Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Upgrades Hardware

AMD 2500+ Socket A CPUs Compared 227

Posted by timothy from the other-semiconductor-company dept.
SuperPuppy writes "Hardcoreware.net has rounded up three 2500+ Socket A processors from AMD. An AthlonXP, based on the Barton core (this particular one predates the locked multipliers we've been seeing lately), a Mobile Athlon, based on the Barton SOI, and the new Sempron, which is based on the Tbred core. Each processor differs in clock frequency and cache size, but most importantly, the Mobile Athlon takes up a LOT less juice than either of the other two, and is therefore a remarkable performer in terms of overclocking. The Sempron was quite disappointing on all fronts but price."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD 2500+ Socket A CPUs Compared More

AMD 2500+ Socket A CPUs Compared

Comments Filter:

  • CPU Market (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sofakingon ( 610999 ) * on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:23AM (#10381835)
    In general, The need for new CPU's has stagnated in the last year or so. What can't you do with a 2.4Ghz HT Intel CPU? The "bleeding edge" isn't as far ahead as it used to be. What do you guys think will be the next revolution in the CPU (or GPU, for that matter) market?

    • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oxygene2k2 ( 615758 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:31AM (#10381862)
      multicore - a bunch of real cpu cores (not that HT hack) on a single chip. of course, you need a scalable SMP/NUMA capable OS for that (scalable in terms of, say 8 cores/chip*4 chips = 32cpus)

    • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Informative)

      by noselasd ( 594905 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:36AM (#10381875)
      The next revolution might be when we get ram and bus speed up to the current CPU speeds. I can only imagine how blazingly fast a computer
      with enough ram bandwidth and the CPU could fetch data from the RAM in
      the speed of the CPU...
      --
      Just my $.02 , may I have them back please.

      • Re:CPU Market (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:50AM (#10381909) Homepage Journal
        Word processing or web browsing would ROCK at those speeds.

        I know I'm being pedantic, but there is no reason in faster bigger better when current tech is so underused.

        Its like buying a car that does 200mph, but then only doing the school run in it.

        For those of us that *use* our computers to the fullest, your right it will be a godsend.
        Direct access to memory without a deep cache, or needing a super pipeline would definately be nice.

        The cache on my old 62020 was 256 BYTES, perfect for fitting a tight loop in and short enough to not cause problems. The current range of cpus have more cache than I used to have main memory!

        Speaking of which, could you fit and run an entire OS from cache? is it even possible?

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:3, Informative)

          by mmkkbb ( 816035 )
          Probably unsafe with current cache models. A set-associative or direct-mapped cache would probably get written over with new memory accesses. A fully associative cache might work if you can mark particular cache lines as off-limits, but associative caches are also slow.

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Funny)

          by TilJ ( 7607 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:27AM (#10383166) Homepage
          Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from the monastary:

          CP/M-86 *screams* on a PII/400.
          -- Dave Brown, a.s.r.
          I would think so. The whole floppy image will fit in the L-II cache.
          -- Mark Atwood, in reply

        • Considering that you can get an Itanium with 9Mb of cache, [theregister.co.uk] I'd say getting an OS in there shouldn't be too difficult. Hell, you could probably get a NetBSD kernel in there a bash session and do a few shell scripts w/o any RAM.

      • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Informative)

        by renoX ( 11677 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:10AM (#10381957)
        Unless you slow down a lot the CPU, this is unlikely to happen: in the same technology, propagation delays implies that the CPU will always run much faster than the RAM.

        Using cache and several links from CPU to RAM to add bandwith, helps but the delay is still there and will be felt in case of cache miss due to branch mispredict for example.

