• 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 vs. Venice

Scouzer

Scouzer

Lifer
I can't get any good benchmarks on this...

How does a 2500+ Barton clocked at 10x 200FSB (So a 3000+ really) compare to a Venice?

I'm looking at getting a S939 SFF system...and I don't know if the Venice will be any real upgrade, or just buying a new CPU for nothing really..

The Venice = $150
Dual Core = $450

I don't think I'm going dual core!!!
 
You can get the 3800+ X2 for closer to $300, you don't have to spend $450 to get a dual core. In any case, the Venice will be superior to the Barton in every way.
 
Ooh, I like that case.

If you get the X2 3800 through the weekly Sale at ncix it's $410. So definitely checkout the Sale. Also chheckout the Sale for Venice's as well.
 
oh good idea, forgot about the sale!

but i dont see how the x2 is worth $300 more...benchies show the speed increase being marginal at best
 
Originally posted by: Scouzer
oh good idea, forgot about the sale!

but i dont see how the x2 is worth $300 more...benchies show the speed increase being marginal at best
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're doing with it. I run BOINC, Maya, Photoshop, Games, and regular stuff. Find Dual Core to be sweet, but if you don't run all that stuff a Venice will be fine. Hell, a Venice would probably be fine for me as well as I don't do all that stuff all the time(except BOINC). My BOINC numbers have gone through the roof though! 😉 😀
 

Samsung PC3200 512MB DDR400 184PIN DIMM OEM
In Stock 9545 $45.98 $91.96

ZALMAN CNPS7700-CU LGA775 S478 S754 S939 S940 COPPER 1000-2000RPM 20-32DBA CPU HEATSINK FAN
In Stock 13700 $47.99 $47.99

Aspire X-QPACK-BL/420 mATX Aluminum Case 2X5.25 1X3.5 2X3.5INT 420W BLUE-BLACK W/ LED Fan & Window
In Stock 15004 $108.99 $108.99

LG GSA-4167B 16X DVD+-RW 16X Dual Layer Writer IDE 2MB Black OEM With Software
In Stock 16202 $48.99 $48.99

Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 250GB SATA W/ NCQ 7200RPM 8MB 8MS Hard Drive 5 Year MFR Warranty
In Stock 13631 $124.98 $124.98

ASUS A8N-VM/CSM mATX S939 GE6150+NF430 DDR PCI-E16 SATA RAID Video Sound GBLAN 1394 Motherboard
In Stock 16845 $102.98 $102.98

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Processor S939 Venice 2.0GHZ 512K L2 Cache 90NM Retail Box
FREE SHIPPING FOR THIS ITEM!
In Stock 14416 $188.98 $188.98

EVGA E-GEFORCE 6800GS SLI 256MB 256BIT GDDR3 PCI-E VGA DVI-I HDTV-OUT Video Card Retail Box
In Stock 16724 $249.98 $249.98
Check to delete an item
YOUR TOTAL $964.85
 
Originally posted by: Killmenow
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
X2 3800+ vs. Venice 3500+ vs. Barton XP3200+
Click to expand...

This chart shows the 3200+ Barton almost at the bottom of the list.....with even a P4 2.60Ghz Northwood beating it. Is the 3200+ Barton really that bad?
Click to expand...

You can withdraw several conclusions from this:

1) You cannot simply go by 1 website (since results might not be entirely accurate) but generally Barton is slower than a P4. P4 3.2ghz vs. XP3200+
2) Is it that the advantage of A64 over P4 is overplayed, or the disadvantage of XP systems compared to P4 was underplayed back in the days? Either way you look at it, for me AXP3200+ barton and P4 will both provide confident gaming performance. Even if XP is below P4 2.6ghz in the benchmarks, it doesnt mean the frames it is producing are by any means slow.
3) as far as cpu intensive tasks are concerned, if a user is really concerned about cpu speed for multitasking performance, neither P4 HT, XP, nor A64 will deliver ==> in that case it is better to buy a dual-core processor.
 
ok why are you even asking, here on this web site will prove to you that the barton is a peice compared to the newer 64s and the later p4s,go looking around he cpu section and look at some ome articles from about a year go. these right here will prove that the a64s and late modle p4s are much better than the axps. but just cuz i am nice ill have one right here http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249, in almost every chart the axp is the bottom proc, the ones that it does farily well on are the ones that need clock speed, or did as some of the dual cores can bust up that. and these procs arent even the newest ones.
 
Originally posted by: Killmenow
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
X2 3800+ vs. Venice 3500+ vs. Barton XP3200+
Click to expand...

This chart shows the 3200+ Barton almost at the bottom of the list.....with even a P4 2.60Ghz Northwood beating it. Is the 3200+ Barton really that bad?
Click to expand...


That bad?
It is only 10% slower than A64 3000+ and P4 3.2GHz.
So in a game that is getting 50fps, you might be "only" getting 45fps with Barton.
To me the surprise is that the A64 and Pentium's are that bad in comparison.
I would expect a least a 25% to 50% performance increase, not a lowly 10%.
Even A64 X2 3800+ is less than 20% faster than old Socket A $70 Barton.
 
Originally posted by: RobsTV
Originally posted by: Killmenow
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
X2 3800+ vs. Venice 3500+ vs. Barton XP3200+
Click to expand...

This chart shows the 3200+ Barton almost at the bottom of the list.....with even a P4 2.60Ghz Northwood beating it. Is the 3200+ Barton really that bad?
Click to expand...


That bad?
It is only 10% slower than A64 3000+ and P4 3.2GHz.
So in a game that is getting 50fps, you might be "only" getting 45fps with Barton.
To me the surprise is that the A64 and Pentium's are that bad in comparison.
I would expect a least a 25% to 50% performance increase, not a lowly 10%.
Even A64 X2 3800+ is less than 20% faster than old Socket A $70 Barton.
Click to expand...

It's 'that bad' in terms of the rating it is given - a 3200XP never was a good as even a 3.0Ghz Pentium when it was first released, more like a 2.8Ghz. As with all Athlon XP's, they were never as good as their ratings... I've seen some reviews where an Athlon XP in 3200+ in a strained situation (xbitlabs doom3 reviews with lots of AI work going on) getting only 22fps minimum, which is getting too low for comfortable gameplay - Ahtlon 64 3000+ S754 was getting 30fps... just, with the S393 processors doing very well.

In most reports I have seen the A64 2800+ easily beat the XP3200+, and even a Sempron 64 3000+ with only 128kb cache will beat it. All this with both much lower core speed and lower cache, showing just how much improved the efficiency of A64 is, and how much more realistic in ratings they are over Athlon XP. That said, Athlon XP 3200+ is still fast enough for current games generally.


Anyway, back to topic:-

The real issue in this thread is concerning an overclocked 2500+ Barton. Getting even the lowest venice 3000+ will be a huge increase in smoothness on this processor; I've seen a number of posts on other forums saying how they upgraded from mid-high Athlon XP parts (2700,2800,3000+) to the junior similar rated A64 parts (2800+, 3000+) and noted how much smoother things are.





 
I've done tons of spreadsheets with reviews in them and basically the math works out like this.

A64 939 speed x 1.25 = Barton speed

A64 939 speed x 1.50 = Prescott speed

A64 939 speed x 1.45 = Northwood speed

Your barton, 2000Mhz/1.25 = 1600Mhz A64 939

a 3200 venice (stock 2000Mhz) is really as fast as a 2500Mhz barton.

and so on...
 
Having an XP @ 10x235 2350mhz and a 754 newcastle @ 9x260 2340mhz with both running 1:1 on the ram (the XP with slower mem but ALOT tighter timings) the XP is only 5-10% slower in benchmarks AND gaming at playable resolutions (the Newcastle is alot faster at craptacular 640x480). For some strange reason the A64 seems ALOT snappier on windows desktop then the XP system as the windows litterally pop open instantly where as the XP takes a split second to open stuff.
 
Originally posted by: rancherlee
Having an XP @ 10x235 2350mhz and a 754 newcastle @ 9x260 2340mhz with both running 1:1 on the ram (the XP with slower mem but ALOT tighter timings) the XP is only 5-10% slower in benchmarks AND gaming at playable resolutions (the Newcastle is alot faster at craptacular 640x480). For some strange reason the A64 seems ALOT snappier on windows desktop then the XP system as the windows litterally pop open instantly where as the XP takes a split second to open stuff.
Click to expand...

Somethings messed up in your config.

Even an old 3400 skt 754 running at 2.2Ghz lays waste by 50% or more in some test to a higher clocked Barton @ 2.4Ghz
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlonxp-m-2500/index.x?pg=8

Try this run winrar's internal bench on both your systems.. The 754 should be almost double.
 
Originally posted by: Scouzer
Canadian dollars...$450.

But how much superior? Does anyone know of benchies?
Click to expand...

Don't forget, it depends on what you're doing with the processor that defines it's relative value and sponge/savings worthiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top