Athlon v. Duron

3 replies [Last post]
RichardJ
Offline
Joined: May 7 1999

Just trying to get clear in my head the exact difference between the Athlon (Thunderbird?) and Duron chips.

AFAICS the only core difference is that Durons have 64KB L2 cache while Athlons have 256KB. I know Athlons are produced at higher clock rates, but I'm trying to understand the other differences. Durons are now available as type-C with 266 FSB too, so there doesn't seem to be anything else.

I.e. a new 900MHz Duron is going to perform pretty close to an "old" 900MHz Athlon - which was of course the bees knees when it came out!

Or am I way off?

------------------
Richard Jones, http://www.activeservice.co.uk
Home of the MediaStudio Pro Tutorial

Richard Jones, http://www.activeservice.co.uk
Home of the MediaStudio Pro Tutorial - Edition 3 for MSP 7

duncan hancox
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2000

no you are right - there is very little difference, only the cache size and layout.

AMD had to have a cheaper chip to compete with the celeron for market penetrance, only unlike the celeron, the duron isnt really cripled

there is probably 3-5% difference between duron and athlon at the same processor speed, not noticable at all.

Unicorn
Offline
Joined: Apr 12 1999

But it's a safe bet that with 1/4 of the cache they're vastly cheaper for AMD to manufacture...

P4-3.06/2GB RAM/2500GB IDE/SATA. Avid Media Composer, Liquid Edition, Premiere 6, Lightwave, Vue 6, eyeon Fusion 5. DV and HDV editing/compositing.

RichardJ
Offline
Joined: May 7 1999

Thanks for the confirmation guys. It looks to me that Durons are the better value in "bang/buck" terms, so I think that's where my money's going!

------------------
Richard Jones, http://www.activeservice.co.uk
Home of the MediaStudio Pro Tutorial

Richard Jones, http://www.activeservice.co.uk
Home of the MediaStudio Pro Tutorial - Edition 3 for MSP 7