• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD XP 3200+......How Fast will it Run?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Not alot of evidence out there to say that it would oc any better than a 2500+. Not many people buy em considering how easily it is to oc a 2500+ for so much less. The upper end of the AMD chip lines traditionally do not OC very well at all so why risk it? :D
 
3200+ is for people who do not overclock and wish to run stock speeds but also for the extreme forms of cooling because very expensive equipment can squeeze every last MHz out of it under less voltage than 2500+.

Yes, get a 2500+ but do not skimp on things like Power Suply and heatsink. That's where the sectret of above 2.3 GHz overclocks is.

The other day this guy had his 2100+ running stable at unbelievably rare 2520 MHz. How? Thermalright SLK800 heatsink and name brand quality Power Supply with quality case air circulation. That's the ticket to high overclocks, more so than same core CPUs.
 
Hmmm, ok that doesn't make sense. I've got a 3000+ 400fsb, my first initial OC with no special cooling... @2420MHz 11.5x210

If I went water-cooled, I could easily get @2600MHz.

Also, the newer chips are not only built "better" in a sense, but the L2 cache is doubled as well. You might not see high OCs from the newer chips, but they definatley perform alot better than the "older" 2500s.

I mean, even the new 64bit Opteron is rated at 2200MHz, that doesn't mean it's performing the same as a 2500+ @2200MHz..

Thoughts?..
 
Thoroughbred B's have 256 KB cache.

But 2500+ is a Barton with the same 512KB cache core as 3200+ Barton.
The point is 2500+ vs 3200+.

Spend $ on Power Supply and heatsink first, only then if there's $ leftover think about higher labeled 3200+ over 2500+.
 
Motley said:
Also, the newer chips are not only built "better" in a sense, but the L2 cache is doubled as well. You might not see high OCs from the newer chips, but they definatley perform alot better than the "older" 2500s.

hmm no i dont think so are u telling us if u get a older 2500+ and get 200*10.5 = 2300mhz and u get a newer one at 200*10 = 2200mhz u saying the 2200mhz will be faster coz its newer thats bs sorry but it is :rolleyes: also all the barton cores have got 512k cache

2500+
2600+ (new one thats just came out)
3000+
3200+
 
oh if your on about if they are at the same speed say a old 2500+ at 200*10=2200mhz and a newer 2500+ at 200*20=2200mhz have u any facts that the newer one performs better ??
 
Last edited:
Motley a barton is a barton. Set a 3200+ and a 2500+ both to the same mult and fsb and they will perform the same. Just because a 3200+ was released after the 2500+ does not neccessarily mean it has more advanced technology. New steppings are released in older chips as AMD's process is refined. This is one of the reasons why you see older chips like the 1700+ getting such astounding overclocks over their stock speed.

Now the opteron is a totaly different ball of wax and ofc it will perform differently at a given clock speed than a barton or a tbred would.
 
OK, ok, ok, ..speed is not everything. The actual MHz does not mean that a 2500+ is going to perform the same as 3200+.

I know they have the same cores, but the 3000s and 3200s have more features built in., ..like the 400fsb, etc, etc. Too many to list, it's on the AMD site.

Why is everyone so focused on speed??? Performance actually means, the way the chip handles the instructions
 
mhz does = mhz when it is in fact the same core. Not sure what you mean by that etc etc but its not true that they have additional features. You can take a 200fsb barton chip and mod it into a 166fsb chip and nobody could tell the difference. The same can be done with a 166 fsb chip to turn it into a 200fsb chip. Your motherboard would never know the difference that the chip was modded like that and neither would the benchmarks :D
 
yeah but the 2500 has the same features as the 3200. the only difference is that a 3200 comes stock with a 400 mhz fsb, while a 2500 comes with a 333 fsb. other than that they are the same chips. just like a 1700 tbredb is the same chip as a 2800 tbred b. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the upper end chips but when you can get the same performance for 1/4 the moola why would you pay more. The upper eschelon chips may overclock a bit more but its not worth it in my opinion.
 
Motley said:
OK, ok, ok, ..speed is not everything. The actual MHz does not mean that a 2500+ is going to perform the same as 3200+.

I know they have the same cores, but the 3000s and 3200s have more features built in., ..like the 400fsb, etc, etc. Too many to list, it's on the AMD site.

