KVR Audio

snezhinskproject · Post by **snezhinskproject** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:34 am

God I hate the CPU market. Which of these CPUs is going to be quickest (on an Asus A7N8X-X with 1Gb RAM)?

Athlon XP2500+ 333MHz 512 L2 Cache Barton
Athlon XP2600 333MHz 512 L2 Cache Barton
Athlon XP2700+ 333MHz 256 Cache Thoroughbred

Also, will I be ok to use DDR400 PC3200 RAM in such a system?

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:58 pm

Get the Barton. Double the cache. You can compare all the processors here... Also, faster ram works slower usually without issue.

Devon

tynt · Post by **tynt** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:40 pm

get barton 2500+ and simply raise FSB to 200MHz. that trick will sync your processor with 400MHz memory(that means big performance boost w/o ANY stability problems... and you got nothing to lose:))

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:20 pm

Damn the CPU market sucks.

Forever,

Kim.

snezhinskproject · Post by **snezhinskproject** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:30 pm

ok i understand the cache size - barton it is. however, i don't understand the differentiation between processors with the '+' suffix and those without - i.e. is a 2500+ quicker than a 2600? (is there even a difference between '+' and no '+'?)

also, re changing the bus speed - how much extra heat will this produce, i.e. should i go for the retail version with fan, or get the processor separate and a better cooling unit?

mike.0 · Post by **mike.0** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:32 pm

Yeah I have two barton 2500's running at 3200 stable 24/7. Just change FSB to 200 as tynt said. Get DDR400 ram.

mike.0 · Post by **mike.0** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:37 pm

The extra heat is negligible.
A normal 2500 runs very cool, boosting it to 3200 only slightly increases the temperature. The normal fan will handle it easily. The reason is that nearly all of the chips theyre manufacturing now are capable of 3200 speed, but they have to sell some as 2500's to fill the needs of the market.
That "+" doesnt mean anything, some people just forget to type it.

snezhinskproject · Post by **snezhinskproject** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:44 pm

that's brilliant thanks a lot mike.0

was getting v. confused on the price lists at ebuyer as some were + and some weren't lol!

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:51 pm

snezhinskproject wrote:ok i understand the cache size - barton it is. however, i don't understand the differentiation between processors with the '+' suffix and those without - i.e. is a 2500+ quicker than a 2600? (is there even a difference between '+' and no '+'?)

Check the chart. There is no such thing as a version of the chip with no '+' in it, it's simply a typo by the retailers.

Devon

digitalstasis · Post by **digitalstasis** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:07 pm

Price wise, the 2700+ (i can't find the old 2800+) ThoroughbredB running 2167Ghz seems a beast for pure FPU power (the FPU scores it just as barton 3000+, for a price low enough for me so that's why i look at it... since there is some left yet today). Now i really can't see how important is the cache for asio. Looks like the 128ko athlon L1 is not so much in need for large L2 amount.

Anyway i'm about to build a system based on a7n8x + Thoroughbred-B @ 2167mhz + 2*512@400mhz, that only fits both my price tag and FPU headroom needs.

Bartons are benchmark friendly but do not go the way i'd like the most: cpu cycles. Two years that AMD are at 2n00, and each new cpu, in regard of p-rating, "loose" FPU power at the benefit of more cache (for burning cds?).
Now with stable nforce2, the raw -high clocked and two years old- AMD seem the good cpu for me, but i may be wrong: tell me before i buy

Which CPU will be quickest?