Thorton 2000+ or 2200+ to O/C?

[Flanker]

I'm kind of in a hurry to get a new CPU, old one suddenly died :sawed: , and I'm wondering which Thorton would be the best one to get and overclock.

The old CPU was a 1700+ T-bred B @ 2600+ 166x12.5=2,08 GHz 1.5V with Volcano 7+ :smiles: . Damn I liked this one but no use kicking a dead horse. I would get another 1700+ or maybe 1600+/1800+ but they are no longer in stores or VERY rare in Finland :grumble: .

So I've come to either picking the 2000+ or 2200+ but can't decide which, since there's only a 4 euro price diffrence between them here.

My mobo supports 400MHz CPU and Mem, so I'd try to go for 166x or 200x. But I'm starting to doubt that 200x13.5 is possible while 200x12.5 might be.

So should I spend 4 more euros on a 2200+ Thorton or take the 2000+ Thorton.

[Thrax]

The AXDC OPN'd Thorton came first; higher probability it's a newer stepping -- get that one.

[Flanker]

The AXDC OPN'd Thorton came first.

So which one is that one :eek2: . I didn't quite understand your answer, did you mean the 2000+ Thorton.

The numbers given on the web are:
2000+: AXDC2000DUT3C
2200+: AXDC2200DUV3C

[Thrax]

Er, sorry, I neglected to mention that I meant 2000!

Heh. Get the 2000.

[muddocktor]

Yeah, get the 2000. You have a much higher probability of running 200+ X 12.5 than getting a 200 fsb with a 13.5 multi.

[Mt_Goat]

I have a 2000 doing 2.7 with a SLK-900A on it for cooling. :D

[keto]

Have we done any benching comparing Thorton with XP or BartonXP? Just curious what speed loss in applications there might be due to lower cache.

[GHoosdum]

Should be dead equal to TBreds at the same speed since they have the same amount of cache, and if I recall the figure properly 3%-8% slower than an equivalently clocked Barton. But at 2.7GHz I don't think anybody's about to complain! :wink:

[Mt_Goat]

Have we done any benching comparing Thorton with XP or BartonXP? Just curious what speed loss in applications there might be due to lower cache.
I am estimating the difference to be the equivilent to 150MHz-200MHz performance wise. Other than that I don't expect it to be any different. The extra cache requires more voltage to operate and as such makes more heat for the same MHz's, even though the larger surface area of a Barton should help disapate the heat faster. Now this is an area where the Thorton should be ahead of the average T'Bred-B because the Thorton has the same core surface area.

[muddocktor]

I am estimating the difference to be the equivilent to 150MHz-200MHz performance wise. Other than that I don't expect it to be any different. The extra cache requires more voltage to operate and as such makes more heat for the same MHz's, even though the larger surface area of a Barton should help disapate the heat faster. Now this is an area where the Thorton should be ahead of the average T'Bred-B because the Thorton has the same core surface area.

Yeah, people over at overclockers.com's forums have noticed much the same thing with the new m0 stepping of the P4 procs. The m0 stepping P4's are EE core procs with half the cache disabled, plus a new bonding method for the IHS which seems to actually be soldered to the core. People there are noting better overclocks with less temps on the m0 P4's and this hsould hold true for the Thortons.

[EQuito]

I have a 2000 doing 2.7 with a SLK-900A on it for cooling. :Dis that the choosen one? :bigggrin:
waiting for an answer on the other thread btw...

[Mt_Goat]

is that the choosen one? :bigggrin:
waiting for an answer on the other thread btw...
Yes it is "The Chosen One". :D

I thank you for your help! :D

Sorry for not answering the other thread as I am back in the throws of long work days and not getting around as much at the moment. Now to remeber which thread.