Athlon XP 2600+ (non Barton) or Athlon 2500+ (Barton 512K)

[BehindEnemyLines]

Which one of these two performs better. I notice the Athlon 2500+ is a little cheaper than the other for what reasons I'm not sure (lower clock speed maybe?).

Specification for the twos:

XP-2600+ 2133 MHz 266 MHz Socket A 256 KB
XP-2500+ 1833 MHz 333 MHz Socket A 512 KB Barton

 

[pspada]

2500+ has double the cache, and thus performs math type operations noticably faster. And I hear it's not bad at overclocking too, so I don't see how the 2600+ is a better choice for any reason, even with it's default clockspeed advantage.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

If I don't intent to overclock, would the Barton still outperform?

 

[jetsam]

A 2133 mhz cpu is quite faster than a 1466 mhz cpu; why do you even ask?

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

They're not that much different, just by 300 MHz. What I'm asking is the 333MHz bus vs. the 266 MHz bus and 512K vs. 256K cache.

XP-2600+ 2133 MHz 266 MHz Socket A 256 KB
XP-2500+ 1833 MHz 333 MHz Socket A 512 KB Barton

 

[bgeh]

then i'll get the 2500+

 

[jetsam]

2133 = 16 * 133
1833 = 11 * 166

I hear that the parts perform equally well. Choose the 2500; otherwise you will feel like your 166 mhz motherboard and ram are going to waste.

unless you haven't got a 166 mhz motherboard, I don't, and I see a 666 mhz difference.

2133 = 16 * 133
1466 = 11 * 133

this is an easy choice: the 2600+ is built for those of us who do not wish to buy another motherboard and more memory.

However, we motherboard haters are fools. if I replaced my 1466 mhz thunderbird with a 2133 mhz thoroughbred, how much more speed could I expect? without additional cache and faster ram, my new cpu would nop more often than the old. As a pessimist, my guess is 30% more performance for 60% more clock speed, which hardly seems advantageous.

 

[pspada]

But if ya wanna play, ya gotta pay. I still think the Barton a better deal, since you can ramp up it's multiplier if you leave the FSB set at 133. I originally had some problems when I got my 2500+, and could not run it at the default 11x166. So I instead ran it at 15x133, (for a 1x overclock) and it ran just fine.

This way you get excellent performance now for the cost, and stil have options if you should get a newer motherboard.

 

[Soulkeeper]

another vote for the barton

 

[KillaBong]

If you don't overclock I think the 2600 is slightly faster, but the barton will easily get to 2.2-2.5ghz with overclocking and beat the 2600.

 

[Corporate Thug]

the 2600+ will be a lot faster than the barton. i was reading an article where the extra cache resulted in an average performance increase of 3.5% on 20 or different benchmarks, so if your not gonna OC, then get the 2600+

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: shady06
the 2600+ will be a lot faster than the barton. i was reading an article where the extra cache resulted in an average performance increase of 3.5% on 20 or different benchmarks, so if your not gonna OC, then get the 2600+

Ah, Shady, stuck in the 256Mb cache days I see.......

LOL

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I was thinking of getting the Barton (333MHz) so it'll run with my Crosair XMS PC2700 (33MHz). Would that give performance than the none Barton 2600 running with the same memory but at a lower speed?

I'll be running with dual channel ddr.

Maybe I'll just get the Barton and overclock it to 2 or 2.2 Gig. Would I need extra cooling? Since this isn't my computer, I don't want the chip to fail soon from [too much] overclocking.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: BehindEnemyLines
I was thinking of getting the Barton (333MHz) so it'll run with my Crosair XMS PC2700 (33MHz). Would that give performance than the none Barton 2600 running with the same memory but at a lower speed?

I'll be running with dual channel ddr.

Maybe I'll just get the Barton and overclock it to 2 or 2.2 Gig. Would I need extra cooling? Since this isn't my computer, I don't want the chip to fail soon from [too much] overclocking.

if your gonna oc, the barton is a better choice. i would recommend an slk800 for cooling.

 

[GooGooCluster]

Originally posted by: pspada

Originally posted by: shady06
the 2600+ will be a lot faster than the barton. i was reading an article where the extra cache resulted in an average performance increase of 3.5% on 20 or different benchmarks, so if your not gonna OC, then get the 2600+

Ah, Shady, stuck in the 256Mb cache days I see.......

LOL

256Mb of cache????!!!!!!!!! dear god I want this CPU! where can I pick up one?!?!

J/K I know what you meant. If you have a 266mhz bus probably get the 2600+ if you can find one.

 

[pspada]

Even if the current m/b only supports a 133/266 fsb, you'd be better off with a Barton. Change the multiplier to 15 or 16 at 133 for the time being, and then if at some point the motherboard is replaced, yer good to go.

 

[GooGooCluster]

Good point. thats why I got the barton.