How much of a difference will I notice if I upgrade from Athlon 1.33?

[BillGates]

I'm currently running an Athlon 1.33 at that speed (haven't gotten into the OC world yet - too lazy and unsure where to look for assistance) and have considered upgrading to a new CPU since my mobo can handle it...

Current setup:

Epox 8KHA+
Athlon 1.33GHz
512MB Crucial PC2100
WD120JB (plus 3 other drives, this is just my main one)
GeForce3
Panaflo fans throughout
Win2k Pro

That's all the relevant stuff I can think of now... I know I can get one of the top Athlon XP's for a little over $100 these days - is it worth the bucks?

I play FPS quite a bit (SOF2, MOH:AA, RTCW, etc) which are resource intensive, but other than that don't really have a real NEED for a super fast system, I just really like a responsive system where you don't need to wait for stuff to load for a while... (System is fine now, but why not upgrade?)

Any input? Is there a big difference between standard Athlon and an Athlon XP?

 

[Boonesmi]

i noticed a good bit of a performance boost going from my tbird 1.2ghz to my overclocked athlonxp running at 2100+ speed

 

[BuddyAtBzboyz]

You may notice a difference going from a 1.33 to a higher athlon, but you should ask yourself do you really need more processing power. I mean what do you do with your computer? I would save the money to get a better monitor or to upgrade later when you will notice more of a difference.

 

[BillGates]

Already have a 17" LCD, 512MB of PC2100, 260GB of hard drive space (7200RPM ATA100), 48x burner, DVD, bay bus, etc.... Processor is my weakest link right now, albeit not all that weak...

I guess I asked because I don't NEED a new one, but might have to waste my cash on something....

 

[Jeff7181]

I would think upgrading to a new generation of processor would be a great benefit. Going from the Thunderbird core to the Thouroughbred, or even just to a Polomino core should increase performance even at the same clock speed. I have an XP 1700 with the Polomino core, when I upgrade, I'll probably get the 2200+ with the updated Throuroughbred core that's used in the 2400 and 2600

 

[toft-dk]

Any input? Is there a big difference between standard Athlon and an Athlon XP

Quite a bit of difference actually !!

First the XP run cooler than the T-Bird

Second the XP has more Juice than the T-Bird

It is simply more efficient 🙂

My OC'ed xp1700+ @ 1660 Mhz does a setiunit in 3hours 13 min average 🙂
a T-bird if you could OC it that high would be 45 mins slower i think 😉

I have the same mobo as you and are considering getting a T-Bred XP 2400+ when they become available
But a Palomino XP is a really great cpu 🙂

 

[grunjee]

I would suggest upgrading to an XP -- I think you'll be very happy if you do.

Here's a couple reasons why:
1. SSE support really does make a difference in almost all apps. Even if you simply upgrade to a 1600+ (defaults at 1400 MHz) you will see a difference in benches and real world performance. You might think "what difference could 66 MHz possibly make?" It's the SSE combined with the MHz. Best of all a 1600+ can be had for under 60 shipped and the latest ones are excellent overclockers. You have a great overclocking board and ALL you have to do is increase the FSB in bios. Do this and you can most likely achieve a 2000+ or higher rating, without adding voltage. See my sig if you have any doubts -- these results are *typical* among the latest 1600+ chips. (My chip can do 1766 MHz [2100+] stable right out of the box -- no increase in Vcore needed, also typical.)

2. XP's run significantly cooler (usually about 10 degrees C) than Thunderbirds at the same speed. This is better for your whole system temp-wise; it also means you can use a quieter HSF to cool your processor.

Just to sum it up... a real increase in performance, cooler temps, and very cheap.

 

[Jeff7181]

Just curious since my rig won't overclock much at all... Anyone have any experience overclocking the Shuttle AK31??? I have the latest BIOS update... but my 1700+ won't even run at 1800+ speeds.
One thing I noticed, when I increase the FSB, the DRAM clock stays the same, BIOS reports 266 Mhz in POST... so I don't think this is because of my 2 bargain $40 256 DDR DIMM's from Best Buy.

Maybe I'm just a little optimistic with overclocking... ya know, expecting 66 Mhz with no problems... I don't know...

Oh... I almost forgot... I was looking at VCore settings... it said default was 1.750 volts (Polomino core), but it was currently fluctuating between 1.690 and 1.700... so I changed the setting to +.050 volts... and Windows was stable at 1800+ speeds, but playing any game that used even a little bit of my GF4 Ti4200's power caused the computer to lock up. Should I increase the voltage more? I know that shortens the life of the CPU... but I don't plan on using this CPU for another 5 years =) Another 1 year at the most, then I could really care less what happens with it.
It's late, and my mind is slowing down =) So if you could just offer some suggestions for a stable overclock, I'd appreciate it.

 

[BillGates]

Thank you for the input, guys!

 

[gtd2000]

Before you do upgrade see how well your currrent graphics card "scales" with the faster CPU.

There is an article on here regarding this 😉

My current viewpoint on upgrading is a requirement for a "doubling" of the Mhz of the CPU (or apparent performance e.g. 1600+ etc).

I currently use a Duron 1G @ 1.2 so I would be looking for the performance of at least a XP2000+ this might be possible with and oc'd XP1600+ @ 2100+ speeds 😉

The truth is that for my current multimedia needs the Duron is more than enough - my GF2 Pro runs all my FPS games just nicely also right now 🙂