Originally posted by: RobsTV
Originally posted by: Killmenow
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?
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter