Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.

I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.

But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?

I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
advantage of it. And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
applications around at the moment. But what about the future?

Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Franky" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:954CE29C0E0FE31E75@127.0.0.1...
> I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.
>
> I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
> 700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>
> But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
> on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>
> I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
> applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
> advantage of it. And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
> applications around at the moment. But what about the future?
>
> Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
> new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
> RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?

Can't see a Barton running in a 266 board somehow, the best you can go for
is probably an XP2400 with a 266fsb, or more likely a Palomino (sp?) 2100 or
whatever. I picked up a 1900 a while ago for my KT133A board, gave it a
whole new lease of life with anything that needed a bit of power, and didn't
cost a great deal. Then more recently got an 1800 as well for even less,
thanks to a brilliant newsgroup seller

They're not up to speed compared to modern stuff, but I reckon 10 or 20 quid
is well worth it when the alternative is buying a new board, memory, etc as
well, just so long as it'll keep up with what you want to do.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

If you don't have any supercomputing to do, just getting a Barton 2500 is
quite an economical way to go amazingly faster [than the Duron 700]. But
better check that your motherboard supports it at its web site. Probably
not. It may take a Tbred 2400, though, possibly requiring you to update your
bios. You can check the cpu compatibility chart and the bios updates.

Be aware that it will run much hotter and needs a better heatsink and a case
fan blowing out the back.

You could even get the slowest Tbred and sit and wait until 64 bit prices
come down. The slowest Tbred will just blow your Duron away.

Except -- if you're just web browsing and playing web streams, you might not
notice a difference. I'm typing this and web browsing with my cpu cut back
to 500 mhz. I'll only take it up to 2075 if I have to do something
intensive. [Mobile cpu with cpu msr software on kt400. 5.5 volts. 34C @ 500,
41C @ 2075, idling.]

However, it is noticeable with those web pages that freeze and can't be
scrolled for awhile until they've loaded an app. Very noticeable difference.

Such wisdom already! ;-)
--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote
> You could even get the slowest Tbred and sit and wait until 64 bit prices
> come down.
PS Don't get a Palamino [older type of athlon xp] unless that's all it can
take. It will run very hot.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franky wrote:

> I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.
>
> I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
> 700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>
> But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
> on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?

It depends what you run. For business software, an Athlon XP would be good.
For games, audio, video, Photoshop, CAD, etc., an Athlon 64 would be
so much better.

>
>
> I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
> applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
> advantage of it.

That is only true to use 64 bit software. The Athlon 64 is great with
32 bit software. Here is a review of Athlon 64 chips running 32 bit software
and a 32 bit OS.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=2065&p=1

An Athlon XP would be a good choice if you don't run games, multimedia,
or other software that requires great bandwidth(of course an Athlon 64
would be better though) For those, an Athlon 64 would be a great choice.

> And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
> applications around at the moment. But what about the future?

Expect 64 bit software to become very popular early to mid next year, after
64 bit Windows X64 is released.

>
>
> Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
> new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
> RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4127C261.2F4899A7@netscape.net...
>
>
> Franky wrote:
>
> > I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.
> >
> > I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
> > 700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
> >
> > But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
> > on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>
> It depends what you run. For business software, an Athlon XP would be
good.
> For games, audio, video, Photoshop, CAD, etc., an Athlon 64 would be
> so much better.
>
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
> > applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
> > advantage of it.
>
> That is only true to use 64 bit software. The Athlon 64 is great with
> 32 bit software. Here is a review of Athlon 64 chips running 32 bit
software
> and a 32 bit OS.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=2065&p=1
>
> An Athlon XP would be a good choice if you don't run games, multimedia,
> or other software that requires great bandwidth(of course an Athlon 64
> would be better though) For those, an Athlon 64 would be a great choice.
>
> > And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
> > applications around at the moment. But what about the future?
>
> Expect 64 bit software to become very popular early to mid next year,
after
> 64 bit Windows X64 is released.
>
> >
> >
> > Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
> > new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
> > RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?


I notice my gf fx 5700 has drivers that support the 64 amd processor.

None for ati...

>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
> 700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>
> But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
> on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>
> I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
> applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
> advantage of it. And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
> applications around at the moment. But what about the future?
>
> Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
> new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
> RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?

I bought a mobile 2500, and I'm glad I did. Sure, I could have gone with
the Athlon64, but my upgrade cost would have cost me twice as much for only
a marginal increase in performance. It depends on what your preference is
in the performance-vs-cost area.

As for the 2500 being a "dead end", I don't really look to future chip
upgrades when I buy a motherboard - I wait until I need an upgrade, then I
get the whole package. That way, I generally get more than just a faster
chip, I get faster memory, better interconnects, etc..

steve

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

xman Charlie wrote:
> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:4127C261.2F4899A7@netscape.net...
>>
>>
>> Franky wrote:
>>
>>> I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.
>>>
>>> I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
>>> 700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>>>
>>> But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
>>> on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>>
>> It depends what you run. For business software, an Athlon XP would
>> be good. For games, audio, video, Photoshop, CAD, etc., an Athlon 64
>> would be
>> so much better.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
>>> applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
>>> advantage of it.
>>
>> That is only true to use 64 bit software. The Athlon 64 is great with
>> 32 bit software. Here is a review of Athlon 64 chips running 32 bit
>> software and a 32 bit OS.
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=2065&p=1
>>
>> An Athlon XP would be a good choice if you don't run games,
>> multimedia, or other software that requires great bandwidth(of
>> course an Athlon 64 would be better though) For those, an Athlon 64
>> would be a great choice.
>>
>>> And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
>>> applications around at the moment. But what about the future?
>>
>> Expect 64 bit software to become very popular early to mid next
>> year, after 64 bit Windows X64 is released.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
>>> new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
>>> RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?
>
>
> I notice my gf fx 5700 has drivers that support the 64 amd processor.
>
> None for ati...


