|
-
June 3rd, 2001, 04:38 AM
#1
Athlon or Duron??
sorry you have probly seen this so many times. but just wondering, got about £80 to spend what would be better the thunderbird 700 or a duron 900???
-
June 3rd, 2001, 10:36 AM
#2
Originally posted by hugh69:
<STRONG>sorry you have probly seen this so many times. but just wondering, got about £80 to spend what would be better the thunderbird 700 or a duron 900???</STRONG>
The Duron 900 will outperform it with sheer clock speed advantage, but I'd instead save up another $20-$30 or so for a 900 T-Bird!
-
June 3rd, 2001, 11:50 AM
#3
I agree. Go for a TBird if you can, I would! Not to say im not fond of my little durons! As your UK, www.pcindex.co.uk should find you a good price.
-
June 4th, 2001, 07:56 PM
#4
Registered User
I would go for the T-Bird myself. I would rather have the added L2 cache the T-Bird has than more MHz on the Duron. I've run both and the T-Bird operates better IMHO.
-
June 5th, 2001, 07:42 AM
#5
I would go for the Thunderbird with it being an all round better chip. I have found that actual clock speed does not make that much difference unless it is 20/30% higher. Having more Ram or a faster Video card will produce the same effect.
Having more cache on the chip (ie. thunderbird) will serve you better in the long run.
-
June 5th, 2001, 07:48 AM
#6
Registered User
-
June 5th, 2001, 08:09 AM
#7
Most Greaterlyist
Athlon. Duron is weak. that is all
-
June 5th, 2001, 08:17 AM
#8
I am a Thunderbird guy myself, and since we are looking at 20 - 30 difference in price, drop the extra cash - it will pay off in the long run. The Duron is slower than the Thunderbird, plain and simple.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks