Thunderbird or Duron: What's the real difference?

[aa_koch]

I'm building my friend a new computer system, and I'm trying hard to save him a couple of bucks. (I want to build him a balanced system; not one with a $1,000 video card and only a 15" monitor, or one with a 80.0GB HD and 64MB RAM.) One of my dillemas is whether to build the machine around an Athlon "Thunderbird" or a Duron CPU. He is a "first-timer," in the sense that he's had a computer before, but this will be the first time he has one that's actually "up to date."

I asked him what he wants to use the PC for, and he told me he would mostly like to do some video editing. He is not a professional editor, and the stuff he's looking to do does not require that he spend $6,000 on the latest technology that he'll never take full advantage of. All he's really looking for is being able to record some of his home videos to a HD, add effects and stuff, and record the results to a CD-R. Further, he wants to be able to play DVD movies and surf the Internet, and play the occasional game. This means that I'll need to buy him a good video card that supports "Video-In," a fast HD, and a fair amount of RAM. But which CPU? Should I get a "Thunderbird" because it's the more powerful of the two (T-bird vs. Duron), or will a Duron CPU fit the bill, especially when I spend the money saved on extra RAM?

From what I understand, the Athlon "Thunderbird" comes with 128K of L1 & 256K of L2 cache, while the Duron "only" has 128K L1 & 64K L2 cache. What kind of programmes in particular use this cache memory, and how does it affect the performance of a computer? I assume that video editing means the CPU will have to handle a lot of calculations, and I think this means it'll need as much L2 as possible. But for his purpose, would the Duron processor not be equally good?

I've used a Duron 700 myself, and I ran a number of graphics-intensive games, and also used Adobe Photoshop to work with large textures and images. The Duron performed without a hitch in combination with my ATi Radeon 64MB DDR ViVo. (I'm looking to get him the same card if it can take input from his camcorder (haven't tried this myself), else I may opt to go with the All-in-Wonder.) I then changed to a 750MHz "Thunderbird," and I didn't notice an increase in speed playing these games, and the images in Photoshop loaded just as quick as they did running the Duron. (So in my opinion, the Duron did not lag behind the "Thunderbird.&quot But would I notice much difference between these two CPUs when working with videos? (Would load times really take much longer, for example?) Considering that it's always possible to upgrade to a "Thunderbird" on the motherboard I want to buy him (ASUS A7V), should I "take this risk?"

 

[mlg]

As you've noticed, some programs don't seem to use the extra cache. Some do, however. I think I've seen program by program comparisons here at Anandtech, and you could also check Tom's Hardware and Aces Hardware. Realworldtech has probably done one like that. There's also a difference in the core voltage.
Sorry, I can't offer the specifics myself, though.

 

[Dundain]

There isnt really a huge difference in the two performance wise from what Ive seen on similarly configured systems. A Thunderbird 750 might beat a Duron at 750 by something like 15-20% (I dont know the exact numbers, hopefully someone else will provide that) in games like Quake III, Unreal Tournament, etc. but you want notice it largely in regular office use.

In appz like Photoshop, 3d graphics programs, and video editing software, whats as important is the amount of RAM you have (Go with 256Mb since is so freakin cheap at the moment) and a good storage system. So I'd say go with the cheaper processer, and get more RAM and better hard drives.

 

[arod324]

The TBird has more lvl2 cache, and will therefore do much better in office applications, but will not have much impact in gaming performance. The TBird will beat the Duron by about 10% in gaming performance at equivilent MHZ. Personally, I bought the Duron 600 when it was about $75, and it has been working like a charm @1050. You can always stick a tbird in any socket a motherboard.

 

[GL]

Duron's are noticeably slower at doing divx compression. If the same holds true for other video compression codecs, then the best choice for your friend might be a thunderbird. Other than this and a select few other applications, the Duron and Thunderbird run very close it seems.

Here are benchmarks for divx compression

-GL

 

[aa_koch]

Reading the article GL linked to, I've decided to get him an AMD Duron CPU. I know this doesn't make sense if you consider that the AMD Athlon "Thunderbird" 1.1GHz performed the best in that test, but I am not convinced that my friend will ever make so much use of his PC that he needs a chip that powerful. The AMD Duron is still the "best bang for the buck," so I'll go with that.

I've got a spare AMD Duron 600MHz (blue core!), which I'll try to overclock. If it hits 800MHz or better, I'll sell him that chip. (At a fair price, of course. ) If it doesn't, I'll go out and buy the fastest Duron available. Only if he then complains about the system being slow, will I upgrade his machine to an AMD Athlon "Thunderbird." But I doubt he'll need that kind of CPU anytime soon.

Thanks for the help, guys!