Which AMD Processor is the best value?

[manticore24]

I'm upgrading my computer for gaming purposes. Primarily, I play RTS games like Warcraft 3, but I want a system that will be able to run other more graphic intensive games as well. I'd also like to not have to upgrade my system for about two years. The motherboard I'll be using is the Epox 8RDA+.

I'm thinking about getting one of the following processors:
Athlon XP 1700+ Thoroughbred $41
Athlon XP 2400+ Thoroughbred $82
Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $93 (Retail!)
Athlon XP 2600+ Thoroughbred $96

I was thinking about getting the 2500+ Barton, but after reading two articles that compared the 2700+ Thouroughbred to the 3000+ Barton it seems that the increased L2 cache size of the Barton does not increase its performance very much. The graphs show that at resolutions of 1024x768 and 1600x1200, the performance of the 2700+ and 3000+ in games such as Q3 and UT are nearly identical. (The 2700+ and 3000+ run at 2.17GHz.) On the other hand, most of the forum members seem to think that the 2500+ Barton is still the best value. Why?

See the comparison articles here:
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=224&PageID=5
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783


A few other questions:

1. Is PC 3200 RAM useful if I don't overclock or lower the timing?

2. My hard drive runs at 7200rpm. Would games run faster with a faster hard drive?

3. Is a 16x CD-ROM too slow for gaming?

Edit: I'd really appreciate it if I could get reasons/explanations with the replies. i.e. Why you think "x" processor is the best.

 

[randumb]

Best value is 2500+ Barton. It runs around $90, and is easily overclockable.

1. Yes
2. Yes, but hard drives are always the bottle neck
3. I don't know many games that use the CD-ROM

 

[Gravija]

i'd take a barton 2500+, then try and OC it to 400FSB, but then if you don't, then i'd get PC2700
currently i have a athlon 1700+ @2.2ghz 400FSB, so PC3200 helps, but it probably won't
your hard drive is fine, but yes, it always is the bottleneck for the system
i don't think your 16x will be a bottleneck -> most games use the CD-ROM only for some data and/or checking the discs

 

[LED]

Best Deal on a CPU is the AMD AXDA1700 CPU which can hit over 2GHz with good cooling and if your MoBo's decent...it can be had for $41 shipped....then you will have change to upgrade later when the current speeds drop.

1)Get that RAM and you'll be able to up the FSB
2)You'll want @ least 512MB if you Game
3)16X's prolly good enough with DMA

 

[madthumbs]

2400+ T-bred seemed to benchmark better for me and seemed as OC'able as the 2500+ Barton I replaced it with, However I can run the Barton at 400MHz fsb where the Tbred ran at 333. I think this may help in multitasking (not sure). I think the Barton is mostly recommended for OC'ers so if you're not gonna; don't bother.

1) no; It's best to run the ram synchronous to the fsb. It's more stable and benches better this way. However using pc3200 is more future proof.
2) no, they'd only load faster. FPS wouldn't change.
3) only for loading speeds which could include audio files and stuff that's left on the disk from installing. Shouldn't be much of a problem if you do complete installs.

 

[m1ke101]

best value? no doubt the 1700+. You can get two 1700+ for the price of the 2500+ AND have change left over. Most people can oc the 1700+ to about 2.1 to 2.4ghz

 

[BatmanNate]

I would say either the 2200+ for 70 some bucks or that 2400+.

 

[Lonyo]

What motherboard are you looking at?

 

[nick1985]

1700 or 2100

 

[Lyfer]

Is newegg shipping tbred b's?

 

[BD231]

Barton or the 1700+ are the only chips you should be looking at, if you want future proof then grab a Barton, if 2ghz is good enough then just get the 1700+.

 

[manticore24]

The motherboard I'm going to use is the Epox 8RDA+

 

[chr6]

from experience, i would say the 1700+ or the 2500+. both are good overclockers, and it doesn't take much to the 2500+ to make it run with the likes of the 2800+ and beyond.

