which will improve performance most ?

soric2

Member
Jul 25, 2001
104
0
0
Im looking to improve my pc a piece at a time what would be first ?

heres my set up...

Athlon XP 2100
MSI K7n2g-l
Radeon 9500 pro
WD 7200 40 gig HD
Soundblaster live
1 Gig of 2700 DDR Ram..

Any ideas Im believeing the CPU should be first and if so whats a good bang for the buck ?
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
And you're ahead of the game with pc2700 ram. A 80 dollar barton will go nice with that system.
 

DWW

Platinum Member
Apr 4, 2003
2,030
0
0
Why the fsck are people saying Barton 2500+ when you have something only 100 MHz slower. Won't make that much difference people!

Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: DWW
Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.

Yeah, I'd keep it unless you feel the need for something. Save the money.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Originally posted by: DWW
Why the fsck are people saying Barton 2500+ when you have something only 100 MHz slower. Won't make that much difference people!

Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.

Your forgetting one important difference, the 2100 only sports a 266 MHz front side bus, and yes 66 MHz difference makes a lot a difference on a AMD set up. The 2500 has more bandwidth to play with to transfer data thru the bus, unlike the 2100. For 80 dollars, I don't see why not.
 

GreatDaleness

Senior member
Sep 15, 2003
289
0
0
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: DWW
Why the fsck are people saying Barton 2500+ when you have something only 100 MHz slower. Won't make that much difference people!

Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.

Your forgetting one important difference, the 2100 only sports a 266 MHz front side bus, and yes 66 MHz difference makes a lot a difference on a AMD set up. The 2500 has more bandwidth to play with to transfer data thru the bus, unlike the 2100. For 80 dollars, I don't see why not.

not to mention twice the cache and a future ability to OC to 200FSB making it a 3200+
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: DWW
Why the fsck are people saying Barton 2500+ when you have something only 100 MHz slower. Won't make that much difference people!

Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.

Yeah, FSB and cache never made a different ever either
rolleye.gif
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: GreatDaleness
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: DWW
Why the fsck are people saying Barton 2500+ when you have something only 100 MHz slower. Won't make that much difference people!

Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.

Your forgetting one important difference, the 2100 only sports a 266 MHz front side bus, and yes 66 MHz difference makes a lot a difference on a AMD set up. The 2500 has more bandwidth to play with to transfer data thru the bus, unlike the 2100. For 80 dollars, I don't see why not.

not to mention twice the cache and a future ability to OC to 200FSB making it a 3200+

The extra cache doesn't really help that much and is negligible. Ability to OC: Can't he OC the one he has?

Honestly, if all this user does is microsoft word, internet explorer, e-mail, and a few 3D demanding games, he's fine. He's got a 9500 Pro which is very comparable to a 9600 Pro XT in terms of performance. Not to mention 1GB of ram. IMHO, you are just fine right now soric2 and don't need to upgrade just yet. If I was in your situation, I would just wait it out for some time because just like it has always been, the longer you wait the better the product you can usually get, that is to an extent though, I mean, don't go waiting like 4 years or something, hehe ;) :D
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: DWW
Why the fsck are people saying Barton 2500+ when you have something only 100 MHz slower. Won't make that much difference people!

Your CPU is pretty good. Depends on what you want to do with your rig.

Yeah, FSB and cache never made a different ever either
rolleye.gif

Look up the reviews, cache doesn't really help all that much alone. Sure, FSB helps, but is it worth $80 that he can save and put towards something better some time later down the road? How many things does he do where it will be a noticeable difference?
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,087
6,016
136
O/C the processor, I've got a athlon 2100@2700+ (1733@2083Mhz) 13*160Mhz FSB using standard AMD cooler.
 

GreatDaleness

Senior member
Sep 15, 2003
289
0
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
you dont need to upgrade now, save your money for something nicer down the road when you need the power.

He didn't ask if he needed to upgrade. He already made the decision to upgrade. Plus, I doubt that there will ever be a faster processor for that MB than a 3200+, so upgrade now or upgrade later he will get the same thing. I doubt that the Bartons will ever be much cheaper than $80. So why not upgrade the CPU now?
 

WobbleWobble

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,867
1
0
I think you could replace your hard drive. The newer hard drives have higher densities and larger cache sizes. You could even look at a WD Raptor if you have SATA or are willing to buy a SATA card.

