• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

AthlonXP 2600+ 333fsb vs. AthlonXP 2500+ Barton

D

Digerati

Guest
#1
I'm looking to make an upgrade on my processor and I've narrowed it down to the AthlonXP 2600+ 333fsb or AthlonXP 2500+ Barton. Either chip fits into the price range I'm willing to spend.

Anyhow, which one is the better chip in real world performance?

Both have 333fsb and the Barton has more L2 cache but the 2600+ has the higher clock speed (2.08mhz vs. 1.83mhz).

The Barton is actually cheaper too, makes me wonder.

I don't plan on overclocking, and I use my computer to do regular work as well as play some games (mostly EAsports type games and the latest C&C).

Which chip will give me the best noticeable performance?

Is more cache better than higher clock speed?

I'm running an:

Epox 8rda+ mobo
256x2 spectek pc2700 ddr ram (dual channeled)
Abit Siluro gf4 ti4200 128mb 8x agp
Seagate Barracuda IV 80gb ata100
liteon 24x cdrw
toshiba 4x dvdrom
sony 52x cdrom
soundblaster live! value pci
antec 300w PS
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#2
in terms of raw performance... the 2600+ is better... per performance rating :)

the only cpu I have seen that does not really match the performance number is the t'bred B 2800+ and barton 3000+ since the 2800+ is the fastest cpu (clock speed wise) amd makes... it does outperform the 3000+ in some areas...

the 2500+ does have more cache but in terms of performance I recommend the 2600+ :)

but the barton also is nice tech :) (more l2 cache)
 
S

silky62678

Guest
#3
How would the xp 2400 par with the 2500. Since the 2400 have a higher click speed also?
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#4
Originally posted by silky62678
How would the xp 2400 par with the 2500. Since the 2400 have a higher click speed also?
2400+ is a 133mhz fsb clock cpu v.s a 166mhz fsb clock for anything highe.r..

I would recommend getting something with higher fsb...
 
D

Digerati

Guest
#5
thanks for the info.

so the higher clock speed of the 2600+ 333fsb brings more actual performance to the table than the slower 2500+ barton with twice the L2?

Guess that explains its lower price.

Still, with all the hype around Barton, deserved or not, it's hard to pass on it knowing it has that extra cache.

But I guess if it performs slower, that is all that should matter.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#6
Originally posted by Digerati
thanks for the info.

so the higher clock speed of the 2600+ 333fsb brings more actual performance to the table than the slower 2500+ barton with twice the L2?

Guess that explains its lower price.

Still, with all the hype around Barton, deserved or not, it's hard to pass on it knowing it has that extra cache.

But I guess if it performs slower, that is all that should matter.
bartons are good :)

your question compares the 2500+ and the 2600+ and I recommend the 2600+ because it is a good cpu.. better than teh 2500+

however the bartons are by no means a bad processor :)

they are basically the same processor with more l2 cache to improve performance...

follow the performance rating numbers to have an idea of performance of the cpu's :)
 

Taurus

hardware monkey
#7
Originally posted by Sazar
I recommend the 2600+ because it is a good cpu.. better than teh 2600+
:cool: <--- typo hunter

anyway, i would probably go for the 2500+ as it's lower clock also means lower heat. i believe it has a larger die as well, so it oughta run quite a bit cooler.

plus with it being at the low end of it's barton architecture, along with it's low heat output, it could be a nice overclocker. :blink:
 
D

Digerati

Guest
#8
thanks

just thought about that

the 2500+ barton is $25 less, and from what i've read, people have been able to overclock it to 3000+ levels.

I'd be happy to just get it to 2600+ level without going crazy with cooling.

Of course, in all honesty, i doubt i'd really need or notice the improvement over the 2500+ barton or 2600+ nonbarton. :)
 

Taurus

hardware monkey
#9
Originally posted by Digerati
Of course, in all honesty, i doubt i'd really need or notice the improvement over the 2500+ barton or 2600+ nonbarton. :)
well, yeah... definitely not.

it's all about the numbers, though!! :p
 
F

Flatbeat_Eddy

Guest
#10
I recommend the BARTON 2500+ , since im using that very processor, the extra L2 cahce really makes a difference, especially since Running multi programs will benefit from this.

I had a 2100+ before which wasnt so good for running multiple aps at one time, The more Cache the better.

Go for the 2500+
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,014
Latest member
sanoravies