T-bred v. Barton

[Emberghost]

Is there much of a differance between and t-bred running at 11x200 and a barton running at 11x200? Because I brought my 2700 t-bred a little above 3200 speeds (11x210), but I was wondering since it does not have the same core as the 3200 will performance be altered a little? Thanks for your help.

 

[jonspd]

Tbred @ 11x200 will equal somewhere close to a barton @ 10.5x200. From what Ive read a barton is the same as a tbred with about a 100mhz core speed difference meaning the barton will hang with a tbred with a 100-mhz clock speed on the barton.

 

[@md0Cer]

Yes, I agree with what jonspd said, maybe a 2350-2400 Mhz barton might be comparable to a 2500 Mhz tbred. But that differs. In pure number crunching there wouldnt be much of a difference, but in applications that benefit from extra cache, the difference would be larger.

 

[attack]

Gonna third what the two above me said. Tbred needs about 100mhz to makeup for the bartons cache. That said If I were to buy a CPU today, it would be a hand picked DLT3C Tbred. From my experiance and from reading general results on these forums: I think they are cheaper, and usualy clock to speeds where they surpass or par 2500+ bartons.

 

[Virgin Atlantic]

Hello Ember,
The Tbred core has 256k L2(Level 2) cache while the Barton core has 512k L2 cache. Generally a Tbred 2500+ will be slower than a Barton 2500+ although it is highly doubtable that you will feel this performance decrease. The compensation for the Tbreds small cache is usually 200mhz. What that means is that a stock 1.8ghz Tbred will have to be faster than a stock 2500+(1.8ghz) by more than 200mhz to be on the same performance level.

For an example say the Barton 1.8ghz 2500+ on stock, a Tbred at 1.8ghz wouldnt be faster than it but a 2ghz Tbred(200mhz increase from stock barton speed) will. Again I must say that is highly doubtable that you will experience this performance.
Hope my post has helped
~Virgin Atlantic~

 

[Tawcan]

It really depends on the application you're using. If you're talking in terms of Windows performance you'll probably see a little bit of boost from the extra cashe. Some applications (like F@H) aren't intensive on cashe so higher MHz the better.

 

[LBJGH]

I got the best benchmark results with a Barton at 2.3ghz but my system is quicker with a t-bred @ 2.5ghz... go figure.

 

[blkgti]

I got the best benchmark results with a Barton at 2.3ghz but my system is quicker with a t-bred @ 2.5ghz... go figure.

I'm currently playing with a XP1800 and I normally run a Barton @ 10.5x215. In the same config, the T-Bird is slower all around. As the XP1800 clock speeds increase, it surpasses in Barton in most benchmarks, but doesn't come very close to the XP2500 in memory bandwidth. At least according to PCMark02. Even when I run the T-Bird at 220x11.5, its memory bandwidth is still less than what the systems delivers with the Barton.

As a side note, I'd be very curious to hear how many people who've responded to this thread have compared the 2 CPU's for themselves, or are simply parroting what they've read on the board.

 

[LBJGH]

I for one have had two 1700+ a DUT3C and a DLT3C.

The DUT3C maxed out at 2.2ghz which I replaced with the 2500+ @ 2.3GHz. I then replaced the Barton with the DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.5ghz.

The best benchmark I recorded was with a borrowed NF7-S motherboard and the latter 1700+ (19,000). This increase had more to do with the fact the NF7-S had an AGP lock so I could run higher fsb.

My pcmark results are higher with the latter 1700+ as well.

I'm sure a lot of people are "parroting" what they read as you stated but I ain't.

 

[Steven4563]

my cpu is about the same as my dads barton 2500+ at 200*11=2.2ghz cause ive got 22fsb more

 

[blkgti]

I'm sure a lot of people are "parroting" what they read as you stated but I ain't.

That's good to hear, really. There are times when I read certain threads and get the impression that not a single respondent has ever used the product(s) under discussion for himself. As a result, I wind-up almost totally discounting most things I read here. It's actually kinda sad if ya think about it.

 

[LBJGH]

It is hard to know who to trust... I've posted in several of the enthusiast forums since getting my first socket 462 chip (600 duron @ 927mhz)...

had a 1ghz t-bird @ 1536, 1600+ @ 1833 and the other above listed chips... plus a wack of mobo's too...

 

[Emberghost]

Thanks guys, you answered my question. So Basically my T-bred 2700 @ 2.31 GHz is on par with a stock 3200....give or take.

 

[jonspd]

correct IMHO they should be about the same but the barton will have better bandwidth due to the 200fsb v 166fsb or are you runing them both @ about the same fsb?

 

[Pikachu_Mommy]

Yo Barton did less than 1 sec. better than Tbred clock for clock fsb for fsb in superPi. 100mhz of clockspeed usually give you 1 sec.

i ran the tests a long time ago..

Here's Tbred @ 225 FSB DC 2-2-2-5

Here is Barton @ 225 FSB DC 2-2-2-5

yea of course you'll see more detail comparisons in piFastV41..


Barton gives approx. 150 pts. boost than the Tbred with GF3 cards in 3Dmark '01.

Barton gave more effective pts. increase with the faster card like the R9800 series.. if I remember right it'z about... 300 pts~ 350'ish.

Games and 3Dmark '01 takes more advantage of Barton with fast cards yo.

..... Even when I run the T-Bird at 220x11.5, its memory bandwidth is still less than what the systems delivers with the Barton.

yo it's T-bred, not T-Bird. ain't da same chip.. Tbird cannot do 220x11.5...