XP 2400+ or 2500+ (no oclk)

[chmike]

Is the 333 Bus 2500+ worth 10% more over the XP2400+? My mothboard supports 333FSB, but how much more performance will I really get? Since the 2500+ is 1.83Ghz and the 2400+ is 2Ghz am I really faster? Also, which one runs cooler? I can adjust FSB on my board but nothing else. I'm currently running and XP1600+ at 152Mhz (=XP1900+).
My memory is Crucial PC2700.

Or should I just save up and move on to something else?

Thanks

 

[myocardia]

If you aren't going to be overclocking, I would recommend at least an XP3000. BTW, why are you overclocking your Palomino 1600, but don't want to overclock the overclockable processors? Either way, the extra L2 cache of the Bartons makes them preferable-- you'll notice the difference.

 

[rogue1979]

Get a 1800+. It will make the jump to a 166MHz fsb (333MHz DDR) at stock core voltage. This will give you a 1909MHz or more if you can go higher than a 166MHz fsb. The benefit from 266MHz to 333MHz is substantial. The 1909@333 cpu will be faster than the 2400+(2000MHz)@266.

The 2500+ is a Barton and has 512k L2 cache vs 256k for the overclocked 1800+ or the stock 2400+. I have both Athlon and Barton systems and the extra cache is only worth a 2-3% performance boost. The Athlon does not benefit as much as the P4 from the extra L2 cache. Many here at Anandtech insist the Barton has a bigger advantage over the Athlon counterpart, but that isn't true. I think many of the reviews out there show a Barton at the stock 333MHz competing with a equally clocked Athlon on a 266MHz fsb, hence the larger perceived performance boost.

So a stock 2500+ at 1833MHz would be 1% behind an Athlon at 1909MHz on the same 333MHz if you factor in the 4% increase in clock speed minus the 3% deficit for the smaller L2 cache. Now of course if you can overclock the 2500+ higher than a 166MHz fsb motherboard speed you will get even more performance. I have seen many people upgrade from a Athlon at 2300MHz+ to a Barton at a lower speed of perhaps 2100-2200MHz thinking they have gotten a faster cpu.

The simple fact is people on a budget using a simple socket A without overclocking options and support for a 166MHz fsb speeds should get the 1800+, not spend extra money on the 2500+. Now I said on a budget with a simple motherboard, a 3000+ would be faster still but cost an extra $75.

 

[myocardia]

But if he isn't wanting to overclock, he isn't going to notice any real improvements in the speed of his system, unless he gets either an XP3000 or an XP3200. And he isn't going to notice any difference between a 1600 at 1.6ghz and an 1800 at 1.9ghz, except in benchmarks and maybe a frame or two (max) in whatever games he plays. The best thing for him to do would be to get himself an $80 retail desktop XP2500, and run it at 180fsb, which Crucial PC2700 will do without problems. That would give him a 2.0ghz Barton, for a total investment of $80, including the heatsink and fan. And the extra 256KB of L2 cache doesn't make much difference in benchmarks, or in gaming, but it definitely gives the whole system a boost. For instance, Windows boots faster, all applications/windows open faster, which might just be worth the slight investment for him, who knows?

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: myocardia
But if he isn't wanting to overclock, he isn't going to notice any real improvements in the speed of his system, unless he gets either an XP3000 or an XP3200. And he isn't going to notice any difference between a 1600 at 1.6ghz and an 1800 at 1.9ghz, except in benchmarks and maybe a frame or two (max) in whatever games he plays. The best thing for him to do would be to get himself an $80 retail desktop XP2500, and run it at 180fsb, which Crucial PC2700 will do without problems. That would give him a 2.0ghz Barton, for a total investment of $80, including the heatsink and fan. And the extra 256KB of L2 cache doesn't make much difference in benchmarks, or in gaming, but it definitely gives the whole system a boost. For instance, Windows boots faster, all applications/windows open faster, which might just be worth the slight investment for him, who knows?

If he isn't gonna overclock why mention a 2500+ on a 180MHz fsb? And the 1800+ uses an 11.5x multiplier instead of a 11x multiplier of the Barton. So the same 180MHz will get you 2070MHz from a 1800+, and 1980MHz from a 2500+ Barton. That's about a 5% increase in clock speed, offset by the 3% penalty for less L2 cache. You just suggested a more expensive cpu that will be slower under these circumstances!

Good going!

