Q: This is something banks can not tell Quake 3 ya.
I mostly using my computer for surfing, burning CDs and playing music . Very light usage real. But I like a spicy system.
So my question is: Is the extra cache make a difference under such circumstances? Sometimes I multitask quite heavy, but usually not. Just curious about the feeling of Barton. Can anyone tell me whether I should take the t-bred or Barton get one?
Re:Originally posted by: guy
well.. i had a Xp2000+ feel a lot faster than my previous Xp1600… that was until i found out i had it running @ 1.25 Ghz.. then, damn, it felt slow
AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
ROFLMAO!
:moon:
Re:well.. i had a Xp2000+ feel a lot faster than my previous Xp1600… that was until i found out i had it running @ 1.25 Ghz.. then, damn, it felt slow
Re:considering that AMDZone just stated that the lowest-priced 2500+ Barton is now $98/$93 (retail/OEM) and that they seem to be consistently overclocking to 2300mhz or so, you cant go wrong with one.
Too bad everyone bought them all up on the sub-$100 deal… I would have hit that up…
Re:The more multitasking you do, the less benefit the cache will give.
The cache, of course, is there so the cpu doesnt have to wait for memory to give it what it needs. So cache is good for scientific computing, like someone said, because the code can probably mostly fit in cache. If on the other hand you are running a bunch of different apps that are doing stuff, chances are the code/data will not fit in cache.
Re:Thanx peeps.. This is exactly the sorta input I need!!
Re:I think the Barton feels a tad faster, but that's only in cache intensive stuff.. not necessarily in things like games.. mind you the extra FSB does help, but it's not the worlds largest difference.. i think the things ppl are posting like faster opening programs is due to mainly the cache, and not as much, the FSB.. but either way I like the feel of the Bartons better. (not tons, but enough)
Re:I notice a difference when doing stuff like e-mail, word processings, MP3 encoding.
For example, reading/writing e-mail, windows seem to open faster, switching between e-mails to respond to multiple subjects in the same e-mail feels snappier… like, click and it's instantly on the screen. Copying and pasting large sections of text seems faster.
Also, I recently ripped all my CD's and converted to MP3 so I wouldn't have to go get my CD case to listen to any music I want, and while it was ripping at 20X, it didn't effect what else I was doing, (ie. web browsing, e-mail, looking for free porn 
)
*EDIT* I don't know why people question whether the extra cache increases performance… more cache can't hurt… so even if it doesn't make a huge difference in everything, I'd rather have more than enough, than not enough.
Re:The extra cache makes a siginificant difference, particularly number crunching stuff. My Seti@home runs much faster than on the prior 2200+ Tbred clocked to about the same 2000Mhz as my 2500+ Barton is (tbred at 266fsb, barton at 333fsb).
Re:Originally posted by: guy
This is something quake 3 benches can't tell ya.
I mainly use my puter for surfing, burning cd's and playing music.. Very light usage really. But I love to have a snappy system.
So my question is: does the extra cache make a difference under such conditions? Sometimes I do multitask pretty heavily but mostly not. Just wondering about the feel of the barton. Can anyone tell me if I should stick with the t-bred or get a barton?
You'll never feel the difference. Anyone who says otherwise is deranged 
PCMark CPU scores…
2500@1.8 (166×11), HyperX pc3000, 8RDA+
CPU: 5672
2400@2.0 (166×12), Corsair pc2700, Abit AT7
CPU: 5773
…and so on. The Barton@2800 speeds was comparable to my TBred@2600 speeds. Not sure where that extra cache goes :confused: The Barton did show promising signs for overclocking.
Re:I've read many with the Barton say it feels snappier but my 2100+@2.424ghz is a whipcrack! so I don't see how they improved on it :confused:;)
0 Comments.