2.6 intel or 2800+ barton?

soccerdude90

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2003
128
0
18,680
0
looking at the cpu for my computer, the 2.6 and the 2800+, what one out-performs the other, and what has better oc'ing abilities? keeping in mind the 2800+ is STILL cheaper than the 2.6 by about 50$ cdn

...Meh, too lazy to think of a better sig.
 

Frozen_Fallout

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2003
433
0
18,780
0
From what I have seen personly, unless you have the mobo already for the 2.6, I would go for the 2800+ to get your bang for your buck. That is if you are big into gaming. If you are a big big Multitasker and have to burn CD's while gaming or something simular that would take up alot of CPU power and/or are a big Multimedia person I would go for the 2.6. But personly for me because of the price diffrence I would go for the 2800+. As for the OCing I am not really sure which one wins but remember every processor is diffrent for OCing. There are times when you could OC a 2600+ more then you could oc a 2800+. And there are times when you can OC a 2.6 more then a 2.8. But just by going off of the breathing room for the CPU's I would probly say the 2.6 will get a better OC then the 2800+ but I don't THINK that after you would OC both CPU's the 2.6 would come out on top of the 2800+ in gaming. And because of the price diffrence I would say that if I had to right now at this moment buy the 2.6 or the 2800+ I would pick the 2800+. But since you don't have to do that right now I would sit back and see what everyone else has to say.

I don't normaly post here, I just watch but since fanboy's are all over the place I thought it would be a good time to join the war.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
 

SJJM

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2003
228
0
18,680
0
If you go with amd then you should get the 2500+, they do really well with overclocking and it will have the same limit as the 2800+(so no need to pay more for the 2800+). If you go with intel, the 2.6 should easily hit 3.2g(with the right memory), which gives you the 1000fsb and memory(if you have dual memory). You should go compare a 3200+ with a 3.2g p4. You can see which is faster. Both overclocks will be faster then those two chips, but it gives you an idea of what you are getting yourself into.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
 

SJJM

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2003
228
0
18,680
0
As for gaming like frozen_fall was talking about, it depends on what games you play for which cpu is better and it depends on what video card you have.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
 

SoDNighthawk

Splendid
Nov 6, 2003
3,542
0
22,780
0
The AMD CPU's are the fastest game CPU's there is no question about that just ask anyone who has been building game computers for the last say 7 years. I am a computer tech and I work in a small computer store in Ottawa Canada and any gamers that come into the store looking to have a game computer built ask for AMD CPU's.
At one point our shop only sold Intel CPU's because you can sit on them with a blow torch and over heat them let them cool down and they still function. AMD CPU's do not have a built in shutdown over temp option but most main mother boards supplied into the market now have that built into them.
The demand for Elite game computers from our customers has forced us to provide the AMD CPU's right over the counter and we carry all the XP ready CPU's. We keep at least 2 of them in house at any time.

I have never heard of a high end gaming computer having any problems running generic software applications. Just the thought of a game computer that can compete at 100FPS in an online multy player game over a high speed internet connection having any problems multy tasking simple software programs is insane.

I run a Barton XP ready 2800 + CPU and my Microsoft Word opens so fast Microsoft has tried to sue me for whiplash!!

My advise to you is get a A7V8X-X Asus Mother board for AMD CPU's and plug in a Barton 2800+ cpu.

It would benchmark way faster then an Intel 2.8 in fact it would make it look silly and kinda made for kids like Barney the Dinosaur.
 

TTZX

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2003
214
0
18,680
0
I run a Barton XP ready 2800 + CPU and my Microsoft Word opens so fast Microsoft has tried to sue me for whiplash!!
WOW, opening Microsoft Word is surely the end all benchamrk for a processor. You should see how fast my 2.4C opens Windwos MediaPlayer 9, if you blink you'll miss it. :eek:

My advise to you is get a A7V8X-X Asus Mother board for AMD CPU's and plug in a Barton 2800+ cpu.

