Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AXP 2100+ vs. 2200+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 5, 2003 5:57:42 AM

Hello there,

I was recently reading an article on the nForce2 mobo, when I came across the following statement:

"All others can safely run DDR333 - but no matter which type of memory you want to use, do not accept anything other than CL2 mode DIMMs! The performance gap to CL2.5 is as big as if you exchanged your Athlon XP 2200+ for the 2100+ model! "

I tried to investigate the differences a bit, but only came up with the idea that 2200+ evolves a LOT more heat than 2100+... Could someone please explain the [apparently] radical difference between the two chips in terms of performance? Any details on other aspects [heat, etc.] would also be appreciated. On the other hand, if I missed a crucial article, please just point me to that and I'll do my own reading. The issue is rather important to me, as I'll be building my own box soon. Thanks in advance

More about : axp 2100 2200

January 5, 2003 6:16:11 AM

The difference isn't much. Its just a few extra percent performence increase, much like the difference between a 2200 and a 2100.

- - - -
Kill a man and you're a murderer;
Kill many and you're a conquerer;
Kill 'em all and you're a god.
January 5, 2003 7:06:13 PM

Ok ur misinterpreting 2 different things...

He is discussing RAM here.....

Heres a Scenario of 2 different Systems...

System A: (Running Ram A-Synchronus to FSB at CL 2.5)
AMD Athlon XP 2200+ CPU
ASUS A7V333 Motherboard
512MB PC-2700 CL 2.5 Infineon DDR SDRAM
ATI R9700 Pro Video Card

System B: (Running Ram A-Synchronus to FSB at CL 2.0)
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ CPU
ASUS A7V333 Motherboard
512 MB PC-2700 CL 2.0 Samsung DDR SDRAM
ATI R9700 Pro Video Card

System B will generally be faster even though System A has a faster CPU..even though its marginally faster in Mhz....CPU Speed is good but Memory Bandwidth is better......and System B has better memory Bandwidth as it processes information every 2 CPU cycles as opposed to System A only achieving it every 2.5 CPU Cycles (I believe thats who the CAS Timings work, right??) Anyways the concept is right u should understand that...

Memory Bandwidth is better than raw CPU Speed....

SO BASICALLY he saying if u have 2 systems exactly the same except ur ram is different (in this case, 1 system has a CL 2.5 module and the other has a CL 2.0 Module) the system with the 2.5 module will run like a System running at CL 2.0 with a 1 speed grade lower CPU.....in this case a 2100+ system with CL 2.0 RAM will run just as good as a 2200+ system with CL 2.5 ram......

Comprendae ??

as for the differences in the 2100+ and 2200+ themselves with the exception to the 67Mhz difference....Assumign the 2100+ is based on the Palomino core its 0.18 Micron....the 2200+ would be a Thoroughbred core and has 0.13 Micron gates....so it puts out less heat and has a smaller die size....

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>
Related resources
January 5, 2003 9:05:20 PM

Many thanks MeTaL RoCkEr (and Toss5k). That really helps considerably, but I've still got one followup question. In my upcoming system, I'm looking in the 2100+ range in terms of CPU. The cheapest 2100+ i've found runs around $90, while the cheapest 2200+ is about $130 - a $40 price differential. On the other hand, 512mb of DDR2700 CAS2.5 mem is ~ $110, while the same RAM with CAS2.0 is ~ $180 - a $70 price diferrential.

I generally only redo my entire system (mobo, CPU, etc.)once every 5 years or so, but I give it a booster periodically with new RAM and vid card. Under this scenario, is it better to:
A. get the 2200+ with CAS 2.5 RAM, and upgrade to 2.0 later
B. get the 2100+ with CAS 2.0 RAM

I'm leaning towards A because I'll get cooler temperatures (I don't overclock too much, but just for my own peace of mind), it'll be cheaper now, and also because by the time I'm ready to upgrade, CAS 2.0 RAM should be cheaper than it is now. Does this sound like solid reasoning? thanks again
January 6, 2003 12:26:44 AM

If you think that yer $40+tax worth 4-5 fps in 150 fps range, do as you said, as for me, I would just get whatever cheaper(est) now, and would not even think twice, anything above 1.5 GHZ will be waaaay faster than anything you have now for years to come, especially if you do just word/internet stuff.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 6, 2003 12:30:11 AM

forgot to mention, those $40+tax I would spend to get more better video card if I would play games on the top of word/internet, that would make up for those 4-5 fps and will give me even some extra to make me feel good ;) 

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 6, 2003 12:42:50 AM

i woud say 2200+ 4 o clocking

You guys are the best!
January 6, 2003 1:38:57 AM

Read - ""because I'll get cooler temperatures (I don't overclock too much, but just for my own peace of mind)""

No suggest.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 6, 2003 3:04:08 AM

U want that best of both worlds ???

Get a AXDA 1700+ or 1800+ Thoroughbred Athlon XP....and the CL 2.0 Ram....the 1700+ or 1800+ will OC to 2200+ i gaurantee u.....and heat is VERY low on these chips...my 1800+ OC'd to 2000+ with a Volcano 7 idles between 29-30 Celcious and a MAX load temp of 34.....id go for a straight 2200+ but my bios doesnt have a 13.5 Multiplier...bastards.....but i can raise the FSB in conjunction with the Multiplier to get 1.8GHz....but anyways u know what i mean....

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>
!