AMD...Which to choose? Opinion needed

Generix · 05-28-2003, 05:47 PM

If you had a choice between an AMD thoroughbred XP 2700 or an AMD Barton XP 2500 for 95 dollars less, which would you choose? If you didn't know, the Barton chip doubles the L2 cache from the traditional 256k to 512k. It also increases the FSB from 266 to 333. Is this drop in speed wortht he extra cache and bandwidth? So you don't ask, I'm going to be doing virtually everything with my system. Which one would you choose?

orb36O · 05-28-2003, 07:27 PM

Barton, the clock speeds between the two are nearly the same (2500 = 1.9Ghz, 2700 = 2.1Ghz)

Sinkalip · 05-28-2003, 08:52 PM

The later Tbreds have a 333FSB too.

I would take the Barton, for the cache.

Cleric · 05-28-2003, 11:06 PM

barton, hands down. Better architecture(spl?

)

Cirga · 05-29-2003, 02:58 PM

Yup.. and for 100 bucks less.. you are in luck.

I just bough thta chip.. I will be putting it to use tonight

Sinkalip · 05-29-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cirga
Yup.. and for 100 bucks less.. you are in luck.

I just bough thta chip.. I will be putting it to use tonight

If you got the case

Good luck with it Cirga

igalan · 05-30-2003, 03:25 AM

For $100 less I'll take the Barton... There is very little difference in speed between the 2700+ and 2500+...

As far as I know, the 2700+ runs also at 166MHz FSB (333 DDR).

Cirga · 05-30-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sinkalip
If you got the case

Good luck with it Cirga

Just an FYI.. when you consider your PSU you purchase.. be very very careful. I suggest Enermax or Antec.. I took the cheap route.. and paid the price. I blew the PSU last night after running my new Barton chip for about.. a half hour

ho ho ho

Lesson learned

Generix · 05-30-2003, 12:32 PM

Yeah, I have an Enermax lined up

orb36O · 05-30-2003, 05:30 PM

Another thing... the Barton, when cooled properly can be successffully overclocked at least 20%

Cleric · 05-31-2003, 11:14 AM

architecture people

, even if its slower in the hertz arena(barton) , it will run more, ?effeciently? or smoother, take your pick:0 so it may have a cleaner feel to it in turn making up for what it lacks in hertz.

But thats my opinion I could be wrong

orb36O · 05-31-2003, 11:20 PM

Well, processor should be measured in MIPS not Mhz/Ghz

Ghz = clock cycles
MIPS = Millions of instructions per second

since some processors can do 2 instructions per cycle, and others can only do 1, Mhz/Ghz is not accurate.

EX:

X-Box has a 700Mhz
GameCube has a 400Mhz

X-Box executes 1 instruction per cycle,
GameCube executes 2...

Gamecube is faster even though it has a lesser clock...

igalan · 06-02-2003, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by orb36O
Well, processor should be measured in MIPS not Mhz/Ghz
Ghz = clock cycles
MIPS = Millions of instructions per second
since some processors can do 2 instructions per cycle, and others can only do 1, Mhz/Ghz is not accurate.

This is still not a good mesure. Since some processors are RISC and some CISC, and then they have different sets of instructions, just looking at MIPS is not enough.

Current x86 processors are CISC with a RISC core: The CPU translates every CISC instruction into a subset of RISC instructions that then get scheduled and executed. So even in the case of x86 if not that clear how many instructions per second they can run

. You see, it's not that easy

. However if you look at the same family of CPU, you can use MIPS and Hz.

olddood · 10-18-2003, 10:27 PM

I can tell you from experience, go with the 2500+ or the 2600+ especially if you plan to overclock. I have tried overclocking my 2700+, and it is practiclly useless for that. I've read where others have gotten it to 2.3meg, but try everything I could only got 2.3 for a short while before it started acting up, and finally crashed.
I'm sure the 2500 or 2600 can do better than that.

olddood · 10-18-2003, 10:46 PM

I just checked the prices at new egg, and for 9 bucks more you can get the 2600+($99). It is also a Barton, and has the 512k cache. Oh, and the 2600 is the one with 1.9 ghz, the 2500 is 1.8 ghz. at least that what new egg quotes. From all I have read sofar, the 2600 does a nice job overclocking. I wish I had asked here before getting the 2700.
Oh well, live and learn.

