• 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.

is the barton sub par?

C

Corporate Thug

Lifer
i was reading a review comparing the 2700+ (2.17) and the 3000+ (2.17 Barton) and after conducting 20 benchmarks, the average performance increase with the barton was ~3.5%. Is the barton a sub-par core?
 
Originally posted by: shady06
i was reading a review comparing the 2700+ (2.17) and the 3000+ (2.17 Barton) and after conducting 20 benchmarks, the average performance increase with the barton was ~3.5%. Is the barton a sub-par core?
Click to expand...

No, it's not subpar. 3.5-4% is pretty good considering all they did was increase the L2 cache.
 
The ratings that AMD give the bartons are crazy.

If you're comparing raw Mhz against Mhz, the barton has the small edge over the tbred or palomino. Not when you're comparing Pr ratings.
 
Originally posted by: shady06
i was reading a review comparing the 2700+ (2.17) and the 3000+ (2.17 Barton) and after conducting 20 benchmarks, the average performance increase with the barton was ~3.5%. Is the barton a sub-par core?
Click to expand...
Linkage? BTW, I too feel for most tasks it is sub par compared to PR rating but the price and overclockability of the newer ones is very good so it's still a winner IMO.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top