2500+ or oc'd 2400+?

[demografik]

Ok, I don't really know much about processors. Basically, which would perform better? Would the 2400+ be stable? This is with a GA-7N400 and 512mb XMS2700.

oced 2400+ T-Bred
2.5ghz (333x15) << I believe a 2400+'s multiplier is 15
333fsb
256k cache

2500+ barton
1.83ghz (333x11)
333fsb
512k cache

Thanks for any insight.

 

[Hades16x]

First of all ya got ur math wrong

fsb is 133 on the 2400+ and 166 on the 2500+

both are x2 so you have a 266 on the 2400 and a 333 on the 2500

Enough said if you were to oc both of them... the 2500+ would be faster due to higher fsb

 

[demografik]

Originally posted by Cloud15x
fsb is 133 on the 2400+ and 166 on the 2500+

I'm aware of this. Obviously I would be overclocking the 2400+'s fsb to 333, and leaving the 2500+ at 333, as I stated. It boils down to 2 questions basically:

1. Would the 2400+ be stable at 333?
2. Would the higher clock speed make up for the lower cache?

I'm not totally sure how cache, fsb, and clock speed work in conjunction.

 

[md262626]

I don't want to insult you, but do you know how cache works?

 

[Hades16x]

I dont know how it works

Non the less why would you buy a buy a 2400 and oc and but a 2500 and not o/c

Talk to yourself about this

The bartons are locked but 200mhz fsb is obtainable ez with the new ones. So why not buy a 2500+ push the fsb to 200 and gain your clocks back and gain higher fsb + keep the 2x cache

 

[demografik]

Originally posted by md262626
I don't want to insult you, but do you know how cache works?

Not really =\

 

[Visable-assassin]

I sold my 2400+ @ 2.4ghz for a 2500+ @ 2.3ghz...would I go back? nope...never me loves my barton very much thank you

 

[md262626]

Cache is on-die memory. Your cpu stores instructions on it and it prevents the cpu from having to go out to system memory (your stix of DDR) to retrieve information. Obviosly it's faster to retreive info from onboard vs. going down to the memory controller over to the DDR and then back. Bottom line, larger cache is better for some applications like gaming or other cpu/memory intense applications. The 2500+ Barton has 512K of on-die level 2 cache vs. the 2400+ Athlon's 256K on-die level 2 cache. I'd go with the Barton. It also o/c's pretty well even with the multiplier locked.

 

[demografik]

That's basically what I figured. Common sense, really. However, noone has answered my qnestions yet. Let me go back over them.

1. Will the 2400 be stable at 333?
2. Will the oc'd 2400 outperform the non-oc'd 2500?

 

[Visable-assassin]

Originally posted by demografik
That's basically what I figured. Common sense, really. However, noone has answered my qnestions yet. Let me go back over them.

1. Will the 2400 be stable at 333?
2. Will the oc'd 2400 outperform the non-oc'd 2500?

as long as the chip will take it yes itll run stable..but the chip has to take it, remember OCing is always luck of the draw. My 2400+ ran fine at 186mhz.
now will a OC'd 2400+ beat out a stock speed 2500+ ill say yes due to the mhz difference now if you OC that 2500+ the tables will turn pretty quick

 

[Fully_Sik]

I run my 2400+ tbred @ 400fsb. So 333 shouldnt be a problem with the right setup. I'd buy a 2500+ over 2400+ tho.

 

[Silverado SS]

my 2400+ runs at 185fsb "DDR370" @ 2.22ghz and it does fine. I can't go any higher because I have an earlier version of the A7N8X that won't go over 190fsb without vmods.

 

[bobmanfoo]

2400+ will definitly run stable at 333fsb
yes an oc'ed 2400+ will outperform a 2500+.... but whats the reasoning behind this question?

 

[demografik]

Originally posted by bobmanfoo
2400+ will definitly run stable at 333fsb
yes an oc'ed 2400+ will outperform a 2500+.... but whats the reasoning behind this question?

THANK YOU. Just to increase my knowledge To find out how important cache is compared to clock speed.