Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: more grief points is good right?
RIGHT???
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2004-01-03, 06:37 AM | [Ignore Me] #1 | ||
Looking to make a jump from my old 2200+ to a faster processor. My motherboard does support up to a 3000+(333Mhz FSB), but looking at the prices of the 3000+ and comparing that to the price of the 2700+'s out there, I just don't see the major difference.
The 3000+ is rated at 2.167Ghz while the 2700+'s are rated at 2.17Ghz. Bear in mind that these are the 333Mhz FSB processors. Pricewise, off of pricewatch.com, the 3000+ are going for around $175.00 and the 2700+'s are going for $108.00. So, which is the better buy?
__________________
Commanding Officer To the next idiot who says the PS2 Devs do not listen: See this Thread |
|||
|
2004-01-03, 09:32 AM | [Ignore Me] #2 | ||
I LIVE IN ENGLAND
|
Get a 2500+ (or a 2800+)
The 2700+ is a Thoroughbred-B core, and thus only has 256k of L2 cache, whilst a 2500+ or 2800+ have 512k of L2 cache because they are Barton core processors, which comes in handy. Most of the unlocked barton 2500+'s can easily reach 3000+ speeds anyway
__________________
I bet nobody notices this text. [Hezzy]: "balallaalalla! blow the heathens up with a large nuclear device" [Hezzy]: "BOOM" [Hezzy]: gg |
||
|
2004-01-03, 01:31 PM | [Ignore Me] #3 | ||
I think i would go for the 2800+ barton, or if you want to spen the extra get the 300+ barton. Thoroughbred = Evil!
__________________
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. |
|||
|
2004-01-03, 05:13 PM | [Ignore Me] #5 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Also if you are trying to look for an unlocked 2500 don't bother you wont find one anymore. I got a 3200 and I don't know why, I'm such a tard. It is unlocked though, and my new hsf should be coming soon, I'll have a little fun.
__________________
|
||
|
2004-01-03, 06:23 PM | [Ignore Me] #6 | ||
its easy to unlock a Barton, all you have to do is cross some briges and short some pins ther are tons of tutorials THG even has one
__________________
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. |
|||
|
2004-01-03, 06:29 PM | [Ignore Me] #7 | ||
I LIVE IN ENGLAND
|
yes, but you have to get rid of the coating over the bridges on the bartons, and you can seriously screw it up doing that.
__________________
I bet nobody notices this text. [Hezzy]: "balallaalalla! blow the heathens up with a large nuclear device" [Hezzy]: "BOOM" [Hezzy]: gg |
||
|
2004-01-03, 07:32 PM | [Ignore Me] #13 | ||
personally id get the 2500+ i have it and love it. heres proof of what a midly overclocked 2500+ can do http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7405293 (my comp )
__________________
Thanks to Eine for my awesome sig |
|||
|
2004-01-03, 08:42 PM | [Ignore Me] #14 | ||
Major
|
I am the world's largest AMD fanboi, I even own a significant amount of AMD stock (btw, which just jumped from $3 to almost $18 a share, yay me), I own seven AMD machines in my house, ranging from K6-2s to this machine, which is an XP2200+. But god, the benchmarks are not looking good for AMD!
I know quake is ancient, but look at this: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_xp-12.html P4 3.0Ghz 800Hmz FSB: 402.9 FPS $266 AthlonXP3000+: 316.5 FPS $289 AthlonXP3200+: 336.9 FPS $199 The benchmarks narrow on tests that are not multithreaded, but the AMD never beats the Pentium, and the Pentium is cheaper! AMD always was cheaper! This sucks, my next system might actually be an Intel, I gota buy whatever is the best for the price. |
||
|
2004-01-04, 02:01 PM | [Ignore Me] #15 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
Q3a is the stupidest benchmark on the face of the earth. I don't even look at games that use that engine anymore. Its crap. oh, 300 fps vs 400 fps. Bah, plus that engine has always screamed on Intel chips since day one. It doesn't mean it runs slow on amd's. Just look at modern bench's and not something from the last century.
|
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|