Need some help deciding on new AMD Processor

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nico1606

Posts: 29   +0
First the specs:

Giga-byte GA-7 VAX
ATI 9800 Radeon Pro
768 DDR 2700
AMD Athlon XP 2000 (1.67 GHz)

So I just wanna give my system a little bit of a boost. I'm thinking maybe something like an AMD Athlon XP 2700 to get my computer up to a 2.0 GHz speed, just not sure if it's worth it. Also I'm looking at some of these "Barton" processors that AMD has. What's the scoop on them? Would I be better with going with a Barton than a regular Athlon XP?

Let me know what you all think.
 
I'm not sure what you'll board will take, but the 2600+ Thoroughbred is a safe bet.

Your board may or may not support Barton cores, which all 2700+ and better are. Also be aware that Bartons are also available in 2600+ and I think 2500+.

Chances are though, if your board supports a 333MHz FSB (PC 2700), then it should support Barton cores. In that case, it may well take over 3000+. The most sure way to find out is to look for a CPU support list from your board manufacturer.
 
im not sure it quite works like that rick. i had a 2500+ barton last year, well known as the best overclocker, which you can get up to over 3200+ speeds. "Barton Support" isnt quoted anywhere, i think you'll find most boards, given a sufficient FSB will work, if not at full pace. the only difference of course is the clock speed and the L2 cache. in all honesty, they ARE better, but buy the fastest you can afford, the 3200 is the top at the mo, and damn it's fast.

BUT you must make sure your board supports a 400MHz FSB for the 3200. (though it'll run at 333 if you ask it, but slower)

why not get a 64? - damn good.
the 3000-64 isnt much more than a 3200+ barton XP.

Choices!!!!!!! good luck
 
2500+ would be your best bang for buck by far. And I agree, a board can take any core cpu as long as the cpu is supported (unless you prove me wrong).

Get the 2500+, its a few MHz away from a 2700+, but its the barton core with extra cache which makes up for the loss of MHz. To the point, your going to pay a lot more for a 2700+, and it wont be noticably faster then a $80 2500+. The 2500+ isnt bad, its just at an exceptionally good price ;)
 
Thanks for the replies mates.

Fortunately the mobo does support the Barton (with a BIOS update). So the only question is, how much more of a difference will I get from a 2500 or 2700 (and it supports up to 3000!) than with the 2000 I have right now.


I would go with an Athlon 64 but that means buying a new Mobo + Chip which can cost around $200-$300. Whereas the Barton chip can cost around $60-$80. I would rather go with the 64, since it is the future in processors and all, but just don't have the money right now.
 
You could see if you can get an Athlon XP Mobile (Barton). These have unlocked multipliers and can run 3200+ speeds with reasonable air cooling. Would be cheaper than buying a 3200+ Athlon XP and will allow more overhead in the overclocking stakes if that interests you.
 
If money isn't a problem in your case, I suggest you get the fastest Barton Chip out there. I m pretty sure that will last you for a while before 64bit becomes mainstream
 
Can't say overclocking is a passion of mine. I try to stay away from anything that could possibly blow my chip up. Had a bad experience once I wish to relive again :)
 
Greatly satisfied with Barton

I love my XP 3000 Barton especially the price difference with the 3200, Although I feel pegged in at 333 fsb I realize that this is my learning cpu, while I practice and experiment with this core I'm saving the buck' for that 3200 fsb and the 400 ram, this is also pricey (cosair) or the 64? (just maybe) I got a lot to learn

If you have the time I'd like to know about your Gigabyte MOB, how you feel about it, pro and cons etc. I use an ASUS and so far very satisfied
 
Never really had any problems with the Mobo and I've been using it for almost 2 yrs. Reliable, dependable... never really tried overclocking with it though. Got it for a good price at the time, which was around $80-100.

If/when I decide to get a new mobo I'll probably go with a Gigabyte. Asus are just way too expensive for me.
 
The Asus boards are 'slightly' more pricey but IMHO worth it in the long run. I'm running a K8V Deluxe with my 64-bit 3200+ and it's been rock-solid. I don't overclock.....never saw the need personally. I'm a fan of stability and I don't like to take chances with my money....it's not that easy to come by. :D

Just my $.02
 
You wont "see" or "notice" a difference between the 2500+ and the 2700+. Get the 2500+.
 
Originally posted by nico1606
So agissi, you're saying there's no difference between a 1.83 GHz processor and a 2.17 GHz processor?
Click to expand...

No, he's saying you won't "notice" a difference......it's not that large a difference to show a marked increase in performance.
 
OH I see, guess I just want to finally get over that 2.0 GHz bump:)


ON a side note, can someone explain the difference of
FSB and actual Bus Speed

As of right now I have a FSB of 133 and a Bus Speed of 266.

Also, my multipler is 12.5....does that seem right?
 
I, like Arris, recommend Athlon XP-M, but I recommend it because it runs cooler than normal Athlon XP CPUs. Hopefully it could help to decrease the amount of threads asking if the CPU runs too hot :giddy:
 
to Mic----I thought the whole idea about forums was about aking questions, I happen to consider Nico's questions revelent to a lot of questions I have, perhaps you should consider your impertinant replies would be better suited to a more advanced audience!
 
Originally posted by nico1606
So agissi, you're saying there's no difference between a 1.83 GHz processor and a 2.17 GHz processor?
Click to expand...

Well you see, the main thing here is, the 2500+ @ 1.83GHz has 576K of cache, and the 2700+ @ 2.17GHz 320K.

As you notice, the 2500, the Barton, has about 256k more cache, and the throughbred has 320k.

You may want to read this:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cache.htm

The 2700+ may be faster MHz wise, but with the 2500+ having more cache, it'll be a lot closer to the performace of a 2700+ at lower clock frequencys. The 2700+ would still be faster probably, just because its edge on MHz is fairly big, ~300MHz. Even if their cache was the same, you probably wouldnt be able to tell a difference.

And if your really wanting to break the 2GHz barrier, when you buy your barton, OC it to 2GHz. The 2500+ OCs perfectly, easily, to 3200+ speeds. What most people do is, buy PC3200 ram, and run the FSB at 3200 speeds instead of 2700 speeds, and that puts the CPU right up there with the 3200+ (the 3200+ uses PC3200 speed ram/fsb).
 
Originally posted by tobasco
to Mic----I thought the whole idea about forums was about aking questions, I happen to consider Nico's questions revelent to a lot of questions I have, perhaps you should consider your impertinant replies would be better suited to a more advanced audience!
Click to expand...
Impertinent? My reply was relevant to question asked, and I didn't see rudeness in it either (note the smiley in the end, it was not to be taken with utmost seriousness). I know the idea about forums, but having dozens of questions asking the same things over and over again gets old after a while.
 
*new to forum*
So not sure what's asked over and over...
Anyways, you guys helped a bunch....I'm actually pretty computer sauve but wanted to get some other opinions....I'm at that point where my fingers are getting itchy and I'm wanting to do something about my processor......


Thanks again for all the help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
AMD may be prepping new AM4 processors with 3D V-Cache
Replies
17
Views
590
GodisanAtheist
GodisanAtheist
D
AMD Ryzen 8000 Hawk Point APUs could natively support USB4 80Gbps on some AM5 motherboards
Replies
4
Views
295
erickmendes
erickmendes
N
AMD launches Ryzen 6000 Pro series processors for business laptops
Replies
14
Views
1K
punctualturn
P

Latest posts

Back