The 133MHz bus AMD CPU only up to Athlon XP 2400+ and 2600+ @2.13GHz while 2600+ @2.08GHz, 2700+, 2800+ (i.e. ThouroughBred-B core), 2500+, 2800+ and 3000+ (i.e. Barton core) are running on 166MHz bus.
My PC has gone to hell... because it's a killing machine...
Tbred A's were rated at XP1700+ to XP2200+.
They were all 133 FSB cpu's.
Tbred B's go from XP1700+ to XP2700+, with only the XP1700, 1800, 2100, 2400 and 2600 running on 133FSB.
If you plan on overclocking, dont get the A. its not as good.
(though my XP1700+ A gets up to 1833mhz nicely)
<b>Paying for Sex didn’t mean you couldn’t get it any other way – it meant that you could afford the convenience option, same as any other service.</b>
Below is a chart (of various Athlon XP CPU models) which I found at this website.
Assuming that these Athlon XP CPU's are used in a non-overclocked PC, with a very stable motherboard with the most sufficient corresponding Ram, (PC2100--DDR266, PC2700--DDR333, etc.)...
Can someone give me some "real world" perspective on how much difference in speed and performance one will see between these different CPU speeds and CPU bus speeds?
Where are the "significant" leaps in speed and performance?
a gradual performance increase as you go up the scale of course... with a significant jump when you get the 166fsb processors instead of the 133 ones.
barton another jump, but not as great
<b>Paying for Sex didn’t mean you couldn’t get it any other way – it meant that you could afford the convenience option, same as any other service.</b>
<< a gradual performance increase as you go up the scale of course... with a significant jump when you get the 166fsb processors instead of the 133 ones. barton another jump, but not as great >>
Okay, so there would be a significant "real world" increase...
from...
Athlon XP 2600+ (Thoroughbred-B: 133 MHz FSB, 2.133 GHz speed)
to...
Athlon XP 2800+ (Thoroughbred-B: 166 MHz FSB, 2.166 GHz speed)
Correct?
Can you tell me how the following stack up against each other? (rankings and significant "real world" increases in speed and performance)
Athlon XP 2800+ (Thoroughbred-B: 166 MHz FSB, 2.166 GHz speed)
Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton: 166 MHz FSB, 1.833 GHz speed)
Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton: 166 MHz FSB, 2.083 GHz speed)
Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton: 166 MHz FSB, 2.166 GHz speed)
Actually if you really want to look at the difference between 133MHz and 166MHz you should look at 2600+. The 133MHz 2600+ is running at 2.13GHz but the perforamnce is significantly slower than the 166MHz 2600+ running at 2.08GHz.
My PC has gone to hell... because it's a killing machine...
yes and no. It entirely depends on the application.
The more bandwidth sensitive it is the better the performance jump when going up to 166fsb processors.
ditto with the others.
bartie 3000+ is generally better than the tbred 2800+, but bartie 2800+ is occasionally not.
<b>Paying for Sex didn’t mean you couldn’t get it any other way – it meant that you could afford the convenience option, same as any other service.</b>
yep, but you must first know the multiplier no. of the CPU then you can calculate the clock frequency e.g. my 2600+ has multiplier no. of 12.5 and it is running at 166MHz FSB so I got 12.5*166=2075MHz but remember this only gives you an idea that the closest frequency as it may not be the accurate no. (My 2600+ is actually running at 2079.3MHz)
My PC has gone to hell... because it's a killing machine...
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.