-
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.
Barton 2500 benchies
- Thread starter Lonyo
- Start date
Disappointing results, just by interpreting the differences between the CPUs. I know jonnyGURU posts here, maybe he'll see this and fix/add to his benchmarks. The results really don't show anything, if anything they show the results of CPU scaling. Any benchmark between Barton and T-breds should isolate the performance at the same clock speeds so we can see what benefits the extra L2 cache provides.
The only major differences the L2 provides is in the game benchmarks, but Comanche is a really poor benchmark when comparing, as you are almost always just splitting hairs with the results...I mean .01 fps difference? The standard deviation of a benchmark is greater than his test results. Regardless, its gonna come down to how much Barton costs and how well they overclock.
Judging from his results, it still might be better to buy a 2100+ and OC it rather than spend $300 on a 2500+ and OC it to 2200mhz; If you can get a 2100+ to 2300mhz or better it may very well perform as well at 1/3 the cost.
Chiz
The only major differences the L2 provides is in the game benchmarks, but Comanche is a really poor benchmark when comparing, as you are almost always just splitting hairs with the results...I mean .01 fps difference? The standard deviation of a benchmark is greater than his test results. Regardless, its gonna come down to how much Barton costs and how well they overclock.
Judging from his results, it still might be better to buy a 2100+ and OC it rather than spend $300 on a 2500+ and OC it to 2200mhz; If you can get a 2100+ to 2300mhz or better it may very well perform as well at 1/3 the cost.
Chiz
pbroussard
Senior member
Gotta agree with you there. Always on the lookout for a smoking cpu for Seti...... the Barton isn't it, from that review. Hardly any improvement on math scores at all. Guess the 2100 is still the P/P king ATM....
Paul
Paul
Soulkeeper
Diamond Member
from that benchmark it looks like the added cache equals about 150-250mhz in performance
but i don't trust the benchmark
but i don't trust the benchmark
ChampionAtTufshop
Platinum Member
looks like extra cache isnt doing much fromthose....
ChampionAtTufshop
Platinum Member
i know
but i think im gonna let some other ppl be the guinea pigs heheh 😉
hs student with little cash cant afford to upgrade everytime something new comes out lol
I'm not drawing any conclusions from that bench, there's just too many flaws. His FSB speeds are all overe the place as well, I mean, comparing a Barton at 333FSB to a 266FSB T-bred? Knock the multi on that 2400+ and bring its FSB up to 166mhz and see how it performs ya know? I dunno what the story is with that benchmark, I've read some of jonnyGURU's posts and he definitely knows what he's talking about....this benchmark is just FUBAR though.
Hehe that just might be a silver bullet your gonna bite, I don't expect the 2500+ to be cheap 😉 (guessing $200-$300 based on current T-bred prices). Also, the 2100+ can do 20% on stock voltage too, just up your FSB to 166mhz 🙂
Chiz
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
The 2100+ is certainly a tempting alternative 😀 Here's the pricing I'm anticipating for the 2500+: $194 retail-boxed or less. Yeah, I'll probably have to wait regardless, because I'd want to get some faster RAM than my Crucial PC2100, too. 🙁
Hehe nice price 🙂 That may indeed be worth watching, but I still wanna see max CPU overhead across all Barton's to get an idea of their stepping/OC'ability. Those numbers probably won't be available for a week or so after launch. That 2500+ may be one to look out for, $194 retail boxed may go for like ~$170 OEM. I'm really thinking the Barton needs buff FSB speeds to take advantage of the 512KB L2, much like the P4's. No big surprise as the Athlon's are bandwidth limited with a dual-pumped bus (compared to Quad in a P4 and soon 5x) and get most of their performance from their IPC. I may end up getting a Barton anyways to play with it if $$$ isn't too much, but same as you, I'm gonna get faster RAM before that happens.