His 1600+ is running on a 152MHz fsb for 1596MHz, an 1800+ on a 166MHz fsb is 1909MHz. 315MHz and an increase of 14MHz on the fsb will give him a substantial increase in gaming provided he has the video card to take advantage of the extra speed. Brush up on your math or spend more timing reading up on benchmarks before you post advice challenging someone elses solution, or they are gonna school you every time at Anandtech.


Advice to anyone that doesn't "want to overclock". If you are considering a stock Barton 2500+ and price is an issue, just get an 1800+ t-bred ("b" core) if you have a jumper to set default at 166MHz a fsb.
No core voltage, extra cooling or multipliers needed, just the fsb jumper and memory that can run 333MHz.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: rogue1979

Originally posted by: myocardia
But if he isn't wanting to overclock, he isn't going to notice any real improvements in the speed of his system, unless he gets either an XP3000 or an XP3200. And he isn't going to notice any difference between a 1600 at 1.6ghz and an 1800 at 1.9ghz, except in benchmarks and maybe a frame or two (max) in whatever games he plays. The best thing for him to do would be to get himself an $80 retail desktop XP2500, and run it at 180fsb, which Crucial PC2700 will do without problems. That would give him a 2.0ghz Barton, for a total investment of $80, including the heatsink and fan. And the extra 256KB of L2 cache doesn't make much difference in benchmarks, or in gaming, but it definitely gives the whole system a boost. For instance, Windows boots faster, all applications/windows open faster, which might just be worth the slight investment for him, who knows?

If he isn't gonna overclock why mention a 2500+ on a 180MHz fsb? And the 1800+ uses an 11.5x multiplier instead of a 11x multiplier of the Barton. So the same 180MHz will get you 2070MHz from a 1800+, and 1980MHz from a 2500+ Barton. That's about a 5% increase in clock speed, offset by the 3% penalty for less L2 cache. You just suggested a more expensive cpu that will be slower under these circumstances!

Good going!

His 1600+ is running on a 152MHz fsb for 1596MHz, an 1800+ on a 166MHz fsb is 1909MHz. 315MHz and an increase of 14MHz on the fsb will give him a substantial increase in gaming provided he has the video card to take advantage of the extra speed. Brush up on your math or spend more timing reading up on benchmarks before you post advice challenging someone elses solution, or they are gonna school you every time at Anandtech.

Speaking of schooling, you're also recommending he overclock. Why is that? Did you not read the first sentence of the post you just wrote? Yes, 1909mhz is faster than 1596mhz, obviously, but I guarantee him that he won't notice any difference in gaming, unless he's a tweaker, like us, and that he obviously isn't. I have been gaming on computers since you were in grade school. And you need your head examined, if you think that anyone would notice a difference (with any application) between 1,980mhz and 2,070mhz.

 

[rogue1979]

Facts wrong again as in most of your posts. For your information my name rogue1979 stands for the year I graduated from high school junior! I suggest he overclock from the begining, I was just noting that your suggestion was based on an overclock even though you started out your post saying he didn't want to.

His original post is dealing with a comparison on a 2500+ at 1833MHz or a 2400+ at 2000MHz, wondering if the 333MHz fsb will give him more boost than the 266MHz solution at a higher speed. So he is definately interested in performance to some extent. He has also overclocked his 1600+, so according to you he won't notice a difference in gaming? Pull your head out! That is why using a 166MHz jumper for the 1800+ is the best solution. No real overclocking equipment needed, no core voltage, no extra cooling, no multipiers.

He ends up with a 1909/333MHz solution which is the fastest and cheapest he can get in his situation.

And if nobody will notice a 5% speed difference from 1980 to 2070MHz, than why is everybody scrambling to get out of an Athlon to a Barton when the difference is only 3% in almost all apps?

 

[myocardia]

Everyone is wanting a Barton over a T-bred or Palomino not because of the few % difference in any application, they're wanting a Barton because they've used one, and noticed that it's nearly twice as fast at the things we do most on computers, i.e.-- opening documents, opening applications, booting to Windows, etc. This is exactly why I recommended to him that he get himself a desktop Barton 2500, because it has twice the L2 cache, and although he's not going to notice a significant difference in gaming, he's going to get all of the other advantages to having 512KB of L2 cache. Oh, BTW, where is all of your proof, for your opinions?

