Excellant Article On Budget Processors.(under 100)

[bigdawgfoxx]

It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.

[Smurfette]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@6 December 2003 - 00:28
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.

That's because the 2500 is a Barton chip and the 2400 a Thoroughbred.

[adamp2p]

Not a suprise that AMD is the clear winner.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Yeah but I thought the 2500 was supposed to be faster. The 2400 runs at almost 200Mhz faster... Would the Barton still be better though?

[DarthInsinuate]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@5 December 2003 - 23:33
Yeah but I thought the 2500 was supposed to be faster.  The 2400 runs at almost 200Mhz faster... Would the Barton still be better though?

browsing over the benchmarks a general rule seems to be that the 2500+ is faster on games, but slower on applications

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@5 December 2003 - 19:28
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.

Well, think of it this way, as well.

The celeron runs at 2.6, but a 2Ghz Pentium 4 outperforms it.

Not the same thing, but just another way to point out that clock speed isnt the only thing that makes a chip.