xp2400 v. xp2500 overclocking

[f1oored]

Well the Asus is an Asus for starters. They make a great board. It also has 10/100/1000 base ethernet, onboard wi-fi slot, and dual channel memory. I think it's a better board but at twice the price.... I understand budget and that combo looks really good for the price. The 2500+ is a better cpu but again the price. I haven't seen many 2500+ mobo combos;-)

I think you will be happy with your choice!

[pinipig523]

thats what i thought, no amd to date can reach 3.0 ghz. the fx-51 has been seen to show promise towards that barrier though - with some prometia cooling, the fx can hit 2.8 or so(SIIICKK!!!!).

anyway, so ur saying that with proper everything a 2400+ can hit 2.3 or 2.4ghz?

thats nothing. my 2500+ runs at 2.3 easy, runs at 2.4 easy, and runs stable at 2.5ghz. At 2.5ghz, it would be equivalent to a 3800+.

so i discern that the the 2500+ can run at oc speeds that the 2400+ can run at - BUT with the addition of 256k of L2 cache and a much higher FSB.

[Rangerstrider]

Originally posted by RamonGTP
Sorry but AMD processors will not reach 3GHz without some very serious cooling going on. Clock for clock, the 2400+ can reach or even exceed the 2500+, but as was already pointed out, the 2500+ not only operates at a higher bus speed, but has twice the cache. The 2400+ will have to be clocked CONSIDERABLY higher than the 2500+ to overcome the advantages of the 2500+.

As I said I only saw the 3 ghz claimed by one site and there was no documentation. No benchmark results to back it up.

If you have run across any web sites with test results comparing them side by side I'd like to see it.

Both have a fsb 400.

[Rangerstrider]

Originally posted by f1oored
Well the Asus is an Asus for starters. They make a great board. It also has 10/100/1000 base ethernet, onboard wi-fi slot, and dual channel memory. I think it's a better board but at twice the price.... I understand budget and that combo looks really good for the price. The 2500+ is a better cpu but again the price. I haven't seen many 2500+ mobo combos;-)

I think you will be happy with your choice!

I didn't know the asus had 10/100/1000 base ethernet v. 10/100 for the biostar. However the biostar does have dual channel memory as well.

Here is a side by side test of the biostar against the asus. For half the price they seem to compare head to head.

http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?...288&pageID=329

[RamonGTP]

Originally posted by Rangerstrider


As I said I only saw the 3 ghz claimed by one site and there was no documentation. No benchmark results to back it up.

If you have run across any web sites with test results comparing them side by side I'd like to see it.

Both have a fsb 400.

Neither have a fsb of 400... The 3000+ and 3200+ are the only ones with 400 fsb. The 2400+ is 266 wile the 2500+ is 333.

[Rangerstrider]

Now I find this interesting.

At http://www.cpudatabase.com/CPUdb/index.cfm you get a overclockers data base.


Looking at the xp 2500+:

240 entries
Average overclocked speed - 2292 Mhz

Looking at the xp 2400+:

111 entries
Average overclocked speed - 2326 Mhz

Interesting. Anyone else have any data like this to the contrary? This is what I like to look at. Data.

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Data!

[pinoy87]

Actually people have reached 3ghz with athlon xp but with some crazy cooling. LIQUID NITROGEN. others have used DRY ICE. I saw it on some site. A couple of different people have done it. All from Japan.

[pinoy87]

Rangerstrider:

remember that its not all about the mhz. Despite the 50mhz difference the 2500+ will eat the 2400+ for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

[pinoy87]

Originally posted by Rangerstrider


As I said I only saw the 3 ghz claimed by one site and there was no documentation. No benchmark results to back it up.

If you have run across any web sites with test results comparing them side by side I'd like to see it.

Both have a fsb 400.

You want proof that the 2500+ performs better than a 2400+ even with lower clock speeds.

A 2400+ runs @ 2ghz stock
A 2500+ runs @ 1.83ghz stock
2500+ is a higher PR rating than 2400+
but 2500+ has lower actual speed.

[pinoy87]

Check these benchmarks out: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/index.html

The 2500+ even beats the 2600+(thouroughbred core) in 9 out of 10 gaming benchmarks.