Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Overclockability of an AthlonXP 2500+

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 29, 2003 12:56:04 PM

How OCable are these? I'm doing some bioinformatics, and I'm most concerned about getting a barton core, and this is the least expensive. How overclockable is it (since it is the slowest native Barton.

Athlon XP 1600+, MSI K7T PRO2 RU (POS), 2x256 MB CRUCIAL PC2100 CL2.5 memory, Asus V6800 DDR Delux (GF 256) video card, 6.4GB+27GB WD HD, 40GB IBM HD (all 7200RPM). My computer is an acronym

More about : overclockability athlonxp 2500

April 29, 2003 6:20:02 PM

16 people saw this post before me and no one answered! Well i would say the 2500 will reach 2.2ghz easily, try the overclocking section and see a post there that shows you how many people have overclocked it,(most reached 2.2ghz).
April 29, 2003 7:07:07 PM

In theory it's the most overclockable AMD CPU since the T-Bred B 1700+.

Of course the reality is that OCing is never a guarantee.

<font color=purple><pre><b>There are 10 types of people in this world: those who can understand binary and those who can't.</b></pre><p></font color=purple>
Related resources
April 29, 2003 9:39:55 PM

I have seen several people online that have been able to clock the 2500+ at around 2.2GHz or 2.3 GHz. It all depends on the chip. I would say you would be able to easily get 2.0 GHz with stock cooling. Probably 2.2 or 2.3 with good cooling.
April 29, 2003 9:40:06 PM

I have seen several people online that have been able to clock the 2500+ at around 2.2GHz or 2.3 GHz. It all depends on the chip. I would say you would be able to easily get 2.0 GHz with no problem. Probably 2.2 or 2.3 with good cooling.
April 30, 2003 1:21:09 AM

I got a 2500+ Reaches 2800+ speed (2GHz isnt it?) no problem. It is 6 hours Prime95 stable right now at 12.5x177 = 2214GHz @ 1.825v. Im using a Volcano7 with Smart Fan II at 3000 RPM. Ive tried upping the RPM to 5000+ and the voltage to 1.850 but it doesnt stay Prime95 stable.

Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2.2GHz, A7N8X, Kingston HyperX PC3000 512MB @177MHz, Radeon 9700Pro, SB Live 5.1
April 30, 2003 6:51:10 PM

I'm curious how reality pairs up with theory.

I would think Barton 2500 should overclock at least as well as Tbred B XP2100 which seem to be commonly reaching 2.4 Ghz. However, I haven't yet heard of anyone reaching 2.4 Ghz with Barton 2500.

Guess we will have to wait longer until more results are in.

<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
April 30, 2003 8:27:32 PM

I overclock a 1.83 2500+ to 2.1 on crappy cooling. Coould go way higher with like an sk800 or something.

Im on an nforce2 board so I just upped the fsb
April 30, 2003 8:40:39 PM

What voltage do you need to get to 2.1 Ghz?

Not that I'm looking now, but if I were I'd be comparing between Tbred B XP2100+ or XP2400+ or Barton XP2500+. Now at Newegg that would be $78, $100, or $126, respectively.

If I have to pay more money for an XP2500 and get a lower level of overclock then it's just not worth it to me. The only advantage is I wouldn't have to mess with the L3 bridges on XP2500 or use one of the pin tricks.

Now if I knew that I could get a higher level of overclock from XP2500+ combined with the increased cache that would make a difference. This is not the case yet.

<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
April 30, 2003 9:26:38 PM

Voltage for 2.1 was completely stock. I NEVER mess with voltages, just never had time to read up on what its all about...

Anyways, to help you out with choices,

The Barton is a loser in the "normal" usage category (stock at least).

The fact is, the 2500 stock at 1.83 is WAY SLOWER than the 2400 stock at 2.0. Now when you overclock the 2500 to 2.0 it is then THE SAME as the 2400 stock at 2.0. Its not until you clock PAST 2.0, the 2400's stock speed, will the 2500 finally beat the 2400. Which ANY cpu would beat it, since its now clocked faster *duh*.

The fact is, Barton's larger cache DOES NOT make it a faster cpu. A Barton clocked at 1.83 is not equal to a Tbred clocked at 2.0. You have to raise its mhz to 2.0 to mach a tbred at 2.0.

The extra cache is only useful in computer heavy processes such as video or mp3 encoding, or other professional type things like graphics etc. Sorry I cant be more specific, Im not professional....

So for home users, including heavy gamers, the Barton 2500 is slower until overclocked to, for example 2.0, which is when it will run the same as, for example, a 2400 at 2.0.

But, lets not get to down on the Barton.

The fact is, this is BY FAR the best overclocking cpu yet. And BY FAR the easiest to cool.

I maxed my 2.0 2400 out at 2.24 which is when temps were shooting past 55c under load.

The Barton however, stock at 1.83 instead of the 2400's 2.0, can overclock to 2.24 and still run steadily and cool, with even more potential...

My 2.1ghz was running only 39c!!! On poor cooling. Much more potential...

And of course there are times when the extra cache will make a difference.

And of course the Barton clocks stock at 166/333 fsb, while the 2400 is at 133/266, meaning the Barton reaches 200fsb much easier (although I was able to reach 200fsb pretty easily with the 2400, but keep in mind the high temps that cpu ran, sometimes shutting down in 3d games!).

So, thats about it. All in all, Id say the best deal goes to the Barton. Its SAFE and STEADY overclock potential makes it beat out the 2600 (stock 2.08) and its extra cache will come in handy sometimes. All while staying MUCH cooler and stable.
April 30, 2003 11:51:46 PM

I can see where your low temps and your low voltages convince you.

However, I have been seeing accounts of later weeks of Tbred B cores reaching 2.4 ghz on pretty low voltages perhaps 1.65 volt, as well. Even better overclocks are possible with higher voltages and just water cooling.

I've yet to see Barton 2500 reach 2.4 ghz with any voltage or cooling (not counting extemes like phase change or LN2).

Question: As bus speeds go up, wouldn't the relative benefit of extra cache go down?

<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
May 1, 2003 12:05:46 AM

Like I said I never adjusted voltages. Not sure what 2500+ can do.

About the cache need going down as FSB go down, youre asking the wrong guy. I have no clue about those relations between cacha and FSB, I just know FSB means alot, much more than multipler, and I need fsb since I spent money on ddr400 ram and want to run in sync.
May 1, 2003 1:47:47 AM

Let me add,

The 2400 at 2.0 is THE BEST CPU for the price.

The reason I liked the 2500 was the higher overclocking and extra cache.

Now the 2500 cant reach 2.4 like the 2400 can, I admit that.. But I didnt come near 2.4 with the 2400, I understand many did though.

I feel the cache on the 2500 could come into handy as applications get more intense though, and Im planning to keep this cpu in the long run.

At 2.1ghz, and easily at 2.2, Im happy with the 2500 and its stability.

So to me the best cpu to get and stick with it the 2500... But if you want true bang for the buck, the 2400 performs amazingly.

And as the guy above me posted, the cache aint turning out to be what it was thought to be, though I think as applications get more intense it will make a difference.
!