Newegg Drops Barton 2500 to $88

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

DevilsAdvocate

Banned
Jul 1, 2000
10,274
2
0
Actually - I thought this might come to pass. AMD could only hold out for so long by itself.

IBM is a good fit for AMD, and their adoption of Opteron gives AMD a huge shot in the arm as far as IT credibility... it just won't be enough.

Intel is far too big & powerful, and the fact that AMD has made it this far is really a testament to how excellent their products are. The problem is that Intel - the 5,000 pound gorilla that it is - has so much force to bear within the industry that AMD just can't compete...

unless....

nVidia buys AMD.

Think about this one... it makes perfect sense. nVidia is the Intel of graphics chip producers. They have all the credibility that they need. AMD would complete their product line.
 
D

docinthebox

Golden Member
Jun 9, 2000
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
unless....

nVidia buys AMD.

Think about this one... it makes perfect sense. nVidia is the Intel of graphics chip producers. They have all the credibility that they need. AMD would complete their product line.
Click to expand...

But how would this help the sales on either side? nVidia is already producing chipsets for AMD, what more can it offer? Unless you're envisioning something like SGI workstations where you combine AMD and nVidia technology into super powerful graphics servers.

Actually, Sun would make a good buyer/merger of AMD. Sun SPARC CPU + Solaris OS does well in the high-end corporate IT market. But the low end SPARC servers are too expensive and too wimpy for their price, because Sun does not produce enough of them to have an economy of scale.

If Sun buys AMD, now they can put out AMD opteron server + Solaris x86 + Sun support, and now they can be competitive and generate revenue in the low-end corporate IT sector as well. This benefits both Sun and AMD because AMD now gets another powerful sales channel for its server chips. Eventually, the thing that generates big bucks are server chips, not desktop chips.

 
B

bdubya

Member
Dec 9, 2002
90
0
61
Originally posted by: 540mb
Thanks for showing how stupid some AMD fans really are. You keep thinking Intel is the one that is wavering. Hmm...buy a 3200+ for $450 or buy a 2.4C for $175. Did I mention that the 2.4C outperforms the 3200+?

Welp, time for me to get a barton 2500 for my super cheapo machine. I do have to say thanks to all you hot deals people. When everything is all put together I will have been able to get a 2500+, 512 MB 2100, 80GB(8mb buf), CDRW, geforce 3 ti 200, Asus mobo, aluminum case for less than $250. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Depends on the benchmark, if you're a gamer, the 2.4C does not compare to the 3200+ in 3DMark. Here the performance is equal to the 3.06 P4. Plus, if you had some fast RAM and a decent motherboard, you could easily overclock that $90 Barton to 3200+ speeds. The 2.4C is also very overclockable to 3ghz+ speeds, but costs $100 more.

I've been considering my next system upgrade, and debating the P4 2.4C -vs- the Barton 2500. The 2.4C requires a Prescot 865PE motherboard for optimal performance/overclocking, and some quality ram. The Barton requires an nForce2 motherboard, and similar quality RAM to overclock. I can easily overclock either of these systems (P4 to 3ghz, Barton to 3200+) However, after configuring my system at Newegg, using similarly featured motherbaords, I can build my Barton system for about $100 less than the P4. Motherboard, CPU, and memory P4 ~$400, Barton ~$300.

My last four systems have been AMD, and I'm really considering Intel again this time. But, I have a hard time justifying even $100 (25% more) for hyperthreading, and a negligible performance boost. Price/Performance advantage is still in AMD's court.

Consider your "super cheapo" machine, and how much it's perfomance costs, vs your P4 system. Why pay so much more for an Intel system?

 
T

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"It's Intel that is wavering."

If that was true it would be time for us Americans to start heading to Mexico.

 
M

MAYAN

Senior member
Aug 7, 2001
639
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"It's Intel that is wavering."

If that was true it would be time for us Americans to start heading to Mexico.
Click to expand...

That is funny, I am a spanish immigrant :)

:)
 
T

tbogstad

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2003
1,564
0
76
Damn I would get one today, but i have like 4 T-bred 1700's from newegg that were $41 or $42 dollars right now, can't justify buying another cpu even at that awesome deal.
 
Budmantom

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: bdubya
Originally posted by: 540mb
Thanks for showing how stupid some AMD fans really are. You keep thinking Intel is the one that is wavering. Hmm...buy a 3200+ for $450 or buy a 2.4C for $175. Did I mention that the 2.4C outperforms the 3200+?

Welp, time for me to get a barton 2500 for my super cheapo machine. I do have to say thanks to all you hot deals people. When everything is all put together I will have been able to get a 2500+, 512 MB 2100, 80GB(8mb buf), CDRW, geforce 3 ti 200, Asus mobo, aluminum case for less than $250. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Depends on the benchmark, if you're a gamer, the 2.4C does not compare to the 3200+ in 3DMark. Here the performance is equal to the 3.06 P4. Plus, if you had some fast RAM and a decent motherboard, you could easily overclock that $90 Barton to 3200+ speeds. The 2.4C is also very overclockable to 3ghz+ speeds, but costs $100 more.

I've been considering my next system upgrade, and debating the P4 2.4C -vs- the Barton 2500. The 2.4C requires a Prescot 865PE motherboard for optimal performance/overclocking, and some quality ram. The Barton requires an nForce2 motherboard, and similar quality RAM to overclock. I can easily overclock either of these systems (P4 to 3ghz, Barton to 3200+) However, after configuring my system at Newegg, using similarly featured motherbaords, I can build my Barton system for about $100 less than the P4. Motherboard, CPU, and memory P4 ~$300, Barton ~$400.

My last four systems have been AMD, and I'm really considering Intel again this time. But, I have a hard time justifying even $100 (25% more) for hyperthreading, and a negligible performance boost. Price/Performance advantage is still in AMD's court.

Consider your "super cheapo" machine, and how much it's perfomance costs, vs your P4 system. Why pay so much more for an Intel system?
Click to expand...


You might want to check your math. :)
 
M

Mephistokur

Senior member
Nov 29, 2001
479
0
0
AMD, if it really comes down to it, is one of the largest suppliers of flash chips in the world. A market that Intel has always had difficulty with. I would greatly miss the competition and lower prices that AMD has gotten me used to, and I would miss the great strides they occasionally make in technology if they left the PC chip market, but AMD as a company will just dump the PC processor end and revert back to the core business if they were really thinking they would go under.

Fact remains that AMD, even tho losing in the desktop market, is about to pounce on the server market. The Opteron and Hammer are no-brainers compared to Intels piece of crap Itanium and Itanium II. The big OEMs are falling in line behind AMD this time, its a better part for much cheaper and doesn't leave their users scrambling for a 32 bit solution like the Itaniums.

For the guy up there that said the 3200+ compares to a 2.4 PIV, you are reading bad, biased reviews if that is what you see. Most reviews say that it does not hit the 3.2GHz equivelent, but they also say that it is comparable to a 3.0 PIV. The PR rating is wrong, but not 1GHz wrong.
 
B

bdubya

Member
Dec 9, 2002
90
0
61
You might want to check your math.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the price of all the components, not just the CPU. Intel systems are much more affordable recently, because you don't need to buy expensive Rambus memory, or expensive Intel motherboards.
 
Budmantom

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
"I can build my Barton system for about $100 less than the P4. Motherboard, CPU, and memory P4 ~$300, Barton ~$400."

I think you may have it backwards.
 
B

bdubya

Member
Dec 9, 2002
90
0
61
Originally posted by: Budmantom
"I can build my Barton system for about $100 less than the P4. Motherboard, CPU, and memory P4 ~$300, Barton ~$400."

I think you may have it backwards.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice that, you are correct! My bad.
 
W

Winchester

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,965
0
0
Just curious and confused. By looking at pricewatch, there are two XP 2500 CPUs, one is 333FSB and the other is 266FSB, the 266FSB is a little more, but it seems like they speed (ghz) is different between the two processors, even though they are both 2500s. I guess I dont understand that.

The 2500 is supposedly 1.833 GHZ and the 2600 is 2.133 GHZ, but it is just $2 @ $92 more for the 333FSB version, while the 266FSB is $135. Now I have a Gigabyte 7VAXP mobo that supports the 333FSB, so I guess I just need someone to explain the differences, and why what seems to be the slower FSB is more expensive. Also, wouldnt it be worth $2 more for the extra 200mhz ?


Also, why wouldnt you get the retail version? it comes with a heatsink and fan and 3 years warranty, for just $2 more?
Confused... me too!!!
 
Budmantom

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Winchester
Just curious and confused. By looking at pricewatch, there are two XP 2500 CPUs, one is 333FSB and the other is 266FSB, the 266FSB is a little more, but it seems like they speed (ghz) is different between the two processors, even though they are both 2500s. I guess I dont understand that.

The 2500 is supposedly 1.833 GHZ and the 2600 is 2.133 GHZ, but it is just $2 @ $92 more for the 333FSB version, while the 266FSB is $135. Now I have a Gigabyte 7VAXP mobo that supports the 333FSB, so I guess I just need someone to explain the differences, and why what seems to be the slower FSB is more expensive. Also, wouldnt it be worth $2 more for the extra 200mhz ?


Also, why wouldnt you get the retail version? it comes with a heatsink and fan and 3 years warranty, for just $2 more?
Confused... me too!!!
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, 2.133 is the 266fsb and 2.08 is the 333 add in the 512k cach over 256 and that make up for the difference you lose in ghz.

That's my understanding anyway.

 
P

Pothead

Platinum Member
Jan 8, 2001
2,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Winchester
Just curious and confused. By looking at pricewatch, there are two XP 2500 CPUs, one is 333FSB and the other is 266FSB, the 266FSB is a little more, but it seems like they speed (ghz) is different between the two processors, even though they are both 2500s. I guess I dont understand that.

The 2500 is supposedly 1.833 GHZ and the 2600 is 2.133 GHZ, but it is just $2 @ $92 more for the 333FSB version, while the 266FSB is $135. Now I have a Gigabyte 7VAXP mobo that supports the 333FSB, so I guess I just need someone to explain the differences, and why what seems to be the slower FSB is more expensive. Also, wouldnt it be worth $2 more for the extra 200mhz ?


Also, why wouldnt you get the retail version? it comes with a heatsink and fan and 3 years warranty, for just $2 more?
Confused... me too!!!
Click to expand...


Many do not use the stock heatsink when they buy retail. Using a different heatsink actually voids the warranty.
 
K

Kevin

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2002
3,995
1
0
The rumored Thorton is probably going to be released soon, causing the Bartons and Thoroughbreads to drop...
 
W

Winchester

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,965
0
0
So which is better in the long run, the 333FSB or the 266FSB?

Is the retail HS/F good enough for people who do not overclock?
 
B

bdubya

Member
Dec 9, 2002
90
0
61
Originally posted by: Winchester
So which is better in the long run, the 333FSB or the 266FSB?

Is the retail HS/F good enough for people who do not overclock?
Click to expand...

I'd go with the 333FSB, you'll get slightly better memory bandwidth, and the ability to overclock that CPU should you decide to do so later. The extra 256KB of cache explains the difference in actual speed versus the "perfomance" rating. The retail heatsink will work great if your not overclocking, the only reason to upgrade besides overclocking is to get a quieter fan.

edit: I just noticed you're upgrading an existing system. If your memory isn't fast enough for 333mhz FSB (PC2700) you're probably better off using the 266FSB CPU and using your current memory.
 
M

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
RE:"Thanks for showing how stupid some AMD fans really are. You keep thinking Intel is the one that is wavering. Hmm...buy a 3200+ for $450 or buy a 2.4C for $175. Did I mention that the 2.4C outperforms the 3200+?"

You're welcome.

And thank you for showing us all how stupid someone is for believing Intels marketing and benchmark bunk.
 
W

Winchester

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,965
0
0
I have 1.2GB of PC2700 ;) I was told if I ever was going to upgrade that it would be cheaper in the long run, even though more expensive then. Glad I listened

Thanks for the explanation btw.
 
P

phikhue

Member
Feb 16, 2001
80
0
0
Fry's has a combo of the XP 2500+ and the ECS motherboard. Does anyone know if Fry's CPU is the same Barton CPU that we are talking about here? Thanks.
 
c627627

c627627

Golden Member
Jan 8, 2002
1,155
0
76
Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"Thanks for showing how stupid some AMD fans really are. You keep thinking Intel is the one that is wavering. Hmm...buy a 3200+ for $450 or buy a 2.4C for $175. Did I mention that the 2.4C outperforms the 3200+?"
Click to expand...
No you didn't. You also didn't mention it costs FOUR times as much ast the famous 1700+ T-Bred B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom