I'm helping a friend build a computer and I cant decide which processor is a better choice, the 2500+ Barton (1.83ghz) or the 2700+ Thoroughbred (2.17ghz).
2500+ is $40 less than the 2700 also.
But the 2700 is faster.
I'm basing most of my judgements from this <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-14.htm..." target="_new">review by Tom's of bartons</A>.
Is the $40 worth the extra performance and loss of L2 cache?
I understand the benefits of the extra cache but performance is performance, right?
Or would he be better off with the close performing 2500+, having the extra L2 cache and easily being able to O/C if needed someday to that thoroughbred's speed and effectively beating it badly due to the extra L2?
Thats my general notion right now.
If I could rant for a second, the retail 2500+ barton is only $90 at newegg, hardly believable in my mind, makes me feel like picking up for myself! Thats a fast processor for that kind of $$, keeps up with true clocked 2.4 ghz P4 with a 533fsb! Though I dont find the gaps very large in any of the processors in that review to be significant, the gap didnt widen until the 800mhz P4s.
Do you think moving up from my 1700+ would be worthwhile?
I would prefer to get into 3000+/3.06ghz range, but find the prices.. kind of a ripoff.
Also, I'm not positive, are the multiplyers locked on the Bartons or Thoroughbreds? I dont have any experience with them, only lowly palominos. :smile:
You can take the multi up to 12.5 without modifiying a 2500+, which will make it a 2800+ instantly. You will not need better cooling or increased voltage. A small increase in the FSB will then kick it well past 2.2 Ghz. Keep in mind that a 3000+ is 2.1Ghz.
A 2500+ will clock just as high as a 2700+ but has more cache. Stock for stock the 2700+ wins but the 2500+ IMO is a better chip.
<font color=red>Proudly supporting the AMD/Nvidia minority</font color=red>