What is Intel's nearest equivalent to an Athlon 2500+

[Bonesdad]

??

 

[WobbleWobble]

For the most part, 2.4C

 

[orion7144]

I'd say the 2.4C is better not equivalent.

 

[Duvie]

I verified that in my testing against a Barton 2500+ at stock settings and my 2.4c at stock settings.....

NOw remember they are many genres for desktops so what are you talking in??? Games??? Multimedia??? Rendering???

IN a some of the non gaming apps if Intel made a 2.2c I think that would have been faster then the 2500+.....In a few apps I had (non gaming ofcourse) the 2500+ oc'd to 3200+ couldn't beat the 2.4c in p4 HT optimized apps....

Overall I think gaming reviews I have seen shows that would be a pretty close equivalent since most games are not HT optimized...

 

[cowdog]

Barton $90
2.4C $160

2.4C is closing that gap. Both OC well (2500+ locked now though), but I would think the 2.4C would generally outpeform the Barton at max stable OC. My 2500+ @ 2.3 is fast, but I'm not sure how well it would do against a 2.4C @ 3.4, which isn't out of the ordinary. I don't know how they would compare at stock; I just have a hard time thinking about either without OCing.

 

[VIAN]

2500+ is equal to or slightly better than 2.5GHz 533MHz FSB P4

The XP performance ratings beat P4 chips with same number MHz in chips with 400MHz, tie with 533MHz, lose to 800MHz. That's how I see it. When you get to A64 then they better than 800MHz.

These are based on areas that AMD excel in which are general computer usage and gaming. Whicha also are the most important.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: VIAN
2500+ is equal to or slightly better than 2.5GHz 533MHz FSB P4

The XP performance ratings beat P4 chips with same number MHz in chips with 400MHz, tie with 533MHz, lose to 800MHz. That's how I see it. When you get to A64 then they better than 800MHz.

These are based on areas that AMD excel in which are general computer usage and gaming. Whicha also are the most important.

that is a pretty good take on it....