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:4, Interesting)

          by noselasd ( 594905 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:16AM (#10382190)
          And that was one of my points. CPUs have caches and advanced pipelining/branch prediction/TLBs etc. Why ? Cause ram access is
          amazingly slow relativly speaking. Make it faster and you don't need
          all these things. (Well, ram is located further away, and there will be delays for other reasons, still, things would be much,much better..)
          • The cache and TLBs are there because of slow RAM, but the pipelining and branch prediction isn't really. Now if you removed pipelining you would remove the need for branch prediction, but you would have to have 1 cycle memory for that to be faster. Even L2 cache isn't 1 cycle (hell, L1 cache isn't always 1 cycle). If you removed these things from a CPU though, it would run FASTER not slower (GHz wise at least) and so the RAM would need to run even that much faster to keep up.
          • And how do you think RAM access time can be improved?
            Where is the time lost that could be regained?

            "Make it faster" is just wishful thinking, apparently it is not so easy: RAM with low latency cost much more than other regular RAM..

            The only "easy" way to improve significantly RAM access I can think of would be to bundle CPU and RAM in the same package, but this limits upgrade of course..
            • is easy when you have multiple CPUs. Just add more. Instead of adding RAM chips to a bank of SIMMs, add a CPU/RAM module to a bank of processors. Each CPU has a gigantic L1 cache and no external memory (other than the other CPU modules). The reduction in complexity should let the CPUs run much cooler - which is fortunate with so many of them.

              Ideally, the hardware and OS should handle mixing different speeds and RAM sizes for the modules, so you could upgrade by adding some of the latest without throwi

      • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Khali ( 526578 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:06AM (#10382134) Homepage

        Silence.

        I'm quite fed up with these noisy computers. I have 4 of them at home, and except for the laptop, they all generate much noise, because they heat so much that every little piece, CPU first, needs a fan. I hardly can hear me think anymore. One of these systems acts as a server that I keep up at night. I did my best to make it go silent but I can still hear it behind the door.

        In some way it means the same as another post right before mine: low power dissipation. This value has dramatically increased [erols.com] in the past few years, in the name of the top speed race, but at the price of our tranquility.

        It also joins the view of anther poster that most users don't need the extra power offered by the latest CPUs. I certainly don't, so I'd rather use a quiet 1GHz machine than a noisy 3GHz one.

        This is why I'm quite sad to see that you cannot easily buy Transmeta-based systems. This is exactly the kind of CPU I would enjoy, if only my online computer parts store had that available. What I am really looking for is a completely fanless system.

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Informative)

          by twbecker ( 315312 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:40AM (#10382314)
          You should look into an Athlon 64. They support Cool & Quiet technology, which basically just underclocks the CPU when it's idle. My 3000+ (2Ghz clockspeed) runs at 1Ghz most of the time. And the fans spindown accordingly. When you start up an application, the chip adjusts so quickly that you can't tell any difference in performance. Anyway, something to think about.

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TellarHK ( 159748 )
          Sounds to me like the big things people are looking for here are all iMac features. The noise level is really, really low, and the CPU may not be at bus speed, but it's running at half of the bus which certainly can't hurt.

          The only thing you don't get with an iMac is Windows, so is this a good thing or bad?

          Disclaimer: I have one of everything on my desk(s).
          • Sounds to me like the big things people are looking for here are all iMac features.

            The iMac is quiet, but it's a "turnkey" system without any serious expandability. I have three network cards, a Hauppage vid cap card, and three monitors. The iMac is not suitable for these things. The LCD iMac is further unsuitable for anyone who requires accurate color representation.

            • The iMac is quiet, but it's a "turnkey" system without any serious expandability. I have three network cards, a Hauppage vid cap card, and three monitors. The iMac is not suitable for these things.

              That's why we retired our old laptop as a low power server (it's great, quiet, and only turns on with local activity), added a NAS, and now use our work laptops and plan on a shiney new iMac LCD for the living room. iTunes, pictures, wifi, etc are all served by low power devices (incl. the laptop server).

              But to e

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:2, Informative)

          by hb253 ( 764272 )
          Computer noise also happens to be one of my pet peeves. So I built myself a PC using quiet parts.

          I bought the CPU cooler and power supply from http://www.endpcnoise.com and I forget where I got the hard disk with fluid bearing drive.

          It's very very quiet. So much so that I can leave the PC running (it's in my bedroom) and not be kept awake by fan and hard disk noise. I couldn't so that with my old PC.

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:4, Informative)

          by kidlinux ( 2550 ) <<duke> <at> <spacebox.net>> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:22AM (#10383122) Homepage
          I agree with what you say 100%.

          If you're looking for a silent system, try the VIA micro-itx formfactor [via.com.tw] with 1ghz cpu. Not only can you build a very quiet system, but you can build a really small one too. 17cmx17cm full-featured motherboard.

          I think the current trends are moving towards small and silent. Personally I'm tired of seeing big box computers. Shoebox (even a bit smaller) size is where it's at.

          • If you're looking for a silent system, try the VIA micro-itx formfactor with 1ghz cpu. Not only can you build a very quiet system, but you can build a really small one too. 17cmx17cm full-featured motherboard.

            I have an Epia-V for my arcade cabinet. It's 1ghz, it's nearly quiet (the 1ghz has a tiny fan that's similar to the fans found on those radeon 8500 cards), and the motherboard+cpu cost just $80.

            But the best part is that since it draws so little power you can use a fanless PSU. These things are sm
        • The amount of noise a computer makes is not as directly related to the gHz meter you use. I recently went from 1gHz to 3.2 and my system got quieter along the way. The default fan that came with the CPU was broken or something. It made terrible noise. So I buckled up and payed for a better one. Zalman Copper something or other. Extremely quiet and seems like it maybe cools better.

        • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Informative)

          by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:16AM (#10383639) Homepage
          You can get a quiet or even silent PC using off the shelf parts, if you look for them.

          CPUs like the Pentium III can be underclocked and underpowered to the point that they work just fine without a fan. The VIA C3 is a Socket 370 / P-III compatable processor designed for low power and fanless operation. Check out the mini-itx [mini-itx.com] motherboards for examples of these in operation.

          Most video cards don't need a fan at all, although passively cooled cards can still heat up the interior of your case. It's doubtful that you really need the absolute latest and most powerfull leaf-blower video card on your home server.

          Hard drives and power supplies are the other big sources of noise. Hard drives noise is noticable because it comes and goes, while power supplies need to push all the heat that those passively cooled components have been producing out of the case. A well made drive seated on noise absorbing padding, rather than bolted directly onto a steel frame, can be reduced to a low, cricket-like chirping noise while large, slower case fans can take a lot of the load off of the PSU without raising noise levels significantly. Take a look around Silent PC Review [silentpcreview.com] for more on this topic, or just look for a retailer in your area [bigfootcomputers.com] who carries quiet PC parts [canadacomputers.com].

          I have been slowly replacing all the computers around my home with silent parts over the last few years, and the difference is stunning. Just last week I needed to replace a power supply and used a spare that I had sitting on a shelf -- It sounded like a jet engine compared to everything around it. If that's the kind of noise that's coming out of your server, then I understand your frustration. You don't need to turn to rare, high tech prototypes from military labs to quiet down your PC -- All you need now is to shop around a bit.

        • You should take a look at the Mini-ITX or Micro-ITX based systems from VIA. Although not as sexy from technological perspective (i.e. Linus didn't work for them), they are generally faster than Transmeta CPUs, and very, very low-power.
        • You could buy an iMac G5... as far as I know, they're either really close to silent, or silent... if you don't mind a slow-ass machine, you can go back and get one of those CRT iMacs which have no fans at all. Or a G4 Cube, also with no fans at all. Stay away from the G5 tower, though, those are pretty noisy... they try, and they're quieter than most computers at that speed, but they're still pretty noisy.

          Also, most laptops can run without a fan for hours on end. Get a good laptop, plug it into your mon
        • My main desktop is a G5. It's quiet out of the box.

          My new PC is an athlon64 3000+ with a zalman cpu cooler, in an antec sonata case, with seagate barracuda 7200.7 sata hard drives, and antec thermally controlled case fans.

          It wasn't an expensive setup (a little over a grand), and it's both fast and quiet. I couldn't reasonably ask for more.
      • How about first we get the cache to access as fast as the CPU?

    • Re:CPU Market (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In the last year you say? I'm still using a 550MHz pIII box I bought in 2000. I recently pondered upgrading it but don't need the extra speed as I don't play games (I have a PS2 and use FreeBSD).

      Darling Smorgrav [www.des.no]

    • Re:CPU Market (Score:5, Interesting)

      by twbecker ( 315312 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:37AM (#10382303)
      What can't you do with a 2.4Ghz HT Intel CPU?

      Why does it have to be an Intel chip? I like to think I'm pretty unbiased when it comes to CPUs, but the fact of the matter is that the A64 architecture is clearly superior to that space heater Intel calls Prescott. Intel still holds a slim advantage in some encoding tests, but that's about it. I'm not trying to troll, I'm just curious why you chose to mention a 2.4Ghz HT Intel chip when TFA is about AMD. . .
    • I found the tidbit contained in the recent paper launch of the Freescale multicore G4 chip very interesting: that each core can and will be able to run it's own operating system.

      Can you say "Death to Virtual PC" and "OS X and Windows on the same computer", boys and girls?

      How about : "Apple will jump on this like a big dog?"

      tnxknewucouldbi

      • How will it be the death of Virtual PC? Do you think Microsoft is gonna port Windows to the PPC?
        • Why would you need to emulate a op system when you can just run the real thing on one core at full speed? The announcement didnt give many details, but it expressly said "different op system on each core" which would make not much sense to crow about if they were, like, talking about freaking FreeBSD on one and OS X on the other?
          • Why would you need to emulate a op system when you can just run the real thing on one core at full speed?

            Virtual PC doesn't emulate an OS, it emulates an architechture. Windows can't run on anything but an x86 PC.


            . . .but it expressly said "different op system on each core" which would make not much sense to crow about if they were, like, talking about freaking FreeBSD on one and OS X on the other?

            Why not? Are they not separate OSs?

            • NT4 ran on a lot of things that weren't x86 PCs. One of my first jobs involved Honeywell GUS stations that were PowerPC machines running NT4. I still have a couple, in fact.
              I vaguely recall seeing beta versions of Windows 2000 running on Alphas. I think there's even an Alpha directory on some Windows 2000 install CDs (which is empty, but still).

              My MSDN Subscriber downloads has Windows 2003 Server for Itanium (not x86 but IA64) and Windows XP for Athlon64 (x86-64).

              So Windows has in the past and does now
              • but XP and 2003 don't. they no longer run the OS as an API, so you can't run them on Alpha, POSIX or anything like that. the end.
                • They (XP and 2003) don't run the OS as an API? could you clarify more on to that? maybe some links to help me out to figure out what are you tlaking about. Thanks in advance!

    • Re:CPU Market (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 )
      What can't you do with a 2.4Ghz HT Intel CPU?

      Very little. Even things like compressing video aren't so bad any more, as long as you're not compressing giant movies. And you can write code in Python or Lisp or your language of choice and have it run light lightning.

      What do you guys think will be the next revolution in the CPU (or GPU, for that matter) market?

      Processors that are less general purpose. GPUs are getting amazing boosts by being very specialized. Even shaders have narrow instruction sets
      • >I fully expect that we're going to start to see processors--possibly even from hobbyists--optimized for running Python or other high-level languages

        Great, and then in 12 months someone will release an emulator for this type of chip that runs on industry standard processors at the same speed. Intel did a great job in the 90s of heading off all sorts of coprocessor based designs in favor of "do it all on the CPU". Hardware crypto accelerators (for SSL) looked kinda sorta like a good idea for about a year

    • Re:CPU Market (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MemoryDragon ( 544441 )
      Sheesh, I wouldnt even improve the CPU for now, there are so many bottlenecks which basically drag the whole speed down, Ram like somebody mentioned, the bus system and a myriad of other things. I will give you an example. I have a pretty fast machine at home (Athlon 2400) recently I had to install one of my programs at a customers server which basically was a souped up RS6000 with a Power4 processor. Although the processor was slower than my development machine. The overall integration and quality of comp

    • Energy efficiency.

