bet with a cousin

[Radioguy49878]

hello guys, my cousin and i both enjoy computers and also have sort of a contest to see who can one up the other when it comes to building a faster machine. anyways my question is this what is a more important factor in total speed of a system a bigger cpu.faster fsb,or bigger L2 cache on the chip ? also how important of a factor does the bigger L2 cache play? thanks in advance

[DarkJediSleikas]

It depends on what you having the computer do. In gaming, the video card is probably most important, followed closely by the quantity and speed of the RAM and also the speed of the CPU.

Generally, adding more L2 cache will only have a small impact on performance (doubling it will add ~10%). Faster FSB speeds allow for more memory bandwidth, which is important in a wide variety of applications. In applications where raw processing power is the most important, the CPU speed is the most important factor.

[zabomb4163]

answer a couple questions first.

whats you budget

what are you measuring when you say "faster"

do you intend to build an intel or amd machine? (he is a noob so some can get confused about the section)

are you overclocking?
will you water cool your system?

-good luck

[Radioguy49878]

i guess what im trying to ask is the xp 2500+ a faster cpu beacuse it has 640k cache 333 bus @1.83 Ghz or is the 2400+ faster just beacuse it is 2.0 Ghz

[stompah]

Well AMD's beautiful PR scheme has done it again. Technically according to AMD the 2500+ is faster than the 2400+. Real world? Who knows, buy both and post the resuilts.

[PCphreak]

Originally posted by Radioguy49878
i guess what im trying to ask is the xp 2500+ a faster cpu beacuse it has 640k cache 333 bus @1.83 Ghz or is the 2400+ faster just beacuse it is 2.0 Ghz

Factory rated clock speed is superficial when it comes to overclocking. If money were no object, I'd choose the 2500+ over the 2400+ anyday simply because of the extra L2 cache. Clock for clock, the 2500+ is a more efficient chip compared to the 2400+.

But with overclocking the rules change...

Keep in mind, that the extra L2 may slightly hinder the overclocking capability of the chip. Every chip is different- so it's hard to predict....but the T-bred core may be able to scale 100-150 MHz higher overclock than the Barton core. This clock advantage, is almost enough to make the two run equally.

I've been away from the board for a while, so I have no clue as to how the Barton's are doing (overclocking wise)...so you best do your homework.

-PC

[Yuriman]

Im getting a 2500 soon, i hear 2.3ghz flying around.

[CrashOveride]

Originally posted by PCphreak


Factory rated clock speed is superficial when it comes to overclocking. If money were no object, I'd choose the 2500+ over the 2400+ anyday simply because of the extra L2 cache. Clock for clock, the 2500+ is a more efficient chip compared to the 2400+.

But with overclocking the rules change...

Keep in mind, that the extra L2 may slightly hinder the overclocking capability of the chip. Every chip is different- so it's hard to predict....but the T-bred core may be able to scale 100-150 MHz higher overclock than the Barton core. This clock advantage, is almost enough to make the two run equally.

I've been away from the board for a while, so I have no clue as to how the Barton's are doing (overclocking wise)...so you best do your homework.

-PC

i feel sad for saying this but if money was no object i wouldnt get an AMD :-/ but it is 4 me so i go AMD:D

[zabomb4163]

Bartons aren't so great at overclocking. But i would still go with the 2500+. just because of it being faster clock for clock. and most can't reach the max of the 2400+ anyway because of the cooling they are using.

[CrashOveride]

oh.. but i guess if i was gonna get AMD i would get a 2100+ prolly and prometia or somthing... that would be nice:D

[nerdlogic]

I say go with the 2100 TBred B if you're going to OC it to the max. I am currently running a 2100 TBred B (0301) at 2275(13*175)...this is a 2800 rating. And go with PC3200 RAM so you can get tighter timings from it if you can't hit 200 FSB.

[RuKK]

Meh.. the 2100+s dont oc that well compared to the newer 1700+s. I would lean toward either a barton (2800+ or even a 3200+) or a 1700+ JIUHB 0310 DLT3C, which have been known to hit 2.4-2.5 and even more with good air cooling. The Abit NF7-S 2.0 gives the most punch right now with a amd system, and 2x256 of corsair, twinmos or possibly OCZ to take advantage of its dual channel capabilities.

-RuKK

[gogadgetman]

Radioguy49878 get a 1700+ DLT3C with a NF7-S version 2 mobo and some good Ram and a good cooler and overclock to the max. If you are going to be gaming use the dual channel on your NF2 mobo and get a good Video card

[tread70]

Well, I am an Intel person but both chips are good. What I'm trying to figure out is at what point did he/she ask what to buy or even say that he/she needed advice to buy a processor. The only one that tried to answer the question was DarkJediSleikas. I believe what he/she is asking is;Is there a set way to decide which computer is faster between him/her and the cousin. Well, one way to decide is running benchmarking programs such as Pcmark 2002, SisSoft Sandra, the two that come to mind. For a gaming rig you can use 3dMark2001 SE or 3dMark 2003. Those are the main ways to checking to see how fast yours is compared to others. It just depends on how and what you are building a computer for as to what to make faster than the rest. Just my .03 cents worth . :)

One more thing is depends on personal preference as to which processor to go with when building a system. Both Intel and AMD have fast processors, but to me it depends on what you plan on doing with it as to which to use.With the speeds of todays processors it really doesnt matter which one you getboth will do whatever job you want at an acceptable fast pace no matter which one you use to build a computer with.:)

[PCphreak]

Originally posted by CrashOveride


i feel sad for saying this but if money was no object i wouldnt get an AMD :-/ but it is 4 me so i go AMD:D

I understand what your saying...I'm sure a lot of people do.
I don't for many reasons though...and theres nothing wrong with that, because everyone has different reasonings for things.

I run AMD because I dislike Intel. I dislike their business practices & I dislike their architecture.

I'm not an AMD loyalist per se, but I will patronize (give repeat business) any business if I'm treated fairly & recieve a quality product. Why switch, unless I'm given a good enough reason too?

I could start a list as to why I feel AMD is better- even regardless of a insignifcant performance difference between them and Intel.

But bottom line is: Competition is good. Monopoly is bad. AMD and Intel need to coexist together for everyone's sake...so I'm glad there are people willing to run Intel.
I just wish more would run AMD, to further stimulate competition....but with Intel trying to strongarm OEM's with kickbacks and money- it's no wonder AMD doesn't have the big marketshare that they deserve.

I didn't mean to turn my post into a rant if it seemed that way...I just intended to add my .02.

-PC