2.4 vs 2500

riffst3r · Post by **riffst3r** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:13 pm

personally, i'd get the 2.4C and o'c it over 3ghz. but that's just me.

jamoore9, extremetech, digit-life, and xbitlabs also have articles up showing that the p4 3.2ghz ( and sometimes even a 2.8C) kicks 3200+'s butt. i'm just saying this because most ppl don't think high of thg anymore. also that 'backdoor' in the springdales wouldn't be available from the next stepping onwards... intel's pretty pissed.

Liquidated, according to anandtech, the abit springdale IS7 outperforms most canterwoods out there now.

even the memory bandwidth of springale is around 5900mb/s compared to around 6100mb/s for a good canterwood. also, how many of us really do need gigabit ethernet? or four sata ports? i found myself asking these questions and decided that my next system upgrade would be the IS7, 9600pro, and a 2.4C/2.6C. the money i save would go into a better monitor, better speakers and other aspects of a computer that would justify a higher price.

and Radeonman, as for your question, here's something that may help: the 2500+ barton typically dissipates 54W of heat. while the 2.4C average heat dissipation is 66W. so yeah, the athlon xp runs significantly cooler than the p4.

sgtpokey · Post by **sgtpokey** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:13 pm

If you're leaning for the 2.4C, I'd endorse your decision:

At home I use a 1700+ Thoroughbred B overclocked to 2.2 ghz (11x200mhz FSB <-- lapped SLK-800, 1800rpm fan), which gives me a rating somewhere between 3000+ and 3200+.

At work one of the machines I use is a stock Canterwood 2.4C. I often do a lot of app development on either system and in many of those cases, I definitely *feel* that the Hyperthreaded enabled 2.4C lets me do my work better. Faster? Not sure, but the hyperthreading bit makes my system smoother as it churns on multiple things. I really wish I could overclock the 2.4C at work....

If I were to upgrade this cycle, I'd go with a 2.4C, turn on Hyperthreading and overclock it until it couldn't overclock any further using a Zalman 7000. The price difference doesn't matter too much to me because for what I do I place a high value on Hyperthreading

. Plus the overclocking potential when using a Zalman-7000 could potentially make the Intel a better deal.

But I don't plan on upgrading this cycle, for games and stuff my home system is great and should lastuntil PCI-express, grantsdale, Big Water, Athlon64, etc make me evaluate systems all over again.

So to sum up, I really like Hyperthreading!!

Liquidated · Post by **Liquidated** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:04 am

Liquidated, according to anandtech, the abit springdale IS7 outperforms most canterwoods out there now.

Well first off, I really don't take a whole lot of heed in anand when it comes to faster slower but that's just me.

The problem with what you just said is that you are taking a snapshot of a range of options and saying x is faster than y.

The thing is that at stock 1:1 memory settings with uber memory, yes the springdale is benchmarking faster than the canterwood. The problem here though is that in all honesty....

1) who is going to spend the cash on after market memory solutions that cost at least half again as much as bog standard pc 3200? spend the cash on a natively higher clocked p4c.

2) who here is planning on buying a 2.4c+ abit/asus and NOT overclocking it? I mean I live and love abit and asus but when it comes to stock stbility, go intel for their boards.

If you are not using cas 2 pc 3500+ memory from a reputable assembler, you cannot use these relaxed settings. When you oc and change the memory divider, that half PAT is poof, as are the back door gains the asus and abit provide.

now if you are spending the extra $100 on boffo memory and are not planning on overclocking, yeah the asus and abit springdales clock faster. My advice though is go get some cruicial and get an ic-7 for $35 more. Get a real heat sink fan and paste for another $55 and clock that 2.4c to 250 fsb on a 5:4 divider.

Again, I'm not slamming on abit, asus, intel, amd, barton, nforce2, springdale nor canterwood, all are fine products/companies. I'm just trying to convey that someone saying "X is faster than Y" is almost never looking at the entire range of options and should be mistrusted implicitly.

buyer beware.

oh btw edit: hehe the plain jane IS-7 DOES have giga ethernet in the form of a 3 com controller.... plain jane the IC-7 has NO lan onboard at all.

