Barton Or Thoroughbred
- Thread starter sparky
- Start date
did a research on exactly that question few days ago for a friend but amd page isn't very informing :/
i found in several faq the same statement:
"The major difference is that the “Barton” core nearly doubles the L2 cache from 256k to 512k for a total of 640K cache."
but i couldn't find any quick fact or comarison sheet for both cores
will have anothe look ....
edit: found the following in a barton review:
"Other than a larger cache (and a respectively larger die), Barton is no different from Thoroughbred."
forti
i found in several faq the same statement:
"The major difference is that the “Barton” core nearly doubles the L2 cache from 256k to 512k for a total of 640K cache."
but i couldn't find any quick fact or comarison sheet for both cores
will have anothe look ....
edit: found the following in a barton review:
"Other than a larger cache (and a respectively larger die), Barton is no different from Thoroughbred."
forti
Last edited:
A 2500XP Barton can be overclocked to a 3000XP
But be carefull.roadworker said:A 2500XP Barton can be overclocked to a 3000XP
I just got a new xp2600 and went for a bit of o/c and as our friends from the USA might say " dude I hosed my system "
FORTUNATELY I had just used Acronis to back up the op partition and was able to restore it
The Barton (remembering from reviews) is also clocked slightly slower, though it does justify the 2500+ rating.
Few things found huge benefit from the extra cache though
http://www.digital-daily.com/motherboard/amd-barton
Looks like a resonable comparison - and it seems the tweaks in the Barton (more than JUST cache) let them slaughter the clock speed for a similar performance rating - and reading between the lines, they clipped rather more off the clock speed than they should have done!
T-Breds at 166 FSB
So, AMD has added three new processor into the assortment: 2600+ (2083MHz), 2700+ (2167MHz) and 2800+ (2250MHz) which ran at FSB=166 MHz and featured 256K of L2 cache.
Bartons at 166 FSB
As a result, the performance of the core has been increased, which again allowed AMD to revise the processor rating. The following processors have been released: 2500+ (1833MHz), 2800+ (2083MHz) and 3000+ (2167MHz).
Few things found huge benefit from the extra cache though
http://www.digital-daily.com/motherboard/amd-barton
Looks like a resonable comparison - and it seems the tweaks in the Barton (more than JUST cache) let them slaughter the clock speed for a similar performance rating - and reading between the lines, they clipped rather more off the clock speed than they should have done!
T-Breds at 166 FSB
So, AMD has added three new processor into the assortment: 2600+ (2083MHz), 2700+ (2167MHz) and 2800+ (2250MHz) which ran at FSB=166 MHz and featured 256K of L2 cache.
Bartons at 166 FSB
As a result, the performance of the core has been increased, which again allowed AMD to revise the processor rating. The following processors have been released: 2500+ (1833MHz), 2800+ (2083MHz) and 3000+ (2167MHz).
And if you get anything higher than the 2500+ you may as well buy a P4 2.4C which will outclock them all. I've had mine running @ 3.4ghz, but backed it off to 3.2 so DVD2SVCD would run!!
Well, also depends on the money you want to spend. A P4 2.6B core is almost double the cost of XP2600.
I`ve had a XP 2500+ for a couple of months now-I`ve had it up to 2200mhz (200mhz FSB).Put it back though.NForce 2 MB`s are supposed to be unstable at 200mhz.What do you think?
Also,a feature called "QuantiSpeed"-is this feature also included with T-Breds,or has it just been introduced with the Barton? What are its benefits?LTR12101B said: