2500+ is better Value then the 2.4C.. do you agree?

[videoclone]

$85 Gets you a Athlon 2500+ with a heatsink cooler & sticker in box
it overclocks to 2.2Ghz 3200+ rating on default Voltage using the Stock default cooler few case fans.

$170 Gets you a P4 2.4c with a heatsink cooler & sticker in box
it overclocks to 3.2Ghz using the Stock default cooler few case fans.

The P4 is 15% faster at default 2.4Ghz then the 2500+ Clocked at (1.83Ghz)
The P4 is 15% Faster at overclocked 3.2ghz then the 2500+ @t 3200+ Clocked at (2.2Ghz)

You can get two 2500+ CPU?s for the same price. As one P4 2.4c
Why would anyone here ever say the P4 is better Value for money ? Do they know what Value for money means?
I'm interested to know why they think like this?

 

[LbJustinTime]

If you love to OC, and you are knowledgable about AMD. Then go with AMD.

AMD has always been the best bet for the budget.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yeah, it's hard to argue with AMD's bang for the buck. However, the 2.4C still is a kickass deal if you're used to paying Intel prices.

 

[Corporate Thug]

yes its a better value but why are we goin through this again?

 

[dunkster]

If it's a value overclocker you're looking for, I'd get a $70 OEM DLT3C XP1700+ and put a decent heatsink on it.

They're capable of a 1GHz overclock, air-cooled.

Hope this helps!

 

[modedepe]

Yes the 2500+ offers excellent bang for the buck. It's clearly the better choice if you're on a tight budget. The 2.4c isn't that bad though, it will overclock well, just like a 2500+ and will offer that little extra performance. It isn't a bad choice if you don't mind paying a bit extra.

 

[videoclone]

Originally posted by: modedepe
Yes the 2500+ offers excellent bang for the buck. It's clearly the better choice if you're on a tight budget. The 2.4c isn't that bad though, it will overclock well, just like a 2500+ and will offer that little extra performance. It isn't a bad choice if you don't mind paying a bit extra.

A Bit extra??? .. it costs twice as much ... how is that a bit?

 

[Jeff7181]

Isn't there another post with almost the same title on the first page?

 

[S0me1X]

A 2.4C may cost twice as much as a 2500+, but a 2.4C complete system doesn't cost twice as much as a 2500+ system.

 

[Lyfer]

I doubt most 2.4C's will do 3.2GHZ. Especially with stock cooling. BUt the barton is a steal at $85, throw a nice SK7 and PC3200 = overclocking goodness.

 

[AkumaX]

yes.

 

[Tom]

Subaru Imprezza costs $20000.
Subaru WRX costs $25000.

Which one is a better value ?

Which one do you want ?

 

[Jeff7181]

I'll take a 1969 442 W-30, thanks

 

[videoclone]

I?ll take a 1969 volkswagen with original timber side paneling.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: videoclone

Originally posted by: modedepe
Yes the 2500+ offers excellent bang for the buck. It's clearly the better choice if you're on a tight budget. The 2.4c isn't that bad though, it will overclock well, just like a 2500+ and will offer that little extra performance. It isn't a bad choice if you don't mind paying a bit extra.

A Bit extra??? .. it costs twice as much ... how is that a bit?

Depends how you define "a bit"

 

[videoclone]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Subaru Imprezza costs $20000.
Subaru WRX costs $25000.

Which one is a better value ?

Which one do you want ?

You'v got it all wrong its more like

Mitsubishi Lancer with Evo 7 Mod - Looks great gets you the girls and its fast.

Subaru WRX Costs Twice as much - Looks great but for half the price you can still get the girls with the Evo 7 moded Lancer
why Spend the extra 10,000 on the WRX when the Evo 7 mod is almost just as good.

 

[aznskickass]

You know what I find funny about this argument by AMD fanboys? They treat it like the CPU price is the ONLY part of a PC.

You calculate value by adding up ALL the parts of a system. Can you get a CPU to work by itself? NO. You need a mobo and RAM to go with it. And a PSU. And a HDD. And a video card. And a case. And a monitor. And the input peripherals. And speakers. Get the drift? Of course, many people have have some/all of these parts already, but ever heard of people getting a BRAND NEW PC?

Or even a general CPU/mobo/RAM/HDD/video card upgrade?

Think about this: Barton 2500+, a decent nForce2 board (Abit NF7-S gets my vote) plus 2x 256MB PC3500 RAM (for those 220FSBs on nForce2 boards)... how much do you think that is gonna set you back? Around $350, at least, correct?

A 2.4C is $80 more than a 2500+ by itself. It will be $100 more expensive if it were a CPU/mobo/RAM combo (considering Intel mobos cost a bit more). And hey, you guessed it, the P4 will also only be $100 more in a *WHOLE SYSTEM*.

I recently bought my new PC, a fairly high spec rig, for around $US1800. It has a 2.6C CPU, which I run 24/7 at 3.4GHz.
That is about 20% quicker at running SINGLE applications than an overclocked Barton 2500+ @ 2.3GHz, which is about the average overclock for a 2500+. Considering I'm only running a relatively cheap P4P800 Dlx instead of more expensive i875P boards, the difference between the two would basically be the CPU. Which is around, hmmm, $110, something like that.

What is $110 out of a $1800 system? A measly ~6%! For a 20% performance gain for general use. Multitasking, is more like a 50% improvement. So I'm paying an extra 6% for a 20% performance gain in general usage!

So, what do I think about which is better value in my situation? Do I really need to answer that question for you?

Of course, not everyone gets a brand spanking new PC. I understand that. But generally, they at least get a new CPU/mobo/RAM, and often a larger HDD and graphics card to go with it.

So, OK...
CPU by itself: Barton 2500+ is MUCH better value. But I wish you good luck running a CPU by itself. Go on, try it.

CPU/mobo/RAM: It depends. If you are getting 1GB of RAM, it pushes the price of the combo right up, so the 2.4C might actually sneak ahead. If you are getting 512MB of RAM, then the Barton 2500+ is slightly better value.

Whole computer: No contest. A 2.4C is better value when you are buying a whole system.
Of course, unless you have a REALLY tight budget, as in below $1000, where spending $170 on a CPU takes up too much of overall budget.

 

[Jeff7181]

Money obviously is of no concern to you if you drop $1800 on a computer. Over about 2 years, I have $1200 invested in mine...

When we're talking about price/performance of course we're talking about being on a tight budget... if the cost had nothing to do with the decision making process, then of course I'd buy a 3.2 Ghz P4C and some PC4000 RAM and a $200 motherboard and I'd have about 4 15k SCSI drives in some sort of RAID configuration... but money IS an object for most people who frequent these boards.

 

[aznskickass]

I understand that.

As I said in my post, people with tight budgets (sub $1000) are better off with a 2500+ because the 2.4C would take too much of the overall budget.

And FWIW, money actually *is* of concern to me, no matter what my financial situation is. If I was really rich, I would be getting a $3000 computer. Maybe even more. Even then, I would still care about my finances.

 

[MichaelD]

Aznskickass makes some good points.

Speaking for myself; I already had an 8RDA+ and 2 x 512mb Corsair PC3200C2 and had no intentions of buying anything but a new CPU. A 2500 Barton at $95 was a steal!

If I was building an entirely new rig (well, new mobo anyways) I'd get the P4...but then I'd have to buy a Socket478 SLK800!

 

[IsOs]

If value is all we are comparing, I would agree that the Barton 2500 is a better buy than a P4 2.4c. The cost of my P4 2.4c system is more than my dual Barton 2500 system. I am running my dual Barton 2500+ at 150FSB X 14 default voltage using the MSI K7D Master motherboard.

One advantage that the HyperThreading P4 has over the dual Bartons is that the P4 2.4c system is much cooler to run than the dual Bartons.

As far as speed is concern, they are both fast.