AMD Athlon XP Bartons, 400FSB or 333FSB?

danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
edited October 2003 in Hardware
Now, earlier looking at NewEgg, I saw that they had two 400FSB Bartons in the 3000+ and 3200+ speed ranges, which is 2.1Ghz and 2.2GHz, for $264 and $445.

Seeing how prices can go down, should I get a 400FSB Barton, or get a 333FSB Barton and overclock it to 400FSB with the NF7-S v2.0 I plan on getting with it. Right now, its a 333FSB XP2800, 2.08GHz Barton that I plan on getting, which is $173.00 at the moment
«1

Comments

  • reelbigfishreelbigfish Boston, MA Member
    edited October 2003
    get a 2500+, they easily overclock to 3200+(2.2Ghz) speeds and you'll save even more money.
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited October 2003
    Ok, but generally, when I buy a new CPU, it has to be faster than the last one.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Dan,

    Since you are going to get an Abit NF7-S rev 2.0 you may want to consider getting one of the new 2600 Bartons from Newegg for $99.00. Equito and some others feel they may well be the Bartons to O/C. I see no reason to spend the extra money when it is no problem to get at least 3200 speeds out of a 2500 and these should even do better. Basicly with an NF7-S all Bartons will be 400 capable.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I would choose the 3000 as you would reach higher a lot easyer on air with that then with a 2500. The price is right for a fast cpu like that as well IMO. If you want to do 200 fsb+, make sure you have the memory for it. Twinmos with winbond chips, even if they are CH5, will get you at least 215 fsb at 11,3,2 cas 2,5 at available volt on the board. 512 or 1024mb ram? There is a guy at Amdforums that sells Buffalo memorys, get a pair of PC3700 (2X256) from him (VERY cheap) as they are guaranteed to be BH5 chips which can be used in the timings 5,2,2 cas 2 at the same fsb or higher.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Mac is right as usual here on the memory. The memory you use will make or break your whole set up. Plan on including it in your upgrade plans now. Also get a SLK-900 and a 92mm fan.
  • reelbigfishreelbigfish Boston, MA Member
    edited October 2003
    Why would you do that though? The 2500+'s are simply 3200+'s with a different badge. A 300+ or 3200+ won't get a higher overclock than the current 2500+'s.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    reelbigfish said
    Why would you do that though? The 2500+'s are simply 3200+'s with a different badge. A 300+ or 3200+ won't get a higher overclock than the current 2500+'s.

    Are you certain? What do you have to back up that they are exactly the same? I really doubt it as all the higher end chips are made with wafer from the center and only from certain batch productions. The 2500's are from the outside edge of the wafer and don't have the capability to be as stable. While I am not an AMD production engineer I am not stupid in regard to how they derive their different chips. Lets take an xp1700 for example. We know that certain designations generally O/C better than others. But not all JIUHB'S will do better than all AIUHB'S. One big reason for this and it is the reason some people get a "Wonder Chip" is that after AMD meets the required quotas for the high end chips they put the leftovers into "the pot" so to speak. From what I understand from the buzz Equito started, and I generally put a bit of stock in what he has to offer isthat the 2600's are coming from a new production that is supposed to be of a higher quality than previous chips.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited October 2003
    There is a $10 difference between the 2500+ and 2600+ (both OEM chips). For my money I think I'd go with the 2600+, but it isn't my money, it's Dan's.

    Also, the 1800+ (Retail) is $58 right now and I got one of those a couple weeks back that is a DLT3C that a few people believe will push 2.3 or higher. It isn't my personal chip so I can't O/C it to be sure, but for the savings and the potential of that chip it might be advantageous to purchase a retail 1800+. Obviously NewEgg doesn't guarantee which chip you'll get so there is some risk, but I think it's likely you'll get the same (or a very similar) chip as I'm sure most of the older chips are no longer in stock.
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I have a 3000+ 400 fsb and I'm completely happy with it. I haven't Oced it yet though, so we'll see where it gets. I know it won't be the best it can, because the things in a shuttle, but we shall see.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    AMD still follows this method:

    Test 3200: If fail go to test 3000
    Test 3000: If fail go to test 2500
    Test 2500: Pass, sell as 2500.

    Of course, those 3000s are still perfectly acceptable chips and might only need a slight boost in voltage to make it a 3200. The fact that it's a 3000 also means it was fabbed from closer to the center of the wafer, and therefore has purer silicon inside.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited October 2003
    Thrax: that may be so, but I'm a bit suspect of it. What about the other Barton speeds between 2500 and 3000? Those just get overlooked? How then do you explain the fact the others exist?

    Also, I think quotas has some factor in marking. If AMD thinks it needs 20,000 CPUs badged as 3200+ for a 3-month period, then it probably only checks until it has 25,000 or so (for a bit of a buffer) and then starts on the 3000+ and gives a bit of a buffer and then moves on down the list. Is it not possible a 2500+ could be a chip that was never even checked to run at 3200+ but is perfectly capable of running at that speed or better?
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    a2jfreak said
    Thrax: that may be so, but I'm a bit suspect of it. What about the other Barton speeds between 2500 and 3000? Those just get overlooked? How then do you explain the fact the others exist?

    Also, I think quotas has some factor in marking. If AMD thinks it needs 20,000 CPUs badged as 3200+ for a 3-month period, then it probably only checks until it has 25,000 or so (for a bit of a buffer) and then starts on the 3000+ and gives a bit of a buffer and then moves on down the list. Is it not possible a 2500+ could be a chip that was never even checked to run at 3200+ but is perfectly capable of running at that speed or better?

    /me thinks that thrax just didn't wanna type all the possible proc's out ;)
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    reelbigfish said
    Why would you do that though? The 2500+'s are simply 3200+'s with a different badge. A 300+ or 3200+ won't get a higher overclock than the current 2500+'s.

    Not true at all.

    I know several peeps that has either the 3000 or 3200 and they perform MUCH better than a good 2500. On default voltage, the difference is even greater.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    shwaip said
    a2jfreak said
    Thrax: that may be so, but I'm a bit suspect of it. What about the other Barton speeds between 2500 and 3000? Those just get overlooked? How then do you explain the fact the others exist?

    Also, I think quotas has some factor in marking. If AMD thinks it needs 20,000 CPUs badged as 3200+ for a 3-month period, then it probably only checks until it has 25,000 or so (for a bit of a buffer) and then starts on the 3000+ and gives a bit of a buffer and then moves on down the list. Is it not possible a 2500+ could be a chip that was never even checked to run at 3200+ but is perfectly capable of running at that speed or better?

    * shwaip thinks that thrax just didn't wanna type all the possible proc's out ;)

    Methinks you're right, as is Mackanz.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited October 2003
    Shwaip: Apparently you were correct (as per Thrax himself), but it was just unlike Thrax (read: out of character) to not be more thorough.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    a2jfreak said
    Shwaip: Apparently you were correct (as per Thrax himself), but it was just unlike Thrax (read: out of character) to not be more thorough.
    Since Thrax was light on words maybe Ageek will add a chapter. ;)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I'm tired. I don't wanna be a long-winded bastard today. :sad2:
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    mtgoat said
    a2jfreak said
    Shwaip: Apparently you were correct (as per Thrax himself), but it was just unlike Thrax (read: out of character) to not be more thorough.
    Since Thrax was light on words maybe Ageek will add a chapter. ;)
    ;D
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Thrax said
    I'm tired. I don't wanna be a long-winded bastard today. :sad2:
    Hey bud, go easy on yourself. No one ever spoke ill of your origins. :D
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited October 2003
    I thought they often sold chips at the speed that was selling good. Like if no one wants a 2200+ but want the 1800+ then why name them 2200's when 1800's are selling like crazy.
  • EQuitoEQuito SoCal, USA
    edited October 2003
    mtgoat said
    From what I understand from the buzz Equito started, and I generally put a bit of stock in what he has to offer isthat the 2600's are coming from a new production that is supposed to be of a higher quality than previous chips.
    Thank you! I appreciate the vote of confidence but I think you're mistaking me with somebody else. ;)
    Unless I was drunk and I don't drink alcohol btw, I don't recall talking about Barton's 2600+ ever anywhere... :confused:
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    EQuito said
    mtgoat said
    From what I understand from the buzz Equito started, and I generally put a bit of stock in what he has to offer isthat the 2600's are coming from a new production that is supposed to be of a higher quality than previous chips.
    Thank you! I appreciate the vote of confidence but I think you're mistaking me with somebody else. ;)
    Unless I was drunk and I don't drink alcohol btw, I don't recall talking about Barton's 2600+ ever anywhere... :confused:

    Sorry, as I thought it was you that mentioned these about 2 weeks ago.
  • EQuitoEQuito SoCal, USA
    edited October 2003
    I wish I knew more about them so I could choose a good OC'er... :D

    Cheers!
  • edited October 2003
    My question is this. I recently got an xp 2500 barton but i got pc2700 ram with it because the fsb on the 2500 is 333. I can overclock easy to a 2800 just by using the multiplier but if i wanted to change the fsb from 166 to 200 does that mean i'll need to get pc3200 ram?

    Also how does the whole fsb setting work when comparing the cpu fsb and the memory speed etc. I've heard you can get into timing issues if you try to use 400 ddr ram with a cpu that has a 333 fsb which is why i stuck with the 333 ram in the first place. Does changing the fsb setting in my motherboard's bios change the cpu fsb as well? I kinda confused as to how all that stuff works.
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Caxus

    That would be the minimum and PC3500 would be even better.

    It is not an issue to use memory rated to a higher speed than the CPU but is a very big issue to run your memory at a faster speed than your CPU. You always want to run syncronus, meaning the same speed for memory and CPU. This is why I always tell people to get at least PC3200 memory when buying any CPU and an NF2 board.
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    hmmm...this is all so interestiong...but i dont know about the 2600...it doesnt have the extrra cache so it wont perform as well...correcT?
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    WuGgaRoO said
    hmmm...this is all so interestiong...but i dont know about the 2600...it doesnt have the extrra cache so it wont perform as well...correcT?

    Woog's

    There is now a 2600 Barton with the 512 cache as well as a 2600 T'Bred with a 256 cache. If you go to Newegg, you will need to choose "ALL" under AMD XP to find it.
  • edited October 2003
    mtgoat, so are you saying that it would be good to get faster memory but i shouldn't change the fsb from 166 to 200 because that would make my memory run at 400 while my cpu was running at 333? In that case wouldn't i just be running pc 3200 at pc2700 speeds anyway? what would be the point of the faster memory?
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    You can probably run your memory at 400 if you loosen the memory timings a bit. It would be a good place to start. You should set the CPU/DRAM ratio to 3/3, 4/4 etc, as long as both numbers are the same. Then set the fsb to where you want to start from. If at first it doesn;t work or is unstable try increasing the vcore slightlyand/ or loosen the mem timings.
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    but the barton has a 511+128mb cache...not just 512
Sign In or Register to comment.