I don't think you need to replace your CPU as urgently. It really depends on what you're using it for and if you're willing to O/C, you can get that 2100+ to some higher speeds without replacing your CPU.
 

Sureshot324

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
3,370
0
71
I have pretty much the exact same system as you (except only 512mb ram) and I wouldn't consider getting a barton. I have my 2100 oc'd to 2700 and I doubt an oc'd barton would be much faster.

If you REALLY want better performance in games RIGHT NOW, you'd probably benifit more from a video card upgrade. But your 9500pro is still very good and imo you'd be much better off sticking to what you have until better hardware comes out.
 

GreatDaleness

Senior member
Sep 15, 2003
289
0
0
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I have pretty much the exact same system as you (except only 512mb ram) and I wouldn't consider getting a barton. I have my 2100 oc'd to 2700 and I doubt an oc'd barton would be much faster.

If you REALLY want better performance in games RIGHT NOW, you'd probably benifit more from a video card upgrade. But your 9500pro is still very good and imo you'd be much better off sticking to what you have until better hardware comes out.

A 3200+ is 10% faster than a 2700 in the benchmarks to start with. Many people are able to push their bartons to 3400-3600 speeds. So you if he is lucky and can OC his 2100 to 2700, he STILL gets a 10% faster CPU. If he is lucky, he can get one around 15% faster. Again, this also is as fast as the AthlonXP series if likely to go, so he would be maxing out his current configuration. It is going to be a long long time before getting a Athlon 64 motherboard/memory/cpu cost $80.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: GreatDaleness
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I have pretty much the exact same system as you (except only 512mb ram) and I wouldn't consider getting a barton. I have my 2100 oc'd to 2700 and I doubt an oc'd barton would be much faster.

If you REALLY want better performance in games RIGHT NOW, you'd probably benifit more from a video card upgrade. But your 9500pro is still very good and imo you'd be much better off sticking to what you have until better hardware comes out.

A 3200+ is 10% faster than a 2700 in the benchmarks to start with. Many people are able to push their bartons to 3400-3600 speeds. So you if he is lucky and can OC his 2100 to 2700, he STILL gets a 10% faster CPU. If he is lucky, he can get one around 15% faster. Again, this also is as fast as the AthlonXP series if likely to go, so he would be maxing out his current configuration. It is going to be a long long time before getting a Athlon 64 motherboard/memory/cpu cost $80.

You sound like a salesman rushing him into a purchase. Do you realize that in most cases 10% doesn't make that much of a difference? If you can honestly tell me that his rig is slow with reasons to back it up, I'll talk about it. Otherwise, the 2100, 1GB of RAM, and a 600 Pro XT equivalent is more than enough nowadays. He can save that money for a future upgrade or maybe down the road when a 3200+ is only $80, buy that.

If I were in his case, I would just wait. Heck, you're jumping all over conclusions and we don't even know how much he's willing to spend. *sigh*
 

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
Originally posted by: biostud666
O/C the processor, I've got a athlon 2100@2700+ (1733@2083Mhz) 13*160Mhz FSB using standard AMD cooler.

2083 = 2600+ not 2700
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,087
6,016
136
Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
Originally posted by: biostud666
O/C the processor, I've got a athlon 2100@2700+ (1733@2083Mhz) 13*160Mhz FSB using standard AMD cooler.

2083 = 2600+ not 2700

Oops my bad, it's just because the BIOS show it as a 2700+
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
If I was in your place, I would honestly think of two things:

A. Switch to a 2.6c/Intel Mobo set up
or
B.Wait or save for a AMD 3200 64 set up

Either way, you're going to have to pay money to see a leap in performance no matter how you look at it. Not unless you want to wait another year or two until your system hardly meets minimal requirements, then you'll be able afford a the price reduced Athlon 64 set up which will then be half-way obsolete.


As of right now, 80 dollars for a reasonable step up on the performance scale seems justifiable. Specially when you all ready have the Ram that can support the 2500 Barton bus.
 

ravedave

Senior member
Dec 9, 1999
541
0
0
You guys are totally missing HD's. They are VERY important. Get a raid controller and throw in a 2nd HD. Higher HD speed will noticibly effect your computer.
 

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
Originally posted by: ravedave
You guys are totally missing HD's. They are VERY important. Get a raid controller and throw in a 2nd HD. Higher HD speed will noticibly effect your computer.

Very true. Dual or even a single Raptor (or another newer drive) would be a nice boost in overall system responsiveness.