I think the 1700+ is the best bang for the buck...but is there better?

B

Brunt

Member

​

Joined

Sep 17, 2001

Location

Federal Way, WA

• Aug 10, 2003

• #1

Well, I assume that not many other chips you overclock 1ghz...but, out of all the amd chips for around $120 or under, what chip will end up giving me the highest actual ghz? I had the 1700+ at 2.4 stable before AS3 and myself got to it. I am just curious because in 1 week I am going to buy another cpu. Usually I wont spend over $100, but I want the fastest! hehe

 

B

Brodie

Registered

​

Joined

Aug 8, 2003

• Aug 10, 2003

• #2

seems right now everyones going either 1700+ as you stated or else Barton 2500+ (which is what Im going with)

The reason Im going with the Barton is because of the higher factory FSB and its newer

 

OP

B

Brunt

Member

​

Joined

Sep 17, 2001

Location

Federal Way, WA

• Aug 10, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #3

lol well, I dont think my mobo can handle 400fsb, I'll have to check but I dont think it has a 1/6 divider.

 

T

tempest993

Member

​

Joined

Dec 29, 2002

Location

spokane wa

• Aug 10, 2003

• #4

If its a KT400 or KT333 it does not have a 1/6 div.

 

slater3333uk

Member

​

Joined

Dec 8, 2002

Location

Suffolk, UK

• Aug 10, 2003

• #5

a 2500 is 333mhz fsb so it will work with any bord thats kt333 onwards (mite need a new bios tho)

the main reason for going with a 2500 barton is that it has more cashe (sp???) otherwise they can both do 200+fsb and about 2.4ghz with good cooling

 

A

AKULA

Member

​

Joined

Jul 10, 2003

Location

Virginia

• Aug 10, 2003

• #6

The 2500+ is the best chip for a KT333/400 mobos hands down. To get the 2.2+ GHz speeds you'll have no choise but to raise the multiplier and that's where the extra 256kb of L2 cache will come in handy.

 

OP

B

Brunt

Member

​

Joined

Sep 17, 2001

Location

Federal Way, WA

• Aug 10, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #7

I see, so then I should get the 2500 barton, simply I cant go over 180 fsb with my ram at the moment, but even after better ram, I wont be able to go over 190-195 fsb. Thats 38-39 pci right there.

 

climbski

Member

​

Joined

May 11, 2003

Location

Reno NV

• Aug 11, 2003

• #8

2500 is a poor choice in my opinion.... 1700 is best for the $$$ 2500 isn't any better and costs more.

 

G|-|oST

Member

​

Joined

Apr 3, 2003

• Aug 11, 2003

• #9

2500+ is a Barton core and offers extra cache over the t-bred. On average, a Barton running at 2.37 GHz is about the same speed as the 1700 at 2.5 GHz. Even though each CPU is different, I would venture to say that most often than not, getting 2.37 out of a 2500+ is easier than getting 2.5 out of a 1700+.

climbski said:

2500 is a poor choice in my opinion.... 1700 is best for the $$$ 2500 isn't any better and costs more.

Click to expand...

That statement is arguable at best.

here hitechjb1 discusses this subject with some concrete data to back up his foundings.

 

A

AKULA

Member

​

Joined

Jul 10, 2003

Location

Virginia

• Aug 11, 2003

• #10

the 1.5v1700+ chips do tend to perform a bit better when the FSB is around 215+. Exactly why this is so escapes me. Now the poster wants to OC on a KT400 chipset so his FSB is going to max out at 185 - 190 tops even with top-of-the-line DDR RAM due to the lack of a 1/6 divider on the PCI bus. He'll have no choise but to raise the multiplier to 12 - 14 to gain a solid OC on ANY cpu he's running. See where haveing the extra L2 cache might be able to play a slightly larger role?

If he has a good solid install with that slk-800 he should be able to match his 1700+ OC and gain a bit more overall system performance. It won't be a massive gain but every little bit helps.