05-28-2003, 05:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
Generix Weetard Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 85	AMD...Which to choose? Opinion needed If you had a choice between an AMD thoroughbred XP 2700 or an AMD Barton XP 2500 for 95 dollars less, which would you choose? If you didn't know, the Barton chip doubles the L2 cache from the traditional 256k to 512k. It also increases the FSB from 266 to 333. Is this drop in speed wortht he extra cache and bandwidth? So you don't ask, I'm going to be doing virtually everything with my system. Which one would you choose? __________________ "The trick to flying is throwing yourself at the ground and missing."

05-28-2003, 07:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
orb36O x4841434B4552 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Strongbadia Posts: 254	Barton, the clock speeds between the two are nearly the same (2500 = 1.9Ghz, 2700 = 2.1Ghz) __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:-- a--- C++++ UL++ P+ L++ E W++ N-- o-- K- w++ O- M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y PGP t+ 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D+ G e h !r z? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Decode Here Used to have a sig, but the friggin' sites don't allow remote linking...

05-28-2003, 11:06 PM	#4 (permalink)
Cleric Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6	barton, hands down. Better architecture(spl? ) __________________ Just because your entitled to your opinion, Doesnt mean your actually right!

05-29-2003, 02:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cirga Lurking AdMiN Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: In my own little world. Buts its ok. They know me here. Posts: 3,245	Yup.. and for 100 bucks less.. you are in luck. I just bough thta chip.. I will be putting it to use tonight __________________ Vote For Us! -- It will get you hot chicks. No really It will! ---- www.myTego.com - Give your devices a face! Dont be a conformist!

05-30-2003, 12:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
Generix Weetard Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 85	Yeah, I have an Enermax lined up __________________ "The trick to flying is throwing yourself at the ground and missing."

05-28-2003, 08:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sinkalip Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Under the bed Posts: 62	The later Tbreds have a 333FSB too. I would take the Barton, for the cache.

05-30-2003, 03:25 AM	#7 (permalink)
igalan PCTT Articles Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Barcelona, SPAIN Posts: 1,018	For $100 less I'll take the Barton... There is very little difference in speed between the 2700+ and 2500+... As far as I know, the 2700+ runs also at 166MHz FSB (333 DDR).

05-30-2003, 05:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
orb36O x4841434B4552 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Strongbadia Posts: 254	Another thing... the Barton, when cooled properly can be successffully overclocked at least 20% __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:-- a--- C++++ UL++ P+ L++ E W++ N-- o-- K- w++ O- M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y PGP t+ 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D+ G e h !r z? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Decode Here Used to have a sig, but the friggin' sites don't allow remote linking...

05-31-2003, 11:14 AM	#11 (permalink)
Cleric Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6	architecture people , even if its slower in the hertz arena(barton) , it will run more, ?effeciently? or smoother, take your pick:0 so it may have a cleaner feel to it in turn making up for what it lacks in hertz. But thats my opinion I could be wrong __________________ Just because your entitled to your opinion, Doesnt mean your actually right!

05-31-2003, 11:20 PM	#12 (permalink)
orb36O x4841434B4552 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Strongbadia Posts: 254	Well, processor should be measured in MIPS not Mhz/Ghz Ghz = clock cycles MIPS = Millions of instructions per second since some processors can do 2 instructions per cycle, and others can only do 1, Mhz/Ghz is not accurate. EX: X-Box has a 700Mhz GameCube has a 400Mhz X-Box executes 1 instruction per cycle, GameCube executes 2... Gamecube is faster even though it has a lesser clock... __________________ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:-- a--- C++++ UL++ P+ L++ E W++ N-- o-- K- w++ O- M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y PGP t+ 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D+ G e h !r z? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Decode Here Used to have a sig, but the friggin' sites don't allow remote linking...

10-18-2003, 10:27 PM	#14 (permalink)
olddood Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: salem Mass us Posts: 83	I can tell you from experience, go with the 2500+ or the 2600+ especially if you plan to overclock. I have tried overclocking my 2700+, and it is practiclly useless for that. I've read where others have gotten it to 2.3meg, but try everything I could only got 2.3 for a short while before it started acting up, and finally crashed. I'm sure the 2500 or 2600 can do better than that.

10-18-2003, 10:46 PM	#15 (permalink)
olddood Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: salem Mass us Posts: 83	I just checked the prices at new egg, and for 9 bucks more you can get the 2600+($99). It is also a Barton, and has the 512k cache. Oh, and the 2600 is the one with 1.9 ghz, the 2500 is 1.8 ghz. at least that what new egg quotes. From all I have read sofar, the 2600 does a nice job overclocking. I wish I had asked here before getting the 2700. Oh well, live and learn.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode