Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7

    xp2600 running slower than 2400???

    Upgraded my XP2400 to a XP2600 333 with 512L2 Cache.

    The 2400 was running at 2G the 2600 is running at 1.9.

    Using aBit NF7-S and have reset the bios manually and even using the jumper and still slower.

    About 10% slower on SI Sandra.

    HELP !!!

  2. #2
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    1,677
    I don't think you set your FSB to 166. If you do, try setting the mutiplier to AUTO.
    Main Beast: Alienware Style!!
    Antec SX-1040 w/400 Smartpower | Intel D865PERL | P4 3.0C Prescott | 1024MB Kingston PC2700 DDR & 400 Dual Channel | ATi X1650 PRO 512MB AGP | DUAL 74GB WD Raptors (RAID 0) | TDK indiDVD 420N DVD/CD Burner | Logitech Cordless Freedom Optical KB/MS | Zoom V.92 56K Modem | Samsung SyncMaster 932GW 19" Widescreen LCD 2ms Response | Vista Ultimate 32 bit | Will be replacing soon! |

    Apple:
    Mac Mini (MC238LL/A) | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz | 2GB | 160GB | OS X 10.6.2 / Vista Ultimate 32bit |

    Laptop:
    Gateway 7405GX | AMD Athlon64 M 3700+ (Newark) | 2GB DDR | ATi 9600 Mobility Radeon | 100GB 7K100 Hitachi | 8x DVDRW/CDRW | 56k V.92 | 802.11g | 15.4" SB WXGA With "0" Dead Pixels! | XP Home SP3 / Vista Ultimate 32bit|

  3. #3
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7
    All settings are at auto...

    I just notice (grayed out on the BIOS) that the MB is picking 166 and 11.5 obviously this is 1.9G.

    My question is why is the MB picking these settings for a 2600. It does recognize it is a 2600.

    The 2400 was a 266 and this is a 333.

    I can manually set the frequency and the multiplier, but am afraid to pick settings without knowing what I am doing.

    WOuld it be safe to set them to 100 and 20 to get 2GHtz
    or better to use 166 and 13 multiplier.

    Seems I should be able to go all the way to 2.2Ghtz on a 2600 processor?

    Dan

  4. #4
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: xp2600 running slower than 2400???

    Originally posted by Dan M Schell on 11-19-2003 at 02:35 PM
    Upgraded my XP2400 to a XP2600 333 with 512L2 Cache.

    The 2400 was running at 2G the 2600 is running at 1.9.

    Using aBit NF7-S and have reset the bios manually and even using the jumper and still slower.

    About 10% slower on SI Sandra.

    HELP !!!
    You've got yourself a Barton bro The 2600+ Barton runs at 1.9 GHz. This is due to its 512k L2 cache compared to the 256k L2 cache of the 2400+. It also has a 333 MHz FSB compared to the 266 MHz of the 2400+.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7

    BARTON

    so the Barton is slower...

    And not as fast as the 2400?

    So I would get better performance with the 2400 correct?

    When would I benefit from the 512 Cache... Why do they label this as a 2600 if it is slower than a 2400...

    Again thanks so much

    Dan S

  6. #6
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: BARTON

    Originally posted by Dan M Schell on 11-19-2003 at 03:47 PM
    so the Barton is slower...

    And not as fast as the 2400?

    So I would get better performance with the 2400 correct?

    When would I benefit from the 512 Cache... Why do they label this as a 2600 if it is slower than a 2400...

