Barton 2500 or Barton 2600?

[fsuorange]

Considering the price is the same which one is better with video, the barton 2500 with 333 bus and 512 of cache or 2600 with 333 bus and 256 kb of cach. Or would I not notice a difference at all between these two?

[redwudz]

I went for the 2500 Barton and never regretted it. Not sure how much a difference the the larger L2 cache makes, but I think it would more than offset the slight difference in processor speed to the 2600. If you have a lot of cash, there is always the 3200 Barton for $325US. If you go for the Barton, make sure the MB works with it. Older MB's usually won't.

[Piccoro]

The 2600 you speak of is not a barton if it only has 256kb L2 cache.
It is a Thoroughbred. Bartons are Athlon XPs with 512kb L2 cache.

The 2600 would be a better pick because they both use 333fsb but the 2500 has more L2 cache while that 2600 doesn't.
Ask yourself how is it rated 2600 if it has less L2 cache?
Clock speed.
On average the rated higher CPU will do better. Because it has more speed it will do a lot better in this area (A/V encoding/Media production).

That 2600 model is a Thoroughbred model with 333 Rated FSB and 256kb L2 cache running at 2.08ghz (166mhz x 12.5 = 2083mhz).

The 2500 Barton with 333 Rated FSB and 512kb L2 cache runs at 1.83ghz (166mhz x 11 = 1833mhz).

[maestro5050]

As Piccoro said, the 2600 is not a Barton if it only has 256kb L2 cache. If I had to pick between a Barton 2500 and a Thoroughbred 2600, I'd stick with the Barton. Like Piccoro said, in general a faster clock speed will give you better performance. However, you can overclock just about any Athlon if you do it properly, so the speed of the CPU can be tweaked. The L2 cache on the other hand cannot be modified. So I'd stick with the one with more cache and just overclock it a bit.