      At the present, the cost of energy is on the rise, and I would be shocked if this rise in energy cost slows; more likely it will accellerate as we dig deeper into the reserves of oil.

      Via have been working on highly efficient CPU's. Presently, a Via EPIA MII 12000 motherboard can be had with a built-on 1.2GHz processor. It's no speed demon, but it's no slouch, either. It is reported to draw 31 watts off of the power supply under load, versus 75+ for MoBo's with Intel/AMD chips.

      As a

    • There are still apps that will suck up every CPU cycle you can throw at them, and still want more. Look at video compression. When you've got hours of video to run through, every extra gigahertz counts!

      : )

      steve

  • Yes.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by manavendra ( 688020 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:25AM (#10381840) Homepage Journal
    ..but does it still double up as a comfy portable heater for you, like its predecessors?!
    • Actually, my Barton 2500+ doesn't get nearly as hot as my older AthlonXP 2200+. The 2500+ runs great at 2100Mhz over the normal 1800, which is why I had gotten it.

      But, it still is hot. Fortunately, with a good heat sink (I have this CoolerMaster one in there, lots of little fins) you don't need a monster fan to keep it cool. The thing spins around 3200RPM most of the time, only bumping up to about 5000 (which is still quiet on this fan) during the most grueling work.

      The next CPU I'll be getting is o

  • 2500+ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eeknay ( 766740 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:30AM (#10381858)
    The Barton 2500+ is probably the best chip that AMD have ever released. It was cheap, it performed well, and it was an overclocker's dream. It's not at all uncommon to find many people who have a 2500+ and have overclocked it to 3200+ speeds with nothing more than a stock cooler, without crashing.

    The Semprons, however, are rather lacklustre, and I'm nto sure why they released them for the Socket A platform... the XP's are the same price and perform better. The only Sempron anyone would be remotely interested in is the Socket 754 Sempron 3000+, which gves the same performance as an Athlon 64 2800+, but without the 64bit compatability (i.e. no Windows XP 64 edition).
    • Not only that my barton 2500+ is overclocable in 3200+ but I can also lower the voltage to 1.45 for lower consumption and heat dissipation.
    • I remember when I got one myself, I had to look to see the CPU from the vendor (was a computer show) to see what week the chip was made in. Apparently past week 42 or something, they weren't overclockable.

      I think the chip makers do this on purpose sometimes. Every once in awhile, let a few chips through that are overclockable to keep the overclockers happy.
    • The Sempron is basically a marketing ploy to use old silicon. The idea was to release a very low-cost device for third-world markets. AMD can build parts with the T-bred core by the boatload (mostly because die yield is better on a low-cache device) for pennies. It isn't exactly intended for domestic desktops. I have no idea why it would be included in a head-to-head with a Barton core, other than that perhaps the reviewer has his head firmly insterted up his rectum. As he found, it doesn't compete per

  • For those who don't know... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Silverlancer ( 786390 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:36AM (#10381877)
    The Mobile Barton is basically the cream of the crop in terms of Bartons. They take the chips that will run the highest speeds on the lowest voltages, and sell them as Mobiles. Of course you can buy one, put it in a desktop PC, and they will often overclock massively--most 2500+s easily hit 2.5Ghz and will often reach 2.6-2.8Ghz... on pretty standard air cooling! The only problem with this is getting RAM that will run that fast... in which case two 256MB sticks of BH-5 running at 2-2-2-5 are your best bet :).
    • Another poster had mentioned that they are identical to stock Barton's, but more expensive. In my experience they've only been about $10-$15 more expensive (I've got an XP-M 2500+), and well worth the price to guarantee that you've got a 'cream of the crop' processor. Heck, in the article they only quote a $0.50 price difference!

      Not only are they good for overclocking, but they're good for the opposite use too. Everybody complains about loud computers; why not get one of these mobile processors instead?

