HowToFixComputers.com




Watched TopicsWatched Topics SearchSearch RegisterRegister Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages ProfileProfile Log inLog in
"New" Duron vs Barton performance

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Index -> CPU
Author Message
Dick Trace
Guest
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:40 am    Post subject: "New" Duron vs Barton performance Reply with quote
Hello.

I'm thinking about upgrading my old BX board, 600mhz Celeron and 320MB
RAM.

I thought about getting a cheap 400mhz Athlon motherboard, a "new"
duron (very cheap) plus 512MB of DDR RAM. Then next year upgrade the
CPU to the fastest socket-A Athlon available (400mhz fsb and probably
90nm).

But, since the new durons have only 192kb total cache memory (L1+L2)
versus the 640kb of the Bartons, what would be the performance
difference (mainly for software compiling on linux and games on
windows)?

Thanks for any info.
Back to top
Yousuf Khan
Guest
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:35 pm    Post subject: Re: "New" Duron vs Barton performance Reply with quote
pleasestopit8@yahoo.com (Dick Trace) wrote in message news:<c3e29754.0308281440.5c4c77d1@posting.google.com>...
Quote:
Hello.

I'm thinking about upgrading my old BX board, 600mhz Celeron and 320MB
RAM.

I thought about getting a cheap 400mhz Athlon motherboard, a "new"
duron (very cheap) plus 512MB of DDR RAM. Then next year upgrade the
CPU to the fastest socket-A Athlon available (400mhz fsb and probably
90nm).

But, since the new durons have only 192kb total cache memory (L1+L2)
versus the 640kb of the Bartons, what would be the performance
difference (mainly for software compiling on linux and games on
windows)?

Though Durons were good in their day for their price points, those
price points have now been occupied by the lower-end Athlon XPs (i.e.
the Thoroughbred XP's with 256K L2). Just as a general rule of thumb I
wouldn't touch a Duron these days, notwithstanding the relative
performance. If we do want to talk about the relative performance,
let's not forget that aside from the smaller L2 cache, it's also got
the slower 200Mhz FSB. A lot of disadvantages just accumulating,
basically.

Now, AMD did just recently announce that they are going to be creating
a really new version of the Duron which runs at the intermediate-speed
266Mhz FSB, so it's much better than the older "new" Durons. But this
Duron will only be sold in the Eastern European, Asian and other
price-sensitive markets, not in North America or Western Europe.

Yousuf Khan
Back to top
Jorg
Guest
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: "New" Duron vs Barton performance Reply with quote
On 29 Aug 2003 07:35:04 -0700, bbbl67@yahoo.com (Yousuf Khan) wrote:

Quote:
pleasestopit8@yahoo.com (Dick Trace) wrote in message news:<c3e29754.0308281440.5c4c77d1@posting.google.com>...
Hello.

I'm thinking about upgrading my old BX board, 600mhz Celeron and 320MB
RAM.

I thought about getting a cheap 400mhz Athlon motherboard, a "new"
duron (very cheap) plus 512MB of DDR RAM. Then next year upgrade the
CPU to the fastest socket-A Athlon available (400mhz fsb and probably
90nm).

But, since the new durons have only 192kb total cache memory (L1+L2)
versus the 640kb of the Bartons, what would be the performance
difference (mainly for software compiling on linux and games on
windows)?

Though Durons were good in their day for their price points, those
price points have now been occupied by the lower-end Athlon XPs (i.e.
the Thoroughbred XP's with 256K L2). Just as a general rule of thumb I
wouldn't touch a Duron these days, notwithstanding the relative
performance. If we do want to talk about the relative performance,
let's not forget that aside from the smaller L2 cache, it's also got
the slower 200Mhz FSB. A lot of disadvantages just accumulating,
basically.

Now, AMD did just recently announce that they are going to be creating
a really new version of the Duron which runs at the intermediate-speed
266Mhz FSB, so it's much better than the older "new" Durons. But this
Duron will only be sold in the Eastern European, Asian and other
price-sensitive markets, not in North America or Western Europe.

Yousuf Khan

I think you are forgetting something.
If we are talking of the *new* Duron (Applebred), thuis is in effect
a Thoroughbred with some cache switched off.
They are definately fast!
Could find a lot yet, but here are some charts:
http://www.overclockers.ru/news/newsitem.shtml?category=2&id=1061847206
Back to top
Dick Trace
Guest
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:42 am    Post subject: Re: Applebred vs Barton performance Reply with quote
Jorg <s@biosys.net> wrote in message news:<q65vkvsdaaokhdbu523e5uj4me0bs0rptt@4ax.com>...
Quote:
On 29 Aug 2003 07:35:04 -0700, bbbl67@yahoo.com (Yousuf Khan) wrote:

pleasestopit8@yahoo.com (Dick Trace) wrote in message news:<c3e29754.0308281440.5c4c77d1@posting.google.com>...
Hello.

