Am I stupid for getting a 2800+?

[BlueWeasel]

Here's what I have now:

Epox 8RDA Nforce2 board
XP2000+ (1.7ghz, not OC'ed)
1024mb PC2700 (Muskin, no idea how far it will go)
ATI 9800NP

I am about to upgrade the CPU and am leaning toward the 2800+ instead of the 2500+. I really don't want to overclock (at least not yet), and thats why I am favoring the 2800+.

However, I may want to overclock in the future, but the results I've seen show some of the 2800's don't even reach the 3200+ speeds because of the high multiplier. Obviously, if I went with the 2500+ I'd overclock it, but it would likely require a RAM upgrade, whereas the 2800+ wouldn't until I decided to overclock.

Am I stupid for going with the 2800+?

As always, all suggestions, comments, and flames are gladly welcomed.

 

[Sarobi]

I started another thread touching on similar question. In your case, the difference in cost between the 2500+ and 2800+ (about $50 bucks) would go a long way towards new RAM. Since it sounds like you plan to upgrade your Ram anyway, I'd go with the 2500+. Even at stock speeds I'm not sure the real world difference between 2500+ and 2800+ is big enough to put off upgrading the Ram sooner, which will be important if ur going to OC.

 

[myocardia]

Okay, you already have a proven overclocking board, an XP 2000 (which OC's fairly well), and Mushkin PC2700. I say don't upgrade yet. You should be able to get at least 2.1ghz out of the proc. you already have.

 

[mechBgon]

Perspective: the 2800+ Barton is clocked 14% higher than the 2500+, and costs about 60% more than the 2500+. Of course, with "60% more" coming to $55 in absolute terms, maybe it's not that big a deal to your budget. Like myocardia says, though, you might want to see what you can wring out of your existing setup first!

 

[BlueWeasel]

Actually, the XP2000 is a pretty terrible overclocker

 

[yelo333]

but, remember, that's the palamino core 2000+. I don't overclock, but I have a thoroughbred 2000+ which probably would overclock better, as it's a .13u.download cpu-z to find out which 2000+ you have.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Actually, the XP2000 is a pretty terrible overclocker

Yeah, you're right, I was thinking of the XP2100, the first tbred... Since it doesn't seem like you're an overclocker, get the 2800.

 

[Ikonomi]

I honestly don't think you'll see enough difference between a 2800 and a 2500 to justify the price of the 2800, even if you're not going to overclock it. The 2500 is a very nice deal.

 

[Doh!]

If the extra $50 is not much of a financial burden, I would get the XP 2800 since you're not planning on overclocking it yet. Even if you want to overclock it later, you can drop the multiplier & shoot for the 3200+ speed. However, the performance difference will be insignificant in most applications. But then again, the magnitude of significance in the performance difference between 2500 & 2800 is very subjective just as the value of that extra $50.

 

[bootoo]

Unlocked 2500+s are getting harder to find and more expensive too, if you're thinking overclock later balance that into the equation.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: yelo333
but, remember, that's the palamino core 2000+. I don't overclock, but I have a thoroughbred 2000+ which probably would overclock better, as it's a .13u.download cpu-z to find out which 2000+ you have.

Unfortunately, I've got a Pally core

Originally posted by: yelo333
If the extra $50 is not much of a financial burden, I would get the XP 2800 since you're not planning on overclocking it yet. Even if you want to overclock it later, you can drop the multiplier & shoot for the 3200+ speed. However, the performance difference will be insignificant in most applications. But then again, the magnitude of significance in the performance difference between 2500 & 2800 is very subjective just as the value of that extra $50.

I am pretty sure the 2800 will be multiplier locked, so all I can do is up the FSB. It appears the 2800 is not a great OC'er because of the higher multiplier (12.5x). However, I would only need to be able to overclock to a 176FSB to reach 3200+ speeds (12.5 x 176 = 2.2ghz). I am looking to keep the chip for a while (probably about a year), so I don't mind paying a little more.

