What would this CPU be comparable to?

[SonicIce]

Which Athlon XP would be equal to a 1.6GHz Willamette? Or are these so bad that they could be beaten by a fast PIII?
(Do all Willamette's have 256KB L2, 400MHz FSB, and 18nm?)

 

[fatty4ksu]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Which Athlon XP would be equal to a 1.6GHz Willamette? Or are these so bad that they could be beaten by a fast PIII?
(Do all Willamette's have 256KB L2, 400MHz FSB, and 18nm?)

I believe so.

 

[shoRunner]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-25.html

around around <1500-2000 depending on benchmark

 

[natto fire]

I would guess that any barton core athlon would be better, and probably a few T-breds as well.

 

[Xenoterranos]

I'd go Athlon XP 1800 Barton minimum. I still run one of those in a spare computer, decently fast little proc.

 

[DerelictDev]

Probably around a Athlon XP 1600+ at best. Back in the day the label actually meant something. When a XP was labelled 2200+ it usually was right about par with a Pentium 2.2Ghz

Edit:

Originally posted by: shoRunner
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-25.html

around around <1500-2000 depending on benchmark

From that page it falls around the performance of a XP 2000+ but if you go through most of the other benchmarks it only matches up around a 1600+

 

[JimPhelpsMI]

Hi, Check the vendors on the internet. Some of them list the actual clock freq of the processors. AMD's claim to fame is that a 1200+, actual clock 900, processes as fast as a P4 1.2. Hope this helps, Jim

 

[akshayt]

yours may be something around P III : 1.2ghz tualatin
maybe a bit lower

but also it depends gaming or not as for gaming amd is in lead as of now atleast in mid segment with amd 64,ask others