do with the memory controller insofar as I understand. And it certainly doesn't automatically overclock itself.

:/

Yeah, the integrated memory controller is exactly why I'm wondering.

Even if there weren't an integrated memory controller and you just got a chip like mine (Athlon Barton 2800+), you'd still be missing out on quite a chunk.

Fork over the cash for PC3200.

Alright, thanks.

Just to clarify, this would make an even larger difference than with a barton with a 400MHz FSB?

Mildly larger difference, yep.

what do you call:
"automatically select CPU speed, Voltage and Power combination that match the instantaneous user performance need."
Ati pioneered these drivers with its mobile gfx chipsets, now amd jumped on the bandwagon. I call selecting different fsb speed and voltage combinations overclocking b/c thats exactly how you o/c. idk how u do it ;)

It's not overclocking. The definition of overclocking is setting the CPU to exceed its own operating specs by increasing the clock speed. You're not going to win this argument. If the CPU ramps up its speed based on user demand, it's not called overclocking, precisely because IT'S DOING IT ITSELF.

In addition to that, it sounds to me as if all it's doing is reducing the clock speed and operating voltage when the computer is idle, and then when it's not idle, it boosts it back up. Most definitely not overclocking. If you insist on calling it something with the word 'clock' in it, it would be UNDERclocking.

Yes, it's just semantics, but for crying out loud, don't call something what it isn't. It's the same deal with people calling their computer case the CPU. That big thing sitting by your leg or on top of your desk isn't a freaking CPU.

Yes, it's just semantics, but for crying out loud, don't call something what it isn't. It's the same deal with people calling their computer case the CPU. That big thing sitting by your leg or on top of your desk isn't a freaking CPU.

Haha. That bothers me as well.

Can't the RAM on Athlon 64 boards run asynchronously?

it probably can but it'd be stupid to do so.