AMD Overclocking Performance Comparison?

[orbitor333]

Hello,

I have decided to sell my year old notebook ($1300) and use this money to build my first desktop, I'm considering an overclocked system. AnandTech's recommended April's overclocking system, AMD XP-M 2500+ = 18.7Ghz ,they were able to overclock this cpu to 2.38Ghz (1.65V) and 2.53 (1.8V). However, I'm a bit confused in performance comparison with AMD's other processor.

What AMD processor would this overclocking system's performance be compared to, running at 2.38? and 2.53?

AMD XP 3000+ 2.16ghz
AMD XP 3200+ 2.20ghz
AMD 64 3000+ 2.00ghz
AMD 64 3200+ 2.20ghz

notebook specs.
Dell
15" UXGA (Ultra Sharp)
P4-M 2.0Ghz
512ram
40GB
32mb Geforce4 440Go
2 year warranty

 

[Tango57]

You can find some comparison reviews out there for the overclocked mobile bartons and how they perform against other processors. There aren't that many reviews yet though. I have a mobile barton 2600+ overclocked to 2.4 Ghz (200 x 12 @ 1.775v) right now. I benchmarked my cpu using Sisoft Sandra 2004. It's just a synthetic benchmark so take it for what it's worth. I myself would really like to see some more real world benchmarks on these processors however.

CPU Arithmetic Benchmark

CPU Multimedia Benchmark

Suffice to say this is an awesome cpu to overclock. For just about $90-$100 it's definitely worth it to pick up one of these.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

more examples

 

[Dman877]

From what I've seen, a barton running at 2.4ish ghz is about as fast an an A64 at 2 ghz in most things.

 

[BlindBartimaeus]

not in games though

 

[nbarb99]

The idea is that the mobile Barton processors are 2-4 times less expensive than the A64s

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

you end up getting slammed with cooling instead

 

[SickBeast]

At 2.53ghz, the XP is faster than anything AMD or Intel currently offers, including the FX53 and the P4EE. There are some cases where one may be faster than the other, but in my experience the overclocked mobile bartons are faster overall.

I went from a 2500+ at 3200+ speeds and noticed an enormous boost when I installed the XP mobile and got it stable at 2.5ghz at 1.80v. It's interesting that my overclocking results mirrored what Anand achieved.

Make sure you get some low-latency PC3200 or PC3500 memory (BH5 or BH6 if you can find some) as it will give you a very nice boost overall.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
At 2.53ghz, the XP is faster than anything AMD or Intel currently offers, including the FX53 and the P4EE. There are some cases where one may be faster than the other, but in my experience the overclocked mobile bartons are faster overall.

I went from a 2500+ at 3200+ speeds and noticed an enormous boost when I installed the XP mobile and got it stable at 2.5ghz at 1.80v. It's interesting that my overclocking results mirrored what Anand achieved.

Make sure you get some low-latency PC3200 or PC3500 memory (BH5 or BH6 if you can find some) as it will give you a very nice boost overall.

i dunno about that...

and i'm also pretty sure that my overclocked 2.6 ghz A64 is faster than any 2.53 ghz amd xp with only 256k's of L2 cache

 

[Algere]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim

Originally posted by: SickBeast
At 2.53ghz, the XP is faster than anything AMD or Intel currently offers, including the FX53 and the P4EE. There are some cases where one may be faster than the other, but in my experience the overclocked mobile bartons are faster overall.

I went from a 2500+ at 3200+ speeds and noticed an enormous boost when I installed the XP mobile and got it stable at 2.5ghz at 1.80v. It's interesting that my overclocking results mirrored what Anand achieved.

Make sure you get some low-latency PC3200 or PC3500 memory (BH5 or BH6 if you can find some) as it will give you a very nice boost overall.

i dunno about that...

and i'm also pretty sure that my overclocked 2.6 ghz A64 is faster than any 2.53 ghz amd xp with only 256k's of L2 cache

Maybe SickBeast means 2.53 GHz in comparison to CPU's released today by AMD and Intel @ stock speed?

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

yea, the 2.5 barton is probably more equal to a 3200 64, but still, they all have their ups and downs. the barton has 512k of cache, not 256.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
you end up getting slammed with cooling instead

Completely false.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
you end up getting slammed with cooling instead

Completely false.

if you want to consider getting a barton to touch the speed of a 64(in 32 bit mode no less), you have to spend almost as much on a decent cooler. i see most spend an extra $50 on thermalright products,which cost almost half of what they spend on the CPU. not to mention the memory score lags a bit when compared to the 64s,which would justify higher priced memory to overclock and match it.

if your serious about stability,you will get the proper CPU, NB, and case cooling, which will roughly amount to the amount spent on a OEM 64 processor. this of course omits the extra cost of the 64bit motherboard.

 

[myocardia]

Read this, Whack, it will answer most of your questions of how an overclocked mobile Barton performs: link. Oh, the benchmarking starts on page 5, which you can jump directly to, with the drop-down box on the right-hand side.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

yea thats pretty much what i expected, i'd rather see it compared to the non-FX 64s though because the FX is a too expensive for most of us.

in anycase,i can't even get my barton to hit 2.5ghz even with $100 worth of cooling.

