duron 1600@1896

[RobCur]

158fsbx12, is it as fast to an xp2200 1800mhz?

 

[bjc112]

Nope.

 

[Soulkeeper]

you would prob need 2ghz to compete with the 2200+
yur prob ranking around an 1800+ with that speed

 

[MDE]

The clock speed on a Duron is about the equivalent XP model number.

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: MDE
The clock speed on a Duron is about the equivalent XP model number.

Are you serious? so mhz means nothing?? we're talking 158fsb speed here!! not 100fsb..

" you would prob need 2ghz to compete with the 2200+
yur prob ranking around an 1800+ with that speed"

how can a difference of 100mhz = 400 increase in rating?? LMAO.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: RobCur

Originally posted by: MDE
The clock speed on a Duron is about the equivalent XP model number.

Are you serious? so mhz means nothing?? we're talking 158fsb speed here!! not 100fsb..

" you would prob need 2ghz to compete with the 2200+
yur prob ranking around an 1800+ with that speed"

how can a difference of 100mhz = 400 increase in rating?? LMAO.

There's a big difference between 64KB and 256KB of L2 cache. I have a Duron 1.6, trust me.

 

[myocardia]

Sorry, Rob, you just bought the wrong chip. Although my mobile Barton 2600 running at 12x211 (2530 mhz) equals an AMD "4000+", a 1.6ghz Duron (there's no such thing as a Duron 1600) running at 12x158= XP2000. And Soulkeeper was exactly right about 2000 mhz equaling an XP2200, because I checked that too. So, see if you can get it up to 166fsb, since that's what a 1.6ghz Duron requires to match the speed of an XP2200. 166x12=1992mhz, but according to this: AMDtool, it still equals an XP2200.

 

[RobCur]

it makes my head hurts that he say 1896 = xp1800 but you say xp2000 which is more like it but it should be xp2100 still? yes, there is such thing as 158fsbx12, it does not run stablely at 166fsb because no way to up the voltage from 1.5 to 1.525 etc. it is ecs k7vta3
if 2ghz = xp2300 then 1.9ghz=xp 2100, very simple.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: RobCur
it makes my head hurts that he say 1896 = xp1800 but you say xp2000 which is more like it but it should be xp2100 still? yes, there is such thing as 158fsbx12, it does not run stablely at 166fsb because no way to up the voltage from 1.5 to 1.525 etc. it is ecs k7vta3
if 2ghz = xp2300 then 1.9ghz=xp 2100, very simple.

Wow, I guess I don't need to ask what kind of grades you got in math, huh? Did you even download that huge 200kb file that I linked you to? Wait, you wouldn't have said that, if you had! Now, when you DO download it, here's how to use it: click on the top button, the one that's labeled "CPU Type", and select Morgan, which is what processor you have. Then, change the multi to 12x and the fsb to 158, and you'll find that you've got the equivalent of an XP2000. Not bad for your ~$50 investment in a cpu and motherboard, huh?

 

[AkumaX]

werd. duron 2000 = 2000mhz. AXP 2000+ = 1667mhz. okay? okay!!

btw, you can increase the vcore to 1.7v (1.65v actual for me) on the k7vta3 by adding a little tiny wire

took my duron to 2100mhz. that's right, not 2100+, 2100mhz. which is equivalent to an XP2100+. which is really 1733mhz. yes.

 

[RobCur]

to each his own. pointless argument..

 

[InlineFive]

Well for more brute force applications like games the extra cache really helps. However for most apps a fast Duron would be just fine.

-Por

 

[nick1985]

DERRRRRR :::WILDLY SLAPS CHEST::: on

 

[Sid59]

scrap up 90 bucks and get a mobile barton?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
Well for more brute force applications like games the extra cache really helps. However for most apps a fast Duron would be just fine.

-Por

Actually, Por, you've got it backwards. In games, clockspeed matters more, which is why in the big article a few months ago on cheap processors, a T-bred B XP2400 outdid a Barton XP2500 in most games, it runs a slightly higher clockspeed. In other words, a 2.4ghz T-bred will compete on par with a 2.4ghz Barton in gaming. It's the other apps where the amount of cache makes the difference. In media encoding (whether audio or video), cache makes more difference than clockspeed. In something like a DC (distributed computing) project, depending on the client, it can make quite a bit of difference. And, as crazy as it seems, cache makes a difference in how the system "feels". My mobile Barton "felt" faster (apps opened faster, etc) or at least as fast at stock speeds, than my highly overclocked XP2400 T-bred did, obviously because of having twice the L2 cache, since it was running ~300-350mhz slower. I'm sure I'm leaving some things out, but you get the idea, anyway.