Printable View
Out of the 2.2 Ghz Pentium 4 and the 2500+ Barton core which one would run faster? What about a 2.2 Ghz P4 and a 2700+ Barton core. I found a 2.2 Ghz P4 for 110 bux on tiger direct they are having a huge sell and they are all new. A 3.0 Ghz for 240!
anything would be better than your current Celeron.
Just toss some CPU names in a hat and pick one. :P
shut the fuck up! lololol yeah i know..but im just wonderin..ne thoughts?
both of the athlons are much better then the pentium... but you would need a new board for the athlons i believe... you may not for the pentium... i don't know for sure
if u oc ur the amd, there's no way the p4 can beat it. but if u don't, they're similar. depends on the mobo and ram u get for them
Shit, just get one of the AMDs and know you've got great value for money.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@2 November 2003 - 03:56
Out of the 2.2 Ghz Pentium 4 and the 2500+ Barton core which one would run faster? What about a 2.2 Ghz P4 and a 2700+ Barton core. I found a 2.2 Ghz P4 for 110 bux on tiger direct they are having a huge sell and they are all new. A 3.0 Ghz for 240!
Wind it up a bit as well if you like - I've got my XP1700+ Thoroughbred running at an actual 1.84GHz and not had a problem with it.
Straight from the horses arse. Or was it a bull?Quote:
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 04:26
if u oc ur the amd, there's no way the p4 can beat it. but if u don't, they're similar. depends on the mobo and ram u get for them
At STANDARD speed both those athlon's beat the pentium hands down. I'm pretty sure you would need a new mobo for the P4, so that doesn't need to be a consideration.
a 2.2ghz p4 or a 2500+ amd athlone XP, which is gonna run faster, without a doubt the 2500+, as it runs as a old school 2.5ghz athlon!
Straight from the horses arse. Or was it a bull?Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+2 November 2003 - 04:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 2 November 2003 - 04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 04:26
if u oc ur the amd, there's no way the p4 can beat it. but if u don't, they're similar. depends on the mobo and ram u get for them
At STANDARD speed both those athlon's beat the pentium hands down. I'm pretty sure you would need a new mobo for the P4, so that doesn't need to be a consideration. [/b][/quote]
Absolutely right, lynx.
Without overclocking, the Athlon XP 2500+ will outperform a [email protected] everytime.
Again, abu_has_no_power, just where do you get this bullshit from? Do us all a favor and STFU.
once again abu is proved wrong by vb1234! :lol:
Always is Kunal lol..they dont like each other very much. Thanx for the information guys
Today's versus
Intel Pentium II 400mhz VS Intel Celeron 566mhz
Pentium II: 100mhz FSB, 512kb of L2 cache?
Celeron: 66mhz FSB, 128kb of L2 cache
Who would win?
(I dunno about teh caches but i got them from computergeeks.com)
Who cares?Quote:
Originally posted by Keikan@2 November 2003 - 21:20
Who would win?
i would say the Pentium, because that seems like a pretty big difference in L2
Who cares? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+2 November 2003 - 15:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 2 November 2003 - 15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Keikan@2 November 2003 - 21:20
Who would win?
good point ;)
A Few Things.
one thing, that 2.2 is 110 you said, and the 2500+ is about 89 dollars, if u use pricegrabber.
the 2.2 is on the old willimette core I believe, not the NorthWood one (might be wrong, but I think its with the 1.8 and 1.6 P4's on the old core.)
@ Abu's post. Abu was partly right. Although the 2500 will beat that 2.2 hands down in just about every single test, the RAM and Motherboard you use will greatly determine how they benchmark against each other.
Tryin testing that 2500 on PC 133 Ram, against that P4 on its 3500 Ram, and see what benchmarks you get....
You can't. The 2500+ is the barton core which the FSB runs at 333mhz. There aren't any motherboards that use PC 133 with a FSB of 333.Quote:
Tryin testing that 2500 on PC 133 Ram, against that P4 on its 3500 Ram, and see what benchmarks you get....
Exactly my point, the kind of Ram you have DOES matter.Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@2 November 2003 - 22:43
You can't. The 2500+ is the barton core which the FSB runs at 333mhz. There aren't any motherboards that use PC 133 with a FSB of 333.Quote:
Tryin testing that 2500 on PC 133 Ram, against that P4 on its 3500 Ram, and see what benchmarks you get....
Also, the Barton's are 400Mhz, not 333, the palaminos are 333Mhz.
You obviously did not read my post. You cannot run PC 133 RAM with a barton.
And I will correct you here. The Barton is 333 MHz FSB.
Only the fastest 3000+ and 3200+ are available at 400 FSB.
Proof ---> http://www.computerhq.com/hardware/p...-id-32019.html
and ---> http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?locat...&var1=26&var2=0
Only the Fastest 3000+ and 3200+ are available at 400FSB? lol, what do you think alot of the bartons are? I know the stepping for my 2500, is widely regarded as an underclocked 400Mhz barton line. Shall I show you my cpu Stats where im running the resulting Bus speed at 400Mhz?Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@2 November 2003 - 23:14
You obviously did not read my post. You cannot run PC 133 RAM with a barton.
And I will correct you here. The Barton is 333 MHz FSB.
Only the fastest 3000+ and 3200+ are available at 400 FSB.
Im well aware that with the exception of the newer 3000, and 3200 Barton are set to the 166.5 Mhz Front Side Bus, x2 being where they get the 333Mhz Bus Speed, but that doesnt mean that my Barton cant run at that.
F*ck off with your overclocking garbage. They are still 333 MHz FSB processors.
I just proved you wrong and now you use overclocking to defend your point?
Bullshit! Utter bullshit.
The point is you cannot run PC 133 RAM with it. Right?
What's your point? The fact that they can be overclocked to 400MHz FSB doesn't make them 400MHz FSB processors.Quote:
Originally posted by _John_Lennon_@3 November 2003 - 21:10
Im well aware that with the exception of the newer 3000, and 3200 Barton are set to the 166.5 Mhz Front Side Bus, x2 being where they get the 333Mhz Bus Speed, but that doesnt mean that my Barton cant run at that.
AMD rate, and sell them, as 333MHz FSB processors. Therefore that is what they are.
What's your point? The fact that they can be overclocked to 400MHz FSB doesn't make them 400MHz FSB processors.Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey+3 November 2003 - 16:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 3 November 2003 - 16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-_John_Lennon_@3 November 2003 - 21:10
Im well aware that with the exception of the newer 3000, and 3200 Barton are set to the 166.5 Mhz Front Side Bus, x2 being where they get the 333Mhz Bus Speed, but that doesnt mean that my Barton cant run at that.
AMD rate, and sell them, as 333MHz FSB processors. Therefore that is what they are. [/b][/quote]
And the fact that there merely sold as 333Mhz processors doesnt meant that they cant be 400Mhz.
There talking about when you buy them and compare them, not when you OC and compare. Your an idiot. ;)
So why don't you answer the real question, _John_Lennon_ ?
The point is you cannot run PC 133 RAM with it. Am I right or wrong ?
All this talk about overclocking to 400 mhz FSB was all a way to change the subject away from that real point anyway.
Real point, alas, we have strayed havnt we? :unsure:
Anyway, yes, It is my belief that you can, indeed run a ahtlon processor, and im almost positive the Barton's on SDRam, of course, like I hinted at earlier, the performance would be poorer than using them with their regular DDR required Ram.
And I am aware that you cannot achieve a bus speed of the 333Mhz for even the lower end Bartons using SD Ram, seeing as how the top frequency of 133Mhz only ends of equaling a total of 266 For the system Bus.
So once again, Virtual, im well aware that you cant run bartons on SD Ram at a Side Bus speed of 333Mhz, but that doesnt mean that they wont run at Speeds below that.
No we have not strayed. You have. Not me.Quote:
Real point, alas, we have strayed havnt we?
So now it's below 333 MHz that you want to run it? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Show me a motherboard made for the Barton and PC133 RAM then.
What a complete farce this whole thing.
You're just wrong. That's all. :lol:
Motherboards that will run thorughbreads can run SD Ram, and they can run Bartons as well, because of the same socket type.Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@3 November 2003 - 23:24
Show me a motherboard made for the Barton and PC133 RAM then.Quote:
Real point, alas, we have strayed havnt we?
So shall i show you an AMD motherboard that supports SD Ram then?
Boy, you certanly have a problem admitting when you're just wrong. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@4 November 2003 - 00:24
You're just wrong. That's all. :lol:
*laughs at vb1234 for basking in his own alleged glory*
i got lost after that was saidQuote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@2 November 2003 - 02:56
Out of the 2.2 Ghz Pentium 4 and the 2500+ Barton core which one would run faster? What about a 2.2 Ghz P4 and a 2700+ Barton core. I found a 2.2 Ghz P4 for 110 bux on tiger direct they are having a huge sell and they are all new. A 3.0 Ghz for 240!
Boy, you certanly have a problem admitting when you're just wrong. :lol: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234+4 November 2003 - 15:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Virtualbody1234 @ 4 November 2003 - 15:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Virtualbody1234@4 November 2003 - 00:24
You're just wrong. That's all. :lol:
Wrong about what, your just claiming that you have won, rofl.
Good tatic, :rolleyes:
You've been wrong all along about the PC133 and the Barton not being 333 MHz FSB.
And I already proved you wrong about the Barton.
I also like the fact that this thread would have been long gone by now but you keep bumping it up to show people just how ridiculous this is.
I keep bumping it up, yes.Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@4 November 2003 - 18:43
You've been wrong all along.
I also like the fact that this thread would have been long gone by now but you keep bumping it up to show people just how ridiculous this is.
Oh and btw, once again, you still are avoiding the whole concept of actually stating what I am supposdly wrong about.
Mind signing onto AIM for this? the 30sec flood control is starting to get annoying, between this topic, and all the others im checking. <_<
About AIM. Not a chance. :lol: :lol:
And I just edited about what you're wrong about. :P
Edit: I even know that your next argument is to show me a board that runs at 266 FSB with PC133 RAM. And that you could thoeretically drop in a Barton. But that would just be even more stupid.
About the Barton- Nearly everyone I know runs their barton at the 400Mhz Side Bus speed, so I refer to it as a 400Mhz Side Bus processor., notmatter which clocked version you buy from AMD>
About the PC133 Ram- Once again, I am confident that you can run a barton on SD Ram, just put it in a board that support the SD Ram. Im not saying it will run at its normal speed, im just saying THAT YOU CAN.
Nearly everyone knows that when AMD puts 333 MHz FSB on the package, that it's a 333 MHz FSB CPU.
man, you guys are funny! :lol:
And, _John_Lennon_, you bore me.
We've been though all this stuff already.
Sigh, once again, just because its a 333Mhz CPU in the box, which im well aware it is doesnt mean that it can ONLY BE 333MHZ.Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@4 November 2003 - 19:08
Nearly everyone knows that when AMD puts 333 MHz FSB on the package, that it's a 333 MHz FSB CPU.
Right, so, thats setteled.
Anyone up for drinks?