Yup this question comes up a lot. My current system (see sig) is fine for games, but the newer ones, especially UT2003, run pretty bad. Originally I was going to get a Hammer system when AMD has that ready, but then I thought it might be a better idea to just get Barton when that comes out.
My reasoning was that:
Barton is basically an Athlon XP with 512K of L2 and a 200MHz FSB. The Athlon XP's been around for a while, so it's a mature chip, and VIA, SiS etc have been making chipsets for the Athlon XP for a while. So the chance of problems or incompatibilities is pretty low. But the Hammer is going to be a brand new core, and we don't know what problems could go along with it. And I could get screwed by socket/mobo incompatibilities. Like what happened with the original Athlon (Slot A to Socket A) and the P4 (Socket 423 to Socket 478).
What do you guys think?
My reasoning was that:
Barton is basically an Athlon XP with 512K of L2 and a 200MHz FSB. The Athlon XP's been around for a while, so it's a mature chip, and VIA, SiS etc have been making chipsets for the Athlon XP for a while. So the chance of problems or incompatibilities is pretty low. But the Hammer is going to be a brand new core, and we don't know what problems could go along with it. And I could get screwed by socket/mobo incompatibilities. Like what happened with the original Athlon (Slot A to Socket A) and the P4 (Socket 423 to Socket 478).
What do you guys think?

). a quantispeed rating of ~3300+ is estimated for the 2Ghz one. if the barton gets a similar rating i see no reason to get a hammer unless you really need the 64bit (which you most likely dont).
time to retire it


Comment