Barton v Thoroughbred

[Andre_Mc]

I recall a few months ago there was a discussion about the pros and cons of
the Barton v Thoroughbred processor. Do I remember correctly that the
Barton is slower than the the Thbd even tho it runs at 333? And one chip
has a larger core for more reliable heat disipation... someone help me put
this back together?

thanks

"a mind is a terrible thing to lose" Dan Quayle

 

[rAD]

I recall a few months ago there was a discussion about the pros and cons of
the Barton v Thoroughbred processor. Do I remember correctly that the
Barton is slower than the the Thbd even tho it runs at 333?

T'breds will run at 333(166) too. The CPU doesn't care about bus speed, only
final MHz.

Get a T'bred XP1700 for $50 and run it at 2GHz+

The mutipliers on them are unlocked below 12.5x so you could run it at
200x10 too. What fun.

 

[rAD]

I have never damaged a CPU by overclocking it. I had a Celeron 366 running
at 550 for years and still have Duron 750 running at 933. They were $50
marvels just like the T'bred XP1700 is today. No fancy HSF needed either,
just a good $10 one.

Stability is the major pitfall. If you can convert a DVD movie to SVCDs in
the summer time then you are pretty damn stable. That runs the CPU at 100%
for 6 hours or so and really stresses memory.

In any event, as long as you can choose a mutiplier you can always drop MHz
down a bit to achieve stabilty, something you could not do with the old
locked Celerons.