It's Faster, But Can You Feel It?

[Texun]

I searched and found tons of threads on overclockability between the various AMD bus speeds but came up with scratch on the issue of stock FSB differences alone.

Assuming the cpu's are clocked at the same speed, can you feel the difference at stock settings between the 266FSB, 333FSB, and the Barton? Benchmarks will show it, but can you *FEEL* it? I?ve read where Barton?s cache is only used by certain apps. How about the OS? Does Windows benefit from the cache?

Thanks!

 

[bootoo]

Good question; I'd like to know too!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The barton feels "snappier" with windows, F@H runs quicker, and 333fsb synch vs 266fsb synch on the NF2 will improve anything that likes extra bandwidth. Going to 400synch is less of an improvement from 333 than 333 is from 266 but still helps anything that likes bandwidth once again. In fact, I prefer my Barton@2.3ghz to my 2100+@2.4ghz for ripping and encoding DVD and crunching F@H, the 2 primary uses for my Barton boxen. Not just speed played a part in my decision but the fact that the Barton requires substantially less voltage and hence runs cooler to acomplish the tasks set for it.

 

[pspada]

The reason the Barton 2500+ feels "snappier" and F @ H runs faster is due to the larger cache, as the move from 266 to 333 has little effect on the user experience.

I just upgraded from a 2500+ to a 2700+ (currently running at 11.5x200), so we'll see what it does to my Seti@home processing time.

 

[Texun]

This is good info. "Snappier" is what I was hoping to hear.

Anyone else?

Thanks!

 

[pelikan]

How about gaming performance?

 

[cow123]

Not just speed played a part in my decision but the fact that the Barton requires substantially less voltage and hence runs cooler to acomplish the tasks set for it.

eh?

don't u mean the barton has a larger surface area and thus dissipates heat more effectively?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: cow123

Not just speed played a part in my decision but the fact that the Barton requires substantially less voltage and hence runs cooler to acomplish the tasks set for it.

eh?

don't u mean the barton has a larger surface area and thus dissipates heat more effectively?

No, I mean it does 2.3ghz on 1.632v while the 2100+ took 1.825v to do 2.4ghz

How about gaming performance?

At the same clockspeed as the T-bred it wins some and loses some, weird huh?

 

[pelikan]

DAPUNISHER- Thanks for sharing your experience with the Barton and gaming. I've been tempted to try out a 2500+, but I think I'll just stick with my 2100+ @2420MHz.

 

[4x4expy]

Originally posted by: pelikan
DAPUNISHER- Thanks for sharing your experience with the Barton and gaming. I've been tempted to try out a 2500+, but I think I'll just stick with my 2100+ @2420MHz.

Yeah I'm in the same boat. My 1700+ is 100% stable at 2406mhz at good voltage and temps. I wish it were a Barton, and the Barton is probably worth the price difference of ~$30-40. But since I already have a sure thing with this CPU, we're not talking about $30-40, but the full ~$90, plus the risk that I could draw a proc that don't OC as well as mine taking away some or all of the advantage of the extra cache. For instance Shimmishim recently picked up a 2500+ that did 100mhz less than his amazing tbred, and I believe after testing he went back to his Tbred. I don't want to waste close to $100.