Barton or T-Bred????

[tackechi]

Ok, what's the more bang for your bucks...
A 2600 T-Bred or a 2500 Barton

Performance is my major concern here. I'm planning to oc.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tackechi on 05/02/03 07:46 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[stealth_blade]

well, the 2600 major boost come's from clock speed, but since youre planning to oc the chip, you can easily get a barton up to 2600 speeds (and beyond) you also get the benefit of the 512k cache

in your case id buy the barton

"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
- Gen. (Ret) Norman Schwartzkopf

 

[hineigger]

L2 cache does not do much...

But the 2500 Barton can get the clock up to 2.3ghz, which I guess is above 2600, I believe.

The Barton cools like no other though, a major plus. Im actually running 42C idle with my barton 2500 overclocked from 1.83 to 2.23

 

[phial]

L2 cache doesnt matter much? are you like, totally stoopid? my god man.. you better stop joking around because people are probably forgetting that you are

the reason the L2 cache doesnt seem to make a difference with the bartons is because they are clocked lower.

-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down

 

[hineigger]

Not true. YOu need to get your facts straight before you mess people up.

A Barton IS clocked slower, but the L2 cache does nothing really. In other words, the Barton 2500 clocked at 1.83 is obviously slower than the 2400 at 2.0. Now if you overclock the Barton 2500 to 2.0, it then MATCHES the 2400 in speed, despite the L2 cache being larger. The Barton, even with large L2 cache, WILL NOT perform better than the 2400 until you clock it HIGHER than the 2400. But this goes for any athlon vs. any athlon, so the L2 cache really makes no difference.

You may be stupid, but even you should remember the little alligators from elemtary school:
Here is the speed comparison:
Barton 1.8 < 2400 2.0
Barton 2.0 = 2400 2.0
Barton 2.+ > 2400 2.0

 

[rook]

The way I understood it was they underclocked it cuz it DID perform better. Does a 3000XP out-perform my 2700XP? <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-14.html" target="_new">Yes </A>it does, but they run at the same speed, 2166. Why? cuz the barton has 512k cache. So a barton 3000 is a 2700 with 512k cache.

So I think it is you that needs to get your facts straight.

"Quotes are for people that can't think for themselves"

 

[Mephistopheles]

L2 cache doesnt matter much? are you like, totally stoopid? my god man.. you better stop joking around because people are probably forgetting that you are

Take it easy, phial... What he probably meant is that the added 256KB of cache doesn´t warrant the extra 300 in the PR rating of the Bartons (e.g., 3000 is clocked the same as a 2700, but performs mostly on par with the 2800 - and not exactly as suggested by the rating) It´s not about 512KB of cache being faster, but it´s about just how much real-world improvement you´ll see from that cache - and it´s not that big of an improvement.

I think THG even put that in their conclusion.

 

[stealth_blade]

really depends what youre doing, its a huge boost for gaming, but things that require clock cycles like compressing wav's to mp3's cant take advantage of Barton's extra cache, and therfore run slower on Barton

the 2500's pr rating seems to be about right, but the 3000 rating is questionable

"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
- Gen. (Ret) Norman Schwartzkopf

 

[phial]

ok maybe i overreacted but he was being a fagrot in another section..

-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down