AMD Question
- Thread starter TheChef
- Start date
TheChef said:Whats the slowest Athlon XP processor that is worth buying becasue it wont be obsolete in a week.
1700+ with the right stepping are fun to play with...but there "obsolete". i'd go with the mobile 2400+. cheap and overclocks like mad too. for a few $ more u can get a 2600+
Grimulus said:
$160 for a 2.2ghz cpu? i;d go with the 2600+mobile (its also barton) http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-436&depa=1 only $95 and it'll go 2.5+ on air. it seems liek a better deal to me.
Praetor said:Its only a barton if its running a 333/400 BUS which it isnt. Its running a 266. So you can call it a TBred Mobile with extra cache
Why do they advertise the 2600+ as a Barton then? I think they just hack the FSB down when shipped, as they will run 200+ easily.
What newegg says: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-436&depa=1
Whether they run 200 or not is kinda ireelevant, a "Barton" is a pseudo-defined as being a chip that has a 0.13 process, 512K L2 and a 333/400 BUS ... the Mobiles have most of that down pat and they probably are the 333/400 and just downclocked but dont forget that not everyone cares/wants to overclock ... and for those people, the mobile chips are a bad route to go
The reason *I* suggested it be called TBredMobile+Extra Cache is because , for AMD chips, the cache isnt that big of a deal (as it is for intel for instance) .. the FSB helps more (for test purposes you can compare a desktop Barton @ 266/333/400 against a TBredB @ 266/333/400)
As for the link ... whats that sipposed to show me? (i.e., it loads crap all nothing)
Praetor said:but dont forget that not everyone cares/wants to overclock ... and for those people, the mobile chips are a bad route to go
As for the link ... whats that sipposed to show me? (i.e., it loads crap all nothing)
is running 200*10 considered overclocking since its still 2000MHz (stock speed)? whenever i build a PC for someone who does not want to overclock or have to deal with it i usually just go with 200*10 (if its a 2400+ or 2GHz stock). It requires no extra voltage or anything and gives a small performance boost over 166*12 or w/e stock is.
The link was just sposed to be to a retail 2600+ showing how they advertise tham as bartons. guess i put wrong one in there. don;t matter anywyas
1. WHAT are you running at 200x10.0?
2. To answer your question -- is 200 the stock FSB? If yes then you are not overclocking. If the core was not 200 then you are over/under-clocking (even if the net speed is the same) ... why? Because upping that core speed not just affects the CPU but other thingies
Praetor said:1. WHAT are you running at 200x10.0?
2. To answer your question -- is 200 the stock FSB? If yes then you are not overclocking. If the core was not 200 then you are over/under-clocking (even if the net speed is the same) ... why? Because upping that core speed not just affects the CPU but other thingies
I was referring to the 2400+ sry. It is stock 166FSB i believe.
What other things does it change besides FSB? It doesn't effect PCI/AGP bus, or memory bus (a divider will keep memory at stock even with ramped up FSB). Is there anything else the FSB effectS?