2500+ Barton or 2600+ Thoroughbred

[matfz]

hi all,

i am considering to get a new CPU for my A7N8X from the slow 1200+ to something with FSB333.

The price for 2500+ Barton and 2600+ Thoroughbred is almost the same, but the technology is different. Which one should i pick? the newer, larger L2 yet slower 2500+ or the older, faster 2600+? or should i wait a while more until the 2800+ barton price drop?

P.S. i am not going to OC the clock.

[tony_j15]

I would go for the 2500. The extra L2 cache makes up for its slower speed.

[embj]

If you are going to overclock it get the 2600+. I decided against the 2500 Barton and got the 2600+ T'Bred. I have heard the overclocking on the 2500 really sucks. I read at HardOCP they got the 2600 easily up to 2.485ghz
(XP 3100+) with some cheap cooling. Well, I see you are not going to overclock it. I would still personally prefer the 2600 because it is over 200mhz faster. That is if you have faster RAM tho. If you have slower RAM I would get the Barton because the extra cache means that your computer doesn't go to the RAM as frequently.

[zidane182]

2600 will run faster. Extra cache will make 2500 run faster at slower speeds but it still is a 2500. The cahce only boosts it enough to make it 2500

[RamonGTP]

Originally posted by zidane182
2600 will run faster. Extra cache will make 2500 run faster at slower speeds but it still is a 2500. The cahce only boosts it enough to make it 2500

Exactly, the naming conventions have been adjusted on the Barton's to reflect the performance advantage the extra cache makes. Thats why a 3000+ barton is actually clocked slower than a 2700+ tbred. Hence, a 2500 barton will indeed be slower than a 2600+ tbred

[matfz]

but is the core of Barton exactly the same as T-bred, without considering the increased L2?

[Corsairpro]

Get the 2600+

Clockspeed on athlons help more than the extra cache.

The actual MHz of the Barton 2500+ is 11X166 = 1.83GHz
The actual MHz of the 2600+ is 12.5x166 = 2.06GHz

That 200MHz difference will certainly overcome the slight benefit that the extra cache can provide.

Remember, the cache just helps avoid going to main memory for data... wasting hundreds of clock cycles... but those hundreds of clock cycles are eclipsed by the millions gained by the 200MHz higher speed of the 2600.


Um, i'll stop now

[PyroSama]

I went with the barton 2500. I like it alot I run stable and under 43idle at 2600 speeds with the stock hs/f and when I get my SLK 900 it should do alot better.



PyroSama

[Bruneau]

1700+ Tbred B

[nunyadam]

my 1900+ agoga core thinks its a 2100+ (wonder what it will do if I unlock it?)

[Parts]

How come AMD now is wayyy behind in terms of Ghz speed compared to Intel. Intel now has 3.06 Ghz and AMD has not yet come up to that speed in the market. How do they compare exactly?. Any reliable info?

[Amgis]

AMD has reached its "PR" version of the 3 Ghz, although it is only a Barton XP at 2.17 Ghz. But supposedly, it performs head to head (slightly behind in most cases) to a Intel 3.06 Ghz. They cost about the same, sometimes the AMD is more at certain stores and sometimes the Intel costs more. AMD cost more than Intel at newegg and cost less on *cough* pricewatch.

Here are some comparisons:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI2
(very appropiate for this tread, it compares a Barton with a Tbred at the same frequencies)

[PyroSama]

The 1700 runs at the same speed as a 1.7ghz P4
1800 - 1.8ghz
2500 - 2.5ghz
and the 3000+ - 3.00 ghz P4

( I didnt bother to fill in the rest but you get the idea)



PyroSama

[Bruneau]

Actually the AMD PR (rating) is a quite conservative estimate. My rule of thumb is add 600mhz to a plain XP and 800 to a Barton's actual mhz to find the equivalent pentium speed.

[Bruneau]

BTW, it's all about instructions per cycle. The Athlons are just much faster outa the gate.

[Amgis]

The AMD PR rating is supposed to be based on the equivalent speed on a non-XP Athlon, not a P4.

[zidane182]

just to tell you matfz, i have a 1700 clocked at 2600 speeds with a volcano 9 and it runs 32-33C idle and its 36-38 C stressed(its 36 right now with prime95 torture test running)

[prexaspes]

Do not doubt the reputation of the 1700+. Many of my recent builds have been with the 1700+. Although I do not overclock anymore, I can tell you that they exibited all the traits a processor in need or serious overclocking has. They run at a really low temperature at stock speeds. I like using them because they will be extremely stable over time and dust buildup in the HSF causing poor-ish cooling.

I would consider the 1700+ if you want to save some money and want to try overclocking. It's actually pretty fun, in an annoying way.

If you definitely don't want to O/C, go with the 2600+.

[Eladijaz]

Originally posted by Amgis
The AMD PR rating is supposed to be based on the equivalent speed on a non-XP Athlon, not a P4.

Greetings,
Nope, sorry, your info is incorrect ... that would make an Athlon XP 1600+ (1400mhz) 14% faster than a Thunderbierd 1400mhz which simply is not the case ... the rating is, as stated many times above, meant to be a comparison to Intel's Pentium IV.

At the lower speeds it would seem to me to be somewhat conservative (ie an XP1600+ is quite a bit quicker than a PIV 1600) but at the higher end it is a little exaggerated (ie an Athlon XP 3000+ is not as fast as a PIV 3000mhz, particularly with HT enabled).

Regards,
Elad.

[samwichse]

Nope, he's right.

From the AMD website:

Q:
What does the 3200+ model mean?

A:
This is a model number. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon processors.