XP Barton 2500 vs XP 2600 Thoroughbred

[AGampher]

I'm in the mood for a bit of an upgrade so I've been looking around.

I don't overclock (gasp!) so I'd be running it stock. I'm kind of a newbie, so I'm curious about the differences between the two and how it will effect my new rig. I'll be buying the following:

Epox 8RDA+
ATI 9500 128 mb
Crucial 3200 512 mb
(The rest is what I currently have)

I notice that while both have 333 fsb, the Barton has a 512 L2 cache and the Thoroughbred only 256. However, the Thoroughbred is clocked at 2.08 ghz, the Barton at 1.83. Keep in mind that I do not overclock (as of yet ).

Which would be a better purchase, the 512 L2 cache, or the increased clock speed? I use the computer for gaming and the internet (is there anything else?).

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[irish80122]

I actually just purchased a 2500+ Barton for overclocking, but taking that out of my mind, if all are the same, I probably would recommend the 2600+ for you. I don't think that the extra cache will give you much of a boost, maybe 5% so I think you would be better with the extra frequency. That is my opinion at least.

 

[irish80122]

I am pretty sure that the standard FSB for both chips is the same, 333. Are you saying they are different? I am not quite sure what you are saying here.

 

[AGampher]

FSB is the same on both cpus (333). I'm talking the L2 cache on the barton, and the frequency on the thoroughbred.

 

[irish80122]

I had a feeling that was the case, my vote still goes with the 2600+, I have read a lot of reviews and the extra cache just hasn't made a big difference. I just went for the chip mainly because it was on sale and it seemed to be a decent OC subject.

 

[Damian]

Sorry, didn't read the "both FSBs are the same" part in the original thread. I didn't know there were any non-166Mhz non-bartons out there.

 

[AGampher]

Irish:

[newbness]
What is the performance gain of the added cache on the Barton? Why would they even release a new core with lower freq just to add a spiffy new cache size?
[/newbness]

 

[irish80122]

I must admit I am fairly newbie as well, I just have some practical knowledge from spending some time working in a PC repair shop last summer, and doing a lot of research. The main reason that AMD did it was to compete more with Intel, whom has the larger cache. I really believe it is a selling point instead of something that makes a big difference. It is like asking why they call it PC2100 instead of PC266. It is all a selling point, that is what computers are for most of us who aren't at least fairly savvy. I just have read that it doesn't make a big difference, which I can believe. It is like 512 MB RAM or 1 GIG RAM in my opinion, most of the time you will never notice. I hope this helps, but I am not sure that it will, just know that it makes very little difference, or at least so I have read. Search for some reviews and see what they say.

 

[AGampher]

Thanks for the quick responses. I'll look around for reviews around tomshardware, even though it gets a little too jumbly to make out for me sometimes. I appreciate the help!

[edit]
Dahm spalleng ererrs!
[/edit]

 

[FlailBoy]

2600+

Hi. Just got an Epox 8k9a2+ to build my second rig. Also looking at the xp2600+. Saw another thread about bad OCing 2100Bs from New Egg or even that (depending on where you buy) you might get an 'A'. Any recommendations on where to buy/not to buy an XP2600+ ?


Thx