 

[Sarobi]

That makes sense, but I think I'd still go with the 2500+ and sink the cost difference into faster Ram or maybe even upgrading graphics card --- those will have a bigger impact on performance even without OC than just going to the 2800 alone IMO.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: BlueWeaselI am pretty sure the 2800 will be multiplier locked, so all I can do is up the FSB. It appears the 2800 is not a great OC'er because of the higher multiplier (12.5x). However, I would only need to be able to overclock to a 176FSB to reach 3200+ speeds (12.5 x 176 = 2.2ghz). I am looking to keep the chip for a while (probably about a year), so I don't mind paying a little more.

Blue, you're forgetting that with overclocking, the higher the fsb, the higher the performance. A 2500@2.2ghz will be quite a bit faster than a 2800@2.2ghz. The 2500 will have a 48mhz (DDR) fsb advantage when running at 2.2ghz.

 

[KF]

>Am I stupid for going with the 2800+?
Absolutely.

>... flames are gladly welcomed.

Some one who is not going to try to OC a 2500+ on an EPOX mobo is too wimpy to even post in the"CPU/Processors and Overclocking" forum. And don't get new memory. If you weren't going to OC Mushkin, why didn't you just get some generic instead? Get some spine man. I've got some Crucial 2100 that'll make 200MHz (OK, barely.)

You already know why you have to get a 2500+. It should do about the same OC speed as 2800+(that's why AMD locked it), but the mem speed will be faster at 1:1. Spend the difference on a Thermalright HSF.

>I really don't want to overclock (at least not yet)

Why's that? Are you running a business on the same machine? Don't.

I'm not used to flaming people; I hope I got it right Hey, the worst that is going to happen is that you'll have to run the 2500+ stock, which is not all that bad!

 

[BlueWeasel]

OK, let's assume that I get the 2800+ and overclock it to 3200+ speeds (2.2ghz @ 176 FSB). Can I really expect a noticeable increase in performance if I went to a 2500+ (200 FSB)?

KF:
Man, I hear everything you are saying. Unfortunately, I could possibly get a bad 2500+ chip that might not make it to the 200 FSB. Granted, it doesn't really look that way, but with my poor luck, who knows. That and I do alot of my work on the system, and don't really want to sacrafice stability.

That's why I am really leaning toward the 2800+ over the 2500+.

Actually, I have 2 sticks of PC3200 256mb RAM (generic) and a single stick of 512mb PC2700 Muskin (CL2). I know the generic stuff would hit 200FSB just fine, and the Muskin probably would too.

Man, that 2500+ running at 11x200 would be nice.....very nice...

 

[KF]

>OK, let's assume that I get the 2800+ and overclock it to 3200+ speeds (2.2ghz @ 176 FSB).
> Can I really expect a noticeable increase in performance if I went to a 2500+ (200 FSB)?

How noticeable is noticeable? My chip is old and unlocked (TbredB 1700+), so I can trade off either way, so I keep the CPU speed constant. Putting up the mem speed from 133 to 166 was very noticeable. Putting it up to 180 was clearly noticeable. Up to 200 was noticeable. OTOH hand, if you put it back to 133, you get used to it in a couple of hours. Same with 200. I guess it is like driving at 80mph. You get used to it.

I can see you aren't the cheap type and don't mind the extra $45. I would guess that you are happy with the performance of what you have (you aren't doing massive video encoding?), and you just want to bump it up because you are feeling a little too far behind the edge. Myself, I think $130 is bit much for that closer-to-edge feeling, but you're not me. You'll pay $130 (instead of 85), and in a couple of days the effect will wear off. But if you stay where you are, you'll feel like you are dropping too far behind. You want to feel like a "geek" in good standing. If you are as much of a worry-wart as you say, then that pretty much settles it. Comfort is worth something.

Usually worriers rufuse to OC 1MHz: they're worried they won't be able to collect on the warranty if their CPU quits in ten years. That's what makes your post so confusing.