The Barton 3000+ is around $330 bucks! I was just checking out price watch and I couldn't belive how cheap they are. The only reason for the low price that makes sense is the 400Mhz FSB CPUs that are on their way out. I can't wait to see the prices for those. $550, $600, maybe even $700. Only time will tell.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Barton 3000
- Thread starter Syphere
- Start date
Ununquadium114
Disabled
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2003
I wish I had a Barton....
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2001
$300 is a nice price for a 3000+ Barton, I will admit. For someone who wants the best, or close to it, it's a GREAT deal.
It WILL be faster than a 1700, a 2100, and a 2500...but then again it's $300...
It WILL be faster than a 1700, a 2100, and a 2500...but then again it's $300...
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2003
All this talk about 400 FSB processors is kinda silly to me, since it seems the motherboard and RAM are the key components in hitting that magic number.
There are plenty of 1700+ chips here running 200/400.
Barton has larger cache. After that isnt it essentially the same?
There are plenty of 1700+ chips here running 200/400.
Barton has larger cache. After that isnt it essentially the same?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Location
- SF Bay Area
Yeah, the bartons dont seem to do well enough to justify their price, even at $300. If you must have the cache, the 2500+ at $125 is a far better deal imho.
but going cheaper and just overclocking all the time is what is causing AMD financial problems...plus by the time you buy the cheaper chip to over clock to Barton speeds you should have purchased the BARTON...
think about...some of us are water cooled....cost (110 and up) then we buy better RAM (75 per stick and up)...ok and if that doesn't do it we buy another motherboard (115 and Up) so now you have surpassed the price of the BARTON...to only reach BARTON speeds...
now if you do all this after you have purchased a BARTON or a later model chip...then you really have a "MONSTER in a BOX"
just my 2 cents
think about...some of us are water cooled....cost (110 and up) then we buy better RAM (75 per stick and up)...ok and if that doesn't do it we buy another motherboard (115 and Up) so now you have surpassed the price of the BARTON...to only reach BARTON speeds...
now if you do all this after you have purchased a BARTON or a later model chip...then you really have a "MONSTER in a BOX"
just my 2 cents
Irish and I were just discussing this in another post, but no one jumped in, maybe I'll try this one. What is the difference between a 512 cache and a 256 one? Is a bigger cache of more importance than more mhz?
Other post for reference:
http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186959
Thanks!
Other post for reference:
http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186959
Thanks!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
I ordered yesterday Barton 2500+ 
($136 + free 2 day shipping from googlegear)
Can't wait to see how it performs
More cache gives more space for instructions and data to be used inside the cpu without having to wait for the memory.
If you run small program which fits its data and code inside 384KB then you will not notice performance difference between barton and tbred on the same clock speed. If you run bigger code and it fits inside the 640KB cache it will be much faster then tbred. It all depends on the program you are using.
I can make a small program which uses 400KB it will run 3-4 times faster on barton. But in practice you can expect about 5-7% improvement.
($136 + free 2 day shipping from googlegear)Can't wait to see how it performs
More cache gives more space for instructions and data to be used inside the cpu without having to wait for the memory.
If you run small program which fits its data and code inside 384KB then you will not notice performance difference between barton and tbred on the same clock speed. If you run bigger code and it fits inside the 640KB cache it will be much faster then tbred. It all depends on the program you are using.
I can make a small program which uses 400KB it will run 3-4 times faster on barton. But in practice you can expect about 5-7% improvement.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Location
- Centennial, CO
AGampher said:
I am not sure why they ignore your question like they do, but they really do! Hopefully you can get another opinion, I am pretty sure mine is accurate, but it is always better to have more than one brain, ya know?
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Location
- Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit
from what ive read, the extra cache is only useful in programs that will use that much, but to me....i dont think a bigger cache is as important as the higher clock speed. look at how the 1.3GHz duron (192kb total on die) edges past the 1.3GHz PIII (576kb total on die), the first Athlon 64 release is supposedly going to have 1MB L2.