 

[Zebo]

A barton @ 2500 hangs with the $800 FX-53 in almost every real-world test and even beats it in some. Nothing can touch the price/performance of a OC Moblie XP except maybe the $40 OC Duron.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

the FX53 is definatly faster than a barton at 2.5ghz. lets not forget the 64s are operating in 32 bit mode, you haven't even seen them shine yet. lets also not forget 2.5ghz is a great overclock, not everyone gets it,esp the new mobiles.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
yea thats pretty much what i expected, i'd rather see it compared to the non-FX 64s though because the FX is a too expensive for most of us.

in anycase,i can't even get my barton to hit 2.5ghz even with $100 worth of cooling.

Yeah, I know, I would love to see a comparison like that myself. Unfortunately, this is the only comparison I've seen to date that compares a 2.5ghz Barton against any Athlon64, and to me, it was a real eye-opener. As a matter of fact, I ordered my XP-M Barton on the day that I read this review.

 

[Tango57]

the mobile bartons are awesome processors indeed but not every mobile is the same in it's potential to overclock. it's just the luck of the draw when you get your mobile barton as to how well and how high it overclocks. of course a good motherboard and high end memory also helps as well. i think most mobile bartons will hit 2400 easily even with low end ram. to hit 2500 and higher will depend more so on the cpu, MB, and ram combined.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
you end up getting slammed with cooling instead

Completely false.

if you want to consider getting a barton to touch the speed of a 64(in 32 bit mode no less), you have to spend almost as much on a decent cooler. i see most spend an extra $50 on thermalright products,which cost almost half of what they spend on the CPU. not to mention the memory score lags a bit when compared to the 64s,which would justify higher priced memory to overclock and match it.

if your serious about stability,you will get the proper CPU, NB, and case cooling, which will roughly amount to the amount spent on a OEM 64 processor. this of course omits the extra cost of the 64bit motherboard.

Still completely false. I spent $20 on my SK-7 that's more than adequate. And since when does an Athlon-64 cost $120-150? ($100 mobile Athlon XP + $20-50 heatsink = $120-150)

*EDIT* BTW... your mobile Athlon XP2500's stock speed isn't 1800 Mhz... it's 1862. (your desthstar rig)

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Still completely false. I spent $20 on my SK-7 that's more than adequate. And since when does an Athlon-64 cost $120-150? ($100 mobile Athlon XP + $20-50 heatsink = $120-150)

*EDIT* BTW... your mobile Athlon XP2500's stock speed isn't 1800 Mhz... it's 1862. (your desthstar rig)

to each their own,i was serious about overclocking. i spent $50 on my heatsink fan combo, $25 on NB cooling,and $15 on a new 120mm case fan. thats $90 + $100 for the CPU. not to mention i spent the extra $40 on higher quality ram.

you can get a AMD 64 3200 OEM for $200 which will keep up and outperform as soon as 64bit software comes out(and still potential to even overclock).

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Still completely false. I spent $20 on my SK-7 that's more than adequate. And since when does an Athlon-64 cost $120-150? ($100 mobile Athlon XP + $20-50 heatsink = $120-150)

*EDIT* BTW... your mobile Athlon XP2500's stock speed isn't 1800 Mhz... it's 1862. (your desthstar rig)

to each their own,i was serious about overclocking. i spent $50 on my heatsink fan combo, $25 on NB cooling,and $15 on a new 120mm case fan. thats $90 + $100 for the CPU. not to mention i spent the extra $40 on higher quality ram.

you can get a AMD 64 3200 OEM for $200 which will keep up and outperform as soon as 64bit software comes out(and still potential to even overclock).

You spent $100 on cooling, I spent 20... mine's running 2.47 Ghz... what's your's running at?

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

You spent $100 on cooling, I spent 20... mine's running 2.47 Ghz... what's your's running at?

thanks for pointing out the obvious futility of overclocking. just because YOU had good luck with a cheap setup doesn't mean anyone else can. at least if someone throws down $200 for an OEM 64 they KNOW what they are getting.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

You spent $100 on cooling, I spent 20... mine's running 2.47 Ghz... what's your's running at?

thanks for pointing out the obvious futility of overclocking. just because YOU had good luck with a cheap setup doesn't mean anyone else can. at least if someone throws down $200 for an OEM 64 they KNOW what they are getting.

No, overclocking isn't guaranteed... but it's not necessary to spend $100 on cooling... believe me if you chose, or not... I don't care... you'll learn eventually...

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

No, overclocking isn't guaranteed... but it's not necessary to spend $100 on cooling... believe me if you chose, or not... I don't care... you'll learn eventually...

I bought everything in installments. I originally had a cheap $25 cpu cooler alone. it ran too hot and i needed too much voltage,so i got the cpu cooler. i was able to get 2.5ghz but it still needed 2 volts, which was unacceptable to me. so i looked to make up for it in memory performance, however when running 450mhz,my NB overheated and caused instability,so i got the NB cooler. due to the large size of my new CPU cooler blocking a great deal of airflow, i decided to improve it by getting a new rear case fan along with my new NB cooler. i have reasons for my actions, it not like i went on a tangent and went overkill for nothing.