1800+ @ 2.30Ghz(T-bred B) or 2500+ @ 2.20Ghz (Barton) ??

[gsethi]

Title says it all guys....

If you were given the option to pick one of those CPUs, which one would you pick ?
Intended Use: Gaming, Browsing, Coding, Compiling.
Price difference: Barton is $30 more expensive than T-bred.

thanks

EDIT: so far its 2 - 2, comon guys, more opinions pls. I know there are many more of people like me who want the answer to this same question (all of us using 1700s & 1800s DLT3Cs )

 

[Duvie]

Well if both of them were at same fsb then that negates one of the differences between the 2 chips...So one does 100mhz more overall speed but has 256kb less of l2 cache and 30 bucks cheaper....I think it is a toss-up....I think in gaming the extra cache will definitely negate the 100mhz cpu speed lead, but I am not sure on the other items and how much 512kb really made with AMD as I know it isn't the same as the leap the northwood made...

I am a cheapo and would say get the cheaper one now and save the money foran A64 sooner....I don't think you will feel the difference really!!!

Are you buying the chips only or getting the mobo and other components??? I would be wary about buying an oc'd chip and thinking you will get same results unless you had a lot of the components...

 

[gsethi]

thanks duvie....thats what i was also thinking.
Yes, both will be @ same FSB.

but i think that A64 wont be affordable till this time next year though....

 

[StorminNorm]

Not just a $30 difference- There is also the cost of the motherboard and memory. If you're going for the 2500+ you end up buying a better motherboard and memory. So the price gap moves toward the $100+ range. (I have not priced out the cheaper boards)

I'm about to build a test server rig for dual boot win2003 server and linux. I may make this into a dvd home move burner & mp3 jukebox down the road (slap in a SATA next year).

I just need case, mobo, cpu and memory. I have everything else from gutted system. I was leaning toward the Abit NF7-S, Asus or Epox (nice cables). But now I'm rethinking if its worth the extra bucks for small performance difference.

From everyone's posts (my eyes hurt after a few days of scanning reviews and prices), the XP2500 is THE processor!
Is it worth stepping down to XP2000/2100/2200? Or just bite the bullet and go for a XP2500? And why NOT an XP2800?? Just because it is double the cost of a 2500? And difference in speed is not "that" noticable?

Thanks EVERYONE for all the posts! Especially the cases and powersupply posts! I'm glad I found anandtech!

 

[gsethi]

Well, i already have the motherboard:

Abit NF7-S v2.0 - $65.xx shipped (from Newegg Refurbs) and it works great .... tested upto 230FSB
Twinmos PC3700 512MB stick - works great - tested upto DDR460

so i am not worried about the memory or mobo. The only question is the CPU and am just wondering as to which one is better.

 

[StorminNorm]

I would go with the faster cpu since you have a great mobo and high speed memory. Sounds like you are primed for o'clocking this thing!

I may have to build the same rig
Sounds like a great combo!
I just have to pick my case now.

 

[Mingon]

I would go with the barton, easier to cool, as quick 95% of the time and quicker ~20% of the time

 

[cow123]

barton isnt easier to cool :Q

 

[KDKPSJ]

I would go with Barton. Bigger L2 cache has been the biggest issue to me. Just consider whether you do multitask a lot or not. I think that's only difference between those two.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

I would go with the Barton just cause $30 isn't much and the cache will help out in gaming. And StorminNorm, are you the same person that I used to play TFC with in [GOO]?

 

[StorminNorm]

And StorminNorm, are you the same person that I used to play TFC with in [GOO]?

No. Never tried online gaming (yet).
What would be the best?

 

[Jeff7181]

You don't need a different motherboard or RAM for each of these processors... I don't know where you came up with that. If you overclock like 95% of the people who have these processors... they'll both be almost at the exact same settings.

The extra 100 Mhz will make up for the Barton's extra L2 cache in most games and applications and sometimes be more useful than the extra cache.

I'd go with the Barton anyway though since if you find out your RAM or something is going to limit your overclock, the Barton will perform better at the same clock speeds. 2.2 Ghz out of the Barton is not guaranteed, and 2.3 out of the T-bred B is not guaranteed.

 

[gsethi]

i am already getting 2.40Ghz out of my T-bred and my ram wont limit me for like another 6 months atleast

 

[Jeff7181]

So why are you asking about slower processors?

 

[joe2004]

XP 1800 with 100 MHz more and $30 less? What else you need to know. 2.3 GHz XP 1800 will wipe the floor with Barton at 2.2 GHz, whatever cache there is. That is not even close. I don't see what to think about here, the choice is obvious.

