Yesterday I got enough fed up with this lame asus a7v266-c and my palomino 1800+.
I went out and bought epox kt400a board along with 1.8GHz duron.
I'm happy with the duron, doesn't seem slow or anything. And I'm happy with the board.
My temps went from cpu 60-70C to cpu 29-34C.
Now, to my question.
Is the 1800+ palomino core athlon better than the applebred 1.8GHz duron? I know the athlon has a whole more cache.
Or are they pretty much on par performance wise?
The only cpu intensive things I do are extract archives and play.
I was just wondering because I have the palomino sitting next to me, and with this new board, I think it'd run on it's default vcore of 1.75V instead of 1.85V which asus made it run at.
I have heard that the Duron 1800 will overclock quite well but not as much as the Duron 1600. Or you could switch the cache back on and turn it into an AthlonXP. Maybe worth a go.
Well...I woud never go back Duron these days...however, this mucking around with caches that AMD is beginning to do is a bit fraut in my opinion...
I run an Athlon XP 2500+ (128KB/512KB cache) clocked at 1.833GHz.
I also run an Athlon XP 2400+ (128KB/256KB) clocked at 2.0GHz.
I have had the feeling that the 2400 performs better in Wolfenstein...but it is close...the 2500 is definitely better in the sense that it supports higher memory clock (333MHz) and that is good for dual channel memory and that is very fast....
But Duron you should notice a major difference...I used to run a Thunderbird and a Duron and once I bought 1st full cache processor I never went back.
Enjoy this Duron...because the new Athlon 64 will probably be your next spend if you like AMD.
Linear Mode
