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
|
|||
|
|||
CPU speed AMD 2800 vs 300 ?
I think I am a newbie in these tech questions because I really do not understand
the differences in CPU speed between the AMD Athlon XP 2800 and the 3000. Both have a FSB of 333MHz and the difference is the core, Barton or Thoroughbred. Athlon XP 3000+ 2.167 GHz (333) (Barton) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.083 GHz (333) (Barton) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.25 GHz (333) Athlon XP 2700+ 2.167 GHz (333) I see, for example, here http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_1582091__2 that the 2800 Thor. is much faster than the 3000 Barton. What should anyone want to buy the 3000+? Is there something I miss here? I read that the larger L2 cache will make the difference but what's it worth? Worth the $25? I'm asking because I want to upgrade my 2000+ to the fastest AMD CPU with a FSB of 333. Mostly for gaming, Photoshop and office work. What should I choose? Thanks in advance for any advice! Mike (from the Netherlands) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
I think I am a newbie in these tech questions because I really do not understand the differences in CPU speed between the AMD Athlon XP 2800 and the 3000. Both have a FSB of 333MHz and the difference is the core, Barton or Thoroughbred. Athlon XP 3000+ 2.167 GHz (333) (Barton) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.083 GHz (333) (Barton) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.25 GHz (333) Athlon XP 2700+ 2.167 GHz (333) I see, for example, here http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_1582091__2 that the 2800 Thor. is much faster than the 3000 Barton. What should anyone want to buy the 3000+? Is there something I miss here? I read that the larger L2 cache will make the difference but what's it worth? Worth the $25? I'm asking because I want to upgrade my 2000+ to the fastest AMD CPU with a FSB of 333. Mostly for gaming, Photoshop and office work. What should I choose? Thanks in advance for any advice! Mike (from the Netherlands) Hmm, by browsing through the article, I can't find a benchmark which shows the Barton to be slower. I hope you didn't make a mistake in secondscount of for example the MPEG4 encoding, where less is better. Anyway, there is absolutely no difference in core between the Barton and Thoroughbred B except for the cache (and cash ) I don't think you'll notice much of a difference between the TB-B and Barton. Then again, in my opinion, an upgrade from a 2000+ to a 3000+ is not justified. Wouldn't it be better to wait for the Athlon 64 socket 939 to get available and affordable? You could of course buy the 2800+ or 3000+ as an in-between sollution, but if it means buying new memory and/or a new mainboard as well, I wouldn't recommend it, because the performance gain won't be that great. And if you do upgrade to a 3000+ with an FSB of 333, don't waste money on DDR400 memory, keeping is sychronous with the FSB is a much better configuration. If you get a 3200+ with an FSB of 400, DDR 400 memory is preferable. -- To send me, Halfgaar, email, remove remove from my email address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:25:13 +0200, "Mike"
wrote: I think I am a newbie in these tech questions because I really do not understand the differences in CPU speed between the AMD Athlon XP 2800 and the 3000. Both have a FSB of 333MHz and the difference is the core, Barton or Thoroughbred. Athlon XP 3000+ 2.167 GHz (333) (Barton) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.083 GHz (333) (Barton) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.25 GHz (333) Athlon XP 2700+ 2.167 GHz (333) I see, for example, here http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_1582091__2 that the 2800 Thor. is much faster than the 3000 Barton. What should anyone want to buy the 3000+? Is there something I miss here? I read that the larger L2 cache will make the difference but what's it worth? Worth the $25? I'm asking because I want to upgrade my 2000+ to the fastest AMD CPU with a FSB of 333. Mostly for gaming, Photoshop and office work. What should I choose? Thanks in advance for any advice! Mike (from the Netherlands) Some applications benefit more from larger L2 cache, others from higher MHz. Barton is faster per MHz but it's arguable whether it's performance is worth it's XP(nnnn) rating. Price is a personal preference... towards the higher-end CPUs of any socket type the price disproportionately rises, at least until they become quite aged technology. Barton is easier to cool due to lower MHz (more stability margin) and larger core surface to heatsink contact area. Given that Barton starts out with lower MHz it's also potentially easier to overclock a modest amount but the newer Bartons are multiplier locked except for the Mobile chips, which again are slightly more expensive. Then again, FSB overclocking has greater benefit that multiplier o'c, but certainly overclocking is a personal choice that you may not want to make. I wouldn't pay over 10% more for a Barton XP3000 over a T'Bred XP2800 unless you want to overclock the Barton, then maybe up to 20%... The $25 difference you mention would have to be considered relative to cost of CPUs in your area. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[ snip my questons ]
Hmm, by browsing through the article, I can't find a benchmark which shows the Barton to be slower. I hope you didn't make a mistake in secondscount of for example the MPEG4 encoding, where less is better. No, I was just wondering. And if you do upgrade to a 3000+ with an FSB of 333, don't waste money on DDR400 memory, keeping is sychronous with the FSB is a much better configuration. If you get a 3200+ with an FSB of 400, DDR 400 memory is preferable. My mobo has a FSB of 266 officially (with 2000+ FSB266) but I will try to manually increase the FSB to 333 with the KT333 schipset. My memory is allready at 333, so that's why I expect a little boost. Thanks for your insights and thoughts. Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I think I am a newbie in these tech questions because I really do not
understand the differences in CPU speed between the AMD Athlon XP 2800 and the 3000. Both have a FSB of 333MHz and the difference is the core, Barton or Thoroughbred. I'm asking because I want to upgrade my 2000+ to the fastest AMD CPU with a FSB of 333. Mostly for gaming, Photoshop and office work. What should I choose? Some applications benefit more from larger L2 cache, others from higher MHz. Barton is faster per MHz but it's arguable whether it's performance is worth it's XP(nnnn) rating. Price is a personal preference... towards the higher-end CPUs of any socket type the price disproportionately rises, at least until they become quite aged technology. Barton is easier to cool due to lower MHz (more stability margin) and larger core surface to heatsink contact area. Given that Barton starts out with lower MHz it's also potentially easier to overclock a modest amount but the newer Bartons are multiplier locked except for the Mobile chips, which again are slightly more expensive. Then again, FSB overclocking has greater benefit that multiplier o'c, but certainly overclocking is a personal choice that you may not want to make. I wouldn't pay over 10% more for a Barton XP3000 over a T'Bred XP2800 unless you want to overclock the Barton, then maybe up to 20%... The $25 difference you mention would have to be considered relative to cost of CPUs in your area. Considering all this, I think I'll take the 2800 Barton because it's only $5 more than the Thoroughbred version and $30 less than the 3000+. O/C I'm too lazy for Thansk you for your answers. Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mike wrote:
My mobo has a FSB of 266 officially (with 2000+ FSB266) but I will try to manually increase the FSB to 333 with the KT333 schipset. My memory is allready at 333, so that's why I expect a little boost. Increasing the FSB to 333 is only possible if the mainboard supports proper PCI and AGP deviding for that speed. On 266DDR, the PCI devider is 4, because 133/4 in computerworld is 33, which is the speed of a PCI bus. When running at 333DDR, you need a 1/5th divider for PCI. And of course, the same goes for the dividers of the AGP-bus. And BTW, it's questionable if the KT333 will run at such an increase in host-clock. So, be careful when increasing the host-clock by so much. -- To send me, Halfgaar, email, remove remove from my email address. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:56:05 +0200, Halfgaar
wrote: Mike wrote: My mobo has a FSB of 266 officially (with 2000+ FSB266) but I will try to manually increase the FSB to 333 with the KT333 schipset. My memory is allready at 333, so that's why I expect a little boost. Set the memory back to synchronous setting, 266, and leave it there. If your memory is high enough spec to do 333 you'd have greater performance tweaking the timings... but of course run http://www.memtest86.com for several hours or more after any memory changes, before running the OS. Increasing the FSB to 333 is only possible if the mainboard supports proper PCI and AGP deviding for that speed. On 266DDR, the PCI devider is 4, because 133/4 in computerworld is 33, which is the speed of a PCI bus. When running at 333DDR, you need a 1/5th divider for PCI. And of course, the same goes for the dividers of the AGP-bus. And BTW, it's questionable if the KT333 will run at such an increase in host-clock. So, be careful when increasing the host-clock by so much. KT333 will run stable up to and a little beyond 166MHz FSB and can (will unless the manufacturer of the mainboard doesn't provide the feature) use 1/5 PCI divider, there's no question about that. IIRC the AGP divider might be at 1/2 though, 83MHz, which is within the capabilities of practically every video card out there but I don't know for sure about the least common chipsets, mainly Matrox, nVidia and ATI are known to work fine @ 83MHz for the past several years. On the other hand, using KT333's "+33" async memory bus mode, I don't expect that to work with 166MHz FSB as 200MHz memory bus (perhaps it's possible with the right memory but I'm uncertain of it), but any manufacturer "should" have the bios set to revert back to sync memory bus above roughly 160MHz FSB (or slightly lower). So the bottom line is that KT333 is more likely to be stable at 166MHz than 150MHz due to being over the hump to use the 1/5 PCI divider, but again that's only the chipset and any "decent" board based around it, the manufacturer of any particular board could even eliminate manual bus settings altogether. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
My mobo has a FSB of 266 officially (with 2000+ FSB266) but I will try to
manually increase the FSB to 333 with the KT333 schipset. My memory is allready at 333, so that's why I expect a little boost. Set the memory back to synchronous setting, 266, and leave it there. If your memory is high enough spec to do 333 you'd have greater performance tweaking the timings... but of course run http://www.memtest86.com for several hours or more after any memory changes, before running the OS. True. I just tried and it worked fine! I mean, "Top Performance" never worked but then again I never tried to lower back some settings to gain performance... Now my memory is at 266 MHz (instead of 333), CAS latency is 2 (instead of 2.5), and memory timing is 1T. Not bad, he? KT333 will run stable up to and a little beyond 166MHz FSB and can (will unless the manufacturer of the mainboard doesn't provide the feature) use 1/5 PCI divider, there's no question about that. IIRC the AGP divider might be at 1/2 though, 83MHz, which is within the capabilities of practically every video card out there but I don't know for sure about the least common chipsets, mainly Matrox, nVidia and ATI are known to work fine @ 83MHz for the past several years. By now, I heard so much stories that I've decided to try and find out. Thanks for the help. Mike |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D865GLC + CPU Fan Speed HELP | Ron Reaugh | General | 1 | December 16th 03 03:28 PM |
FSB speed | max | General | 2 | November 13th 03 09:30 PM |
FSB speed / Memory speed | - | General | 12 | November 12th 03 10:13 AM |
new Cyberdrive 52x - is my tray ejection speed normal? | Pauli G | General | 0 | July 30th 03 04:28 PM |
CD burning speed determines read speed? | David K | General | 4 | July 22nd 03 09:31 AM |