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

2400 or 2600

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Fuzzy

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Location
Connecticut
I saved up for this moment, bought a cheap cpu becasue I knew I would be getting one of these. Which to go for, 2400, 2600 or should I wait longer to get the 2800. The 2800 is on 333 fsb right or am I wrong :p
 

xgman

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Location
xgman
The new 2600 will be 2083 mhz on a 333 fsb. The other 266 fsb 2600 will run at 2133 mhz.
 

DiaperGravy

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Location
Kingston WA.
Personally.... I'm waiting for the 2800+, but then again I will have to wait till the price drops:eek:

But that's okay, becuase after all that is what I bought a Kx7333R board for :D heh

Good luck with your decision;)

DpGravy
 

Tipycol

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Fuzzy said:
I saved up for this moment, bought a cheap cpu becasue I knew I would be getting one of these. Which to go for, 2400, 2600 or should I wait longer to get the 2800. The 2800 is on 333 fsb right or am I wrong :p

So far, I don't know which one would be the best buy. With overclocking in consideration, the 2400+ probably is, but it's taking more than good cooling to get it to 2.4Ghz. The 266fsb 2600+'s will be a chip with a higher multiplier, and the 333fsb will just be a 2400+ with a 166MHz fsb (12.5x166=2075), you will get a performance increase, but why pay the money for something you can do already with a 2400? I don't know anything about the 2700's, they might OC ok, but I don't know right now. The 2800+'s are suppost to be busts at OC'ing. They are clocked with a high multi and with a 166fsb that they are reaching the limits of the core. Out of the options, I would go for a 2400+, but I don't think I'd buy it now, cause better steppings/price would probably be out in a month, but that's me. If I needed a proc now I'd buy the 2400+ cause it will be the cheapest and will probably get the best OC out of them all (based on assumptions), but if you don't plan on overclocking at all, the 2800+ would be the one to buy. You might have to wait till 2003 before you get one though.
 

Serraph

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Location
Corinth, MS
If you want my honest opinion, I'd say get better cooling...pump up your 1600+ to 1.8 ghz or 1.9 ghz and wait for the Bartons. They're supposedly coming out 1st quarter of 2003 anyway so it's not too long to wait and plus your o/ced 1600+ could probably satisfy you till then. My 02 cents. If you still want to buy a 2400 or 2600 though I'd say get a 2600 since it's faster and will last longer till your next upgrade. Also I wouldn't get a 2700 or 2800 since they cost alot more and it's possible that at those speeds you won't be able to o/c it very much like the 2200+ b/c the revision B might reach it's peak at those speeds but then again it might not.
 

deeppow

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2002
Location
Los Alamos, NM
Some 2600s have the 333 bus, I would take that over the 2400. I'm waiting for the 2700 or 2800, 333 bus plus more cache. :cool:
 

Tipycol

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
deeppow said:
Some 2600s have the 333 bus, I would take that over the 2400. I'm waiting for the 2700 or 2800, 333 bus plus more cache. :cool:

The 2700s and 2800s have a larger cache? Thought only the Bartons were getting a cache increase, and that the XP's were staying at 384KB?
 

deeppow

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2002
Location
Los Alamos, NM
The 2700s and 2800s have a larger cache? Thought only the Bartons were getting a cache increase, and that the XP's were staying at 384KB?

Dang, you're probably right. I need to go check their roadmap. My memory is slipping, guess that's what happens when you OC. :eek:
 
OP
Fuzzy

Fuzzy

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Location
Connecticut
thx guys ill probably just get my 1600 now up to 1.9 and wait for some new steppings (its an agoia :D!!!)
 

Emericana

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2002
Location
Boulder CO
i dont know about you guys but being a overclocker, who can get 166mhz EASILY without even hesitating i would MUCH rather have the 266mhz 2600+ because it at stock runs w/ more mhz. then you can do a easy unlock (or not even need to unlock if you have kt400), drop the mult to 12.5 or so and kill the fsb..... theoretically if the 2600+ core gives you a little more headroom than 2400+ (as seen on that crazy oc post on xtremesystems done by oppainter) why not take the one w/ more mhz to begin with?
 

OC Detective

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Location
Mauritius
Tipycol said:


The 2700s and 2800s have a larger cache? Thought only the Bartons were getting a cache increase, and that the XP's were staying at 384KB?

No the 2700's and 2800's do not have a larger cache - just check the technical specs on the AMD website.
 

Lumen

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Location
NMSU
I would get the 2600+. It is cheaper, It will overclock better (than 2700+ and 2800+). The kicker is it has 333 fsb. 2600+ is what im getting as soon as I see some reviews.:)
Hope this helps

*edit, Like said above I would wait a month or so for any possible bugs to get to the surface and better stepping.