It would benchmark way faster then an Intel 2.8 in fact it would make it look silly and kinda made for kids like Barney the Dinosaur.
This statement alone takes away your credibility. I don't know what fantasy benchmarks you are talking about, but I suggest you take a look at the following link, it will fresh your memory as to which CPU makes which look like a toy.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html</A>

A P4 2.8C easily tears apart a 2800+ both in GAMING and other areas. Even the P4 2.4C beats the 2800+ in GAMING.
The P4 2.6C is $175 while the 2800+ is $136 at newegg.com , $39 difference is more than justified considering the amount of overall performance increase you get. The 2.6 is more comparable to the 3000+/3200+ CPUs.

The AMD CPU's are the fastest game CPU's there is no question about that...
False, look at the above article and other benchmarks on the net.

As far as overclocking goes, the 2.6C will overclock much better. With some good RAM you'll be able to get 3.2GHz easily on the stock heatsink and fan. You can go farther using aftermarket cooling solutions. My 2.4C is running at 3GHz @ 1.55Vcore with the stock heatsink and fan with almost no increase in operating temperature compared to stock.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Much depends on what games you play. The barton chips are pretty good at non FPS games, like RPG, RTS and flight or race simulators. On aces' bench, the 3000+ is very competitive with the 3.0C and 3.06 on those apps (not too say faster). If first person shooters are you thing, I agree the P4C is probably your best bet.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

CaptainNemo

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2002
245
0
18,680
0
I'd go with the 2.6C on this one...

Look for price drops too - where I live (UK) I have seen OEM P4 2.8C and XP3000 Bartons being sold for the same price.

I have an XP2100 and am very happy with it, but as you increase your CPU budget Intel chips make more sense (ignoring A64 & derivatives etc.)

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
 

SoDNighthawk

Splendid
Nov 6, 2003
3,542
0
22,780
0
TTZX Wrote back to my email this.....

I run a Barton XP ready 2800 + CPU and my Microsoft Word opens so fast Microsoft has tried to sue me for whiplash!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOW, opening Microsoft Word is surely the end all benchmark for a processor. You should see how fast my 2.4C opens Windows MediaPlayer 9, if you blink you'll miss it.



In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My advise to you is get a A7V8X-X Asus Mother board for AMD CPU's and plug in a Barton 2800+ cpu.

It would benchmark way faster then an Intel 2.8 in fact it would make it look silly and kinda made for kids like Barney the Dinosaur.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement alone takes away your credibility. I don't know what fantasy benchmarks you are talking about, but I suggest you take a look at the following link, it will fresh your memory as to which CPU makes which look like a toy.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030521/index.html

A P4 2.8C easily tears apart a 2800+ both in GAMING and other areas. Even the P4 2.4C beats the 2800+ in GAMING.
The P4 2.6C is $175 while the 2800+ is $136 at newegg.com , $39 difference is more than justified considering the amount of overall performance increase you get. The 2.6 is more comparable to the 3000+/3200+ CPUs.


My replies to TTZX are below!!

The fact is I was not talking about over clocking as TAX is describing. I was talking about off the shelf CPU's and providing and honest answer to the originator of the post.

The Barton AMD 2800 + is superior to the Intel 2.8 OUT of the BOX in so many ways. Over clocking an Intel chip is the only way to make it function faster then the AMD Barton 2800 +

I have worked for so long as a computer tech that seeing a computer system able to open up Microsoft Word in less then 30 seconds is a benchmark!!
If this guy wants to start comparing Mad Onion Benchmarks then he's on. I suspect that with my properly configured Barton 2800 + running in my current set-up that I would still score higher then his over clocked 2.8 Intel chip.
I would not push him to run any Mad Onion Benchmarks to prove that because as we all know his CPU is now very unstable and will not last to Christmas but we could all CHIP in and by him a real CPU perhaps he could purchase a real Motherboard that would support a AMD processor.

The amount of problems in the shop we have with the Intel chips not running software applications is past the limits of our patience. Give a AMD chip a job and it does it does not have questions it simply performs.

