better for gaming... Duron @950 or T-bird @876?

[Lawton]

Hey.

Which do you think will bring the best framerates, etc., with gaming? I have a Duron 600 (a blue core chip) that runs at 950 (1.75v) no problem at all, and a T-bird 700 (alas, green core) that boots at 900 (1.85v--my mobo max), but locks up there in 3d apps. It runs very solidly at 876, though (8.5x103fsb).

Stick with the T-bird? Or put the Duron back in? Whatcha think?



Other sys specs, btw:

MSI K7Tpro2-a
256mb PC133--running at 133 w/Duron @950 or 136 w/T-bird @876
Pioneer DVD-ROM
Samsung 8832 RW drive
Radeon AIW
SBLive!
Quantum LM 20G

 

[pyjujiop]

For gaming, my guess would be the Duron would win by a hair. Overall, the T-bird might be a little better. But it's basically a wash.

 

[Killrose]

Too close to call. T-bird might do better with AI intensive games because of the added cache, but it depends also on your vid card.

 

[Rand]

A Duron usually runs equivalently to a T-Bird at 100MHz less so they'll be very close but the T-Bird should edge it out in most apps. The T-Bird being on the 106 vs. 100MHz FSB with your Duron should also give it an edge.

I say take the T-Bird over the Duron.

 

[Lawton]

Hey guys, Rand seems to be on target. With Win9x apps I am seeing very little, if any, difference between the two chips. With Eurofighter Typhoon, Giants, and Counter-Strike, though, the T-bird is clearly superior. 3d apps load faster (especially Typhoon--just about twice as fast), and run faster. There were also some texture oddities with Counter-Strike, that I was thinking were Radeon driver related, that have completely disappeared. Odd, eh?

I believe the T-bird is gonna stay in the PC. Thanks for your responses!

 

[Swanny]

Yep, Rand got it. Games like memory bandwidth, and even small Mhz differences can make big performance gains. I saw a tremendous performance gain in UT just changing my FSB speed from default 100 to 105 on my K7-5 800.