Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2400 @ 133Mhz or 2500 @ 166Mhz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 27, 2003 4:47:27 PM

The Athlon 2400 is 2.0GHz at 133MHz FSB
The Athlon 2500 is 1.8GHz at 166MHz FSB (for $50 more than 2400)

Motherboard is ASUS nForce2 A7N8X.

Which would you choose? And why?

[I just can't afford a 2600 (2.1GHz/166) :(  ]


Red-3 Standing by...
March 27, 2003 4:58:21 PM

Id buy an xp2100 + Tbred B(OEM) from www.newegg.com(89$ + 5$ for 1yr warranty), and a Thermaltake Volcano 7+ to cool it (from www.googlegear.com around 30.49$ shipped 2nd day(free))
so 89+30.49 :)  119.49$ vs. 138 for the RETAIL (crappy HSF) 2400XP.
This 2100 will OC to 2400xp for sure, with maybe a voltage tweak. (that is at 166mhz fsb (333mhz) with a lower multiplier, 12 i think)
if you get a high end cut of the silcon possibly higher :) 
March 27, 2003 6:39:20 PM

The 2500+ is a model 10 (Barton core) whilst the 2400+ is model 8. The 2500+ has more cache and more instructions and will run a lot cooler. I recently spoke to an AMD tech bloke on the phone and he openly admits to me that the 2500+ will easily outperform the 2600+ because it is the newest chip.

That is why we here in the UK have seen a great shortage of the 2500+ chips - why would retailers want to stock these cheaper chips that out perform their expensive 2600+ and 2700+ counterparts? Basically if you can, go for the 2500+ and couple it with PC2700 memory (CL2). Even moderate overclocking on this chip will make it outperform the 2700+ easily if that is your thing.

The confusion comes because the chips were renamed by AMD after the 1400 T'Bird to reflect performance rather than just clock speed. This was fine and went from the 1600+ right up to the 2400+. Then the 2600+ and 2700+ came out followed by the 3000+. Unfortunately AMD decided to go back in the numbering system for the new 2500+ which is based on the Barton as I have said. For more on that core see Toms guide from a few weeks back.

Also final note - go to the CPU support page @ ASUS and make sure that your board takes the 2500+ - it might need a bios upgrade first and you might have to check the revision number as well.

Hope that helps. DT.

4.77MHz to 4.0GHz in 10 years. Imagine the space year 2020 :) 
Related resources
March 27, 2003 6:39:20 PM

The 2500+ is a model 10 (Barton core) whilst the 2400+ is model 8. The 2500+ has more cache and more instructions and will run a lot cooler. I recently spoke to an AMD tech bloke on the phone and he openly admits to me that the 2500+ will easily outperform the 2600+ because it is the newest chip.

That is why we here in the UK have seen a great shortage of the 2500+ chips - why would retailers want to stock these cheaper chips that out perform their expensive 2600+ and 2700+ counterparts? Basically if you can, go for the 2500+ and couple it with PC2700 memory (CL2). Even moderate overclocking on this chip will make it outperform the 2700+ easily if that is your thing.

The confusion comes because the chips were renamed by AMD after the 1400 T'Bird to reflect performance rather than just clock speed. This was fine and went from the 1600+ right up to the 2400+. Then the 2600+ and 2700+ came out followed by the 3000+. Unfortunately AMD decided to go back in the numbering system for the new 2500+ which is based on the Barton as I have said. For more on that core see Toms guide from a few weeks back.

Also final note - go to the CPU support page @ ASUS and make sure that your board takes the 2500+ - it might need a bios upgrade first and you might have to check the revision number as well.

Hope that helps. DT.

4.77MHz to 4.0GHz in 10 years. Imagine the space year 2020 :) 
March 27, 2003 6:41:16 PM

OK Shifty Jim,
Let's get one thing straight - I already bought a 2400, so a 2100 is not an option at this point. My question is should I take back the 2400 and swap it for a 2500?

On the overclocking subject: Based on your comments about the 2100, assuming the 2400 can be clocked at 166Mhz, is the 2500 with a Barton core going to give me any benefits.

How reliable is a 2400 clocked up to 166MHz (matched to the PC2700 DDR333 RAM) actually going to be?

Red-3 Standing by...
March 27, 2003 7:12:18 PM

Very interesting info. I had no idea this chip was new on the market! This explains why the 2500 suddenly turned up on my supplier's site.
So in your opinion the 2500 would be better than the 2400? Even though the clock speed is 10% slower?
Worth the extra $50?
Does it outperform a 2600 even out of the box, or does it need o/clocking to achieve this?


Red-3 Standing by...
March 27, 2003 7:21:50 PM

Maybe with overclocking (XP2500+) the chip is good, but from what I saw with the benchmarks posted on this website, the 2500 performed marginally better than the 2400+, the 3000+ Barton was out performed by the 2800 tbredb in most applications. I am unfamiliar with overclocking the 2400+, The reason the 2100 (and 1700) are so overclockable is because they are actually tbred b's that were origionally marked as 2500,2600,2700, and 2800's.
Try the overclocking, if you can get the FSB up to 166, theoretically the chip should perform well. You may not be able to keep the same multiplier though.. lets see its what 133 * 15 right now, try clocking it to 166* 12 for a start and go from there (increasing the multiplier) you should be able to get it to perform better than a 2500 with not to much effort.
!