  • Come on now (Score:4, Funny)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:37AM (#10381879)
    or perhaps our wives' strong grip on our wallets

    I get the feeling that this isn't the case for most readers of that site ;)

  • Thinking about an upgrade (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Echnin ( 607099 ) <{p3s46f102} {at} {sneakemail.com}> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:40AM (#10381886) Homepage
    On my Windows PC I still have an Athlon XP 1600+ I bought in late 2001. I don't have a big budget, but I'd like to make some upgrades; go from 512 MB of RAM to 1 GB, add a 200 GB HDD, DVD burner, little by little. Of course, I have a Socket A motherboard (ASUS AV266-E) and I'm interested in upgrading the CPU without replacing the mobo. Is the upgrade from a 1600+ to a 2500+ worth the extra money, or should I wait and get a new motherboard with an Athlon 64 when I have the money? I'm sure I'm not the only one with an early Socket A CPU wanting to upgrade.

    • Upgrade Guide (Score:3, Informative)

      by node159 ( 636992 )
      Its worth it for gaming modern games, but its not gona get you typing word any faster...

      I got my 2500+ over 6 months ago, OC'd it to the speed of a 3200+ and never looked back. If your getting a new system, go for 1Gb ram, makes a diff.

      Generaly when upgrading:

      Gaming PC
      * Graphics card first, then CPU+Ram, then monitor ;)

      Word/Browser PC
      * If its >1Ghz don't bother ;), for speed up try linux, or if your not that wild try win2k for a preformance boost ;P

      Server
      * If you do hard number crunching or heavly l
    • In your case, the best solution is to upgrade the RAM first, then upgrade the graphics card to a mid-range AGP 4x/8x model. The upgrade in RAM can make significant differences in system speedup especially if you keep multiple programs open.

      By the way, you may want to check about upgrading the BIOS on your motherboard to the latest one available from ASUS, since you will need an updated BIOS for the system to recognize a hard drive above 120 GB in size natively.

      An Athlon XP 1600+ should be fast enough to u
    • Unless you're really in need of more CPU cycles, it might not be worth it - as you'd still be using DDR266 memory. With a new motherboard and some decent memory, a 400MHz memory clock would be the least you should be looking to get.

      steve

  • google cache (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:05AM (#10381942)
    Fresh from the Google Cache. [216.239.59.104]

    Take care.
    Ken.

  • Site seems down: here is conclusion I saved (Score:5, Informative)

    by jmke ( 776334 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:07AM (#10381946) Homepage Journal
    old review.. from 13/09.. not new?

    So what was going to be a relatively easy summary has now become a little bit more convoluted thanks to the extreme overclocking ability of the Mobile Athlon chip.

    Basically in short we can conclude the following.

    - If you're looking to run at straight out of the box stock speeds, then going for the Athlon XP 2500+ should be a no brainer. The XP either beats or almost matches the Mobile chip in every benchmark and can be had at a lower price

    - If however you're a tweaker, a freaker, a mad cookie eater, then by all means spend that extra four bones that is burning a hole in your pocket and pick up a Mobile Athlon chip (and as you can see above, we found it for the exact same price as the standard Barton). Even if by some chance you get a dud in the overclocking department you'll still have a chip that can easily run at stock XP speeds all the while requiring MUCH less voltage which will enable you to have a quiet if not super fast gaming system.

    - Finally, if you're looking at the Sempron do it only if you absolutely cannot afford that extra ten bucks that it's going to cost you to move up to a Barton based XP processor. Though admittedly marketed at the low end internet/email usage market, AMD 2500+ Performance Rating system just doesn't hold up here. With the return of the low end Duron-esque processor let's hope AMD moves to a new naming system so as not to confuse Joe AOL who picks up a Sempron 2500+ thinking he's getting a great deal picking up the newest AMD chip at a great price to expecting it to perform at par with the regular Athlon XP chip his twelve year old kid made him promise to get.

    this article made me think of a AMD Duron Applebred vs. Athlon XP Thoroughbred review [madshrimps.be] we did. pretty much the same results here; Duron/Sempron not recommended, even for going "on the cheap";
    • then by all means spend that extra four bones that is burning a hole in your pocket and pick up a Mobile Athlon chip (and as you can see above, we found it for the exact same price as the standard Barton)

      Don't forget the extra $20-$40 to get a good OC'ing Heatsink/Fan, since (unlike the retail barton) the mobile barton doesn't come with one.

