Difference between Duron and Athlon

[yardape13]

I was wondering if someone could help me out with this. Are there Durons and Athlons that are both 800 GHz, and if so what's the difference. Or, is it just that Athlon's are 1.2 Ghz and up, and Duron's only 800.

 

[CitrixEngineer]

The main difference is in the amount of level 2 cache the different processors have. The Duron has 64k, while the Athlon has 256k. Both have a 128k level 1 cache. Cache memory is expensive, hence the price difference.

There are other differences, mainly at core level;

Duron vs Athlon
25m transistors vs 37m
1.5v core vs 1.75v

Generally Athlons respond better to the misuse that is overclocking, with the notable exception of the Duron 850. Durons tend to run cooler as well.

Also generally, benchmark results I have seen tend to put Durons at about 10% slower than the Athlon of the same Mhz. Not bad for half the price!

The Duron preceded the Athlon, chronologically, and it's proved so popular, that AMD don't seem to want to stop producing it. Great for those of us on a tight budget!

Hope this helps

 

[yardape13]

Yea, that's a big help. Thanks. Also, I'm thinking about going with the Duron, it's basically going to be for home use, browsing the Internet, and downloading songs. Nothing crazy, will I notice a huge difference? Right now I have an IBM A21m laptop with a P3.

 

[yardape13]

Also, a brief explanation of L1 and L2 cache would be cool if anyone gets the chance. Thanks again!

 

[osuman]

You can read all you want to know about cache here:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/cache/index.htm

This is a pretty useful site if you're building a computer.

 

[Jakespeare]

I would just like to point out that the price difference
between the DURON & ATHLON IS NOT about 100%, as suggested above.
"Not bad for half the price!"

It is exactly $5. Five Bucks.

> Also, the performance difference is HUGE.
The same as a Celeron or a Pentium III.

> There are many, many resources to read about on the internet, from professional hardware guys, who do this for a living.

> You shouldn't just take any one person's opinion on a computer subject.

>> ** I have a saying, I made up.... a long time ago:
"If you ask 10 different techs the same question, you'll get 12 different answers."

 

[yardape13]

I found an 900 Athlon cpu and motherboard which is Slot A for $130:
Designed with AMD 751 chipset, the AI61 is a high quality motherboard built by Shuttle in the industry standard ATX format. In addition to the AGP interface for high performance graphics, this board offers five industry standard PCI, one 2x compatible AGP expansion buses, 2 Serial Ports(16550 fast UART Compatible) as well as many other advanced system and BIOS features.

and this 1.1 GHz Athlon for $150 which is Socket A:

Designed with VIA's KLE133 chipset, the EP-8KEM is a high quality motherboard built by EPoX in the industry standard Micro ATX format. In addition to the onboard Trident AGP for high performance graphics, this board offers three industry standard PCI and one panel link expansion buses as well as many other advanced system and BIOS features.

For full feature system designs, the Apollo KLE133 is paired with the VIA VT82C686B super south bridge. Highly advanced, the EP-8KEM combines integrated AC-97 audio support for SoundBlaster Pro and FM synthesis legacy audio, super I/O, and hardware monitoring capabilities.

Two bus mastering ATA 33/66/100 EIDE ports are provided plus a floppy disk port supporting two drives of any industry standard capacity including 2.88MB as well as 1.44MB and lower capacity types. In addition an IrDa infrared port allows the connection of remote devices.

Is there any advantages, disadv. to the socket or slot? Is it worth spending the extra $20 on the latter? Would these support a 7200 rpm hard drive with ATA/ 100 interface?

Thanks yet again.

 

[Mulga]

Slot A is no longer in use, all later AMD CPUs are socket A. The Socket A board is an Epox which are usually quite good and the Via chipset is also good. Don't know anything about the Shuttle one. The Epox board will support ATA 100. It has onboard sound and video which is a cost saving but will not be as good quality as good expansion cards. Depends what you want to do, if you are a gamer onboard is probably not the way to go. The 1.1 Ghz is obviously a better deal than 900. Overall, if you are looking for general home or office use and internet browsing I would say go with the epox but if you are looking for high performance gaming neither are really suitable.

 

[ramani]

Hi
ATHLON DURON
L1 CACHE 128 KB 128 KB (fast data transfer)
L2 CAche 256 KB 64 KB (fast data transfer) full speed

This is the main difference. The full speed cache of 256KB L2 cache makes a sizable difference in persormance.

Regarding motherboars.. I have found reliable ones in AOPEN brand with VIA chipset. Some board models have creative sound built in and AGP VGA built in. Could be price saver with built ins. I have used many AOPEN boards.. and I find them reliable even when they are traded back when customers comeback for upgrades over a period of time. No other link between me and AOPEN or interestes.

Hope this helps you

ramani :-9
(Subramanian.G),FoxAcc, ramani_g@yahoo.com

 

[CitrixEngineer]

It is possible to get a 2nd-user Duron for approxiamtely half the price of a 2nd-user Athlon. Maybe I was a bit misleading with my sweeping statement - but I was trying to generalise.

The performance difference is not HUGE at all. There are a lot of other dependencies, but the majority of benchmarks I have seen average out at a 10% overall difference in performance. Athlon <-> Duron != PIII <-> Celeron. The Duron 850 is a very popular chip in much the same way that the old Celeron 300A was.

I can post many links and benchmarks to back this up, but, as is observantly noted;

&quot;If you ask 10 different techs the same question, you'll get 12 different answers.&quot;

Note: I AM a professional hardware guy who does this for a living ;-)

If you go the 2nd-user way, and get a slot A chip, you can't go too far wrong with one of the A-Bit KT7 variants. The KT7A with its 266Mhz FSB would get optimal performance from whichever chip you get.

There is no &quot;best board&quot;, for AMD chips, however, but consider manufacturers like A-Bit, ASUS, Chaintech, Soyo and Tyan. Avoid PC Chips.

Any information I give is based on my experience, opinions and research.

 

[ceh4702]

See if AMD has a comparison chart?? If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[teknikal]

CitrixEngineer,
Personally, I think you did an excellent job of generalizing the difference between the two! Only one thing, however. The Duron never preceded the Athlon. The first Athlon was released in August of 1999; the first Duron not until June of 2000.

Jakespeare,
While I agree that I would most certainly pick the Athlon over a Duron if the price difference was small, I do not agree that the performance difference is like comparing the Celeron to the PIII.
The Duron isn't too far behind the Athlon on many benchmarks at the same speed. Also, the duron averages the same performance of celerons that are rated at 100-200 MHZ faster. In addition, it's even been known to be competitive with many PIII coppermines at the same speed. That said, you have to give props to the Duron and know that it's nowhere close to the difference between a celeron and a PIII.

==================================

My opinion, go with the Athlon. If you're on a tight budget, perhaps the extra $20-30 you might save going with a Duron could be used on a better video card purchase.

 

[Guest_imported]

With what pentium can a duron 8oomhz be compared if you look at performance?

TY.
Alecz