Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I'm presuming it's the 2600+ 333fsb variety, and if that's the case it will be faster overall just as the PR rating suggests. The 266fsb version gets beat by the 2500+ in many games and apps despite the faster clockspeed because of the extra bandwidth even more so than the extra cache. Take away the bandwidth advantage and the extra cache doesn't quite compensate for the mhz disadvantage in most tasks.
250mhz to the 333fsb and 300mhz to the 266fsb version. Many feel AMD was a bit liberal with the PR rating on the Bartons to begin with and expecting just the extra cache to compensate for 250mhz at the same fsb just isn't going to play out in most usage.Originally posted by: Chumpman
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I'm presuming it's the 2600+ 333fsb variety, and if that's the case it will be faster overall just as the PR rating suggests. The 266fsb version gets beat by the 2500+ in many games and apps despite the faster clockspeed because of the extra bandwidth even more so than the extra cache. Take away the bandwidth advantage and the extra cache doesn't quite compensate for the mhz disadvantage in most tasks.
Aye, what does the 2600 have? A 350 MHz clockspeed advantage?
You guys sure you aren't looking at the benchies for the 266fsb 2600+ version from the big shootout? linkOriginally posted by: shady06
if u look at the benchies over at toms, the 2500+ has a slight edge in gaming performance but the 2600+ wins in everything else. on average, the 2600+ is a faster chip