Chiz
Chiz
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
$201 - $205.50, that's the range of the 2500+ according to Pricewatch. I'd be willing to bet those prices are inflated a bit as well, seems like they always are before the chips are even available. Thought I read somewhere something about $160 or so, sounds reasonable for an OEM chip. I'll wait for a more indepth review before I fully judge the Barton, I would think AMD would have some justification in giving a 1.83Ghz chip a higher PR than their own 2 GHz Tbred B... higher FSB might have something to do with it, but it'll be nice to see wait we might get out of enthusiast tweekers once they get their hands on the Barton.
ChampionAtTufshop
Platinum Member
hmmm...interesting....very interesting...
i cant wait either
It's refreshing to hear some optimism here, I'll remind youz guyz that similar critical commentary was prsent during the initial T-bred launch and though the remarks were warranted, AMD made right and now the T-bred bandwagon is@full capacity 😉 Perhaps just as with the T-bred the launch will prove premature, perhaps not, but I surmise AMD will have a winner in Barton before it's over. I will however be among those who allow others to evaluate it before myself of course 😉
jiffylube1024
Diamond Member
Comments removed.
around 200 for a decent proccessor is my sweet spot and 300 is my max so i am happy.
I am personally really interested in the overclocking results 2.2Ghz at default is very nice indeed.
Wonder how high one will go on my Prommy 😉
My XP2200+ gets to 2.3Ghz with only 1.9v 🙂
Bet if I get a 2800+ I can get her over 3Ghz hehe.
I am personally really interested in the overclocking results 2.2Ghz at default is very nice indeed.
Wonder how high one will go on my Prommy 😉
My XP2200+ gets to 2.3Ghz with only 1.9v 🙂
Bet if I get a 2800+ I can get her over 3Ghz hehe.
I think we will all be disappointed by the 256 to 512K L2 cache performance or should I say "lack of". Intel seems to get a huge boost by the extra L2 cache, the proof is evident in the coppermine (celeron to P3) and P4 (williamette to northwood) cores. The thunderbird, palamino and thoroughbred are designed completely different (better if you ask me, but that's a whole different argument). The orginal spitfire and XP cores show less than a 10 percent boost in overall benchmarks when comparing a 64k L2 cache core with a 256K L2 cache core, at the same clock speeds and fsb speeds. I don't think the thoroughbred will be any different, the advantage of 256K vs. 512K will probably be significantly less then 64K vs. 256K. For overclockers the 166MHz fsb speeds will mean nothing, we are all unlocking and jacking the fsb as high as possible anyway. So for a stock machine the combination of fsb and L2 cache might help some, but not enough to justify the average user with a store bought computer investing in a so called "upgrade". The 2100+ "B" looks like the best path for the enthusiast/overclocker.
Unfortunately, unlike a lot of guys on the net that do previews/reviews, I am not a student with lots of time to work on benchmarks. I'm 32, work and have an 8 week old baby that won't stop crying. 😉
Does that mean I shouldn't do them at all? Notice how our site has no advertisements... We do this because computers are not only our job, it's our hobby. Even if nobody liked my previews, reviews or rants, I'd still do them. 🙂
Now... enough of the excuses. 😀
I admit that my benchmarks are limited and I did intend on adding Q3A with the rest of the benchmarks (if you look at some of my other benchmarks, you'll see that I often use Q3A), but I could not get my Q3A to work on the test rig. Turns out that my registry got hosed when I stuck a bad stick of RAM in the rig. After the baby fell asleep after a feeding, I zapped the drive and reinstalled Windows. Now Q3A works and I've already run the 2500+ @ default and the overclocked speed. I'm now working on the 2400+ and will do the 2600+ in the afternoon. I'll chart them up in Excel tonight and will have them uploaded by the weekend.
To answer your questions... The Barton 2500+ isn't supposed to be ANYTHING special. Nobody said it would be. It falls right between the 2400+ and 2600+, just like it should. Unlike the 2800+ and 3000+ Bartons that are slated to be the "next generation" Athlon XP, the 2500+ will simply be "slipped into" the product line, just as the Thoroughbred B0's and 333 MHz FSB Athlon XP's were. Don't be surprised if you just see 2500+ retail box CPU's popping up on the shelves wven before you see a 2800+ or 3000+.
Mine did overclock well, yes. But look at the clock speed I started with. AMD is already yielding higher clock speed chips with the Thoroughbred core, so this CPU has a pretty high ceiling. Think of last year when the AXIA 1000's were pretty much all running at 1330. At the time, AMD was cranking out 1400 MHz CPU's faster than Willy Wonka can make Gobstoppers. This is why the Barton is important to AMD. AMD is capable of reasonable yields at an even higher clock speed and with the 512K L2 cache can justify a higher PR for the CPU (obviously the performance of the CPU is enhanced with the additional cache) and "keep up" with Intel despite the lower clock speeds. And.... high yields = more profit for AMD. Overclockability? Well, it depends on the CPU, but I wouldn't expect much higher than what AMD is already putting out on the market. 😉
If anyone has any suggestions (benchmark programs you think I should use, good place to buy formula, winning lottery numbers), please feel free to run them by me in a PM, or better yet.... join up TTB and post a message. That site isn't up for just our health. 😛 I often think of TTB as a "joint effort". I have access to the hardware, and the readers have the ideas. Let's work together to make a better hardware site. You all know I don't bite. 😀
Does that mean I shouldn't do them at all? Notice how our site has no advertisements... We do this because computers are not only our job, it's our hobby. Even if nobody liked my previews, reviews or rants, I'd still do them. 🙂
Now... enough of the excuses. 😀
I admit that my benchmarks are limited and I did intend on adding Q3A with the rest of the benchmarks (if you look at some of my other benchmarks, you'll see that I often use Q3A), but I could not get my Q3A to work on the test rig. Turns out that my registry got hosed when I stuck a bad stick of RAM in the rig. After the baby fell asleep after a feeding, I zapped the drive and reinstalled Windows. Now Q3A works and I've already run the 2500+ @ default and the overclocked speed. I'm now working on the 2400+ and will do the 2600+ in the afternoon. I'll chart them up in Excel tonight and will have them uploaded by the weekend.
To answer your questions... The Barton 2500+ isn't supposed to be ANYTHING special. Nobody said it would be. It falls right between the 2400+ and 2600+, just like it should. Unlike the 2800+ and 3000+ Bartons that are slated to be the "next generation" Athlon XP, the 2500+ will simply be "slipped into" the product line, just as the Thoroughbred B0's and 333 MHz FSB Athlon XP's were. Don't be surprised if you just see 2500+ retail box CPU's popping up on the shelves wven before you see a 2800+ or 3000+.
Mine did overclock well, yes. But look at the clock speed I started with. AMD is already yielding higher clock speed chips with the Thoroughbred core, so this CPU has a pretty high ceiling. Think of last year when the AXIA 1000's were pretty much all running at 1330. At the time, AMD was cranking out 1400 MHz CPU's faster than Willy Wonka can make Gobstoppers. This is why the Barton is important to AMD. AMD is capable of reasonable yields at an even higher clock speed and with the 512K L2 cache can justify a higher PR for the CPU (obviously the performance of the CPU is enhanced with the additional cache) and "keep up" with Intel despite the lower clock speeds. And.... high yields = more profit for AMD. Overclockability? Well, it depends on the CPU, but I wouldn't expect much higher than what AMD is already putting out on the market. 😉
If anyone has any suggestions (benchmark programs you think I should use, good place to buy formula, winning lottery numbers), please feel free to run them by me in a PM, or better yet.... join up TTB and post a message. That site isn't up for just our health. 😛 I often think of TTB as a "joint effort". I have access to the hardware, and the readers have the ideas. Let's work together to make a better hardware site. You all know I don't bite. 😀
I figured there was some other constraints on time with regards to the benchies 🙂 I pm'd much the same.
