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

Barton is AMD, but is Barton a specific manufacturer?

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

TommyHolly

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Location
Chicago
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

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Location
Louisiana Tech University
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.
 

ninthebin

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2002
Location
Liverpool, UK
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 :)
 

ninthebin

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2002
Location
Liverpool, UK
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

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Location
Montreal
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

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Location
Centennial, CO
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.
 

irish80122

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Location
Centennial, CO
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

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Location
Montreal
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

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Location
Centennial, CO
The_Punisher29 said:
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

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2002
Location
Liverpool, UK
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

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Location
Montreal
irish80122 said:


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 :D

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.