  • Sempron, huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:58AM (#10382103) Homepage Journal
    Looks ilke their webserver is running on a sempron. Or, was running.

  • Athlon XP out of stock (Score:3, Informative)

    by Riddles ( 2787 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:27AM (#10382259) Homepage
    The comparison between the Athlon XP and the Sempron is nice, but AMD has stopped supplying Athlon XP's under 3000+ rating. The CPU is already out of stock in some stores and others will soon follow. It won't be long before AMD stops the entire Barton line and all CPU's are based on the Athlon-64 core like the Sempron (which is Athlon-64 with 64-bit extensions disabled).

    One pro for the Sempron is that it supports Cool'nQuiet, but I haven't been able to find a 2.4 patch that will support Cool'nQuiet for the Sempron yet.
    • One pro for the Sempron is that it supports Cool'nQuiet, but I haven't been able to find a 2.4 patch that will support Cool'nQuiet for the Sempron yet.

      Only the Socket 754 Sempron supports Cool'n'Quiet. The Socket-A Semprons are nothing more than rebadged Athlon XPs using the Thoroughbred or Thorton core, and with an inflated performance rating designed to line up with clock speeds on the Celeron D instead of the Pentium 4.
  • Not only slashdotted, it gave me debug output! Unfortunately the slashdot server is taking sides and not letting me post it due to the lameness filter so I had to make this line longer.

    Now, feel free to figure out what's wrong with thier SQL:

    Database error: 0:
    Query:
    SELECT
    title,
    link,
    link_image,
    article_id
    FROM hcw_feature_buttons

    Previous Queries:

    SELECT value, type FROM hcw_setting WHERE setting = 'cms_enabled' LIMIT 0,1

    SELECT lastmodified FROM hcw_articles WHERE id = 239 LIMIT 0,1

  • try the 2800+ Mobile (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xot ( 663131 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `htaedeligarf'> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:48AM (#10382356) Journal
    I use a 2800+ on my laptop and its a beauty.Its cheap and works like a beast.I have 512 mb RAM and the system can run any app you throw at it(almost).Games run good ( on my ATI RAdeon 320M), though i have'nt tried Doom3.
    If your going for a laptop go for a 2800+ processor, its cheap and good peformance.
    • Even with Doom3, you'll be perfectly fine. I have a 2500+ clocked up pretty high, but even at 2500+ levels, D3 is silky-smooth on my 6800GT.

      A friend of mine plays D3 on a GF 5600 with an Athlon 1600+. He's had to turn down some of the visual details to accomodate the older card, but it plays just fine.

      steve

  • Mistake in post (Score:5, Informative)

    by Guerrillero ( 798334 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:50AM (#10382372)
    a Mobile Athlon, based on the Barton SOI

    The AXP-M is not SOI. Read here: http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51 624&highlight=soi

  • fanless? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by davegaramond ( 632107 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @09:35AM (#10382723)
    Is there a desktop processor (at least 1700+ or better, AMD preferrably, x86 or amd64) that can run without a fan? I am quite annoyed with CPU fans nowadays. They tend to make more annoying noise compared to power supply fans. I am considering a Thermaltek liquid-cooling solution (around $150-$200) but really what I'd love is to have something that can run without a fan. I don't mind underclocking or buying a slightly more expensive processor. Remember the good old 486/Pentium days?
    • Even better, can I run my desktop PC completely fanless? I don't use high-end video card or anything fancy.

    • Re:fanless? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zackeller ( 653801 )
      Underclock and undervolt a proc and use a good heatsink. Or get a Zalman cooler and set it to the quietest setting. You can barely hear it, if at all, and you won't have to underclock.
    • and a good case. you can run most xp chips at stock speeds passively with it. ric
    • Someone else mentioned the Zalman flower cooler, which is what I'd recommend. Here's a link for it. [zalman.co.kr]

      Honestly, any Zalman cooler is going to be absolutely inaudible in silent mode, and usually inaudable in normal mode once the case is closed. No, not "quieter than the competition", but genuinely silent.

