If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Did I make a mistake?
"Wes Newell" wrote in message news 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 news On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:51:23 +0000, Ransack The Elder wrote: "Wes Newell" wrote in message news 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS USING JUST 6$, I TRIED IT REALLY WORKS!!!!! | [email protected] | General | 0 | February 20th 06 04:35 PM |