Yep, you are comparing two different models. The Barton's extra L2 cache normally compensates for it's slower clock speed.
For example, a Barton 2800+ usually performs 3-5% faster than a Thoroughbred 2800+
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I have an Athlon XP 2700+ Thoroughbred CPU and I love it, it performs well for me and it really depends on if what you are doing utilizes the cache a lot or not.
The 2700+ is 2.167GHz (Thoroughbred)
The 2800+ is 2.086GHz (Barton)
Not sure what the 2800+ can do overclock wise, but I know I have my 2700+ running at 2.41GHz without a hitch. (yes, it's unlocked from the factory)
If you need any other information regarding the Athlon XP's with respect to specifications, you can referecen the FAQ I wrote on the processor line.
When you start comparing with the new Sempron line, the numbering system becomes even more out-of-whack. For a socket A Sempron, you need to drop 300 PR points off the rating to get the equivalent Athlon XP model. So, XP 2000+ ~ Sempron 2300+.
The XP2.6+ has been a classic example of the differances that buyers have experienced with just one CPU.
Off the top of my head (so don't quote me on these figures)there has been 4 differant CPU's at XP2.6+
The original 266fsb Thoroughbred @ 2.108 256L2
then the 333fsb Thoroughbred @ 2.083 256L2
followed by the Barton 333fsb at 1.920 but 512L2
and the cutdown Barton(Thornton) 1.920 halved again @ 256L2
and back it seems to the Thorougbred 333 @ 2.083
But I reckon in years to come the Barton will become something of iconic symbol amongst CPU's
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.