Best value on AMD processor?

[manticore24]

I'm upgrading my computer for gaming purposes.
I don't want to upgrade again for at least two years.
I'm not on a strict budget, but I don't want to waste my money.
Motherboard: Epox 8RDA+.

Which processor is the best value?
Athlon XP 1700+ Thoroughbred $41
Athlon XP 2200+ Thoroughbred $60
Athlon XP 2400+ Thoroughbred $80
Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $93
Athlon XP 2600+ Thoroughbred $96

Additional Qs:
1. Is it better to have a bigger cache, or a faster processor for gaming? Basically, Barton or Thoroughbred?

2. 2x256 OR 2x512 Corsair XMS PC 3200 DDR RAM?
2x256=$126
2x512=$224
Is it really worth spending over twice as much on the RAM as the processor?
I don't upgrade often if that makes a difference.

I'd REALLY appreciate it if I could get reasons/explanations. i.e. Why you think "x" processor is the best.
Thx in advance!!! Everyone at the forum has been very helpful!

 

[bgeh]

i'll get the Barton if you overclock. it should last you 2 years.
1)imo,i've heard people saying the cache makes the system more responsive
2. i'll get 2x512mb. more future proof imo for games. a few games currently take up 1GB like SimCity 4, BF1942, Planetside

 

[Ronin]

For everyday normal applications, you would probably never notice the extra cache on the Barton. For the money, I'd go with the 2600+ 333. As far as the RAM is concerned, go with the 2 512MB sticks. You'll get better performance with the higher MB sticks of RAM.

 

[Jeff7181]

Can't beat the XP1700 for $41... most will overclock to at least 2.2 Ghz.
I'd personally go with the XP2500 though because of the extra cache, and most of those will also overclock to 2.2 Ghz.

*EDIT* As for RAM, get the XMS Low Latency PC3200... 2x512

 

[cow123]

1)imo,i've heard people saying the cache makes the system more responsive

lol, sounds like a contradiction really :-o

 

[Corporate Thug]

i vote for 2500+ as well, but i do agree that the extra cache makes very little difference

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: cow123

1)imo,i've heard people saying the cache makes the system more responsive

lol, sounds like a contradiction really :-o

Lol... hmmmm... is it his opinion that he heard other people say it?

 

[Ronin]

I vote opinion. 98% of the public (the 2% being the nonconventional user that uses apps that would benefit from a larger L2 cache), would never know the difference between a 256K and a 512K L2 cache.

 

[pspada]

Guess I'm Mr 2% then. I run a app no one else uses called Seti@home. Going to the Barton chip over a Tbred, at the same clock speed and all other factors being equal, it cut the time for a result by approximately 1/4.

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: cow123

1)imo,i've heard people saying the cache makes the system more responsive

lol, sounds like a contradiction really :-o

Lol... hmmmm... is it his opinion that he heard other people say it?

someone posted it around here

 

[pspada]

I agree, it is my opinion that I heard other people say it makes the system more responsive, too! LOL

 

[Jeff7181]

It's my opinion that I heard ATers have too much time on our hands =)

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: pspada
Guess I'm Mr 2% then. I run a app no one else uses called Seti@home. Going to the Barton chip over a Tbred, at the same clock speed and all other factors being equal, it cut the time for a result by approximately 1/4.

I run Seti on 10 boxes. I have a Barton 3200+, and my 2400+ runs almost as fast. I beg to differ, but hey *shrugs* Your opinion is yours, mine is mine.

And, if you're buying a processor just for Seti, well....I guess I'll just keep my comments to myself

 

[gael]

...running seti on 10 boxes....and putting a guy down for buying a processor to run it on one system.....hmmmmmmmm