I think the real question burning in everyone's mind is the Barton's performance over a T-bred/Palomino clock for clock, FSB to FSB. With the flexibility in today's mobos and overclocking unlocked T-breds, "official" FSBs and stock mhz speeds mean little to nothing. I covered this in a few of my posts in that thread, but the question for enthusiasts remains, "how much benefit would 512kb L2 cache provide for me if I were only able to achieve a similar overclock as a current T-bred that also costs 1/2 as much". Because the PR factors in the L2 cache, a lower clocked Barton may not OC as high as a lower PR rated T-bred with a higher stock mhz.
I'd like to see for instance, a Barton go up against a T-bred at the same multi, FSB and total frequency, even if that means underclocking one or both of them. Different FSB speeds would be nice as well. For instance, a speed of 2.0ghz should be easily obtainable by any of the chips in your review. You could test at 3 different FSB speeds for both the T-bred and Barton:
10 x 200FSB = 2.0ghz
12 x 166FSB = 2.0ghz
15 x 133FSB = 2.0ghz
This would really isolate the only real difference between the two cores, the 512kb L2 cache, as well as show the effect of increased bandwidth. We've all seen that P4's really benefitted from more L2 and more bandwidth, but the result on the Athlon is unclear. This would allow people to make an informed decision once they get an idea of how well a Barton OC's. If both a 2500+ and a 2100+ can overclock to 2.3ghz, but the L2 cache can provide a 15-30% performance increase (based on the benchmarks above), it may be worth spending 2x as much on the 2500+.
Hope that made sense,
Chiz
I think the real question burning in everyone's mind is the Barton's performance over a T-bred/Palomino clock for clock, FSB to FSB. With the flexibility in today's mobos and overclocking unlocked T-breds, "official" FSBs and stock mhz speeds mean little to nothing. I covered this in a few of my posts in that thread, but the question for enthusiasts remains, "how much benefit would 512kb L2 cache provide for me if I were only able to achieve a similar overclock as a current T-bred that also costs 1/2 as much". Because the PR factors in the L2 cache, a lower clocked Barton may not OC as high as a lower PR rated T-bred with a higher stock mhz.
I'd like to see for instance, a Barton go up against a T-bred at the same multi, FSB and total frequency, even if that means underclocking one or both of them. Different FSB speeds would be nice as well. For instance, a speed of 2.0ghz should be easily obtainable by any of the chips in your review. You could test at 3 different FSB speeds for both the T-bred and Barton:
10 x 200FSB = 2.0ghz
12 x 166FSB = 2.0ghz
15 x 133FSB = 2.0ghz
This would really isolate the only real difference between the two cores, the 512kb L2 cache, as well as show the effect of increased bandwidth. We've all seen that P4's really benefitted from more L2 and more bandwidth, but the result on the Athlon is unclear. This would allow people to make an informed decision once they get an idea of how well a Barton OC's. If both a 2500+ and a 2100+ can overclock to 2.3ghz, but the L2 cache can provide a 15-30% performance increase (based on the benchmarks above), it may be worth spending 2x as much on the 2500+.
Hope that made sense,
Chiz
This would be a great idea, but I have no unlocked CPU's other than the Barton, and no "provisions" to unlock those CPU's I have.
I can do this.....
I can see if a 1700+ will run with a 166 MHz FSB, though. This will give me the same 166x11 as the Barton 2500+.
I'll let you know in a few hours. I'm working on 2600+ Q3A benchmarks as I type......
<EDIT> Scratch that.... The CPU doesn't work w/ a 166 MHz FSB. 😛
I'll just slow the Barton down and see what happens.
I can do this.....
I can see if a 1700+ will run with a 166 MHz FSB, though. This will give me the same 166x11 as the Barton 2500+.
I'll let you know in a few hours. I'm working on 2600+ Q3A benchmarks as I type......
<EDIT> Scratch that.... The CPU doesn't work w/ a 166 MHz FSB. 😛
I'll just slow the Barton down and see what happens.
ShawnReeves
Diamond Member
Thanks for taking the time to write the review. Dont worry bout those who choose to be rude. 😛
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
