- 2200+ Thoroughbred, 1.8 GHz, 256KB L2, 266MHz FSB, $67
- 2400+ Thoroughbred, 2.0GHz, 256KB L2, 266MHz FSB, $78
- 2400+ Thornton, 1.80 GHz, 256KB L2, 266MHz FSB, $75
- 2500+ Barton, 1.83 GHz, 512KB L2, 333MHz FSB, $85
- Thornton is a Barton with half of the L2 cache disabled, but
- Barton is little more than a Thoroughbred with twice the L2.
It's supposedly the 512KB cache that "entitles" AMD to give the Bartons higher numbers than equivalently clocked T-breds, so I don't understand how the 1.8GHz Thornton can rightly be labeled a 2400+ when the 1.8GHz Thoroughbred is a 2200+.
OK, but the real question is, how much does the larger L2 cache benefit Folding performance? Is a 2400+ Barton a better folder than a 2400+ T-bred? The Barton has twice the L2, but the T-bred sports a faster core clock, at 2.0GHz vs. 1.83GHz. I guess I would expect them to be roughly equivalent.
There isn't a big price difference (between a 2400+ T-bred and a 2500+ Barton), so I suppose I will go for the Barton and the 333MHz FSB.
Comments?
David
BTE, I am researching this question, starting with Anandtech.