Athlon Thoroughbred or Barton

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Buffy, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. Buffy

    Buffy Guest

    I'm going to buy a 2600XP Athlon but am unsure as to get the TBred or
    Barton. Any suggestions?

    Buffy, Feb 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Buffy

    ICee Guest

    Get the Barton, since it has 512 KB L2 cache, and the Tbred has only 256
    KB L2 cache. Otherwise, the core is the same.
    ICee, Feb 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Buffy

    Buffy Guest

    I'll still be running 512MB of pc2100 ram for a while. Will this cause the
    updated cpu a problem?
    Buffy, Feb 9, 2004
  4. Buffy

    ICee Guest

    Only if you want to run it at it's rated speed, since it's a 166 MHz FSB
    CPU. You could set the FSB to 133 MHz, but the newer AMD CPU's have
    locked multipliers, so it would only run at 1530 MHz (11.5x133).
    ICee, Feb 9, 2004
  5. Buffy

    Buffy Guest

    Just to clarify then. If I wanted to run the Barton 2600 at its rated speed
    of 1.92GHz I'd have to buy pc2700 333 ddr ??
    Buffy, Feb 9, 2004
  6. Buffy

    ICee Guest

    That is correct. Starting with the XP2500+ and up, the default FSB is
    166 MHz, and since the multiplier is locked (starting with CPU's
    manufactured after ~ week 36 of 2003), running it at anything lower than
    166 MHz FSB will underclock the CPU.
    If you want to run it at it's rated speed, you will have to have at
    least PC2700 memory.
    ICee, Feb 9, 2004
  7. Buffy

    Buffy Guest

    My final question for you! Is CL2 faster (better) than CL 2.5?
    Buffy, Feb 9, 2004
  8. Buffy

    ICee Guest

    Yes, CL2 (CAS 2, actually) memory is "faster" than CAS (Column Address
    Strobe) 2.5 . However, good quality CAS 2.5 memory can run with a
    setting of 2.0, if the BIOS allows changing the timings. The 2.0, or
    2.5, refers to the number of clock cycles delay before data is read.
    CAS is explained very well at this page:
    Just scroll down to "What is the difference between CAS-2 and CAS-3

    ICee, Feb 9, 2004
  9. Sure. Get the Thoroughbred. Unless you overclock the Barton, the
    Thoroughbred is actually a little faster.
    Oxford Systems, Feb 9, 2004
  10. See my previous posts. What motherboard will you be using? You may be able
    to run the processor at its full rated speed even with slower memory but
    performance will of course suffer somewhat. What are you using this machine
    for anyway? If you're just surfing the net, running office applications and
    doing light (non-stressful, not state of the art) gaming, you won't notice.
    If you are doing heavy gaming, manipulating large graphics files or encoding
    video, you will notice a lot but if you are doing most of that (especially
    the encoding video) this is the wrong (as in "not optimum") processor for
    you anyway.
    Oxford Systems, Feb 9, 2004
  11. Not necessarily so. Asynch. certainly does allow you to run different clocks
    on the memory and the processor and unless things have changed drastically
    in the last six months, most motherboards that support the Barton and
    Thoroughbred cores support Asynch memory mode.
    Oxford Systems, Feb 9, 2004
  12. OK. You're someone who looks at benchmarks on fanboy hardware sites. Right?

    As a practical matter, outside of benchmarks and possibly some heavy science
    and media encoding applications, users will never notice a difference
    between CAS 2, 2.5 or even 3. If they wanna run benchmarks all day, that's a
    different story. Rather than offering (wrong) one size fits all advice, why
    not find out what this person is using the system for?
    Oxford Systems, Feb 9, 2004

  13. Oops! Let me add an addendum to my own reply:

    Unless you overclock the Barton, the Thoroughbred is actually a little many applications.

    From an email:

    There's a lot of myths and misinfo out there, especially among the
    enthusiast community that goes apesh*t over a 1% difference in benchmarks,
    and it leads a lot of people to spend money they don't have to on things
    they don't really need. Say. CAS2 RAM for example. :)

    The Athlon XP Barton core is sort of an enigma. It does have a doubled cache
    compared to its Thoroughbred brothers but the tradeoff is that it runs at a
    lower actual clock speed than a Thoroughbred processor of the same rated
    speed. In practice this often leads to a situation where a Thoroughbred of
    the exact same "rating" as a Barton is demonstrably faster (if you look at
    the benchmarks) and enough so that a user running certain applications *may*
    be able to notice it (if they are really, really paying attention and maybe
    sitting there with a stopwatch.)

    The times when the Barton core is faster (without being overclocked) are
    those times when the program executable and data set are small enough to fit
    entirely into the 512kb cache of the core but too big to fit entirely into
    the smaller 256kb cache of the Thoroughbred. Since the Barton and
    Thoroughbred have exactly the same core logic and execute instructions in
    exactly the same way, the processor with the higher actual clock
    (Thoroughbred) will have an advantage any time the entire executable and
    data file are small enough to be held in cache. Even when those files begin
    to exceed the cache size of the Thoroughbred, it takes Barton a while to
    "catch up" because the Thoroughbred's actual higher clock speed is churning
    through the files at a faster rate even if it has to bite "smaller chunks".

    If you know anything at all about overclocking, the best deal going right
    now is probably to lay your hands on a Barton XP 2500 (check and push the front side bus up from the stock 166 MHz to
    as close to 200 MHz as it will go *without* using additional heat producing
    tweaks like raising the core voltage. (A lot of tweakers raise the core
    voltage by .05 to .1 volts and trade heat for MHz.) Most Barton cores will
    happily run at least 180-183 MHz (with no additional votage tweaks) on the
    FSB for an actual core frequency of around 2 GHz which puts them into XP2800
    class. Get lucky with your core, be sure you have adequate cooling, add a
    tenth of a volt and push for 200 MHz FSB if you dare. If you make it, you
    have the equivalent of a Barton XP 3200+. If you don't, it isn't likely that
    the processor will burn up (the system just won't boot) and you can back it
    down to more reasonable (and less hot) speeds.

    So, what is this machine for and what motherboard is it based on again? :)
    Oxford Systems, Feb 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.