Should I get a 2500+ Barton or P4 2.4c

[Johnbear007]

The p4 is a bit more expensive. So honestly just at clock speeds how do these 2 compare? I tried searching the anandtech articles but for some reason I can't get the search function to work, it just keeps pooping up with 'page loaded, but with errors' and nothing on the screen

 

[MatthewF01]

Baaaarton!


I had to mod an L12 bridge (thereby forcing it to be a 266FSB chip by default, which somehow allowed me to gain higher FSB settings) but its blazing at something like 3400+ speeds. Very fast!

Although I never get to use its RAW power much while dinking around the desktop because im running a Folding Client for OCWorkbench, so my processor is too busy just eating through that stuff.. but even still VERY fast!

Good cheap stuff too!

 

[bjc112]

Clock for clock the 2.4c will be faster than the Barton in probably about %60 of the test due to it's 800mhz FSB.

Now if the extra $75 it's going to cost is worth it to you then, by all means the P4C...

The Bartons on the other hand have no problem running 2.2-2.3ghz which is on par with a 2.8c - 3.0c



For about a 70% less.

 

[Corporate Thug]

if u got the $ get the p4
if u are on a budget get the barton

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: bjc112
Clock for clock the 2.4c will be faster than the Barton in probably about %60 of the test due to it's 800mhz FSB.

Now if the extra $75 it's going to cost is worth it to you then, by all means the P4C...

The Bartons on the other hand have no problem running 2.2-2.3ghz which is on par with a 2.8c - 3.0c



For about a 70% less.

You got it the other way around, clock for clock, the Barton is faster. Think about that, a Barton at 2.4GHz would run circles around the 2.4C.

 

[AkumaX]

do you know how many "what should i buy, 2500+ or 2.4c" threads are there!?!?!? everybody knows BARTON!

 

[infinite012]

Eh...I like my 2.4C over any other AMD only because of these ridiculously high MHz/GHz displaying on my screen! I can post all the way up to 3.6GHz, but Windows will never load...

If you are on a budget then go with AMD because it will give you THE BEST bang for the buck. Intel is best .... money eater...

 

[orion7144]

You won't regret the extra cash for the P4C. Not to mention the price diff is only aroun $60 now. The Barton will NOT run circles around it (Well maybe in synthetic bechmarks but not in real world apps).

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: infinite012
Eh...I like my 2.4C over any other AMD only because of these ridiculously high MHz/GHz displaying on my screen! I can post all the way up to 3.6GHz, but Windows will never load...

If you are on a budget then go with AMD because it will give you THE BEST bang for the buck. Intel is best .... money eater...

What an AMD fan site!!! All the talk about a barton at 2.3-2.4ghz and never mind the p4 2.4c may do 3.2-3.6ghz range with 1100 to 1200 system fsb and be faster then a default 3.2c which even the lowly barton 3200+ can't even beat.....

Simply put:

No ocing.....money matters

Barton cause it will close to 2.4c at default for less money....

No ocing....money doesn't matter....and you do more worthwhile things then gaming

P4 cause it simply is far better then Bartons currently at multimedia encoding. HT is a real; benefit and more and more we are starting to see its advantages...talk to owners about HT...It is worth the extra cost...

If ocing....money matters

then go Barton as it oc's rather nicely to 3200+ levels for cheaper price

If ocing....money doesn't matter

Then go P4 cause the barton will start to fall further behind in performance after ocing....

 

[SuPrEIVIE]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: infinite012
Eh...I like my 2.4C over any other AMD only because of these ridiculously high MHz/GHz displaying on my screen! I can post all the way up to 3.6GHz, but Windows will never load...

If you are on a budget then go with AMD because it will give you THE BEST bang for the buck. Intel is best .... money eater...

What an AMD fan site!!! All the talk about a barton at 2.3-2.4ghz and never mind the p4 2.4c may do 3.2-3.6ghz range with 1100 to 1200 system fsb and be faster then a default 3.2c which even the lowly barton 3200+ can't even beat.....

Simply put:

No ocing.....money matters

Barton cause it will close to 2.4c at default for less money....

No ocing....money doesn't matter....and you do more worthwhile things then gaming

P4 cause it simply is far better then Bartons currently at multimedia encoding. HT is a real; benefit and more and more we are starting to see its advantages...talk to owners about HT...It is worth the extra cost...

If ocing....money matters

then go Barton as it oc's rather nicely to 3200+ levels for cheaper price

If ocing....money doesn't matter

Then go P4 cause the barton will start to fall further behind in performance after ocing....