1700+ jiuhb ive seen people have great luck with. good luck!

 

[andyfasthands]

Originally posted by: BD231
Barton or the 1700+ are the only chips you should be looking at, if you want future proof then grab a Barton, if 2ghz is good enough then just get the 1700+.

 

[Corporate Thug]

the barton or 1700+ are both excellent choices, tough call either way

 

[alzan]

The 1700+ would probably fulfill your CPU requirements for 2 years, but the Barton would give you more headroom.

1. Yes
2. They would definitely load faster. Running a program is more dependant on your mobo, CPU, memory, and video card

3. Your 16x would be fine. If you play a lot of games that require the CD in the drive to play, you might look into Hekko Virtual CD. It makes a folder on your HDD that holds the CD Data, and allows you to play w/o the CD. It's a free download for personal use.

alzan

 

[Chobits]

2500+ because its retail which gives you the warranty. Also the 2500+/1700+ are hitting roughly the same speed but the Barton has 2x the cache which does help in encoding and other things I'd say.

 

[manticore24]

Ahhh!!! I thought that there would be more of a consensus. Are there any other opinions out there?

 

[novice]

I would say the 1700+. I just bought one for one of my KT3 Ultra2 motherboards, and was so impressed with it overclocking to 2.0 Ghz on a $16 heatsink and fan that I ordered a second one for my other KT2 Ultra2. For the second one I bought some Antec "reference Silver themal paste and am running less than 100 F at idle, (surfing , downloading, etc.) and it is using a $12 shipped Speeze heatsink and fan. Am very impressed with the Athlon XP 1700+ CPU's that newegg is shipping now. While I didn't get one of the "vaunted" DLT3 chips that run at 1.50 volts, my DUTC2 chips run great at default, both of mine are currently running 166 x 12.0 for an XP2400 rating. One has a 512 MB stick of Kingston Valueram PC-2700 and the other system has a 512 mb stick of Crucial PC-2700. They are fast and stable, and cheap. Kind of like me, except for the fast part.
Chuck

 

[madthumbs]

Originally posted by: Chobits
2500+ because its retail which gives you the warranty. Also the 2500+/1700+ are hitting roughly the same speed but the Barton has 2x the cache which does help in encoding and other things I'd say.

-Have you read the terms of the warranty? Also, if it doesn't die within the time you can return it to the store... it's not likely to die unless you screw something up. By the time a year goes by... it will be almost worthless anyway.

 

[bgeh]

i'll get the barton if you overclock
1)No. But i recommend overclocking if you get the barton.
2)Load times will be faster
3)a CD-ROM drive isn't too expensive nowadays. but if you are really starved for cash, a 16x cd-rom will do just fine

 

[LED]

Maybe I'm confused but the ? is :

Which AMD Processor is the best value?

...so those who agree that the 1700XP and 2500 Barton will do the same speed, I'm wondering how it's a tuff chose when the Barton runs over double in price?...just for the extra cache? no thanks, even though I use both

 

[boyz]

how much are you willing to spend ? then compare speed and reliability.

 

[manticore24]

They are not the same speed. The 1700+ runs at 1.47GHz while the 2500+ runs at 1.83GHz.

Edit: Misread the post. But I don't think it's possible to overclock the 1700 as much as it's possible to overclock the Barton.

 

[CTho9305]

1. No. Everyone who says otherwise doesn't understand that PC3200 ram is only beneficial at 400mhz FSB, which you won't be using, and since you don't want to overclock or lower timings, don't waste your money. It also doesn't futureproof you if you wait more than a few months between upgrades.
2. No. Everyone who says otherwise doesn't understand that hard drives only affect the loading times for games, not framerates.
3. I would say probably not - most games let you install everything to the hard drive and only access the CD to verify that you haven't removed it (anti-piracy measures). I use Daemon tools anyway to use virtual CD images for most of my games.


Bang for the buck. <- today
few weeks back <- not today