Barton is AMD, but is Barton a specific manufacturer?

[TommyHolly]

I here all this talk about the Barton chip that is competition for the Intel 3.06 Ghz P4. Is the Barton a manufacturer of AMD chips of is that just a nickname like the "prescott" for intel?

 

[Shade00]

Barton is the name for an incarnation of the Athlon XP. It is manufactured by AMD. It's different from previous Athlon XPs in that it has 512k L2 cache instead of 256k.

 

[The_Punisher29]

Yup. But will the Barton 400fsb have a new name

 

[ninthebin]

it refers to the name of the core - in this case as Shade00 said its the Thoroughbred B with 512KB L2 Cache, so yes it would just be another nickname like the prescott

 

[irish80122]

Yup. But will the Barton 400fsb have a new name

I doubt it, I saw the new 3200+ the other day which is running the 400 FSB and it is still a Barton

 

[ninthebin]

the Thoroughbred never got a new name when it went from 266 to 333 as the Northwood never when it went from 400 to 533 - it usually requires a die shrink or cache change for a new name

 

[The_Punisher29]

well there was only the 2200+ who was T-Bred Rev. A Then they came with 2400+ with the new T-Bred Rev. B . Aren't all the 333fsb chip Barton !?

 

[irish80122]

Exactly, all of the 333 MHz FSB chips from AMD are Bartons, but they aren't named that because of the 333, but rather because of the increase in cache.

 

[ninthebin]

Aren't all the 333fsb chip Barton !?

Exactly, all of the 333 MHz FSB chips from AMD are Bartons

all of the 333MHz chips are not Barton..

2600 came in both 266 and 333 FSB and then both the thoroughbred 2700 and 2800 were also 333FSB

 

[irish80122]

I went and checked on Newegg and sure enough, you are correct. I stand corrected and I am sorry about that mixup. What I do know however is that the bartons are the ones with the bigger cache, but not all of the 333's are bartons as the last poster pointed out. Thanks for correcting me, I am not sure how I had that wrong!

 

[The_Punisher29]

well, you're sure the speed increase of the cache is far bigger than the one from the fsb !?! Do you have any link/review... I would like to read more about that.

 

[irish80122]

well, you're sure the speed increase of the cache is far bigger than the one from the fsb !?! Do you have any link/review... I would like to read more about that.

I am not sure if you are asking me (I don't think I said anything like that) or someone else on the board, but please do me a favor and hit the quote button when you have a question like this so we at least know which post you are referring to and that person can respond. Otherwise, it can get confusing. Maybe it is just me, because I am easilly confused. Oh well, do it for me, lol.

 

[ninthebin]

I would say the speed increase coming from twice the cache or an extra 33MHz in FSB would have to go to the cache...although this may depend on a) the benchmark in question is fairly evenely dependant on both, as a benchmark not dependant on cache as much as FSB will obviously not show the same results as vice versa.

 

[The_Punisher29]

I am not sure if you are asking me (I don't think I said anything like that) or someone else on the board, but please do me a favor and hit the quote button when you have a question like this so we at least know which post you are referring to and that person can respond. Otherwise, it can get confusing. Maybe it is just me, because I am easilly confused. Oh well, do it for me, lol.

lol

I don't even know where I've read this !!! Can't find it well... I'll transform my question into... Does't the increased cache size give a bigger boost of performance than the bigger fsb.

 

[ninthebin]

I tried to answer that a tad north

 

[bafbrian]

It all depends on what you OCed to, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. All depends on what you OC to.