I'm not talking about the -G options because in all honesty, that's a whole lotta extra money for no real gain.

But yeah the IS-7 is a great board, just don't fool yourself into thinking it will bench better than the IC-7 in all situations.

Cheers!
-Liq

riffst3r · Post by **riffst3r** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:06 pm

oh.. no, i'm not saying that the springdale is better than canterwood. i just said that abit's IS7 outperformed most canterwoods. canterwood is definitely more superior, especially featurewise. what i meant to state is that the performance gain (6100mb/s from 5900mb/s memory bandwidth) PAT offers isn't worth the upgrade, however the other features of canterwood like CSA gigabit ethernet, and ECC support are. because the CSA gigabit ethernet would definitely offer better throughput than a addin card or anything attached to the south bridge.

i just said that with a good board like the IS7, and a 2.4C, i'd be able to get 3ghz+ speeds without paying a 3ghz+ price tag. a cheap springdale, a 2.4C, and some good memory (crucial) and you'd get a whole lot of bang for your buck.

jamoore9 · Post by **jamoore9** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:11 am

riff wrote:oh.. no, i'm not saying that the springdale is better than canterwood. i just said that abit's IS7 outperformed most canterwoods. canterwood is definitely more superior, especially featurewise. what i meant to state is that the performance gain (6100mb/s from 5900mb/s memory bandwidth) PAT offers isn't worth the upgrade, however the other features of canterwood like CSA gigabit ethernet, and ECC support are. because the CSA gigabit ethernet would definitely offer better throughput than a addin card or anything attached to the south bridge.

i just said that with a good board like the IS7, and a 2.4C, i'd be able to get 3ghz+ speeds without paying a 3ghz+ price tag. a cheap springdale, a 2.4C, and some good memory (crucial) and you'd get a whole lot of bang for your buck.

Concur. That was my point as well. Its all about cost/benefit. More performance per dollar spent with the Springdale than with the Canterwood.

techiecool · Post by **techiecool** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:03 pm

so for programming/coding, it would be safe to assume that the p4 2.4c would be recommended over the barton 2500 (which would cost about $90 more, but less $20 for a better hsf for the amd = $70 more).

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:09 am

I'll bet the barn that the vast majority of people here couldn't honestly tell the difference between an 2500+ and the 2.4C in real world applications--hell, I'd be the first to admit that I have a hard time telling the difference between my 1500+ and my friend's P4 2.66 in anything but gaming.

For most of the coding the average person is doing, a P2-400 would suffice. If you're doing huge compiles (IE: half-life, linux kernals, huge enterprise class products, etc.) you might see a difference between the two procs, but for the most part both of those processors are going to be done compiling simple apps before you can even blink.

Personally, this is what I'd do--buy the barton, and spend the extra $70 on a better hard drive, video card, or maybe just take your girl out to dinner. In real work performance, I'll take the taste test anyday, and I'm not too proud to admit that I'll probably fail miserably. Save your money, get the cheaper one.

futureweaver · Post by **futureweaver** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:19 am

Overclocking aside, the 2500+ runs at 166 x11; the 2800+ at 166 x12.5; the 3000+ at 166 x13. If the labels were "proportionate", they would be called the 2500+, the 2840+, and the 2954+. So the 2800+ is under-rated relative to its label, and the 3000+ over-rated. In the UK, the current prices for OEM chips are £60, £103, £177. Already a VFM trend emerges ... £74 for a 4% speed increase? I think not!

But there's more. My 2500+ runs happily (about 1C hotter) at x12.5, completely stable. Wcpuid recognises it as a 2800+, and (more surprisingly) so does AMD's CPU recognition utility.

Conclusion? For outstanding bang-per-buck, get a 2500+ and run it at 12.5x. The 2.4C from the same place is £124.

Caveat : YMMD - for example, this may be stepping-dependent.

Athlon Powers · Post by **Athlon Powers** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:59 am

2500 if ya gonna be folding...

2.4 vs 2500

Sidelight on Bartons ...