 

[rogue1979]

My proof is in my signature, your wallet is doing the thinking for your under achieving brain. I have both a Barton and an Athlon running on the same platform (Nforce2), same fsb speeds and similar cpu speeds. Desktop chores and other apps are the same speed on both machines, it's only the benchmarks that set them apart by a few percentage points. Use google and search around for benchmarks on the Barton vs Athlon if you don't want to take my word for it.

Here's some news for you, I am typing this on a Duron (Applebred) 1.4GHz on a 195MHz fsb and it "feels" no different than the Athlon or Barton, again I would have to benchmark to show the difference in performance.

That's my proof, sitting in front of me and backed up by reviews online, where's yours?

 

[myocardia]

I for one have seen no reviews stating that a Barton doesn't "feel" faster than a T-bred. My experience is based on the same thing that yours is, experience. Within the last 10 days-2 weeks, I upgraded from a T-bred B to a Barton, and even with the Barton running slower (not that it is now), the Barton feels faster, i.e.-- opening documents, booting to Windows, etc. I was happier about that, than about the 250mhz overclock difference. Oh, and lastly, I don't need to put anyone down to prove my intelligence, but for what it's worth, I'm a member of MENSA. Mine is 156, how big is yours?

edit: And I have to leave for a few hours, but I'll be back, if you would like to continue this ignorant chat we've been having.

 

[rogue1979]

Let's just put it this way, I'm smart enough to own a computer repair shop and get paid to do this. This also allows me to gather first hand opinions on what computer "feels" the fastest, often from people who don't know what a benchmark is, much less the difference between an Athlon or a Barton. I am sure if you look hard enough, we can find one or two benchmarks or applications that make the Barton "feel" signicantly faster. But the other 10,000 won't show it.

I understand what your are saying about the "feel", I just don't notice much of a difference if any and several hundred of my customers agree the few extra bucks don't justify the performance. The fact that you picked a Via KT600 board for your system was wise for your priorities. It "feels" faster than the Nforce2 despite being slightly behind in the majority of benchmarks.

I would normally apologize for the dig about your lack of apparent intelligence, but looking back on your previous posts you have been merciless and arrogant to many inexperienced members on Anandtech, so no sympathy deserved.

What goes around comes around.......

 

[myocardia]

Good, I was wanting to put an end to this parody. But, the last Via chipset I owned was in a system at least a year ago, that had an XP1800 Palomino, and it was a KT266a. Every motherboard I've bought since then has had an nForce2 chipset. So it seems you don't know half as much as you thought about computers and their parts, huh?

 

[rogue1979]

Definately my mistake, I checked your signature again and saw that you indeed have an Nforce2. But I would have to say that you are the one that doesn't know as much as you thought about computer parts.
Going by the posts in this thread you put such a high priority on the speed of the Barton mostly on "feel", not actual benchmarks. Under those circumstances the KT600 would have served you better, with a definate edge on the perceived "feeling" of speed, but not backed up by benchmarks compared to the Nforce2.

 

[mechBgon]

I was going to help with the question about processor heat production but Sandpile.org is letting me down on the Thorton and Barton cores Well... lessee here... here is another resource and it appears that the Thorton-core 2400+ and the 2500+ are basically the same in terms of heat production.

chmike, there was a certain batch of Crucial PC2700 where the 512MB modules had pronounced issues with nForce2 motherboards. That was in roughly November 2002 through January/Feb. 2003. If you have 512MB Crucial PC2700 modules from that time period, there's a chance you'll have Issues running it at PC2700 speeds on nForce2, but it'll handle PC2100 speeds fine, so that could be a reason to use an AthlonXP 2400+. If your modules are from a later period, or are from that time period but not the guilty 512MB size, then I think my vote would go to the AthlonXP 2500+.

 

[big4x4]

For those who say that Barton's feel faster than t breds must be exagerating. I happen to have 2 t breds and one barton, and I cannot tell the difference between them at all when in windows. Infact, the 2200+ is actually a lot quicker in windows because the hd has 8 mb cache compared to my main rig which is 2. In games is where you notice the barton's true potential.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: big4x4
For those who say that Barton's feel faster than t breds must be exagerating. I happen to have 2 t breds and one barton, and I cannot tell the difference between them at all when in windows. Infact, the 2200+ is actually a lot quicker in windows because the hd has 8 mb cache compared to my main rig which is 2. In games is where you notice the barton's true potential.

Amen!

 

[Cashmoney995]

No, dont buy the 3200+

Look, buy the 2500+, if you want you can take the FSB up from 166. But dont waste the money on a 3000+ or 3200+, just buy the 2500+.