Why is everyone so focused on speed??? Performance actually means, the way the chip handles the instructio


all bartons are identical. the cores are indentical

only the defult voltage and defult fsb are different, and they are set on the cpu packaging - they have nothing to do with the core..

you want features? my little tbred is running 225mhz fsb at over 2.4ghz. that makes it faster than any stock barton......
 
Motley said:
Hmmm, ok that doesn't make sense. I've got a 3000+ 400fsb, my first initial OC with no special cooling... @2420MHz 11.5x210

If I went water-cooled, I could easily get @2600MHz.

Also, the newer chips are not only built "better" in a sense, but the L2 cache is doubled as well. You might not see high OCs from the newer chips, but they definatley perform alot better than the "older" 2500s.

I mean, even the new 64bit Opteron is rated at 2200MHz, that doesn't mean it's performing the same as a 2500+ @2200MHz..

Thoughts?..

Don't want to be offensive but you talk crap here.
A Barton is in no way inferior to a 3000+ except clock speed.
It's nice you got that nice Oc but it's also possible with a 90 bucks 2500+
There's allways good and bad CPUs and you got a good one. Most likely you get the highest clock with a 3200+ and a good stepping but you wasted a lot of cash for a few mhz then.
 
A barton is a barton, be it a xp2500+ or xp3000+. There's no double cache from old bartons on the new ones, there is double cache on all bartons compared to t-bred b's.
 
OK, my bad, I was mis-informed about the differences of the 2500s and 3000/3200s. I guess when you OC, the stock fsb goes out the window.

I have a question though....

Why, exacly, does the newer 3000/3200s not overclock as well as the "refined" 2500s??? Wouldn't the refinement process of the newer chips allow these to have the same OC capabilites?

Also, one more thought, when you OC a 2500 to make it as fast or faster than a 3200, you have to spend more $$ on special cooling right? ..and, what about the effects of the high OC, does to the life of the chip?

I appologize for my ignorance, but I was just trying to be logical, and I never claimed to be an AMD chip engineer... Is anyone in this forum actually have AMD inside information about how these chips are manufactured??
 
New 3000+ and 3200+ probably do OC about even with a 2500+ or maybe slightly better. Because of the price difference and the real lack of a benefit of spending that cost for so little advantage people just don't buy many 3000+ and 3200+ chips to oc. So there isn't a whole lot of data out there on them. Because of the large quantity of people that are getting the 2500+ its alot easier to find a good stepping etc.

As for cooling etc yeah you do need to invest in good cooling for a good oc. But it doesn't cost a fortune to get a nice oc. You can buy a $15 heatsink and a $10 fan and get alot of out your chip. That heatsink and fan can be used on future machines as well.

As for real "inside" info from AMD I know of nobody here that has that. If you had real inside info you would be under non disclosure agreement with AMD and you wouldn't be able to post it here ;) AMD is a little more open about their fabrication process than Intel is about theirs though and so there is a decent amount of info out there for reading on it. I saw a nice article on a visit to see one of AMD's plants. I think it was anandtech that did it over last winter. They didn't show them every single thing but they did pick and choose some tidbits that they were allowing to be released. It was a pretty interesting read ;)
 
Motley

can I have your case ram and harddrive :)

OK, my bad, I was mis-informed about the differences of the 2500s and 3000/3200s. I guess when you OC, the stock fsb goes out the window..

right :D


Why, exacly, does the newer 3000/3200s not overclock as well as the "refined" 2500s??? Wouldn't the refinement process of the newer chips allow these to have the same OC capabilites?

the refiinement process applies to both older and newer bartons

Also, one more thought, when you OC a 2500 to make it as fast or faster than a 3200, you have to spend more $$ on special cooling right? ..and, what about the effects of the high OC, does to the life of the chip?

cooling......to hit 2.4gHz I would say $30 would be enough on cooling......sk7 and a 30cfm fan


I appologize for my ignorance, but I was just trying to be logical


LOGICAL!!!!!! NEVER!!!!! LOGIC IS BANNED!!!!!

:D:D:D just kidding......no need to apologize....
 
umm, i'd think you could overclock the 3200+ farther than the 2500+, why, because the 3200+ comes stock @ 200x11=2200, w/ only a 1.650vcore, being that you start at 1.650v, their process for making the 3200+ specifically has to be better, i think it's more than just a label change

i could be wrong, just seems like common sense to me
 
Back