how much better is "Barton?"

[hulkMAD]

im thinking about getting either a normal XP 2600 (333fsb) or a XP 2500 Barton (333fsb). the only difference i can point out is the doubling of L2 cache for the Barton. the two processors are both about the same price at Newegg. what exactly does L2 cache do? which one is better for normal everyday use? which one is better for overclocking?

[stroyal]

Increasing the L2 cache has always sped up processors.
The L1 and L2 cache is memory that is on the CPU chip. Just like adding system ram speeds up you computer, adding to the L2 cache speeds up things.

Edit : I'd get the Barton. Oh Ya I did.

[Corsairpro]

the 2600+ should have a clock speed of roughly 200MHz more than the barton. IF you are NOT overclocking, get the 2600+, if you ARE overclocking, get the barton. Cache is only useful if you have the bandwidth to keep it filled up. (cache is like RAM that is directly on the die of the CPU).

[XxCowOfChaosxX]

dude, ANYTHING can fill that cashe up, so more is always better

[Darthgary]

Prescot sezz otherwise. More cache did nothing for it. Cache is either a bottleneck or its not, depends on the CPU's prefetch.

I would go with the Barton 2500+, the XP series needes as much cache as it can get to make up for a slower BUS speed.

[elroy]

Alot of people have gotten the 2500+ Barton to run at 3200+ speeds just by using a 400FSB instead of the 333FSB it calls for. Of course you need a board that supports 400FSB to do it.

[Bullion]

now, being an elec engineeering student, i purpusly stayeds away from computer design (mostly machine code but thats a different story!!!), however i do remember a comp eng friend saying that, "we are learning about computer design, like when too large a cache is a performance reducer" I cant recal the context, and i doubt that AMD engineers would do such a thing, but more cache isnt always better, most time yes, but not always

[Xtreeme]

Course when it takes to long to address. BUT we are talking L2. Not L3 like P4. L2 is on die cache running at half speed of core mhz. L1 is AT core speed. Enuff bandwidth to fully acess 512kb..... I think so. LOL.

P4 prescott is slow cause? It HAS 31 STAGES. Old P4 had 20! 33% more then Northy P4. Long stages means less heat higher mhz (basically faking performance) but less work done per cycle and more of a performance hit when branch misprediciton occurs. As it has to refill it with data. NEEDING larger caches. Its just it aint enuff to make up for its hugantiously long 31 stage pipe vs. XP's 10! ROFLMAO. Thats looks even worse in text!

[sweeper2]

Originally posted by hulkMAD
im thinking about getting either a normal XP 2600 (333fsb) or a XP 2500 Barton (333fsb). the only difference i can point out is the doubling of L2 cache for the Barton. the two processors are both about the same price at Newegg. what exactly does L2 cache do? which one is better for normal everyday use? which one is better for overclocking?

IF you have the MB to support 400 FSB, go with the Athlon XP 2500 Barton. I use a K7N2 Delta L series MSI nForce 2 chipset 400 edition and all i did was up my FSB to 200 X 11 and it runs at a Athlon XP 3200 with my voltage at 1.65. The 2500 is a great chip.

[Omardeth]

the L2 only really comes into play when software is designed to use it . So more isn't always better per say . It depends on the software that you are useing more than anything else .