Barton v Normal

Is the Barton Core Chips any faster then the normal AMD CPU's ?

What I've read is the only difference is that the Barton has only an extra
256k L2 Cache and that seems to be it ?...

Any views ...

http://www.active-hardware.com/engli...n-xp3000-6.htm

Have a look


"tech_user" wrote in message
...
Is the Barton Core Chips any faster then the normal AMD CPU's ?

What I've read is the only difference is that the Barton has only an extra
256k L2 Cache and that seems to be it ?...

Any views ...

tech_user wrote:
Is the Barton Core Chips any faster then the normal AMD CPU's ?

What I've read is the only difference is that the Barton has only an
extra 256k L2 Cache and that seems to be it ?...

No, they aren't any faster than a similar T-Bred or Thorton core. The extra
256KB of L2 cache helps in some instances and not others. Newegg has the
retail 3200+ Barton for $215US and the retail 2500+ Barton for $80 and
others inbetween.

tech_user wrote:
Is the Barton Core Chips any faster then the normal AMD CPU's ?

Depends what you mean. On balance, a 2600 Tbred will perform the same as a
2600 Barton, but the Barton will have greater memory bandwidth, and the
Tbred greater number crunching.

What I've read is the only difference is that the Barton has only an extra
256k L2 Cache and that seems to be it ?...


Yes.

I prefer to Barton.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

"tech_user" wrote in message
...

http://www.active-hardware.com/engli...n-xp3000-6.htm

Have a look



"In short, the more difficult times for AMD processors are up front because
with their new architecture and Hyper-Threading technology, Intel has more
new processors to be expected than AMD has. Intel processors operating
frequency can continue to increase while AMD have already reached the limit
of their processors. Thus, unless AMD does an in-depth refinement of their
processors architectlure, chances are that AMD will never reach the 3Ghz
barrier while Intel are already there."

Heh..
Guess he didnt realise that Intel was going to max at about 3.4ghz a nd that
the new core would have trouble even at that speed

rstlne wrote:
"tech_user" wrote in message
...


http://www.active-hardware.com/engli...n-xp3000-6.htm

Have a look



"In short, the more difficult times for AMD processors are up front
because with their new architecture and Hyper-Threading technology, Intel
has more new processors to be expected than AMD has. Intel processors
operating frequency can continue to increase while AMD have already
reached the limit of their processors. Thus, unless AMD does an in-depth
refinement of their processors architectlure, chances are that AMD will
never reach the 3Ghz barrier while Intel are already there."

Heh..
Guess he didnt realise that Intel was going to max at about 3.4ghz a nd
that the new core would have trouble even at that speed

Yeah, I take it he hasn't got a clue what SOI is, and that's what they're
doing now, whets next? Oh yeah, FDSOI and nickel-silicide. Intel gonna
have two fights on their hand, last I heard they ruled out SOI and were
gonna stick with strained silicon, I suspect they might re-think that. So
unless they pulll something out of the bag, they're gonna have a processor
that not only less efficient for a given clock, but that cannot obtain the
sort of clocks AMD are getting.

That's probably a slightly biased argument as I tend not to keep up with
what Intel are doing as much as I do AMD.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

yes thats the difference, bartons have lower clock speeds at their PR
ratings but tend to overclock well. the cache does't benefit the xp like the
P4 do mostly to the large L1 caches on the XP comared to the tiny ones on
the P4.