P4C is the only way to go RIGHT NOW if u want most for your money... sure getting a barton is cheap but it will not stand out much later in the furture the P4C is the way to go now...+ you can make a machine with the P4C for cheap now ex 2.4c+a good i865

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: SuPrEIVIE

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: infinite012
Eh...I like my 2.4C over any other AMD only because of these ridiculously high MHz/GHz displaying on my screen! I can post all the way up to 3.6GHz, but Windows will never load...

If you are on a budget then go with AMD because it will give you THE BEST bang for the buck. Intel is best .... money eater...

What an AMD fan site!!! All the talk about a barton at 2.3-2.4ghz and never mind the p4 2.4c may do 3.2-3.6ghz range with 1100 to 1200 system fsb and be faster then a default 3.2c which even the lowly barton 3200+ can't even beat.....

Simply put:

No ocing.....money matters

Barton cause it will close to 2.4c at default for less money....

No ocing....money doesn't matter....and you do more worthwhile things then gaming

P4 cause it simply is far better then Bartons currently at multimedia encoding. HT is a real; benefit and more and more we are starting to see its advantages...talk to owners about HT...It is worth the extra cost...

If ocing....money matters

then go Barton as it oc's rather nicely to 3200+ levels for cheaper price

If ocing....money doesn't matter

Then go P4 cause the barton will start to fall further behind in performance after ocing....

P4C is the only way to go RIGHT NOW if u want most for your money... sure getting a barton is cheap but it will not stand out much later in the furture the P4C is the way to go now...+ you can make a machine with the P4C for cheap now ex 2.4c+a good i865

Its a pretty significant price difference. Not only does the p4 cost about 70$ more, the p4 boards cost more as well.

Im on a pretty tight budget... so it seems like barton is the better way to go

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

Everyone seems to forget, with the P4 you need GOOD MEMORY (which costs $$$) to overclock, unless you want to run async and thus lose a lot of performance. The 2.4C is already runs memory @ 200 mhz...

With Athlon, they are unlocked and the problem is very much reduced, as well as giving you a bit more head room as it runs with 166mhz ram.

 

[Dustswirl]

ah finally someone mentioned the mobos... indeed p4's cost more so we should see the "whole" picture and overall cost not just the cpus

Barton (2500 of course) is a good and "smart" choice for ppl on a tight budget ain't we all?

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: JeremiahTheGreat
Everyone seems to forget, with the P4 you need GOOD MEMORY (which costs $$$) to overclock, unless you want to run async and thus lose a lot of performance. The 2.4C is already runs memory @ 200 mhz....

Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about P4 systems. Running Async will cost you VERY LITTLE performance. Maybe ~ 2% if you do it wrong. 0 - 1% if you do it right. Sometimes it can increase performance. You dont need big $$ ram either.

 

[SpeedFreak03]

I had this exact dilemma, and I decided to go with the Barton 2500+, EpoX 8RDA+, and 512MB DDR466 Buffalo ram. I was on a VERY tight budget (my system was a Pentium3 500MHz 256MB PC100 from 4.5 years ago), and I decided that for what I use my box for, the money I save can go towards something like a DVD burner or new printer etc.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
I had this exact dilemma, and I decided to go with the Barton 2500+, EpoX 8RDA+, and 512MB DDR466 Buffalo ram. I was on a VERY tight budget (my system was a Pentium3 500MHz 256MB PC100 from 4.5 years ago), and I decided that for what I use my box for, the money I save can go towards something like a DVD burner or new printer etc.

This what I am leaning towards, although I dont really need new ram at all I already have a gb of ddr

I am also thinking of getting another XP 1700+ and OC'ing it

 

[Johnbear007]

A couple of questions

1. How far does a barton generally OC with Stock cooling?
2. how far does a 1700+ generally OC with stock cooling?
3. How can I check the revision of 1700+ that I already own?
4. How does an OC 1700+ compare to an OC barton?

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: Dustswirl
ah finally someone mentioned the mobos... indeed p4's cost more so we should see the "whole" picture and overall cost not just the cpus

Barton (2500 of course) is a good and "smart" choice for ppl on a tight budget ain't we all?

Hello? Who are we trying to kid here? The MB's are about the same price if not cheaper for a P4 board. A very good 865 board can be had brand new and retail for $80. A decent Nforce2 board $60. A whopping $20 so don't drink for a day or two and get a far supperior MB/CPU combo.

