Duron 700 vs Thunderbird 700 - Whats the difference? I see in pricewatch that they sell the 700's in both flavors. I thought AMD are only releasing the Thunderbirds at 750 and up? Is this just a gimmick that vendors are using to increase the price? its about $30 difference for some reason. Thanks!
Duron 700 vs Thunderbird 700 - Whats the difference?
- Thread starter Brains
- Start date
The difference is the cache. The thunderbird has full speed cache the duron doesn't pretty simple. The duron also has less cache than the thunderbird.
<< The thunderbird has full speed cache the duron doesn't pretty simple. The duron also has less cache than the thunderbird.
>>
The T-bird and duron BOTH have full speed L2 cache. BOTH CPU's have a L2 cache which is 16 way associative. Both are exclusive caches. Thunderbird has 256k L2 cache. The Duron has 64k L2 cache.
The reason you are seeing 700mhz Thunderbird is because of OEM leaks...those are probably Slot A Thunderbirds that you are seeing (is that right? Or are they socket A 700mhz Thunderbirds?). Thunderbirds weren't supposed to get into the distribution channels - they were meant to go to OEM's so that they could use up their supply of 750 chipset motherboards (because the Slot A thunderbirds have timing issues with most KX133 chipset motherbords...some people have had luck and gotten them to work, most notably, with the KA7).
Durons are being made in the Austin Texas plant ONLY (NOT in Dresden). Thunderbirds are being made at both fabs. I suspect those thunderbird prices are for slot A (i've not seen < 750 socket A yet...but I could be proved wrong). Thunderbirds come in both Slot A and Socket A. Durons come in ONLY socket A.
I dont know what Tbirds were supposed to be, but here in israel i can buy 650-1000 Tbirds both slotA and SocketA (for the same price)
and durons only 600 and 650 socketA. for much less (165$ 650mhz duron, 229$ 650mhz tbird)
and durons only 600 and 650 socketA. for much less (165$ 650mhz duron, 229$ 650mhz tbird)
hmm... well the thunderbird 700's i saw were socket A flavor.. thats why i was kinda confused. They wouldn't remark the Durons as Thunderbirds would they? haha thats me being skeptical. anyway, now the question is: Is it worth the extra $30 for the thunderbird 700 or should i just get the Duron 700. How would the duron hold for couple years from now? thanks!
I have a slot A t-bird in mt hand now.It is a 700.I am searching for a kt mobo to put it in.Seems so far,all KT mobos are socket A. Really pissing me off.
Tripleshot,
There's a rumour that ASUS is going to offer an upgraded K7V for the KT133 chipset in Slot A form. It's supposed to be the ASUS K7V-T
There's a rumour that ASUS is going to offer an upgraded K7V for the KT133 chipset in Slot A form. It's supposed to be the ASUS K7V-T
Both Duron and Thunderbird have on-die full speed L2 cache, the Duron has less. Like BurntKooshie said. The older Athlons have slower cache.
Tripleshot, why do you want a SlotA KT133 board? The KT133 and KX133 are exactly the same except that the KT133 has SocketA and KX133 doesn't (it's slotA only). If you have a SlotA thunderbird, just get a slotA KX133 board, the chipset is nearly identical.
Tripleshot, why do you want a SlotA KT133 board? The KT133 and KX133 are exactly the same except that the KT133 has SocketA and KX133 doesn't (it's slotA only). If you have a SlotA thunderbird, just get a slotA KX133 board, the chipset is nearly identical.
No, the KX133 and KT133 are totally different. The KX133 is meant ONLY for the original Athlon, that's why Thunderbirds running on the KX133 aren't as stable as they can be.
The two chipsets AREN'T totally different. To quote from one of Anand's reviews...
<< The 8373 North Bridge is nearly identical to the 8371 of the KX133 with a few timing changes to support AMD's Socket-A CPU's >>
. Same chipset, just a timing tweak.
It makes sense for tripleshot to want a slot A chipset motherboard - you can get better cooling from slot CPU's, because you have more space with which to use a heatsink, leading to better surface area, thus leading to cooler temperatures (theoretically). Plus the issues that the KT-133 chipset has had with > 2 dimm slots (I'm not sure how it is now, as this is from a post on aceshardware at http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read_news.php?post_id=693&keyword_highlight=KT-133).
Okay, on to the bang/buck question....hehe
Take a look at Anands review of it....(most notably, the benchmarks which start here: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1261&p=7)
The duron is within about 10% (below) of an equivalently clocked Athlon (classic) in most cases, sometimes even attaining parity with it. The Thunderbird (compared to the classic) is about 10 % faster per clock. So, you decide for yourself, as YOU will be the judge as to which is better suited for your needs. One thing you may want to consider is that over time, programs are becoming more and more influenced by the memory subsystem, including L2 cache.....the Thunderbird will, over the long term, be better, because its performance in relation to the applications used at the time won't degrade as much as a Duron's.
It really depends on how long you are planning on keeping the computer as a main machine....if for a long time, and you want to buy NOW, Thunderbird....if you want it for a short time (a year or so), then a Duron
My opinion only
<< The 8373 North Bridge is nearly identical to the 8371 of the KX133 with a few timing changes to support AMD's Socket-A CPU's >>
. Same chipset, just a timing tweak.
It makes sense for tripleshot to want a slot A chipset motherboard - you can get better cooling from slot CPU's, because you have more space with which to use a heatsink, leading to better surface area, thus leading to cooler temperatures (theoretically). Plus the issues that the KT-133 chipset has had with > 2 dimm slots (I'm not sure how it is now, as this is from a post on aceshardware at http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read_news.php?post_id=693&keyword_highlight=KT-133).
Okay, on to the bang/buck question....hehe
Take a look at Anands review of it....(most notably, the benchmarks which start here: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1261&p=7)
The duron is within about 10% (below) of an equivalently clocked Athlon (classic) in most cases, sometimes even attaining parity with it. The Thunderbird (compared to the classic) is about 10 % faster per clock. So, you decide for yourself, as YOU will be the judge as to which is better suited for your needs. One thing you may want to consider is that over time, programs are becoming more and more influenced by the memory subsystem, including L2 cache.....the Thunderbird will, over the long term, be better, because its performance in relation to the applications used at the time won't degrade as much as a Duron's.
It really depends on how long you are planning on keeping the computer as a main machine....if for a long time, and you want to buy NOW, Thunderbird....if you want it for a short time (a year or so), then a Duron
My opinion only
DaddyG
Thanks. That is good news indeed. I anxiously await it's arrival. I have 2 A7V's arriving tommorow..I only have a Duron600 to place in it,but I heard Duron is clock locked,T-bird is not.At any rate,the Duron has a home.
Thanks. That is good news indeed. I anxiously await it's arrival. I have 2 A7V's arriving tommorow..I only have a Duron600 to place in it,but I heard Duron is clock locked,T-bird is not.At any rate,the Duron has a home.
While the KX133 and the KT133 are in fact similar, the timing difference for the TBIRD/DURON is critical. As an update the K7V-T has infact arrived in Australia, don't know when it will arrive in USA.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter