Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3d rendering, no oc, 2600 or 2500?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 12, 2003 4:37:30 AM

Hi, I'm going to assemble a new system, but I dont know whether to get the xp2600+ or the xp2500+. I wont be overclocking, and gaming wont be too important for me. I'm more concerned with 3D rendering like with 3ds max or viz. Is the barton core in the 2500 better than the thoroughbredb core in the 2600?
from the tomshardware article in may, it seems like the 2600 is a lot better than the 2500 for 3d rendering. I dont think its gaming capabilities are too different from the 2500, although the 2500 is slightly better for gaming. which should i get?
i might hand this computer over to my brother next semester though, and he'll just be doing office applications and gaming. which cpu would be better for that?
thanks

More about : rendering 2600 2500

June 12, 2003 12:33:58 PM

I have spoken to AMD technical over the phone and they said to me that the 2500+ would easily outperform the 2600+. I would go for the 2500+ and even though you don't really want to overclock you can put the multiplier up to 12.5x to bump up the speed to 2GHz from 1.8GHz using only the stock heatsink and fan - overclocking for free in my mind.

For the best performence make sure that you get good memory like Corsair Platinum CAS 2.0 2-2-5 timings.

4.77MHz to 4.0GHz in 10 years. Imagine the space year 2020 :) 
June 12, 2003 1:47:09 PM

Quote:
office applications and gaming. which cpu would be better for that?

Both 2500 and 2600 will be fine; for office, they're way more than needed. For gaming, I don't think you'll see that much of a difference. So if you ask me, I'd get the 2600... but that's just me. (hey, I enjoy some 3dsmax too, from time to time, anyway :smile: )

Have you considered going P4C? Those thingies have got HT!... Just my thoughts here...
Related resources
June 12, 2003 2:10:16 PM

Quote:
I have spoken to AMD technical over the phone and they said to me that the 2500+ would easily outperform the 2600+.

david__T, you're joking ... right? I mean that's just sooooo wrong that I can hardly even believe that an AMD employee would dare say it. You've <i>got</i> to be making that up.

Quote:
even though you don't really want to overclock you can put the multiplier up to 12.5x to bump up the speed to 2GHz from 1.8GHz using only the stock heatsink and fan - overclocking for free in my mind.

What the heck is wrong with you, david__T? azntwboy said no OCing. You can't even just stick with something that simple? How on earth is a suggestion like that helpful to someone who has already made it clear that they're not going to OC?

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 12, 2003 2:19:40 PM

Okay azntwboy, it all comes down to two things:

1) If we believe AMD's PR rating, at least as a means of comparing AMD CPUs to AMD CPUs, then obviously 2600 is better than 2500. And really this holds true remarkably well. The only down-points are when we get to the Bartons in comparison to the speed grade lower. Sometimes the PR boost that they get for their cache increase is over-inflated according to some benchmarks. In this case however that isn't a concern because you're looking at something higher than a Barton, not something lower.

2) The reality is that the AXP2500 is only 1.8GHz, where as the AXP2600 is 2.0GHz. Two hundred MHz is a considerable difference. There's no way in hell that the extra cache of the Barton can make up that much of a difference in speed, <i>especially</i> in 3D rendering apps.

So either way that you look at it, the AXP2600 is the clear best choice in what you will be using it for.

As for gaming speed differences, hell, the graphics card will matter a heck of a lot more than the CPU will, so the performance difference between the two is pretty mitigated. Even still, I'd rather have the AXP2600 even for gaming if I wasn't planning on OCing.

So my suggestion is go with the AXP2600 and don't even give that Barton a second thought.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 13, 2003 3:51:30 AM

yeah, im not going to overclock. if im reading the tomshardware review right, it looks like the 2600 is better for 3dsmax. is that right? i might just go with the 2600. ive never overclocked before. hehe =). do you just increase the multiplier in the bios?
thanks for everyone's help.
June 13, 2003 7:25:20 AM

The only reason that I mentioned the increase to 2GHz is because I knew that someone like you would recommend the 2600+ purely because of the higher clock speed - which is negated by a simple increase of the multiplier and the chip runs fine even with stock HSF at this speed.

Whether you want to believe AMD technical or not is up to you but I did ring them and they did say that the 2500+ would out perform the 2600+. I only asked because when the 2500+ came out here in the UK it was cheaper than the 2600+ but the move to model 10 makes up for the slower clock speed according to AMD.

I know the guy said that he didn't want to overclock but that could be for loads of reasons like he doesn't know how or anything like that - I was only suggesting it to show how easy it is and to show that the 2500+ could match the 2600+ for pure clock speed. And as the guys last post suggests he is in fact interested.

Your last comments are the reason for flame wars. We are all here to help each other and suggest new things to each other - not to say who can say what to whom.

4.77MHz to 4.0GHz in 10 years. Imagine the space year 2020 :) 
June 13, 2003 4:02:41 PM

Quote:
david__T, you're joking ... right? I mean that's just sooooo wrong that I can hardly even believe that an AMD employee would dare say it. You've got to be making that up. I love Xena warrior Princess.



Dude lighten up a little. Sometimes you remind me of the comic shop owner on The Simpsons.

Me personally, I would much rather have double the full speed cache than a mere 200 MHz clockspeed. 2500+ is a better chip than the 2600+ without a doubt.

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>
June 13, 2003 5:07:38 PM

Quote:
I love Xena warrior Princess.

Damn that gave me a good laugh.

In general I think slvr_phoenix and david__T are very helpful members of this forum. At the very least they write well.

Now so this post isn't completely OT. I vote 2600+ there has got to be a reason they rated it higher. In the end though I would just go with which ever one is cheaper, there wont be much difference either way.
June 13, 2003 10:35:42 PM

ok. i read some posts on overclocking, and i guess im interested now. are the 2500 and 2600 unlocked? i dont really want to do anything physical to the cpu. if the 2500 is unlocked while the 2600 is, i might get the 2500 then.

im trying to overclock my current computer, which runs a 1600+ on a really cheap ecs l7vta motherboard with a kt400 chipset. i have 2 sticks of generic pc2100 ram, 256mb each, cl-2.5.

am i supposed to set my ram timings to the lowest settings(except for dram clock)?
here are the settings:
dram clock - 133mhz
dram cas latency - 2, 2.5
bank interleave - disabled, 2 bank, 4 bank
precharge to active (trp) - 2t, 3t
active to precharge (tras) - 5t/8t, 6t/10t
active to cmd (trcd) - 2t, 3t
dram burst length - 4, 8
dram queue depth - 2level, 4 level, 3 level
dram command rate - 2t command, 1t command
write recovery time - 2t, 3t
dram twtr - 1t, 3t

what settings am i supposed to use if i want to overclock the ram?

my cpu is locked and i dont want to unlock it because i would have to do something physical. so, i tried increasing the fsb and the highest that i got to without crashing was 149mhz, making my 1600+ increase from 1396.5mhz to 1564.5mhz.
i think my computer crashed when i tried to increase cpu voltage and the fsb. any ideas?
do i have to increase dimm voltage too?
here are the settings in another part of the bios:
cpu clock - 149
cpu voltage - normal, +1.1%, +2.3%
dimm voltage - normal, +6.4%

which settings should i use?

thanks a lot
June 13, 2003 10:51:08 PM

Hey that's a lot of ground to cover there. I'll give you a few tips:

If you will overclock, then the 2500+ will destroy the 2600+.

Just because your computer will boot with the CPU @ 149Mhz does not mean that it is running stable. Chances are it will crash under load if you do not test it.

If you have a Palomino core then overclocking will not take you very far. They run hot as it is.

The 2500+ is unlocked up to 12.5X multiplier. Bumping it up to 12.5 (from 11) will make it into a 2800+ and it will run perfectly stable with stock cooling and stock voltage.

When overclocking, you should increase your ram speed along with your CPU speed. Keeping them in sync usually yeilds the best results on Athlon platforms.

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>
June 13, 2003 11:44:09 PM

ok, i changed the dram clock to 166, which was the next possible setting. i was able to increase my fsb to 152, which im using right now, but IE keeps crashing a few times. i think ill try lowering the fsb to 151 and 150. if IE keeps crashing, ill have to stay at 149. if i do, should i change the ram clock back to 133?

or maybe changing the other ram settings will stop IE from crashing?

please help, need advice.
thanks
June 13, 2003 11:53:46 PM

ok, i changed the fsb setting to 151 and it looks more stable now. cpu is running at 1585.41. too bad i couldnt run it at 152, then it would have been the same speed as a 1800+.
i left the other ram settings at default.
should i change them? to what?

right now, what types of risks am i taking with my ram and cpu?

if i replaced my pc2100 with pc2700, could i get a higher fsb?

maybe i should unlock my cpu. but the thg video was too fast and a little unclear and im afraid that i might damage my cpu.
should i?
if i should, could someone explain it in more detail?
June 14, 2003 3:24:24 AM

its still unstable. should i increase voltage? i lowered the fsb to 150, but i might as well change it back to 149 and change the dram clock back to 133 from 166. is there any other settings that i could change to overcome the instability?
June 14, 2003 3:38:30 AM

I just found this article on AnandTech:
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783" target="_new">AMD's Athlon XP 3000+: Barton cuts it close</A>

It should help make your decision easier. When looking at the benchmarks keep an eye on the 3000+ and the 2800+. The 2800 is thourobread (like the 2600) and the 3000+ is barton (like the 2500). Any time you see the 2800+ scoring better than the 3000+ thats the type of app where MHz matters more than cache.

If you just want the short answer to your question:
It looks like the 2600+ would outperform the 2500+ 3d rendering.

If you overclock I would go with the 2500+ though.
June 14, 2003 3:59:44 PM

maybe ill just go with the 2500+. thanks.

for my 1600+, im thinking of unlocking it. would arctic silver scrapped from my cpu work as a good conductor for my bridges? =). im cheap. also, after i connect each bridge, am i supposed to tape it over before doing the next one? how do i prevent the tape from smearing the finished bridges?
June 14, 2003 4:36:58 PM

If you are going to OC then Id get the 2600 t-bred over the barton 2500 anyday. The advantage of more cache is just for booting up stuff really. Other than that it is just about the clock speeds even though you can easily OC the barton 2500 to 3000 easily with no probs.
June 14, 2003 7:54:45 PM

ok, i increased cpu voltage from 1.74 to 1.78 (2.3%, the highest setting), increased dimm voltage from 2.56 to 2.72 (6.4%, only other setting), increased dram clock from 133 to 166 even though im using pc2100, and increased fsb to 154. it seems to be running stable for now. should i leave the other ram settings alone?
my 1600+ is now up to 1616 from 1396.

i tried rendering something with 3dsmax and it showed an improvement of 17% in rendering time.

i dont have any silver lacquer, and ive noticed that people have been having the same problem too. can i use something else? i tried to test the resistance of a few paints, but nothing works. i need something conductive to close the L1 bridges.

any advice?
June 14, 2003 8:29:21 PM

L
O
L
June 15, 2003 2:20:20 AM

Do you have any way of adjusting the DRAM speed in increments, or does it only allow 133/166?

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>
June 16, 2003 5:04:40 AM

theres only a setting for 133 or 166.

i have a problem.
i tried unlocking my cpu. guess what happened?
after i put in the superglue, i tried to use a conductive pen to release some conductive stuff to connect the L1 bridges, but the tape i used to create the mask was too thick and had gaps, so the silver kept getting under and contacted the other pins. i got frustrated so i tried scrapping off the stuff and using rubbing alcohol to remove the superglue so i could start over. but i guess the needle i used to scrape the stuff off also scrapped off the top layer of the cpu and revealed the metalic layer directy under it, between some of the L1 pins. so now, wcpuid says i have an Athlon but not an xp. and it says my multiplier is now 9.5 instead of 10.5, so my cpu is now running at 1263 instead of 1396.
what do i do now?
should i try it again with different tape?
what if some of the bridges are cross connected because of the scratches?

stupid me. why does this always happen?
June 16, 2003 11:40:47 PM

haha, guess what?
i tried closing the L1 bridges again, and i guess i did, but one of the pins must be shorted, cause it's still locked, but now its reading as a 1900+. multiplier is stuck at 12 now, up from 9.5 yesterday, and up from 10.5 which is the normal setting for my 1600+. wow, temps are going up a lot now. i already ordered a thermalright slk-800-A for this and a vantec stealth.

thanks for everyone's help.

i went and ordered the 2500+ for my new computer so i won't have to go through unlocking again. ha. i got the epox 8rda+ cause its cheap now and its got mounting holes for a 900-u.
June 16, 2003 11:46:42 PM

Sounds like you butchered that thing bro! I'm glad it worked out for ya. A very valuble learning experience if anything.

<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>
June 16, 2003 11:53:12 PM

oh, i noticed something. the thg video showed that the multimeter measured no resistance across the bridges but no current cross-bridge, however, my cpu measured no resistance both across bridge and cross bridge. i dont remember if it was all the bridges or only some. i dont feel like removing the tape on the cpu and messing up the conductive ink.
oh well, just an observation.


and also my dram voltage is messed up. its now 2.8 from 2.56. is that dangerous?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by azntwboy on 06/16/03 08:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 17, 2003 12:20:33 AM

my fsb can only go up to 138 now. before it used to be 149. is 90mhz of cpu speed worth the sacrifice of 11mhz of fsb?
!