I'd bet a case of beer that if all of these AMD FanBoys (I used to be one so I know) were to get the 2.4C they would not go back to the current line of AMD products. Who cares about all of these synthetic benchmarks, it's all in the real life applications. If you actually would look at any of the tests, instead of looking to see where the AMD did better in, you would find that the P4C is by far faster than anything AMD throws at them. And like Duvie said these things are getting a ~50% OC. So let say a P4 2.4C @ 3.2 gig for $160 or a Barton 3200 for $433 (which sucks a$$ performance wise). Now which is cheaper.

 

[4x4expy]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
This what I am leaning towards, although I dont really need new ram at all I already have a gb of ddr

I am also thinking of getting another XP 1700+ and OC'ing it

What are you running now? If you have an NF2 board now, I think the wiser choice would be the TBred/Barton route, until the next Gen CPU's are out. Since this will cost you well less than $100. If you are going to shell out $200 or more for a new MB/CPU combo, spend the extra and go with the p4c setup.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: 4x4expy

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
This what I am leaning towards, although I dont really need new ram at all I already have a gb of ddr

I am also thinking of getting another XP 1700+ and OC'ing it

What are you running now? If you have an NF2 board now, I think the wiser choice would be the TBred/Barton route, until the next Gen CPU's are out. Since this will cost you well less than $100. If you are going to shell out $200 or more for a new MB/CPU combo, spend the extra and go with the p4c setup.

im on a k7s5a with a 1700+ but I want to use that to replace my wifes p3 800

 

[Dustswirl]

orion7144<<< hehe you're right, i have a budget for beer :beer::beer: but i would never touch it coz i like to "live" and spend more on beeing happy enjoying the "fruits" of life

ah btw i have another system with PC800-E w/2.4C Corsair3700 and all the goodies and ocing etc etc etc and it sure costs more (and by far much faster) than the one am using now but hey noone puts low grade/octane gas in a ferrari or?

btw a 2500 @ 3200 is "cheaper" then a 2.4c @ 3.2 but not "faster" it's the green that is the limiting factor here...

 

[mechBgon]

Johnbear007, if you want comparative benchmarks, check Anand's 3.2GHz P4 review, which also includes a good spread of other CPUs from both AMD and Intel on top-end platforms. The Pentium4 2.4C, on a good platform, is outperforming the 2500+ on a good platform in most apps.

Interestingly, AMD still holds a good lead in Business Winstone 2002 performance. 2500+ > 3.2C. I don't put huge amounts of stock in those types of benchmarks, since no one uses those apps at the warp speed that the Winstone scripts run them, but what's sauce for the goose... yeah.

The money side of the equation is always there. Save money on a less-expensive CPU (whether it's a 2500+ versus a 2.4C, or a 2.4C versus a 3.0C, or whatever), and you can spend that on something else that your system needs. For gamers, the video card is where the money will pay off; for a Photoshop fiend, it might be more RAM.

Anyway, hope that helps

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: Dustswirl
ah finally someone mentioned the mobos... indeed p4's cost more so we should see the "whole" picture and overall cost not just the cpus

Barton (2500 of course) is a good and "smart" choice for ppl on a tight budget ain't we all?

Hello? Who are we trying to kid here? The MB's are about the same price if not cheaper for a P4 board. A very good 865 board can be had brand new and retail for $80. A decent Nforce2 board $60. A whopping $20 so don't drink for a day or two and get a far supperior MB/CPU combo.

I'd bet a case of beer that if all of these AMD FanBoys (I used to be one so I know) were to get the 2.4C they would not go back to the current line of AMD products. Who cares about all of these synthetic benchmarks, it's all in the real life applications. If you actually would look at any of the tests, instead of looking to see where the AMD did better in, you would find that the P4C is by far faster than anything AMD throws at them. And like Duvie said these things are getting a ~50% OC. So let say a P4 2.4C @ 3.2 gig for $160 or a Barton 3200 for $433 (which sucks a$$ performance wise). Now which is cheaper.

Hey Orion, I've switched from Intel to AMD back to Intel and back to AMD all this year. I have no pretense when it comes to either platform. I'm in it for the thrill of the overclock. Love for both sides.

If you got the money, go Intel. If not, stay AMD.

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

I vote to ban all 'AMD vs Intel' threads... because there's absolutley no point to them. Which ever you choose, they'll be good!

 

[dguy6789]

I aggree, both companies have very good products, you cant go wrong with either, both are very fast, both have good cheap products, and both have good overclocking products. You cant go wrong, just pick what fits into your budget.