They don't "support the ...processor" - drivers are designed for an OS, not
a CPU.

None for ATI, eh? Well, that's odd because I downloaded drivers for the 9800
Pro in my WinXP64 test box nearly three months ago. ATI were *way* ahead of
nVidia.

--
My great-grandfather was born and raised in Elgin - did he eventually
lose his marbles?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
[...]
> None for ATI, eh? Well, that's odd because I downloaded drivers for
> the 9800 Pro in my WinXP64 test box nearly three months ago. ATI were
> *way* ahead of nVidia.

As far as timing, ATI released their 64-bit drivers in early June IIRC, and
nVidia had released their first lot before the first public beta of XP-64
(Feb?). As far as driver quality, I don't have a 64-bit system, so can't say
anything in that respect.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:16:35 +0100, Franky wrote:

> I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
> 700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>
> But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
> on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>
The 2500+ (or even slower) would still be a considerable upgrade to a
Duron 700.

> I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that applications
> need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale advantage of it.
> And I guess there is not a whole lot of those applications around at
> the moment. But what about the future?
>
No. It runs both 32bit and 64 bit apps, while the older cpu's will only
run 32bit apps. This is a non issue as the A64 will run everything you
currently run.

> Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a new
> mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD- RAM). Is
> this the right way to go for now?

The via KT266 chipset won't support a 166Mhz FSB that the 2500+ has. Stay
with a cpu model that has a default 133MHz FSB (/266 models).

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

> xman Charlie wrote:
>
>>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:4127C261.2F4899A7@netscape.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Franky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.
>>>>
>>>>I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
>>>>700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>>>>
>>>>But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
>>>>on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>>>
>>>It depends what you run. For business software, an Athlon XP would
>>>be good. For games, audio, video, Photoshop, CAD, etc., an Athlon 64
>>>would be
>>>so much better.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
>>>>applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
>>>>advantage of it.
>>>
>>>That is only true to use 64 bit software. The Athlon 64 is great with
>>>32 bit software. Here is a review of Athlon 64 chips running 32 bit
>>>software and a 32 bit OS.
>>>
>>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
>>>
>>>An Athlon XP would be a good choice if you don't run games,
>>>multimedia, or other software that requires great bandwidth(of
>>>course an Athlon 64 would be better though) For those, an Athlon 64
>>>would be a great choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
>>>>applications around at the moment. But what about the future?
>>>
>>>Expect 64 bit software to become very popular early to mid next
>>>year, after 64 bit Windows X64 is released.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
>>>>new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
>>>>RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?
>>
>>
>>I notice my gf fx 5700 has drivers that support the 64 amd processor.
>>
>>None for ati...
>
>
>
> They don't "support the ...processor" - drivers are designed for an OS, not
> a CPU.

Well, that's not true. It was close to true when all the processors it
could run on were 32 bit i386 but it now makes a difference if it's in 32
bit code or 34 bit code.

I say 'close to true' because even before the Athlon 64 not all processors
in the world were 32 bit i386.

>
> None for ATI, eh? Well, that's odd because I downloaded drivers for the 9800
> Pro in my WinXP64 test box nearly three months ago. ATI were *way* ahead of
> nVidia.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:16:35 +0100, Franky <franklin_lo@mail.com>
wrote:

>I would welcome the views of you AMD PC specialists.
>
>I run XP. About 7 or 8 months ago I was going to upgrade my ailing
>700MHz Duron for a Barton 2500.
>
>But has the attractiveness of the Barton 2500 approach disappeared
>on account of Athlon 64 now being more popular these days?
>
>I don't know much about Athlon 64 expect I have heard that
>applications need to be specially writtten and/or compiled to tale
>advantage of it. And I guess there is not a whole lot of those
>applications around at the moment. But what about the future?
>
>Seems to me that a Barton 2500 is a dead end. So I would not get a
>new mobo but put it in my old mobo (Via 266 chipset and 768MB SD-
>RAM). Is this the right way to go for now?

SInce you're currently using a Duron 700 I'll speculate that you
don't necessarily need ultra-high performance for your
applications, that an Athlon XP would be a good bang for the buck
right now. Your motherboard and memory will be a bottleneck to
it, and I can't guarantee it will work with the Athlon from a bus
signal strength or amperage support (motherboard's onboard power
supply circuit) standpoint, but given the limitation Wes
mentioned, choosing CPU with default DDR266 FSB, it's worth a
try.

You might upgrade the motherboard's bios before installing new
CPU and buy it from somplace with a good return policy just in
case it won't work properly... it should not damage CPU if it
won't work at all or stabily.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed Light wrote:

> "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote
>
>>You could even get the slowest Tbred and sit and wait until 64 bit prices
>>come down.
>
> PS Don't get a Palamino [older type of athlon xp] unless that's all it can
> take. It will run very hot.
>
>

What do you call "very hot"? My Palomino XP 1800+ ran at 46C idle, 56C
heavy load with a basic hsf which I wouldn't call disastrous by any means.


--
[ste]