Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon XP Barton vs. P4 HT 800FSB

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 19, 2003 3:53:28 PM

Hello everyone.

I've decided to upgrade my 3-year-old overclocked Athlon 1.2 Thunderbird system. I've already upgraded most of the components here and there, except for the core. I want to upgrade my processor (with the fastest appropriate chipset and memory to match). I've been through countless benchmarks of various CPUs. I still can't decide between the Barton and P4 HT 800. I'm under the impression, that Barton 3000+ is approximately equivalent to P4 2.8 800/HT in real-world performance and price. On the other hand, Barton 2800+ seems to have the best price/performance ratio and overclockability. I consider myself a power user. I want my system HDTV-ready, DV-Editing ready and of course games (but that should be covered by my Radeon 9700 Pro).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Igor

More about : athlon barton 800fsb

December 19, 2003 4:55:09 PM

Read my system specs. To date I only use AMD because they are cheaper. Intel was the power chip as recorded history goes but the new AMD cpu's do such a fine job now that all the Bells whistles are falling off Intel like a rotting Christmas tree.

No need anymore to break the bank to get performance and in some cases Intel cant even offer that anymore.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
December 19, 2003 5:07:44 PM

Actually a 2.8c will perform similarly to a Barton 3200+, and it will be much faster in video encoding. If you are planning to overclock, then I think the 2.6c is the one that has the best price/performance ratio. With good memory you will be able to get 3.2GHz, when with a Barton CPU you will only manage 2.3GHz. A 2.3GHz Barton CPU should be about equal to a 3.0GHz Pentium 4 (and in fact slower) so there you have all the facts. If I would build a system today I would choose the 2.6c.

On the other hand, if you get the 2.6c and overclock it to 3.2GHz then there will be no more upgrades for your system in the future, except maybe a 3.4GHz Prescott. That's where the A64 (S754) comes into play. Right now an A64 3000+ is an excellent choice and most probably the end of the line for S754 A64s is the 3700+.

So there you have all the facts. Have fun deciding :p 
Related resources
December 19, 2003 5:11:42 PM

Btw, why do everytime that I read one of your posts, I get the impression that you live in a world of your own?
December 19, 2003 5:18:43 PM

Heads up on sodnighthawk since you're new here. He is either incompetant or intentionally deceives people inexperienced people at any chance he gets and generally his advice should be taken with a grain of salt or at least a collaborating opinion. Just a warning incase he posts more of his typical crap here.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A>
December 19, 2003 5:21:29 PM

Intel is sucking AMD's exhaust fumes right now pitsi, the Intel Hyper threading is a Total wash-out and they need to recall them like GM would if they got caught selling lemons.

AMD is going to have a second generation 64 Bit CPU out before Intel even gets the first RUSHED piece of crap out the front door.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
December 19, 2003 5:26:21 PM

SodNightHawk,

Remember what Zoron said about you I think it applies here as well!

SodNightHawk keep your fat ass shut... you're stinking up this forum.

"Nothing AMD OR Intel put out will ever match the thermal output of the hot air coming from your mouth."

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 19, 2003 5:55:40 PM

If you plan on overclocking you probally want to go with the intel 2.6c, it has a good multiplier for overclocking well into the region above 250mhz fsb. A 2.6c without overclocking will best a 2800+ and end up about even with a 3000+. Overclocked a 2.6c will beat just about anything amd has EXCEPT the A64 chips... which are superior to the p4c chips.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A>
December 19, 2003 5:57:28 PM

Take a look at the Athlon 64 3000+

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
December 19, 2003 7:44:55 PM

Thanks everyone for your opinions.

The reason I started this discussion is I believe that when it comes to crowning a CPU manufacturer, there is no clear winner. AMD was on top a year ago when Intel was desperately trying to catch up. But, at this point the situation is uncertain. Both Intel and AMD offer speed-enhancing technologies. I would like to understand the real-world benefits of various processors. Rather than favoring one CPU brand over another or criticizing "bells and whistles", let's look at the facts. Please feel free to correct me if you disagree:
Athlon Thoroughbread and Barton processors are mostly cheaper than Pentium 4's. However, AMD's performance ratings don't quite match Intel's GHz as far as performance is concerned. Athlon Barton 3000+ seems to be evidently slower than P4 3GHz. To complicate the issue, the Barton CPUs have a larger cache, but lower clock speeds than corresponding Thoroughbreads. Furthermore, many applications are optimized for SSE2 and HyperThreading.
Also, AMD64 platform is a bit uncertain. I think that 64-bit computing is a natural progression. However, it probably won't gain sufficient application support until 2005 when Longhorn will be launched. At that point, better/faster/cheaper 64-bit processors will be available. As much as I love innovative intelligently-designed products, I don't believe that moving to AMD64 is a viable option at this point, unless you have cash to burn.
With chipsets, the situation is easier. NForce 2 Ultra and 865PE seem to be on top as far as performance/price ratio goes.

My problem is two-fold:
1. Considering real-world (HDTV playback, DV-editing, PhotoShop, Internet, Office) performance, how do the new Bartons compare with the Thoroughbreads? In other words, practically speakig, if you have Athlon 2700+ (2.17GHz, 333FSB), are you willing to pay the $80 difference to upgrade to a Barton 3000+ (2.17GHz, 400FSB, 512KB cache), or is the 2700+ "fast-enough"?
2. How do the AMD Barton's features compare with Intel's 800FSB and HyperThreading? Is it worth spending the extra $90 to upgrade that same Athlon 2700+ (2.17GHz, 333FSB) to a P4 2.8GHz (HT, 800FSB)? Considering that Athlon 3000+ costs the same as P4 2.8GHz (800, HT), which would you choose?

Rather than quoting benchmarks, I would really like to hear from people who currently have Bartons and P4 HT in their systems, especially if they have recently upgraded. I want to know how fast an over-2.6GHz CPU is in the real world.

Thank you again for helping me fuel this discussion,
Igor
December 20, 2003 2:14:07 AM

sodnighthawk, you're the man. you are the ONLY one who's saying the right thing. go with 2500+ dude! SSE2 means nothing. Hyper Threading means nothing. get a Vantec Aeroflow and overclock that 2500+ to hell!! and for you dudes, stop lying plz. SSE2 only wins the SSE by few seconds. You DO have time for a few seconds of waiting. 10 seconds isn't that bad to wait. Oh and of course, more cache is better. haven't you guys heard of the "mhz myth"?
gosh....you guys are really dumb. more mhz doesn't really mean "efficiency". AMD ALL THE WAY!!! w00t!!!!!:D 

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
December 20, 2003 7:26:21 PM

You know, it's really sad when you have to create multiple accounts and post on them... just to make it look like someone is agreeing with you.

Sorry SoD, not falling for it.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
December 20, 2003 11:07:30 PM

I 0wn3d 3 lame intel crap users today in bf1942 they were lagging so bad, that they couldnt kill me. one of them has a crap 3.2c, but i was the only one in the whole game who wasn't lagging LOL they all suck. shoulda got AMD. I currently am using a l33t, and excellently priced 3200+ barton (I had a 2500+ last week, and I don't remember what CPU I had before then. my barton 3200+ was CHPEAER than a 3.2C and it is l33t fast! the benchmarks are all wrong and every time i kill someone in a game it proves it, becauase all kills and deaths in a game depend on how fast your cpu is. next week i iwll get a afx53 and radeon fx 5950 Pro, nad I will be unbetable!

dont beileve thje lying intel-bought benchmarks and get a 3200+ barton and a radeon fx.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
December 20, 2003 11:23:04 PM

You're a f-ing idiot...none of that is at all truthful, especially not the last line.

Quote:
dont beileve thje lying intel-bought benchmarks and get a 3200+ barton and a radeon fx.

First of all, Intel doesn't buy benchmarks. You can go buy a 3.2C system with otherwise equal specs to your Barton 3200+ system and your system will get raped. Tell the truth for once!!!

Second of all, why get a 3200+ Barton when the A64 is so good?? If you were such a big AMD fan, you would tell everybody to get 3200+ A64s and FXs, not shtty and overpriced Bartons.

Thirdly, what is a Radeon FX??

Fourthly, where do you plan on buying an FX-53??

Fifthly, where is this supposed Radeon FX 5950Pro?!?!?!?!?!?

Lastly,
Quote:
becauase all kills and deaths in a game depend on how fast your cpu is

is simply not true.

I know you are a troll, but please make sense occasionally!! And use FACTS to say stuff, like Popey!!! (I can't believe I just said that)

Damn Rambus.
December 20, 2003 11:55:49 PM

Here my suggestion, if you are low on cash get the barton 2500, it will things just fine. If you got extra $$ try the 2.4 ghz or 2.6 ghz 800 FSB intel p4. You could get the Athlon 64 3000 (NOT Athlon XP), it has very nice price for high end stuff :) , if you want to stick with AMD that is :) 
December 20, 2003 11:59:16 PM

...and for ultimate performance, get the FX (or two Opterons).

Damn Rambus.
December 21, 2003 12:06:57 AM

I personally would love to get 2 248 opteron for $1000 each and put together a $8,000 comp! Now if just someone would be willing me to GIVE me that cash :) 
December 21, 2003 12:42:09 AM

i own a l33t computer shop so i oviously kno wmore than you. i sell only amds but i used to sell intels buyt they would melt if the heatsink fell of so i stopped selling them because they kept dying and starting fires in peoples comps. also their is a virus that can only be spread to intel cpus and it causes the hardrive to break because the needle crashes into the plate and it also maks the psu burn out everything because it turns on every transistor in the cpu. amd dont melt and they cant get that dangerous virus.

son, if you had more experience in the computer field then you would know intel always biys benchmakrs they always have its a massive governemet conspiracy and i know this because i used to work at some obscure electronic company thats also where i learned about the intel cpu virus.

someone did kill me in bf1942 tonight and when i asked what cpu he had he said it was a fx51. so there its proof that cpu. is all that matters ibn games whether you noob or expert you will die if you have a slower cpu than the person shooting you so if you dont have a athlon dont bother playin cause you ilwl suck. before my 2500 and thge cpu that i cant remember i had a athlon 400 mhx and i was owning stupid intel morons who had 3.4 ghz intels. amd shoudl of called the 800 a 3400+ cause it must be faster than thet 3.6 ghz intels that the people i killed had.

wtf how can you not know what a radeonfx is it is the best gpu. well actually the radeonfx 5950 Pro is the best, since some low-end radeonfx's suck. like the radeonfx9200ultra is very slow despite its bs dx9 claims and it can cause you to be killed by people with slower cpus. but even then only if they have an athlon if they have intel it doesnt matter what gpu you have you will own them. so talk to me when you have worked at an electronicsz company and have a computer store. i know more that you ever will i dont care if he buys intel tho its just 1 more person for me to own in bf1924.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
December 21, 2003 12:50:59 AM

Oh me too...but I'd get two Prommies and OC those beasts to top it off (and add to the price tag).

Damn Rambus.
December 21, 2003 12:53:22 AM

You have reached an all-time low.

Damn Rambus.
December 21, 2003 1:51:37 AM

<i>Oh-my-god, who the hell let the dogs out while I was gone???</i>

Intel CPUs burning up and AMD CPUs not doing so?

A virus that can only be spread on brand-specific CPUs?

Intel buys all benchmarks? I have had no evidence of that at all, until now, and I don't like spontaneous, hell-bent paranoia.

If someone equipped with a superior CPU kills you in online games, how can you know if it wasn't a superior <i>gamer</i> that made the difference? I think that's far more likely. (unless you're running 500Mhz CPUs or something)

What's this guy talking about? 3.6Ghz P4s aren't out yet... ati doesn't use the "FX" name... or "ultra". there is no radeon <i>9</i>200 ultra. He obviously knows nothing about hardware.

This guy <i>has</i> to be joking...

Losing my faith in mankind,

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
December 21, 2003 2:19:31 AM

Quote:
I 0wn3d 3 lame intel crap users today in bf1942 they were lagging so bad, that they couldnt kill me. one of them has a crap 3.2c,



really? funny because i only have a 2000+ athlon, and a TI4200 and i get over 70fps MINIMUM with full detail @ 1024x768x32

i dont believe a word you saying frankly. dont you think that your video card has is a slight factor? they must have been using integrated video, if they coudlnt run BF1942 on a freaking P.4 3.2C at playable framerates..

i hope to god when you say "lag" you arent talking about ping times... im not even going to explain to you what it means if you dont know. if your ping is bad, it doesnt matter if your playing on the fastest computer in the world


Quote:
i own a l33t computer shop so i oviously kno wmore than you.



the fact that you own a computer shop means nothing. anyone can register a business and get access to distributors. i used to build computers and repair them for a small retail store.. and the owners were idiots. they would sell Celerons because they had "Intel" in their names when they could have sold thier customers faster systems for less money


you come off as some 15 year old kid man. if your really selling computers, i honestly feel bad for your customers


-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
dhlucke - "Phew...ok my wrists are hurting. I'm taking a break."
December 21, 2003 2:48:11 AM

I think he is going to claim next that he invented the PC.

That post of his proves that he, as you said, obviously knows nothing about hardware.

Damn Rambus.
December 21, 2003 4:08:27 AM

Quote from SoDNighthawk "and it causes the hardrive to break because the needle crashes into the plate". The NEEDLE crashing into the plate...lol...this guy is a troll or knows nothing about computers...or wait...maybe because he owns a computer shop, he has access to some new hard drive that uses a needle, based on 50 year old phonographic record technology. Must be a carry over from the small "Back to Vinyl" movement in the audio world. Sadly the rest of us are stuck using HD's that use heads and platters.
December 21, 2003 4:26:38 AM

Yes, for sure. In another post, he just kept talking about his Nforce2 chipset while others were talking about AMD 64...

XP1900+
MSI KT3 Ultra 2(KT333)
512 MB Samsung PC2700
AIW 9700 PRO(Catalyst 3.8+DX9)
WD 80.0 GB @ 7200 RPM
LG 19"
LG 32x10x40x CDRW
Windows XP SP1
(Built: September 2002)
December 21, 2003 4:44:22 AM

I am currently running an xp2500 @ xp3200 speeds. I am using a stock cooler. The noisiest fan in my system is on my Ati Radeon 9600 pro. If I had the money now, that I spent on this rig , plus as much more as I wanted, I might get a better video card. ( though I do love my Radeon). I dont see any point in spending $100. more to get a wee bit better performance.
December 21, 2003 12:02:12 PM

Yeah, this guy is an idiot and a troll.

Damn Rambus.
December 21, 2003 12:32:20 PM

Can you please shut up and stop your fanboyistic ways!

People like you give genuine AMD enthusiasts (like me) a bad name.

I have viewed this site on my Am386DX-40! it works!!
December 21, 2003 1:26:41 PM

Let's have a poll. How old do you think SoDNighthawk_ is? I believe 12. Either that, or he has an IQ = 12 !!
December 21, 2003 4:51:40 PM

Quote:
i sell only amds but i used to sell intels buyt they would melt if the heatsink fell of so i stopped selling them because they kept dying and starting fires in peoples comps.


Biggest.

Load.

Of.

Sh!t.

I've.

Ever.

Had.

The.

Displeasure.

Of.

Reading.

You must be thinking of the Thunderbird Athlons with regard to the heat issue. In fact, I remember posting that the CPU got hot enough to melt the clips holding the fan to the heatsink, destroying the CPU as a result. Intel's thermal protection has always been one area where they excelled over AMD... and the P4 is certainly no exception. I find it interesting that you post this... considering it's the same as my story with the names switched.

Quote:
also their is a virus that can only be spread to intel cpus and it causes the hardrive to break because the needle crashes into the plate and it also maks the psu burn out everything because it turns on every transistor in the cpu. amd dont melt and they cant get that dangerous virus.


Now this is an even bigger pile of sh!t. Viruses have never been, nor will they ever be, CPU-specific. To even suggest that this is possible is beyond ludicrous... and there you go with the needle crashing bullshit again. Hard drives do not have 'needles' to begin with... and as I said before, even if they did, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to write a virus that causes the heads of the drive to crash into the platters.

Your stupidity really knows no bounds.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
December 21, 2003 7:00:22 PM

man 2 operon 248 OC them and use a compressor to cool them, I wonder how fugging high those benhcmarks would be.

AMD RULEZ!
December 21, 2003 9:06:58 PM

Quote:
it would be IMPOSSIBLE to write a virus that causes the heads of the drive to crash into the platters.

Hehehe... Of course...

<sarcasm>
There's also this virus that makes your CD/DVD player shoot out/eject the CD it's currently reading at high speeds and at high rotation speeds... Be careful, because the virus aims the CD at your neck... Several people have already been beheaded this way!!! The newest threat to computer users...
</sarcasm>

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2003 12:04:11 AM

Perhaps if everyone ignored SoDnighthawk posts it would just go away? Some psychosomatics will use a forum such as this to feed their psychosis( someone who has lost contact with reality), and by answering his/her posts are actually helping to feed this sickness.
This may be a teenager whose parents actually do own a computer store and has just enough knowledge to solicit a response to which he/she just digs a deeper hole for themself which their ego won't allow any error on their part. Then refer to the bigging of this post, as it probably will apply here as well.

Thank you and have a good evening.
December 22, 2003 12:12:33 AM

Where would the fun be in that? Retards help liven this forum up. They are a great release of tension, agression. I would be a bit sad to see SOD go, cause who else can you rely on? He's very consistent in his insane babel, and you always have someone to rant on at the end of the day.

<font color=blue> Look steadfastly into the slit, pinpointed malignant eyes of reality as an old-hand trainer dominates his wild beasts.</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by snorkius on 12/22/03 00:46 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2003 12:17:01 AM

Good point!!!
December 22, 2003 2:03:32 AM

The Barton XP2500+ is almost a steal. Mine overclocks like a champ, no need to buy a higher speed Barton, they all pretty much overclock the same as far as I can tell. Only thing is the upgrade path after Barton looks to require a new mobo. Still a Barton XP2500+ is less then $100 at Newegg, and a good motherboard can be had for less then $100 as well like the Epox EP-8RDA3+. Anyways next year alot of new stuff like PCI Express and better Athlon64 processors will be here with even faster PCI Express video cards. So save your money on like a Barton XP2500+/NF2mobo today so as to buy a much better system next year. Put the money in top notch ram which you can transfer over maybe, a great Power supply and case as well. Good luck.
December 22, 2003 9:24:02 AM

Oh yes, a complete steal!

I have an nForrce 2 mobo and 512MB of Corsir XMS DDR333 RAM. I bought a 2500+ for just £70 ($121) and am running as a 3200+, easy.

I'm waiting for Athlon 64 and PCI Express technologies to settle down before I buy, well at lease for Athlon 64.

It's always best to wait say, 6 months for bleeding edge technology to settle down before you adopt it. Hey, even PCI was awful when it first came out, now look at it, reliable and dependable.

Other things that were'nt very good when they came out were 486 systems. 20 and 25MHz 486 systems were easily beaten in overall systems performance by the 40MHz 386's of the day. Oh yes, and what about the Pentium 66!!

I have viewed this site on my Am386DX-40, 20MB RAM, OPTi 392 chipset, Cirrus Logic ISA graphics on Windows 95 OSR2 with IE4 it works!!
!