I'm thinking about upgrading my old BX board, 600mhz Celeron and 320MB
RAM.

I thought about getting a cheap 400mhz Athlon motherboard, a "new"
duron (very cheap) plus 512MB of DDR RAM. Then next year upgrade the
CPU to the fastest socket-A Athlon available (400mhz fsb and probably
90nm).

But, since the new durons have only 192kb total cache memory (L1+L2)
versus the 640kb of the Bartons, what would be the performance
difference (mainly for software compiling on linux and games on
windows)?

Though Durons were good in their day for their price points, those
price points have now been occupied by the lower-end Athlon XPs (i.e.
the Thoroughbred XP's with 256K L2). Just as a general rule of thumb I
wouldn't touch a Duron these days, notwithstanding the relative
performance. If we do want to talk about the relative performance,
let's not forget that aside from the smaller L2 cache, it's also got
the slower 200Mhz FSB. A lot of disadvantages just accumulating,
basically.

Now, AMD did just recently announce that they are going to be creating
a really new version of the Duron which runs at the intermediate-speed
266Mhz FSB, so it's much better than the older "new" Durons. But this
Duron will only be sold in the Eastern European, Asian and other
price-sensitive markets, not in North America or Western Europe.

Yousuf Khan

I think you are forgetting something.
If we are talking of the *new* Duron (Applebred), thuis is in effect
a Thoroughbred with some cache switched off.
They are definately fast!
Could find a lot yet, but here are some charts:
http://www.overclockers.ru/news/newsitem.shtml?category=2&id=1061847206

Thanks for both replies.

I was not clear enough, my mistake.

When i said "new duron", i was in fact talking about the Applebred
core. And i live in one of those price-sensitive markets.

From the link above, it seems that Applebred is quite competitive
against Thoroughbreds (with 266mhz FSB though).

But my fear is that Barton's 640kb of cache could make it much faster
than Applebred for software compilation (even overclocked to the same
fsb/clock).

But, if the performance delta is 15-20% on the same clock speed, then
i would go for Applebred and spend the money left on other component.
And next year upgrade to an 90nm Athlon 4000+ with 1MB cache (if such
beast ever gets produced, of course).

Maybe i write too much. The question is: How important is cache memory
to software compilation?

I've searched Usenet, but most of the discussions about Applebred
appears to be in Russian or other east european languages i don't
understand (and babelfish do not help much).

Well, that's it. Thanks anyway.
Back to top
Roger Squires
Guest
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Applebred vs Barton performance Reply with quote
haha let's get real guy. A 1700+ bred costs $45. There is no duron now or
in the future that will beat that price/perf. I'd get a 4bolt motherboard
like the NF7-S so you can mount a quality slk900+92mm and overclock the hell
out of it. Forget the duron.

rms
Back to top
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
Douglas Bollinger
Guest
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:39 am    Post subject: Re: Applebred vs Barton performance Reply with quote
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:56:30 +0000, Roger Squires wrote:

Quote:
haha let's get real guy. A 1700+ bred costs $45. There is no duron now or
in the future that will beat that price/perf. I'd get a 4bolt motherboard
like the NF7-S so you can mount a quality slk900+92mm and overclock the hell
out of it. Forget the duron.

Something is wrong when your heatsink costs more than your CPU.

--
I'm wet! I'm wild!
Back to top
Ed
Guest
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:27 am    Post subject: Re: Applebred vs Barton performance Reply with quote
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 18:39:38 -0400, Douglas Bollinger
<dcb@pa.nospam.net> wrote:

Quote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:56:30 +0000, Roger Squires wrote:

haha let's get real guy. A 1700+ bred costs $45. There is no duron now or
in the future that will beat that price/perf. I'd get a 4bolt motherboard
like the NF7-S so you can mount a quality slk900+92mm and overclock the hell
out of it. Forget the duron.

Something is wrong when your heatsink costs more than your CPU.

Unless the heatsink can/will be used on future chips maybe not, but I'd
sooner just get a Barton 2500+ PIB (retail box with 3 year warranty) for
around $90, they are plenty fast for most users.
Ed
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Index -> CPU All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 

 MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups


Powered by p|-|pBB

Featured Sites: DIY Projects