Quick example of this was a College teacher that in his trades class would run diagnostic tools for automotive equipment then he would in real time upload the information to his computer.
His computer would stall on him and he could not run slide shows depicting oscilloscope pictures.
We installed more physical RAM we cleaned his computer up and tweaked it the whole deal nothing we could do get that Intel CPU to perform.

We placed his hard drive in a new AMD board and CPU removed all the drivers for the old system board and CPU and his operating system pushed all his hardware software perfectly.

After showing Ken how his system ran all his applications he advised us to build him a new AMD system with a new 80 Gig hard drive and copy all the relative information from his old drive into his new computer.

His old Intel system is now in his basement as a home internet surf machine for his wife and kids. I suppose an Intel chip can handle MSN Messenger service.

What TTZX fails to realize is he thinks he is bad ass having to over clock his Intel CPU so it can compete with AMD CPU's that run faster out of the box. It is also very apparent that TTZX is not a gamer if he would like to try to game online he should first purchase some AMD/ASUS equipment so he does not get his Anal self handed to him online.

As to further my question about the system resources getting tapped when online in game you can bet your last pay check that there is more going on then just 10 guys throwing bullets at each other.

Run software that enables you to see IP's running through your system I guarantee you will see IP number running pass through packets through your system that have nothing to do with the game server IP or your home network IP addresses. Oh try to ban those IP number that show up as pass through packets it wont do you any good you cannot block them.
 

shadus

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2003
2,067
0
19,790
1
If you are building a new machine and replacing mobo ram etc... then go with the 2.6c it's faster and a better build right now I'd say. However, if you already have a amd mobo and ram that works get an amd and save yerself the mobo cost.

Shadus
 

shadus

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2003
2,067
0
19,790
1
> The AMD CPU's are the fastest game CPU's there is no
> question about that just ask anyone who has been
> building game computers for the last say 7 years.

Bullsh!t. Flatout craptacular bullsh!t. AMD and Intel have traded back and forth the performance crown several times in gameing. The C varient of the P4 chips is a better performer even in games than the amd (except for the 64). Yarg, I hate when people fuggin get stupid. Know what the hell you are talking about before spouting off.

Shadus
 

shadus

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2003
2,067
0
19,790
1
I hate to agree with fanboys but in this case he's right. Equiv C varient intel chips tend to shread the amd chips... now vs the amd64 chips the story is a bit different... but no one is talking anything but the older bartons here.

Shadus
 

CaptainNemo

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2002
245
0
18,680
0
Heh - you can agree with me instead; I'm not a fanboy.

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
 

shadus

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2003
2,067
0
19,790
1
With the intel B varient chips you are entirely correct. Include the C varient chips in the equation and you are very very wrong. When compared mhz->pr+ rating the higher end p4 c chips make the pr+ rating look absurd. Look at benchies anywhere for actual games (excluding of course sites that have amd in the site name.)

Just off toms (since we're here-- its pretty much matched at every major site also.)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-08.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-09.html

I mean come on man, the 2800+ doesn't even match a 2.4c here MOST of the time. Don't be a blind fanboy idiot. What performs best performs best it doesn't matter what brand it is. AMD just got way to ambitious about the pr ratings. 2800+ should have been a 2400+, 3000+ should have been a 2600+, and 3200+ should have been 2800+. Then they should have released the amd64 as 3000+ and 3200+ (which would have flat out dominated the comparative chips instead of beating them the majority of the time).

Shadus
 

SoDNighthawk

Splendid
Nov 6, 2003
3,542
0
22,780
0
Son I don't know where you get your facts from on CPU power and performance unless you read to many online benchmarks.

I could care less what AMD says about their speeds or what Intel claims they can produce for benchmarks.

The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel Crap there is ever was or will be.

A thing to note son is that the hyper threading technologies in the new Intel chips sucks ass simple and the new Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra GPU sucks ass as well.

As you seem to know very little about real world use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve until you have enough experience in computers.

