Athlon XP barton 2600 aren't as good as TBs!!!

The rating of 2600 Barton xp and 2500 xp are way off compared to 2600 Throughberd. Barton has only a clocked speed of 1.9 ghz compared to the 2.083 ghz speed of the TB. In most case the extra 256kb of cache isn't going to make up for the 183 mhz clock difference at all! The 2500 rating is even worse. Its a whole 283 mhz behind and cache again can compensate for it all. It needs to take much bigger drop than mere 100 PR rating. Only way barton could be better is you OC it! AMD made bad mistake rating those 2 things.
8 answers Last reply
More about athlon barton 2600 aren good
  1. nothing new there.Cache size dont improve much performance on K7/K8 core

    I dont like french test
  2. 1) there is no barton xp2600+. There are 2 xp2600 chips, 1 is 15.5 X 133, and this is the old, hard to find model. The other is an 11.5 X 166 chip. This is the new thorton. It gains perf ( remember that is what the xp rating system is based upon ) from the faster fsb. The xp2500 is also a 166 fsb part, but runs at 11 times. It gains some of it's score from the extra 256 cache.
  3. I would not worry too much about juin. He spews a lot of intel pr mis information.

    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.
  4. you dont know what your talking about , so stop talking

    cache makes a big difference in some areas, no difference in other areas. do a google search

    <A HREF="" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
  5. First of all endyen doesn't know what version of 2600 xp is out there.

    endyen, there is 3 VERSIONS of the 2600 xp:
    Throughbred A, 2600 at 2.133 ghz at 266 FSB
    Throughbred A, 2600 at 2.083 ghz at 333 FSB
    Barton, 2600 at 2.083 ghz at 333 FSB

    thorton doesn't exist. Here are link from new newegg to the <A HREF=",5024" target="_new">barton</A> and <A HREF="" target="_new"> throughbred B </A> 2600 xp. You can find the old 2.133 266 FSB in

    The main problem with improving cache is that it gains in some places and it doesn't. If you look at the A64 3000 compared to the A64 3200, there isn't much differene in performance even though 3200 has double the cache. Cache can make things fall behind in some place and take ahead in others. Take look at this recent review from anadtech with the 2600 troughbred and 2500 barton:
    <A HREF="" target="_new"></A>.

    I will admit the barton kills 2600 in some places (IE games and business), but in others it fall behind the 2400 xp! You could say it balance out evenly, but old throughbred B 2600 is really more balanced. It doesn't fall behind that much. AMD trying justify things with cache results in stupid stuff like 3200+ barton with sucks. OC a 2500+ to 3200+ is what most ppl do instead of blowing $$ on 3200. Anyhow, just justifying things in cache isn't the best way to go!
  6. That is why I tried to sell my XP 2500+ to Zoron for the cost of shipping ;)

    He did not want it either but apparently he keeps telling me XP2500+ are faster then XP 2800+ and 3200+ if you overclock the 2500+

    LOL [-peep-] his slip is showing!!

    Barton 3200+ 400MHz
    A7N8X Deluxe
    2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
    GeForce FX5900
    Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
    SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
    SONY DVD 16x/40x
  7. It may be equal only in games, otherwise Barton 2600+ will be always slower because of low clock speed

    <b><A HREF="" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

    <b><A HREF="" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
  8. I stand corrected, there is a barton xp2600+ @ 1.9 ghz.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Cache Windows XP