 

[hytek369]

Originally posted by: joe2004
XP 1800 with 100 MHz more and $30 less? What else you need to know. 2.3 GHz XP 1800 will wipe the floor with Barton at 2.2 GHz, whatever cache there is. That is not even close. I don't see what to think about here, the choice is obvious.

i agree, cheaper price is the better deal

 

[gsethi]

thanks guys....you all have cleared the doubt in my mind.

Sticking w/ my T-bred @ 2.40 Ghz as of now. Will upgrade later to either A64 or Prescott (which ever is better at the time)

 

[MrEgo]

Originally posted by: joe2004
XP 1800 with 100 MHz more and $30 less? What else you need to know. 2.3 GHz XP 1800 will wipe the floor with Barton at 2.2 GHz, whatever cache there is. That is not even close. I don't see what to think about here, the choice is obvious.

Ha..it would NOT wipe the floor. You would win some, and lose some. Actually, I have used both chips, one Tbred at 2300MHz, 200FSB - and one Barton at 2200MHz, 200FSB and the Barton, in my opinion, benefitted me much more. My gaming performance was better, but also my system was much "snappier". Applications opened quicker and Windows ran a little smoother. A stock Tbred-b Athlon XP 2400+ is at 2.0GHz, and a stock Athlon XP 2500+ Barton is at 1.83GHz. That's 166MHz slower, despite the 2500+ winning out is most of the applications. I'd say the Barton was better, but it's up to you to decide if it's worth the extra $30 to get the Barton.

(I'd take the Barton...but I have $ to blow)

 

[Mardeth]

Barton.

 

[Peter D]

Wheres the poll?!?!

I vote for a Barton

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: joe2004
XP 1800 with 100 MHz more and $30 less? What else you need to know. 2.3 GHz XP 1800 will wipe the floor with Barton at 2.2 GHz, whatever cache there is. That is not even close. I don't see what to think about here, the choice is obvious.

Wipe the floor with it? The extra cache on a Barton is worth about 100 mhz when compared to a T-Bred in most cases. Look at the benchmarks done by AnandTech where they show combinations of T-Breds and Bartons.

 

[Nuggs]

Barton!

 

[ahfung]

The extra 256KB L2 of Barton doesn't not really improve too much in real world app and games. Some of them still favor MHz over L2 size.

Here is example of XP2800+ vs Barton 2800+

The faster clocked XP2800+ @ 2250MHz is faster than Barton 2800+ @ 2083MHz in the majority of tests.

1700+/1800+ only cost a half of 2500+, and with just 256KB L2 they can overclock higher than most 2500+. Just for the price alone I'd go for 1700+/1800+, not to mention more overclocking headroom.

And lastly let me throw in a few benchmarks for barton guys to compare, just feel free to spank mine

XP1800+ @ 2.4GHz (11x218)

CPUmark99: 228
SuperPi (1MB): 42s

XP1800+ @ 2.5GHz[11.5x218)

CPUmark99: 237
SuperPi (1MB): 41s

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: ahfung
The extra 256KB L2 of Barton doesn't not really improve too much in real world app and games. Some of them still favor MHz over L2 size.

Here is example of XP2800+ vs Barton 2800+

The faster clocked XP2800+ @ 2250MHz is faster than Barton 2800+ @ 2083MHz in the majority of tests.

1700+/1800+ only cost a half of 2500+, and with just 256KB L2 they can overclock higher than most 2500+. Just for the price alone I'd go for 1700+/1800+, not to mention more overclocking headroom.

And lastly let me throw in a few benchmarks for barton guys to compare, just feel free to spank mine

XP1800+ @ 2.4GHz (11x218)

CPUmark99: 228
SuperPi (1MB): 42s

XP1800+ @ 2.5GHz[11.5x218)

CPUmark99: 235
SuperPi (1MB): 41s

Right on!!!! I have said this in many previous post...look at the barton 3000+ rview and the athlon 2800+xp actually beat it in a lot of test. ppl need to remember and stop confusing Intel's leap in performance when the northwood and 512kb leaped over the willamette and 256l2....It isn't the same. testing showed that the l2 cache did not increase the performance by that much, and in that instance showed how lame the amd pr rating was. It was like AMD ran 1 test in a gaming exercise and set the pr rating. Then in all the other apps that it didn't help AMD showed its over rating...

 

[joe2004]

Personally I own two Bartons and I think Barton is the biggest fluke AMD made in years. Fake ratings that makes Intel people laugh at. Beside it is harder to overclock in majority motherboards, even if they claim to support it. If a XP T'bred goes 100 MHz higher I would choose it over Barton in no time, that is all.
Talking about superpi, my Barton 2500 at 2.231 GHz, as in 194x11.5, does 47 sec for 1 MB, 1 min 47 sec for 2 MB. But I think this something to do with memory timings as well. In either case it sucks since my Pentium 2.4C @ 3.2 GHz does 2 MB in 1 min 39 sec.