 

OP

B

Brunt

Member

​

Joined

Sep 17, 2001

Location

Federal Way, WA

• Aug 11, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #11

Your at 2.388, what voltage is that running at?

 

L

LBJGH

Member

​

Joined

Jan 30, 2003

Location

North of Toronto

• Aug 11, 2003

• #12

An interesting debate... 1700 or 2500 for the best bang for the buck.

I just upgraded from a 2500+ to a 1700+.

My KT333 motherboard was limited to 12.5x multiplier until I did the wire in the socket mod (thanks to www.ocinside.de )

The 2500+ maxed out at 2305mhz and the 1700+ is running at 2500mhz.

The Barton actually gave slightly better 3dmark scores but the 1700+ feels quicker in applications.

Unless you have an application that takes advantage of the extra cache on the CPU the 1700+ DTL3C is the way to go IMHO.

 

climbski

Member

​

Joined

May 11, 2003

Location

Reno NV

• Aug 11, 2003

• #13

G|-|oST said:

2500+ is a Barton core and offers extra cache over the t-bred. On average, a Barton running at 2.37 GHz is about the same speed as the 1700 at 2.5 GHz. Even though each CPU is different, I would venture to say that most often than not, getting 2.37 out of a 2500+ is easier than getting 2.5 out of a 1700+.



That statement is arguable at best.

here hitechjb1 discusses this subject with some concrete data to back up his foundings.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that BARTON was worse than my 1700 I said 2500 is worse. price vs reformance.(especially if you handpickem) A friend got 2.6ghz on a 3000 Barton and didn't have quite as good cooling as I do so the BARTON is quite capable of whopping any T-Breds arse.

 

G

Gautam

Senior Benchmark Addict

​

Joined

Feb 4, 2003

Location

SF Bay Area

• Aug 11, 2003

• #14

The 2500+ is a Barton. And yes, as Hitechjb1's evidence shows, could be a better choice than a 1700+ in some cases.

 

climbski

Member

​

Joined

May 11, 2003

Location

Reno NV

• Aug 11, 2003

• #15

Take several 2500s and compare tham against several guaranteed stepping 1700s and it'll be maybe 60/40 in favor of 2500. Consider though that the 2500 at $85 is 35% more expensive than the 1700 DLT3C (good stepping) guaranteed for $63 and the Bartone would have to run at about 3.0Ghz to give you a 1:1 price/performance ratio. Therefore the best perfomance for price CPU EVER made is the 1700DLT3C.

 

G|-|oST

Member

​

Joined

Apr 3, 2003

• Aug 11, 2003

• #16

Brunt,

2.388 @ 1.75 V here

 

Y

youngbuck

Member

​

Joined

Aug 30, 2002

Location

CO, USA

• Aug 12, 2003

• #17

But, the best card for somebody stuck with a KT333 board or similar would be the 2500+ Barton, correct? That way you could just just change the multipliers and not worry about the FSB.

-YB

 

OP

B

Brunt

Member

​

Joined

Sep 17, 2001

Location

Federal Way, WA

• Aug 12, 2003

• Thread Starter
• #18

the 1700+ also comes unlucked, the Tbred-B

 

L

LBJGH

Member

​

Joined

Jan 30, 2003

Location

North of Toronto

• Aug 12, 2003

• #19

nop. I use the wire-in-socket mod to get multipliers higher than 12.5x on my KT333 based 8k5a2+. Combined with my PC2700 and 166mhz fsb I'm getting a great o/c. Sure I'm loosing out a bit on the memory bandwidth but it's a great solution for not much cash!

youngbuck said:

But, the best card for somebody stuck with a KT333 board or similar would be the 2500+ Barton, correct? That way you could just just change the multipliers and not worry about the FSB.

-YB

Click to expand...

 

Bigdogbmx

Member

​

Joined

May 17, 2003

Location

England-Leeds

• Aug 12, 2003

• #20

What about the 1800 DLT3Cs? In england they are £6 more than a 1700 and apparently they are super fast as well. A guy in this forum said his was at 2.6ghz!