Barton 3000+ 333MHz vs. 400MHz

[Ronin]

Ok, so here's a stupid question. It's Friday, my brain is fried, and I just got 3 CPUs from AMD (one I can't disclose). I got 2 3000+ CPUS (AXDA3000DKV4D (333MHz FSB) AQUCA0308SPFW) and (AXDA3000DKV4E (400MHz FSB) AQXDA0317MPMW), and I'm trying to decide which CPU to put in my box (I actually already have a 3000+ 333MHz in my box, I'm just trying to decide if I should leave it in there, or if I should put the 400MHz FSB one in). I have Kingston PC3200 RAM in there, so I have the RAM to support the CPU itself, and of course I have a KT400 board, so that's not an issue, either.

What are your thoughts on which way to go, and why? Most importantly is the why. I don't want to throw another CPU in my box if there's no real reason to and I can just build another box when I get the inkling to do so.

 

[nick1985]

HUH?

 

[Ronin]

K, so what part didn't you get, nick?

 

[Corporate Thug]

if you have one with the faster FSB, i dont see why you shouldnt use it

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: shady06
if you have one with the faster FSB, i dont see why you shouldnt use it

yeah, what the heck are you even asking us that question for??? isnt a no-brainer?

 

[HotKetchup]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: shady06
if you have one with the faster FSB, i dont see why you shouldnt use it

yeah, what the heck are you even asking us that question for??? isnt a no-brainer?

yeah, but now we know he has a secret cpu that no one is supposed to know about...

 

[Ronin]

I guess what I'm looking for is what I should expect as a difference in performance. I can't find a darn review anywhere that would show what kind of performance difference to expect, that's all.

 

[rgreen83]

Its pretty simple, the 400fsb will run at a slower speed than the one with 333fsb. So the 400fsb will be faster at things that require fast memory access, where the 333fsb one will be faster at things that are more clockspeed dependent. I would use the 400fsb one, it will run cooler due to slower clockspeed with better performance for most tasks.

 

[Dustswirl]

i doubt a KT400 can run stable at 400FSB coz there's no AGP/PCI lock...

 

[Evdawg]

400 fsb = less bottle necks.

Its pretty simple, the 400fsb will run at a slower speed than the one with 333fsb. So the 400fsb will be faster at things that require fast memory access, where the 333fsb one will be faster at things that are more clockspeed dependent. I would use the 400fsb one, it will run cooler due to slower clockspeed with better performance for most tasks.

What are you talking about?

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
400 fsb = less bottle necks.

Its pretty simple, the 400fsb will run at a slower speed than the one with 333fsb. So the 400fsb will be faster at things that require fast memory access, where the 333fsb one will be faster at things that are more clockspeed dependent. I would use the 400fsb one, it will run cooler due to slower clockspeed with better performance for most tasks.

What are you talking about?

I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that changes CPU wise is the multiplier, since the FSB is now 200MHz, rather than 166MHz, the multiplier is lower in order to achieve the same speed.

 

[rgreen83]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
400 fsb = less bottle necks.

Its pretty simple, the 400fsb will run at a slower speed than the one with 333fsb. So the 400fsb will be faster at things that require fast memory access, where the 333fsb one will be faster at things that are more clockspeed dependent. I would use the 400fsb one, it will run cooler due to slower clockspeed with better performance for most tasks.

What are you talking about?

Compare at 2.16ghz, 333fsb VS at 2.1ghz, 400fsb. The 400 fsb one runs at a slower clock speed and is not always faster. Many things rely solely on clock speed, that is why the 2.25 ghz thoroughbred-b 2800+ will outperform a 2.2 ghz barton 3200+ in some areas.

 

[Sid59]

are you saing 60 mhz is gonna make that much of a difference?

 

[Evdawg]

ok yea theres 60 mhz diff...... but you will get MUCH more performance out of the extra fsb than the 60 mhz, if youre worried about your clock than up your multiplier, or youre FSB, but a couple mhz and youll get what you want out of it on your stock hsf

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Dustswirl
i doubt a KT400 can run stable at 400FSB coz there's no AGP/PCI lock...

That's my thinking as well. The KT400/KT400A doesn't have the 1/6 divider the KT600 does and 400DDR FSB is damned iffy. If your board supports multiplier manipulation then just lower it and up the FSB with your current CPU to see if the KT400 will do 200mhz before wasting your time swapping chips

 

[Blackroot]

Why would you spend money on a 400fsb when u have a 333 that only runs at 200?

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Blackroot
Why would you spend money on a 400fsb when u have a 333 that only runs at 200?

i dont think he spent $ on it

 

[Blackroot]

If it was free then more power to you, as long as you didn't waste money, i would put in the 400.

 

[clicknext]

In a package with my name and address on it is where you should put them...

 

[Tbirdkid]

I would sell one and get an nforce2 board and run the piss out of the 333. If its a 333 and it will hit 400 then obviously you have a faster processor because of the overclock. That is my opinion. Unless you go buy some serious ram and jack it up with the 400 to say 420 or so. That is on u.

 

[Ronin]

I'm using an nForce2 board (GA-7N400 Pro, kindly provided by nVidia themselves). I've got the box up and running (had to swap out mobos, because my FIC AN19E didn't support what I needed it to). Thus far, everything's running solidly. I've been playing around with overclocking it, and seems the best I can do is 2.258GHz (I don't remember the multiplier/fsb settings atm). I'm using PC3200 RAM, so I guess I'm not allowing myself much overhead to push the RAM.

Thoughts on how to push the CPU? I figure I should be able to get it to around 2.4GHz without too much fiddling.

 

[Evdawg]

wow ronin, extremely impressive computer collection you have... would you like to ship me your sony E540? Anyways, if youre getting out only 2.25 thats pretty sad, i get that much out of my xp 2500 without pushing it. Is your ram limiting you? try the 333 fsb processor see how much you can push it. 2.4 ghz sounds right, but then again, if i pushed mine i could get it there.... makes you wonder, is amd selling us all the same processors? =) Crazy crazy..... gl with your oc'ing

 

[Ronin]

Based on the benchmarks I'm getting at default speed, I think I'd like to leave the 400MHz FSB version in, but I'm not getting really good overclocking results. I'd like some suggestions about how to proceed at this point. I've got a Coolermaster HHC-001 in the box that runs at roughly 7200RPMs, using Arctic Silver III compound. I've got 3 case fans (80mm), 2 sitting next to where the CPU is (one blowing in cool air, the other pulling out air), and one in the front of the case. Here are my current temps and the RAM I have in the box right now. I do happen to only be running a 300W PSU, but it's served me well thus far with my 1800+, 2100+, 2800+, and the previous 3000+. Aside from buying new hardware, what would you suggest? I'm open to most things, aside from spending money at this point. Actually, here's an easier list to follow:

Athlon 3000+ 400MHz
Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro
Kingston KVR400 PC3200 DDR RAM
300W PSU
Coolermaster HHC-001
3x 80mm Case Fans (2 in rear, 1 in front)
GF FX 5800 Ultra
CL Audigy2 Platinum
80GB WD 8MB Cache HD
Samsung 52x24x52 CD-RW

 

[Blackroot]

from looks of it, it doesn't look like it would have any problems, you should overclock alot tho, you seem to have good cooling.

 

[kylebisme]

your ram may not go any faster but you can always up the multiplyer.