It is people like you that read and believe whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff edge that keep the brand names going full strength when in fact they are selling you the same crap they sold you last month with a different label on it.

Wake up little sheep time to realize that in the real world there are things that work and things that don't and AMD does more then they ever claimed and Intel does much less then they do claim.
And that is the utter bullshit as you put it so mildly.
 

pIII_Man

Splendid
Mar 19, 2003
3,815
0
22,780
0
i dont normally step into these debates, but all benchmarks that i have seen show the axp 2800+ having less performance than even the 2.4c. That being said for a budget system amd still has the bang for the buck crown, and when overclocked the barton 2500+ becomes an even better value. That being said the 2.4c can easily to 3.2ghz and would cream any tbred or barton based amd cpu.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
 

SoDNighthawk

Splendid
Nov 6, 2003
3,542
0
22,780
0
pIII man at least tries to use a few facts unfortunately as he is well aware he mentioned a 2400+ and not a 2800+ AMD CPU in either case he points out that his Intel Chip would cream any Barton Processor unfortunately he has to again....Overclock the poor Intel CPU to achieve this.
For real world performance and cost the AMD CPU's out perform the Intel CPU's.
It was true a few years ago that Intel was the industry leader in CPU technology and most software was developed to work with Intel CPU's however that is not true anymore AMD has made leaps in CPU construction and Intel although they have moved ahead as well have found that they are boxed into a design that is dying off they can no longer produce chips that perform higher then the WALL they have met.
AMD architecture is so far limitless in how they can expand their technology.
 

Vapor

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
2,206
0
19,780
0
<b>WTF!!</b>

The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel Crap there is ever was or will be.
PROVE IT

Also, if you say that, does that mean that the P4EE is out performed by say the 1GHz Athlon? I don't think so (I had a 1GHz Athlon system and my current 2.66 P4B system beats the [-peep-] out of it and then pisses on it).

As you seem to know very little about real world use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve until you have enough experience in computers.
Ehhhh....I'm pretty sure that Shadus knows his [-peep-] and has used a variety of products. I have personally used pretty much every available processor that is on the market at one time (including G5, Power4+, Opteron, but no the FX) and I can tell you that my P4B 2.66 beat out any sub-3000+ XP in what most people consider 'real-world performance.' Additionally, the 'real-world performance' that you talk about means different things for different people--I prefer multimedia and gaming performance while others prefer server applications or just basic Mozilla, Trillian, Word, Powerpoint efficiency.

It is people like you that read and believe whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff edge that keep the brand names going full strength when in fact they are selling you the same crap they sold you last month with a different label on it.
I know that my 2.66 P4b isn't a relabeled 2.0A, in fact, it isn't even a relabeled 2.53B. If anything, it's the other way around, a relabeled and lower-clocked 2.8B, which came out later and more expensive than mine.

Wake up little sheep time to realize that in the real world there are things that work and things that don't and AMD does more then they ever claimed and Intel does much less then they do claim.
I've never noticed that before. Weird, maybe I should go to more AMD-biased websites so I can get my fill.

Damn Rambus.
 

Vapor

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
2,206
0
19,780
0
If I had to guess, you're the same person as G5_inside...but that's for a different conversation.

I do have to agree with you that Intel hit a wall with the P4C, as AMD did with their XP. However, Intel is going to the 90nm process, which takes time, but should be well worth the wait. Prescott may not have been released on time, but neither was A64. Additionally, Tejas is expected to be released shortly after Scotty. Tejas is what Intel seems to be putting their money and time into, as well, leading us to believe that in fact AMD will hold a slight lead (maybe a thousandth of the lead you falsely preach, however) until Tejas is introduced. At this time we do not have sufficient knowledge of what either company is doing, so guessing that Tejas will kill or be killed is still down the road.

I must disagree with you largely due to the fact that you have very little fact in your posts about anything, much like Popey and G5er. Show me facts and I might agree with you.

Damn Rambus.
 

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
2
I don't know why you guys bother. He's obviously a complete idiot, or someone just trying to troll for the fun of it.

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY