Duron or an AMD k-6-III

[Loggerman]

My friend wants to know the diff. between a duron 700 and a regular AMD K6 III.
I tell him that a duron is just a chip that didn,t make it as a athlon or tbird.

 

[shiznut123]

duron is way better. i dunno why.

 

[xPANAFOEx]

i have a duon 600 that performs way better that my k6 3 500

 

[lane42]

Loggerman, an o\c duron can be better then an Athlon or tbird, which are the same thing.

 

[Assimilator1]

They are 2 totally different cpu's ,the K6-3 is an old S7 cpu with 256k L2 on die cache ,it has a fairly poor FPU (3D performance side).[edit]When I say an old S7 cpu I'm referring to the core architecture.

The Duron is a SocketA cpu with a much more modern design ,eg it has a very strong FPU ,it has 64K on die L2 cache ,(this sum is added to the 128k L1 cache ,which doesnt happen with the K6-3),inspite of this they way outperform a K6-3.
They are not rejected Athlon T birds ,they are actually a slightly different core ,if you read the early Anandtech reviews about the Duron he'll give you the details

 

[TheCorm]

My Duron 750mhz, is a lot faster than my old K6-3 450, not that it was a slow system, just slower.

My K6-3 had L1=64KB, L2=256KB, L3=1024KB and it still could not touch the duron with "only" 192KB combined.

Plus, K6-3's are really hard to get hold of and probably as expensive as Durons anyway, duron all the way (enhanced 3d now and extended mmx too!!)

With regards to what Assimilator1 said, the duron is not a rejected t/bird, that's the p3 and celeron you're thinking about there.

Corm

 

[Zephyr]

It's two whole different classes of processors based on quite different architechtures.

However Duron's are in fact NOT chips that didn't make it as Tbirds in the traditional sense. The diesize is different, which pretty much proves that Durons and Tbirds are two different chips. IIRC from my limited understandning of AMDs chipmaking processes they first yield the dies then add the ondie L2 memory cells and the amount of these determain if it's a Tbird or Duron. However if the "raw" die is tested before the L2 is added I don't know. If this is true you could argue that Durons in a sense are Tbirds that didn't make it... (please note that this is just my specualtions based on rumors I've picked up and not something I actually can claim as facts)

Anyway back to the Q ... the K6-III is pretty much the predecessor of the Athlon (though it never actually gained much foothold in the market it was targetted for) like the K6-2 is the predecessor for the Duron. Kinda like the difference between a Celeron and a PentiumMMX

Hope this clears matter up a bit

 

[Dually]

depends. A AMD K6-3+ outperforms a duron. It is because they can be run at 550mhz. This new verison of the K6-3 is .18u and has the athlon new 3dnow instruction set. Plus the K6-3+ has more cache on it. It has the 512kb or 1mb or even 2mb on the motherboard plus 256kb on die. The Duron has less than that. It is up to you but my K6-3+ 550mhz outperformed a Duron 600.

 

[Soccerman]

sigh..

a Duron isn't really different, besides its cache, and the materials that it is made of.

really.

AMD produces Durons at it's Austin FAB at .18 micron without Copper (AFAIK), which limits it currently to about 1 ghz at best.

AMD makes their T-Birds (known as Athlons) in the Dresden fab, at .18 micron, and using copper interconnects, which allows it to (currently) hit a max of 1.4 or so ghz.

the K6-3+ cannot even outperform a Duron in GAMES, but probably can in Integer intensive apps, simply because it's got GOBS of cache behind it, and given that the other CPU's aren't clocked much higher then it. the K6-3 outperformed alot of the competition in that respect when it was in its day.

the K6-3 line is derived from the K6-2, execpt it has 256k ONBOARD L2 cache, whereas the K6-2 doesn't have any onboard L2 cache.

the K6-x series are based on the K6 CPUs, except have a new instruction set called 3DNow!, which in most cases doubles it's performance in FPU intensive applications, when implimented into software (ie, the software has to support 3DNow!, and use it PROPERLY). a good example of this was Quake 2, to which the boost was phenominal, becuase it was implimented very well. in todays games, the boost would be not quite as good, but still noticeable. too bad developers do not really impliment it, for us poor K6-x owners!

in fact, the K6-2 line very nearly equalled the Intel Celerons (In FPU intensive applications, which is what 3DNow! was made to do) it was competing with, however, then Intel came out with the smash Celeron A, which had onboard 128k cache, which hit AMD where it hurt, becuase their CPU didn't have any onboard L2 cache, thus giving the Celeron A, a new lease on life (in games compared to the K6-2).

AMD introduced the K6-3 somewhere after the CeleronA was released (I think). it had the 256k ondie L2 cache, which helped it actually a pretty good amount, though I don't think quite enough (I'm talking games, FPU intensive apps) to keep up with the CeleronA, which also maxed out at about 600mhz was the limit to that line, until they moved to .18 micron etc, compared to the K6-x line, which maxed out eventually at about 550mhz (those speeds weren't released till much later, when it didn't really count as much, becuase the Athlon was the main star for AMD).

the K6-2+ is a K6-2, with 128 k L2 cache on die, and the Athlons extra 3DNow! instructions included, as well as Powernow!, and made with the .18 micron die process (no copper as far as I know)

the K6-3+ is a K6-3, with the extra 3DNow! instructions that originally debuted on the Athlon, and PowerNow! as well, and is made with the .18 micron die process.

these CPU's seem to max out at about 600mhz, but do not produce as much heat as their predecessors. the reason they do not go as high as a .18 micron Celeron, is simply becuase they aren't designed to go that fast. problems occur with data when the K6-x line goes any faster.

 

[Zephyr]

<< a Duron isn't really different, besides its cache, and the materials that it is made of. >>



All I was saying is that it is not a Tbird with parts of the L2 disabled, therefor a different chip. That they share the same architechture is another matter.

 

[Hanky]

One more thing to consider is that the Athlon's (which includes the Duron) have much longer pipelines than the K6-line of CPU's which can help either CPU architecture performancewise, depending on the application. Anyway, even the fastest clocked (overclocked) K6-III+ won't outperform the lowest clocked Duron (600 MHz) when performance really matters (FPU-intensive applications).
Very few people will notice differences in integer performance let's say between a K6-2/300 and an Athlon 1200 just because very few people need the performance here.

 

[bachlaw]

Also worth noting: K6-III+ CPU's are almost impossible to find. If I could get my hands on one, I'd replace my K6-III 400 in a heartbeat. K6-2+ 500's are sprinkled around, but they're not worth it.

Durons are just as cheap if not cheaper, and for the price difference, you might as well go much higher than 600 at minimal extra cost.

Jonathan

 

[Kenwood]

Actually the III+ is very easy to find. They sell in the $50-$60 range. It's more of a question if your mobo will recognize it or not and/or flashing the bios to recognize it.

 

[Assimilator1]

Zephyr

Agreed ,that was my point too

(BTW you don't own 1 of those old Fords do you? ref your nick)

 

[Zephyr]

Assimilator1

good .. as long as we agree

nope.. I don't.. I drive a Mazda