P2.4C vs 2.5 Barton at stock?

[solofly]

Which one is more suitable for browsing, email and multimedia between the two? I'm getting rid of one and giving it to a friend and need to know which one is better for his needs.

 

[TStep]

the cheaper one. both will suit your needs more than adequately, but the edge for multimedia would go to the P4.

 

[Canterwood]

The 2.4C would be better overall.
It has a 200mhz fsb over 166mhz of the 2500+, and Hyper-threading as standard.
Also the P4 utilises dual channel memory better than the Barton 2500+

 

[cw42]

P4 w/ HT wins.

 

[solofly]

P4 it is... Thx

 

[soccerballtux]

Same hear, I'd say the same. Something feels inherently laggy about my Barton, even with it overclocked. Its perfect for gaming, but for normal browsing in FF, I've noticed all the P4 systems simply feel better. Prolly cause of the HT; AMD's still aren't too great at multi-tasking...I recall something about them and their ability to switch processes fast or something...
So yeah, rest assured the P4 is the way to go if you aren't into gaming.

 

[Shenkoa]

P4 2.4C would easily hit 3.2 on stock cooling.

 

[n7]

P4 2.4C > 2500+ Barton.

But the Barton cost almost half the 2.4C back in the day, so they weren't exactly comparable.

Holy crap i just noticed all your PCs! :Q
Why do you have so many?

 

[jiffylube1024]

2.4C is faster due to Hyperthreading.

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
P4 2.4C would easily hit 3.2 on stock cooling.

Depends on the stepping. Some of the early 2.4C's weren't great overclockers - 2.9 - 3.1 Ghz tops.

 

[Shenkoa]

Good point, but most are good overclockers.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

I've owned both chips, for gaming the 2500+ would be faster both at stock and when overclocked (IE 3200+ vs. ~3ghz for 2.4C). For everyday use I've noticed absolutely no distinction. I would go with the Barton which would be a little over half the cost of the P4.

 

[Shenkoa]

The Barton 2500+ is usually a good overclocker as well, but overall benchmarks show the C series as superior.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
The Barton 2500+ is usually a good overclocker as well, but overall benchmarks show the C series as superior.

I agree, at that point in history Intel clearly had the best performance. Certainly the Barton and t-bred B were no slouches when overclocked, and a 1700+ for $50 was the best price to performance ratio around IMO, but the P4c series was the performance king.

 

[Vee]

'General' performance of the 2500 should be insignificantly better.
That doesn't mean anything at all compared to the P4C's two considerable advantages:
SSE2 support, which gives you much higher performance on some media apps.
And ht, which is also sort of nice in some circumstances.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I've owned both chips, for gaming the 2500+ would be faster both at stock and when overclocked (IE 3200+ vs. ~3ghz for 2.4C). For everyday use I've noticed absolutely no distinction. I would go with the Barton which would be a little over half the cost of the P4.

Those are all a moot points considering the OP already owns both chips, has stated he will be running at stock and with no gaming involved.

 

[Shenkoa]

With no gaming in mind??? definetly go for the C in my unbiased opinion. With apps, that C will smash the Barton especially when overclocked. Consider that a Barton 3200+ with apps is no better then then the 2.8C!!! its a no brainer!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I've owned both chips, for gaming the 2500+ would be faster both at stock and when overclocked (IE 3200+ vs. ~3ghz for 2.4C). For everyday use I've noticed absolutely no distinction. I would go with the Barton which would be a little over half the cost of the P4.

I had them both and tested them through several test and the 2500+ at 1.8ghz would not beat a 2.4c in most everything....games were close....YOu are wrong my friend...

Plus I was able to oc the barton to 2.2ghz (2.3ghz with some vcore) yet I was able to OC the 2.4c to 3.5ghz where it was even faster then my 3000+ winchester at 2.66ghz...Not in games but most other tings it was faster or comparable....

The 2.4c even beat the Barton 2500+ oc'd to 3200+ in many things....sorry just the truth...The barton line is where the AMD XP lines went south with the PR rating...AMD at the time didn't have an answer to HT....

 

[Shenkoa]

I am with Duvie, I beileve most people here just assume the AMD is better and they totally underestimate the P4. Yes I know the P4 is a POS at heart but when cranked that far up there it can work fairly good.

Get the C its faster! heck I was never even into to AMD tilll the 64's came out, I hated the XP's because they were cheap and bandwidth choked. The 64 fixes these probloms wich is why I like a lot now.