barton core vs Thoroughbred - Tech Support Forums

aawil · November 18th, 2003, 04:08 PM

Hello All,

My first post on this forum. I've seen AMD 2700's have a Thoroughbred core as opposed to most otherAMD 2500,2800 and so on have the Barton core. I was wondering if there's any reason to stay away from the Thoroughbred core? I honestly don't know the difference between the two. Thanks for any info.

DallasDon · November 18th, 2003, 04:13 PM

The main difference is the 512 MB L2 Cache, as opposed to 256. Think of it as up front memory.

The 2500 Barton is probably the best price/performance ratio chip in the AMD line right now. The T Breds are in the process of being discontinued, i believe.

aawil · November 18th, 2003, 04:48 PM

Ok. So i would be better of with the 2500. Good info to know before a purchase that's for sure. Thanks for the quick reply.

wallie_x · November 19th, 2003, 01:01 PM

Unfortunately, it isn't quite so simple. The Barton is the best for gaming since those type of processes use a lot of the CPU's on die cache'. But price comes into play here as well. You could get a faster CPU for less money if you buy a T-Bred. But it also depends on what primary use you are planning for your computer.

I bought the 2600+ 333mhz FSB because of its actual speed in relation to the Barton 2500, 333Mhz. They cost the same (at that time they did) but mine runs at 2.13Ghz as opposed to the Barton @ 1.83.
The point is I'm running at 300Mhz faster, which I believe more than makes up for the difference in L2 cache'

jmichna · November 19th, 2003, 03:44 PM

wallie...
I agree in principle with your post, however, that Barton 2500 will easily run at the same speed as the 2600 (Mine's at 2124 as I type).
If you compare the T-Bred and the Barton running at the same speed, the Barton is faster...
A rough example:
my T-Bred A 2700+ at 2340mHz would complete a SETI WU in just under 3 hours flat... my Barton 2500 @ 2124mHz completes a WU in roughly 2 hours 48 minutes... my daughter's T-Bred 1800 @ 2000mHz takes about 3 hours 12 minutes, give or take.

wallie_x · November 19th, 2003, 05:04 PM

My problem is I'm "OC Challenged"
(Translated: I'm a cheap so and so who buy boards w/o OC features and knows less about them; thus the subjective cop out: "But it also depends on what primary use you are planning for your computer.")

I think my point was is ain't that simple. Since we're on the subject though. Does the Barton's extra L2 cache' mean better performance overall, even if one were to have a dual channel memory board like the nForce? With that in mind wouldn't the extra Mhz be a better deal?

jmichna · November 19th, 2003, 05:09 PM

wallie...
Good question... I suppose it would depend on the program being run, and if the command instructions were small enough to fit in 512kb L2 cache... if so, then the Barton would be way faster... keeping all other variables (mobo, ram type, etc..)the same.