It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
[SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum
That's because the 2500 is a Barton chip and the 2400 a Thoroughbred.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.
if your font size is this small i'll add you to my ignore list because you're wasting my time, OK?
Not a suprise that AMD is the clear winner.
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?
[SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum
browsing over the benchmarks a general rule seems to be that the 2500+ is faster on games, but slower on applicationsOriginally 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?
The Sexay Half Of ABBA And Max: Freelance Plants
Well, think of it this way, as well.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.
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.
Bookmarks