why is XP 2500 barton slower than XP 2400

[otispunkmeyer]

why is the xp 2500 barton (1833mhz) slower than the 2400 which is (2000mhz)

 

[sugarkang]

on your machine or just in general?
if it's your machine, then give specs.
if you mean in general, then it probably depends in what area you benchmark.
i wouldn't be surprised if the 2400 encodes video/audio faster because of the higher ghz rating. in general though, the 2500 should be slightly ahead.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

i mean just in general,

i dont get why the slower one is clocked faster than the faster one. the 2500 beats the 2400 but the 2400 has the faster clock, it just doesnt add up

 

[otispunkmeyer]

is it beacuse of the bigger cache that the 2500 has?

 

[Hyperfocal]

Bigger cache, 333 fsb.

 

[Boonesmi]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
is it beacuse of the bigger cache that the 2500 has?

yup, the added cache gives it a pretty large performance boost in general (some apps will be faster then others when comparing the two)

 

[VIAN]

2400 and 2500 are performance ratings.

Higher cache 512kB compared to 256kB and higher FSB of 333MHz compared to 266MHz make a chip faster.

Take a 2GHz chip with 256kB of cache and 266MHz FSB. If you wanted to up the cache to 512kB and the FSB to 333MHz, you would now have a faster chip and would then have to underclock the chip to get the same performance ratings.

Athlons seem to really have a clock speed wall and this is where the performance ratings come to an advantage to AMD. Instead of increasing the clock speed, they would just do these tricks and therefore have more room to clock the card. The 3200 I think is only a 2.2GHz, but it's not the only one, but it is the only one with 400MHz FSB and 512kB of cache.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: VIAN
2400 and 2500 are performance ratings.

Higher cache 512kB compared to 256kB and higher FSB of 333MHz compared to 266MHz make a chip faster.

Take a 2GHz chip with 256kB of cache and 266MHz FSB. If you wanted to up the cache to 512kB and the FSB to 333MHz, you would now have a faster chip and would then have to underclock the chip to get the same performance ratings.

Athlons seem to really have a clock speed wall and this is where the performance ratings come to an advantage to AMD. Instead of increasing the clock speed, they would just do these tricks and therefore have more room to clock the card. The 3200 I think is only a 2.2GHz, but it's not the only one, but it is the only one with 400MHz FSB and 512kB of cache.

Yet, according to the "experts", the XP3200 is the worst deal of them all in processors, and the XP2500 is the best deal on a price-to-performance ratio. That includes all of the Pentium 4 processors, too. They also say that the extra cache does almost nothing for the Athlon, unlike the P4, because of the different designs of the chips. I would like to give you some links, but I can't seem to remember where these articles that I read originated. I found them, though, through a link from anandtech.

 

[Boonesmi]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: VIAN
2400 and 2500 are performance ratings.

Higher cache 512kB compared to 256kB and higher FSB of 333MHz compared to 266MHz make a chip faster.

Take a 2GHz chip with 256kB of cache and 266MHz FSB. If you wanted to up the cache to 512kB and the FSB to 333MHz, you would now have a faster chip and would then have to underclock the chip to get the same performance ratings.

Athlons seem to really have a clock speed wall and this is where the performance ratings come to an advantage to AMD. Instead of increasing the clock speed, they would just do these tricks and therefore have more room to clock the card. The 3200 I think is only a 2.2GHz, but it's not the only one, but it is the only one with 400MHz FSB and 512kB of cache.

Yet, according to the "experts", the XP3200 is the worst deal of them all in processors, and the XP2500 is the best deal on a price-to-performance ratio. That includes all of the Pentium 4 processors, too. They also say that the extra cache does almost nothing for the Athlon, unlike the P4, because of the different designs of the chips. I would like to give you some links, but I can't seem to remember where these articles that I read originated. I found them, though, through a link from anandtech.

myocardia your info is a bit off

i think your confusing the fact that P4 requires more memory bandwidth (so adding memory bandwidth to an athlonXP doesnt give it nearly the boost that added memory bandwidth gives to the P4)

the added cache gives a big performance boost to the athlonXP (the amount of boost depends on the application)
just to give a little evidence link to HALO benchmarked the slower clocked xp2500+ with extra cache performs much faster then an xp2600+ (they both have the same fsb, the only differences are the clock speed and the amount of cache)

 

[0roo0roo]

yet in many other benchmarks clock speed comes out ahead. the extra cache on the barton is good for 5% advantage at same clockspeed. a pretty good average estimate from what i've read.

 

[Boonesmi]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yet in many other benchmarks clock speed comes out ahead. the extra cache on the barton is good for 5% advantage at same clockspeed. a pretty good average estimate from what i've read.

i totally agree that it depends on the application

im just saying that his statement that "the added cache doesnt help" is a false statement... more cache is always a good thing

 

[myocardia]

I should have said "in most applications" in that last post. As you can see from the very next page of the article you linked to, actual processor speed can be just as important as amount of cache with the Athlons. This article says "As regards the L2 cache size increased to 512K, we won't dwell on this aspect. That is the major peculiarity of the Barton core which we have rounded up in previous reviews. A brief resume: depending on the application, the increased L2 cache size gives 3-10% performance boost. " And as you can see from this review, gaming is hardly effected at all. It seems that speed is all that matters with the games that they used for their tests.

So, what is this Halo? I know it's a game, but what else? Anyone here have it yet?

 

[myocardia]

Yet, according to the "experts", the XP3200 is the worst deal of them all in processors, and the XP2500 is the best deal on a price-to-performance ratio. That includes all of the Pentium 4 processors, too. They also say that the extra cache does almost nothing for the Athlon, unlike the P4, because of the different designs of the chips. I would like to give you some links, but I can't seem to remember where these articles that I read originated. I found them, though, through a link from anandtech.[/quote]

Read what I wrote this time. I've never in my life said that adding cache is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, last night I was saying that it seems like neither AMD or Intel plan on making their chips any faster, they just keep adding cache. And I personally will be the first idiot in line to buy either company's first attempt at a 3.2Ghz, 512 MB level 1 cache, 1 GB level two cache processor, no matter what the cost!

 

[0roo0roo]

So, what is this Halo? I know it's a game, but what else? Anyone here have it yet?

its a game thats best left on the xbox. the pc port is out, and it sucks. runs like cr@p on any system considering its graphics still look rather dated.

 

[myocardia]

Okay, thanx. The only reason I asked is because it keeps coming up in this particular forum, and I had never heard of it, even though gaming is the only reason I build my own...

 

[0roo0roo]

yea, it was great in its day whichw as qui8te a while ago.

there are too many great games out this christmas to bother with such old and bad ports.

gamerankings.com has a decent listing of alternatives

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=6 more mhz fun

 

[Jeff7181]

Seems to me like Halo is basically a DX7 game with some DX9 shaders thrown in to make it "modern." I wasn't impressed by the demo... the demo was entertaining, but the graphics are far from impressive... I'm more impressed with Call of Duty (and even that's nothing to write home about).

 

[VIAN]

Yay for me cause I got a 2700, but there's really nothing to brag about when you're facing a Celeron.

I still want Halo, FPSs belong on PCs and not on consoles. Just wish we had some better programmers.

In the begining, I chose the 2700 over the 2800 because in some applications it would run faster than a 2800 because of the extra clock speed. But I believe that having the extra cache would have been better for increase in total system performance. But, then again, at 40 bucks more, F that. It is application dependent. And the P4 is just a bandwidth hog, I have no clue what it does with all that power.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Yay for me cause I got a 2700, but there's really nothing to brag about when you're facing a Celeron.

I still want Halo, FPSs belong on PCs and not on consoles. Just wish we had some better programmers.

In the begining, I chose the 2700 over the 2800 because in some applications it would run faster than a 2800 because of the extra clock speed. But I believe that having the extra cache would have been better for increase in total system performance. But, then again, at 40 bucks more, F that. It is application dependent. And the P4 is just a bandwidth hog, I have no clue what it does with all that power.

Personally, Vian, I believe that you made the better decision by going with the 2700, if you are using it for gaming. As you can see from the page that I linked to in my last post, clock speed seems to rule in all of the games except for Halo. Just my opinion, but it seems to me that the Bartons are aimed more at the people who use their computer for things other than gaming. I'm quite happy still with my 2400, which I run close to factory speed (100 mhz overclock) about 75% of the time. I don't "crank it up" until I'm ready to play some fps's, and then I can go to quite a bit higher speeds than the people who bought a Barton. I know that you don't OC, but to those of us who do, top speed is a very important factor when it's time to buy a new proc.

Quote--

I still want Halo, FPSs belong on PCs and not on consoles. Just wish we had some better programmers.

Man, you can say that again! Playing a fps on a console is horrible!!

 

[Jeff7181]

Man, you can say that again! Playing a fps on a console is horrible!!

I finally got my brother started on Counter-Strike and he wants to buy one of those Logitech Dual Analog controllers that are similar to PS2 controllers! Gawd! The ignorance of a console gamer!

 

[VIAN]

lol