Did I make a mistake?
 

Ordered a new processor today, I ordered the XP 2600+. Should I have gotten
the Barton 2500 instead? I went with clock speed over cache, both are the
same price. Would the slower Barton's extra cache be better for video
capturing/editing?

Did I make a mistake?
 

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:37:11 +0000, Ransack The Elder wrote:

Ordered a new processor today, I ordered the XP 2600+. Should I have
gotten the Barton 2500 instead? I went with clock speed over cache, both
are the same price. Would the slower Barton's extra cache be better for
video capturing/editing?

Yes, you should have gotten the Barton. Both will probably clock to about
the same speed, but the Barton has twice the L2 cache.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

Did I make a mistake?
 

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:37:11 +0000, Ransack The Elder wrote:

Ordered a new processor today, I ordered the XP 2600+. Should I have
gotten the Barton 2500 instead? I went with clock speed over cache, both
are the same price. Would the slower Barton's extra cache be better for
video capturing/editing?

Yes, you should have gotten the Barton. Both will probably clock to about
the same speed, but the Barton has twice the L2 cache.

They don't clock the same though, the Barton is about 200 mhz less.

Did I make a mistake?
 

On board cache is very important when rendering huge video imagery or
digital pictures. Bigger cache is the more important factor in this
"particular" case as opposed to clock speed. The ability to address large
amounts of memory is also vitally important. The Apple G5 processor is by
far the best processor on the market for rendering imagery but I am waiting
to see how the NEW AMD processor is going to do. AMD has waited far too long
to release the chip and now Apple is stealing some of their thunder.

regards

B
"Ransack The Elder" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Ordered a new processor today, I ordered the XP 2600+. Should I have
gotten
the Barton 2500 instead? I went with clock speed over cache, both are the
same price. Would the slower Barton's extra cache be better for video
capturing/editing?

Did I make a mistake?
 

Hey guess just an opion of mine i have a 2400 and a 2500... the xp2400
clocks at 2.0 mhz and the xp2500 is 1.853mhz .. the 2500 will out run my
2400 all day long the chache and the 333fsb of the 2500 makes a world of
difference..

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:51:23 +0000, Ransack The Elder wrote:


"Wes Newell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:37:11 +0000, Ransack The Elder wrote:

Ordered a new processor today, I ordered the XP 2600+. Should I have
gotten the Barton 2500 instead? I went with clock speed over cache,
both
are the same price. Would the slower Barton's extra cache be better
for
video capturing/editing?

Yes, you should have gotten the Barton. Both will probably clock to
about
the same speed, but the Barton has twice the L2 cache.

They don't clock the same though, the Barton is about 200 mhz less.

Maybe the 2 you have. Another 2 may be just the opposite with the Barton
clocking higher. Lots of variables here. The default speed for the 2500+
is only 1833MHz, while the 2600+ is 2083MHz. These both use the Tbred B
core, but the Barton is renamed because it has 512K L2 cache. The die size
is 20% larger so it should cool easier too. Given the choice, I'd take the
Barton every time.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

Did I make a mistake?
 

"777ouse" wrote in message
.. .
Hey guess just an opion of mine i have a 2400 and a 2500... the xp2400
clocks at 2.0 mhz and the xp2500 is 1.853mhz .. the 2500 will out run my
2400 all day long the chache and the 333fsb of the 2500 makes a world of
difference..

My 2600 is 333mhz just like the Barton, so would the little bit of extra
cache really make the 2500 Barton that much faster than the 2600? I mean if
I dump the 2600 for the Barton, will that cut 10-20 minutes off a video
transcode that takes an hour now??

I seriously doubt it.

Did I make a mistake?
 

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:58:07 +0000, Ransack The Elder wrote:


"777ouse" wrote in message
.. .
Hey guess just an opion of mine i have a 2400 and a 2500... the xp2400
clocks at 2.0 mhz and the xp2500 is 1.853mhz .. the 2500 will out run my
2400 all day long the chache and the 333fsb of the 2500 makes a world of
difference..

My 2600 is 333mhz just like the Barton, so would the little bit of extra
cache really make the 2500 Barton that much faster than the 2600? I mean if
I dump the 2600 for the Barton, will that cut 10-20 minutes off a video
transcode that takes an hour now??

I seriously doubt it.

If you are really needing serious performance, and your MB supports a
200MHz FSb, you should set your 2600+ to run 11x200. That should give
about a 20% increase in performance.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html