      Nonetheless, the flower cooler can run fanless on a CPU that isn't pushing the high end of its cooling capability.

      I use two of them to cool my dual AthlonMP 1800+ processors. I do run the fans over them
    • You might, but why not run a super-low-noise fan just for sanity's sake?

      The Mobile Athlons are unlocked, so you could run one at a lower MHz, which will let it run cooler. You can try lowering the voltage some, which will make a bigger difference still!

      If you try fanless, I would at LEAST put a duct over the cpu in such a way that the power supply or case fan is pulling air over the CPU.
    • Zalman has fanless water cooling system.

      Else, I've got a P133 which has been running continuously for five years or so with only a large heatsink on the CPU (no fan), and a power supply fan that hardly turns.

      It's a real trooper. I'd be happy to sell it to you.


  • I checked the Asus site but didn't find the answers to this.

    Which newer processors can I use in my A7M266-D motherboard (I have 1.58s now)? My understanding is that I can run it with only one CPU; would one ~3Ghz processor provide a noticeable difference over the two existing ones?

    And regarding RAM, do I really need ECC/registered?
    • Well, I don't think you'll find any 3ghz CPUs that will fit in that board :-)

      "Speed" depends on what you want to do. For gaming a cpu of twice the speed will be faster, probably same for audio/video encoding or other single threaded apps.

    • I've got the same board running right now with dual AthlonMP 2800+ chips - Barton core, 512k cache, and all.

      Even the newest BIOS for the board is very old, and doesn't recognize Barton cores as being MP capable, even though they are. Windows doesn't care, for Linux to run, you just disable the "MP support check" in the BIOS. Everything trucks along nice and dandy.

      steve
  • Finally just about 2 weeks ago I swung by the computer show to pick up some new hardware to replace the server in the basement. Although it's only ever been a 600Mhz PIII used for email and web, I was hoping to turn it back into a rather usable machine for some software development and other things. Guy tells me that the Sempron is the way to go.

    Son of a......

  • Since we seem to have slahdotted the site, here's th Google Cache of the page:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:sNdpM5 m8QJ4J: www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-239-1.htm
  • The Slashdotted pages are mirrored at MirrorDot [mirrordot.com].

  • For overclocking, the mobile 2500+ is simply the bomb. It's pretty cheap, is not multiplier-locked, and is hand-picked to run at lower voltages. By raising the voltage to normal, standard voltages, you won't find one that won't go to at least 3200+ levels (2.2GHz). It's not uncommon to get them to 2.5 GHz, which gives you a LOT of power for the money.

    Of course, the real beauty is that because the multiplier isn't locked, you can adjust the FSB/memory clock as high as your board and memory will be

  • Yeah, but Frys sells MB/Sempron combos CHEAP! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:05PM (#10385783)
    The Sempron might be a budget CPU, but Frys practically GIVES them away! Yesterday, I bought an Elitegroup K7VTA3 motherboard and a 2.4 gig boxed Sempron (with fan). The cost? 60 bucks for BOTH of them!

    Couple this with an 18 dollar 60 gig drive from Office Depot (earlier this week), 512 Megs of DDR memory for 60 bucks (Frys), a 20 dollar case/PS, a 25 dollar video card, a 20 dollar CD burner, a free copy of Linspire (Lindows), and Open Office.org and you've got one hell of a computer for well under 200 bucks!

    True, it wouldn't satisfy 'bleeding edge' people, but I'll wager that it would work just fine for the other 99.75% of us out there.....
  • I love my Barton XP 2500. I wanted a rig that would run fast and not break the bank, this was around the time that the XP3200 was just hitting the market, so I ended up getting the 2500 for $100, an nForce2 MSI board for $100, 2x256 of CAS2 DDR3200 for $100, and a Radeon 9500 Pro for $200. My $500 upgrade was worth every penny

    and though its less than a year old I'm starting to feel the upgrade itch, but I cant. It used to be I could satisfy the upgrade itch by getting a new video card, or new cpu, or som

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close