Which Intel processor is equal to the barton2500

[RaNDoMMAI]

Hi

I have mainly been an amd man since i started about a year ago.

I and looking into building a SFF machine using the shuttle ST62KS

I am quite happy with the barton 2500 and i think it would be a good chip for a system like this since it is stuck with a radeon 9100.

So what chip of intel's is equal to the 2500?

thx
~RaNDoM

 

[Matthias99]

A P4 2.4C would be pretty close (although it costs about double what a Barton 2500+ does).

 

[Schadenfroh]

agree, pentium 2.4C would be about the same speed at default clocks on both

 

[MDE]

Ditto, a 2.4C would be about equal.

 

[xenos500]

ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

 

[phreaqe]

ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

why do you say that?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: xenos500
ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

That's pretty stupid.

The Tualatin was a great core, yes - but a Barton will slap it so hard it'll run crying back to the fab plant.

Originally posted by: phreaqe
why do you say that?

You're not actually trying to extract logic from a fanboy, are you?

- M4H

 

[MercenaryForHire]

In response to the OP - yes, get the 2.4C. You'll definitely want to avoid anything lower like a (shudder) Celeron, since the R9100IGP doesn't actually have a vertex shader - it offloads that task onto the CPU, giving it one more reason to need huge throughput. 800MHz FSB will also play nice with the proper 400MHz DDR RAM timing needed to squeeze performance from the IGP core.

- M4H

 

[RaNDoMMAI]

hey thx guyz for the input

Is the 2.4C gonna be down anytime soon?
How about the 2.8E, it is only 8 dollars more? to hot for a little box?

~RaNDoM

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: RaNDoMMAI
hey thx guyz for the input

Is the 2.4C gonna be down anytime soon?
How about the 2.8E, it is only 8 dollars more? to hot for a little box?

~RaNDoM

Actually, the plus of the ST62K is that it lets you undervolt to ridiculous levels - 0.825v if I'm not mistaken - and P4s will run on a lot less voltage than stock. Check the review at SPCR (SilentPCReview) of it and see for yourself.

As far as net heat - I think if a Shuttle can handle having an OCed Barton, ATI 9800 Pro, and SATA Raptor crammed into it - a Prescott should be a walk in the park, especially with the Zen's heatpipe structure.

- M4H

 

[InlineFive]

It'll have to be at least a 3.4Ghz EE to be equal to a Barton 2500+. The IPC is too powerful for Mhz.

 

[Ionizer86]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
It'll have to be at least a 3.4Ghz EE to be equal to a Barton 2500+. The IPC is too powerful for Mhz.

Lol, fanboyism in the AMD direction. But seriously, the 2.4C is probably a tiny tad faster than the 2500+ at some tasks and vice versa for others.

I'd recommend checking out the 2.8C if you're looking at both the 2.4C and 2.8E. I think Intel has long priced the 2.8C at exactly the same cost as a 2.4C in batches of 1000, so vendors' prices should be pretty similar for the 2.4C vs 2.8C.

At Newegg, it looks like the 2.4C retail is $169, the 2.8C OEM is $171, and the 2.8C retail is $180 ATM.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
It'll have to be at least a 3.4Ghz EE to be equal to a Barton 2500+. The IPC is too powerful for Mhz.

I'm an AMD fanboy but you're being dumb here....a 3.4? come on

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
It'll have to be at least a 3.4Ghz EE to be equal to a Barton 2500+. The IPC is too powerful for Mhz.

I'm an AMD fanboy but you're being dumb here....a 3.4? come on

Oh man, that's great.

A 2.4c is about even w/ the barton 2500+.

 

[Sunner]

Someone here has a broken sarcasm detector, I hope it's not me.

That's another way to say, I think(and hope) that PorBlemo was kidding

 

[xenos500]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: xenos500
ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

That's pretty stupid.

The Tualatin was a great core, yes - but a Barton will slap it so hard it'll run crying back to the fab plant.

Originally posted by: phreaqe
why do you say that?

You're not actually trying to extract logic from a fanboy, are you?

- M4H

You're right, I have ZERO logic to offer here

I'm just an intel guy
And I really probably would take a Tualatin 1.4 .... ever as "pretty stupid" as it really is.

 

[Goi]

Actually I think even a P4 2.4B would hang pretty well against a Barton 2500+

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: xenos500
ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

i hope this is a joke? even a poly core 1700+ would mop up the floor with that P3...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: xenos500
ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

It's over twice as expensive, much slower in every benchmark (except maybe SSE2...did they have that on PIII's?), and is stuck on outdated SDRAM. You honestly mean to tell me that if you were to pay money for a system today, you'd get the PIII?

Give me ONE way the PIII beats the AMD.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: xenos500
ehh I'd probably take about a PIII 1.4 before I'd have the 2500+.
That isnt to say preformance is equal, but overall...in my eyes.

It's over twice as expensive, much slower in every benchmark (except maybe SSE2...did they have that on PIII's?), and is stuck on outdated SDRAM. You honestly mean to tell me that if you were to pay money for a system today, you'd get the PIII?

Give me ONE way the PIII beats the AMD.

If I may add a little fire to these flames as well - two words "chipset support". The 440BX chipset was one of the best, most stable, most efficient (although not overall fastest, nowadays) chipsets ever made. That, in combination with an overclocked Tualatin PIII CPU, that has similar IPC clock-for-clock with Athlons, and if you get a good one could be overclocked to 1.6+Ghz, it would make a pretty decent system. A better system, in fact, than my current AMD Athlon XP2000 KT400/8235 system.

PCI and IDE performance on a 440BX blows away any current Via chipset that I've used, and driver/compatibility is far better in every way, compared to both Via and NForce chipsets for Socket-A.

In fact, I had to remove my otherwise-excellent but currently unsupported Aureal Vortex2 sound card from my KT400 system, due to driver incompatibility issues that caused strange anomolies, including data-corruption and hard system freezes.

I also can't do disc-to-disc CD copies anymore at 32X speed, due to the poor PCI and IDE performance of the Via chipset. I had no problems doing these same things on my i440BX system with a PII-450, nor even in a i430TX system with a K6-2 400Mhz.

An NForce2-based system is much closer in terms of performance to that of a 440BX than a Via chipset, but the NForce2 systems have had their fair share of driver problems, especially IDE drivers. Not fun.


So to sum up, i440BX chipset + Tualatin PIII 1.6+Ghz CPU == as fast as a contemporary AMD XP2000+ system in raw speed, and with much higher levels of system efficiency, and much higher driver compatibility.

Not the overall fastest, by any means, but sometimes raw CPU speed isn't everything. There are things that such a system can do, that my current "upgraded" AMD XP2000+ system cannot do.