Barton 2500 or Thoroughbred 2600?

[dksarras]

Hello there,
I have spent the last 2 days reading non stop about everything I could find (and handle) in regards with Thoroughbreds and Barton.

I managed to give me a headache and I am still debating between a Barton 2500 (512 cache at 1.83GHz with 333FSB) and a Thoroughbred 2600 (256k cache at 2.083 GHz with 333FSB). The price difference (the moment I write this) is $10 with the Thoroughbred being the more expensive.

Why would one choose the Barton solution if he is NOT going to overclock? I understand the benefits of the extra cache as long as we follow the spatial and temporal locality principals but for an Athlon it is not such a big difference (as is for a P4 from 256k to 512k lets say). And also sacrificing 250MHz to double the cache alienates me…

Anyway, is there anything you can point out to help me in regards with my dilemma?


Thanks,
Donatos

[Bob The Great]

The extra cache will help speed up most applications, and will also run cooler because it is not at as high a clock frequency. Another benifit is its ability to overclock so high means if he is not overclocking it will be extremly stable! I'd suggest the 2500+ though really they both will preform about the same.

[MitaDC]

Go with the Barton. U can overclock it like a mofo. also .2ghz isn't much difference.:0)

[Telexen]

He's not going to notice a difference...they're different cores so the clock speed doesn't mean anything. The 2500+ is still a great processor...it's cheaper - I'd go for it.

[Bob The Great]

I aggree with Telexen. Your not going to notice the diff in speed less he's an avid gamer that benchmarks the stuffings out of his pc.

[dksarras]

Thank you for your help :-)

[Xtreeme]

2500+ all the way.