• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Athlon vs. Athlon XP performance Numbers

DietDrThunder

DietDrThunder

Platinum Member
Is there a reference Chart/Article/Whatever showing the performance increases in difference categories from the Athlon 1Ghz on located anywhere? Before I upgrade my system (8K7A with Athlon 1.33Ghz), I want to compare so I can get the best bang for my buck, and see if it is really worth doing the upgrade.
 
I'll tell you right now, I have the 1.33ghz athlon and HAD a 1700+, now have a 2400+, granted the 1.33 was at 100 fsb, but it was blown away by both other processors. Best bang for the buck for a non-overclocker I would say is the 2400+...There is always a ling between high-end and non in processors, the 2400+ just passed that line and can be had for less than 100 bucks online...For an overclocker the 1700+ TBred B is amazingly good for the price.
 
I don't know about equivalently clocked Athlons vs. Athlon XPs, but if you're still running a 1.33GHz Tbird, any of the XPs will be worth it, especially given the recent price drop.
$48 1700+ OEM (great deal)
$83 2100+ Retail
$105 2400+ Retail (great deal)
 
In your opinion is an XP 2400 2 times faster than an Athlon 1.33GHz? Or what order of magnatude faster do you believe it is?
 
When the Palamino first came out, the old benchmarks showed it to be about 200MHz faster than an equally clocked Thunderbird. So a 1700+ at 1466MHz should equal a 1666MHz thunderbird. Of couse, the big deal is most any t-bred "B" 1700+ can hit 2000MHz, some as high as 2300MHz+.
 
Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
I'll tell you right now, I have the 1.33ghz athlon and HAD a 1700+, now have a 2400+, granted the 1.33 was at 100 fsb, but it was blown away by both other processors. Best bang for the buck for a non-overclocker I would say is the 2400+...There is always a ling between high-end and non in processors, the 2400+ just passed that line and can be had for less than 100 bucks online...For an overclocker the 1700+ TBred B is amazingly good for the price.
Click to expand...

I disagree... for a non-overclocker, I'd have to say the XP2500 is the best bang for the buck... especially with prices steadily dropping.
 
Well, I mean, prices are dropping, yes, I just didn't realize how fast. When I bought my 2400+ it was $50 cheaper than the 2500+, which right now is just passing below that price line now. As far as performance, in games, I wouldn't say a 2400+ would double the fps in games, but in my computers it boots up at least twice as fast coupled with the faster memory I have running, as an example. I would say, I guess, wait until the 2500+ drops a little more if you feel like waiting. I still like the 2400+.
 
What do you use your computer for? For gaming mainly? Then buy a faster video card. For ripping/burning music/movies? Buy a faster HD/Burner. Buying a faster cpu will improve the overall performance in general but you already have a fast enough cpu to handle most everyday tasks. I guess what I'm trying to say is if you're not interested in overclocking but wants some vast improvement in your computing experience, find out what the bottleneck is before investing in a cpu thinking that a faster cpu will almost double the performance. But then again, with a 1700+ so cheap these days, why not hop on a bandwagon and enjoy the 2+ghz excitement.
 
Hard drive is the biggest bottleneck... if you're gonna do a lot of multi-media crap you might consider a good 8 MB cache drive... or even WD's Raptor if you have SATA
 
I do a lot of mpeg encoding so my processor is usually maxed out for 4 to 5 hours at a time. I 'd really like to get this processing time down to something more reasonable. I have the WD 120 GB special edition with 8 meg buffer so I know this really isn't the bottle neck. I know the Pentium 4s are supposed to be better at performing this task, but, I don't know, I just like AMD's products better.
 
Yes, P4's are much better at media encoding... however, if typical windows tasks are more important than media encoding, go ahead with AMD.
 
What do you use your computer for? For gaming mainly? Then buy a faster video card
Click to expand...

...or not. A faster CPU will do as much for gaming, if not more, than a new video card, unless you're using a GF2 or lower (and I have friend who's still happy w/ a GF2 GTS).

Overlocking:
1700+ is the best for the money
2100+ generally gets higher (odds are better)

Not overclocking:
2100+ will be a nice change
2400+ is the best for the money
Complete comparison of various processors.
and
Barton vs. P4
but of course
Software used makes a difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top