    Again thanks so much

    Dan S
    The Barton has a slower overall clockspeed but the 333 MHz FSB and 512 L2 Cache make up for that. Sandra is a very bad benchmark overall, its synthetic and does not show real world performance, the 2600+ will be better than the 2400+ especially in gaming and multi-tasking situations, there may be a select few apps that rely on pure clockspeed that run slower. But again, those instances are rare.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    1,677
    Here are the speeds:

    XP2600+ (T-bred B 266FSB) = 2.13GHz
    XP2600+ (T-bred B 333FSB) = 2.08GHz
    XP2600+ (Barton 333FSB) = 1.91GHz
    Main Beast: Alienware Style!!
    Antec SX-1040 w/400 Smartpower | Intel D865PERL | P4 3.0C Prescott | 1024MB Kingston PC2700 DDR & 400 Dual Channel | ATi X1650 PRO 512MB AGP | DUAL 74GB WD Raptors (RAID 0) | TDK indiDVD 420N DVD/CD Burner | Logitech Cordless Freedom Optical KB/MS | Zoom V.92 56K Modem | Samsung SyncMaster 932GW 19" Widescreen LCD 2ms Response | Vista Ultimate 32 bit | Will be replacing soon! |

    Apple:
    Mac Mini (MC238LL/A) | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz | 2GB | 160GB | OS X 10.6.2 / Vista Ultimate 32bit |

    Laptop:
    Gateway 7405GX | AMD Athlon64 M 3700+ (Newark) | 2GB DDR | ATi 9600 Mobility Radeon | 100GB 7K100 Hitachi | 8x DVDRW/CDRW | 56k V.92 | 802.11g | 15.4" SB WXGA With "0" Dead Pixels! | XP Home SP3 / Vista Ultimate 32bit|

  8. #8
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,746
    Kinda of confusing since you now have 3 XP2600+'s and 2 XP3000+'s (2170MHz and 2100MHz Bartons).

    I forgot how many XP2800's there are.

    Why do they label this as a 2600 if it is slower than a 2400...
    In making their PR (i.e XP ratings) AMD uses 3 different factors:

    1. Total CPU speed
    2. Front Side Bus Speed
    3. Cache size

    XP2400+ Specs

    2000MHz - 266MHz FSB - Cache Size

    The XP2600+ Barton is slowey by 83MHz: Less XP100+

    It has a haster FSB os they add XP200+ to the rating.

    It has a large cahce (512kb) so they add XP100+ to th rating.

    This is a guestimate and not exactly how AMD computed XP ratings.
    Last edited by ral; 11-19-2003 at 11:01 PM.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Malaga, Spain
    Age
    50
    Posts
    22
    I have a 2600+ T-Bred B @ 333 and 2.09 ghz, I had a theory as to why buy a processor that is slower but more expensive (granted its something I would like to get in the future but not when its slower) Im going to have a 2700 Tbred B @ 333 and 2.17 ghz in a few days and Im sure Ill be happy with that too, I could have got a barton 2800 but for 30 dollars more but with a slower clock speed Ill wait till they come out with the last Barton for the Socket A and wait till that comes down in price too...A 3200 @ 333 and running at 2.17 (2700 speeds) is 410 Dollars/Euros, Whereas a 2700 running at the same speed minus a few transistors and some cache, is 110 Dollars/Euros. I have read a lot before buying the Tbred instead of the Barton but in real world applications it is 50/50 as to what performs better. The same (XP Rated) processor with tbred/barton cores seems to be back and forth as to what is more powerful, and to be honest most people could not probably tell the difference anyway. But the price...hehehehe...thats something I pay attention too, and right now the T-bred B is a good investment, even if to just keep a few around to tinker with later on.

    You really cant go wrong with your purchase though, even if it is a tad slower it is still AMD and its got all that extra cache on it which even if it was running slower, (in Mhz) More than makes up for in the mind when you think about it. Nothing better on Post than to see numbers bigger than 256 under L2 :P
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe rev. 2.0 1007
    2700+ MCX462-V/92mm Enermax
    NB MCX159 SB Globalwin FA6
    2 x 512 Kingston PC3200 DC
    Nvidia GeForce Ti4600
    2 x Seagate SATA 7 Baracuda 80mb
    Antec Sonata w/Antec Tru-Power 550

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •