Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is Better? P3 or Athlon or Duron?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2000 10:43:37 PM

I need experts / experienced help. AM currently on the hunt for new Pc. After reading reviews here and there. I got real confused. so which processor is better? P3, Athlon, or Duron?

I'll be using my computer mainly on games like NBA Live 2K1, Quake III, Unreal, RTS etc.... I don't wanna blow my budget though. I currently own an P166 (Gooodbye ol pal! its been 4 years)

I heard lots of bruhahas on AMD systems (Thermal, PS, Compatibility both hardwares and softwares) but their priced so cheap! and intel is not.... although i'm so used to the brand it seems i'm more at ease with them... well somewhat.

Am looking for MB's with ISA slot coz am gonna keep using my SB AWE32. a PC133 SDRAM + Geforce2 MX 32MB + ATX (Well ... am gonna try a 230 watts) will fill the gaps. The rest (CD-ROM, HDD, FDD) I'll retrieve it for cost purposes.

Help me out guys!!! Thanks

More about : athlon duron

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2000 11:49:57 PM

AMD is the best performer plain and simple and it is cheaper...how can you go wrong. Giga-byte GA-7ZX has the ISA slot that you need. Make sure that the power supply is appoved by AMD, 230W seems a little low as well. In terms of heat, as long as you get a good heatsink and Fan (there is a review of them on this site, that was just done a few weeks ago) you should be fine.

Take your <b>PILL</b>,and get some sleep.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 6:03:33 AM

Which is better? That depends on what you use it for. It sounds like the Duron might be the choice for you. It is dirt cheap, but still a strong performer, and really shines when overclocked. You'd then have the option of dropping in an Athlon someday if you needed to. If you play alot of games, then the video card will be the key to satisfying performance.

Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 6:17:08 AM

I would recomend TB or Duron for it cost and performance. TBird is faster but more expensive and more heat, so u need better heatsink and case ventilation (Added cost). So it is up to you with the budget and expected performance. With all the latest Socket A motherboard from reputable manufacturers, u wont have any problem with AMD CPU. As for your soundcard i would recomend u get a newer card as for the compatibility (Drivers and Hardware).

Good Luck
December 31, 2000 6:27:15 AM

To hell with those- go with a k62-266. Yeah it may sound slow, but when you overclock that baby to 300ish and decrease the 3 min. boot up time to 2 min and 40 seconds, it'll bring tears to your eyes. And, if you can still find them, they probobly only cost a buck or two.

"Are you saying that I can dodge bullets?"
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 7:54:43 AM

Go with whatever you prefer. PIII systems are only about $100 more than comparable Athlon systems when you build them yourself, and they are more "trouble free" for assembly, however, you could use that extra hundred bucks to buy more ram! A bunch more at the current prices. Or a better video card. And I like the idea of keeping the SB AWE32, it has always been from a line of cards that works with every piece of software ever written for sound. But seriously, the best boards don't support an ISA slot anymore. And I have two of them for sale here if you want them!
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 8:03:25 AM

BTW, I decide that the extra $100 was a good investment for me because of reduced service time. My last AMD system kept me busy about 20 hours a month keeping everything working properly, due to software issues with the Via chipset. A lot of this was due to the large number of devices and programs I was using at the time, and a simpler system would not have caused nearly as many headaches. But when I had to decide between simpifying my system, putting up with headaches, or spending $100 more to go Intel on my latest system, $100 didn't seem like too bad a deal. If you do decide to go Intel, get a motherboard with an Intel chipset. If you decide to go AMD, keep it simple or learn how to make it work!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 3:01:04 PM

What you meant is that when you have too many peripherals installed you're experiencing more trouble than when its not? What kind of AMD system (CPU & Mobos) are you using? and what is your current system now?

I heard the same story with a friend of mine in Queens who once owns a K6-2 Processor with an ALI board. he said it was a horrifying experience especially when he bought an ATI Rage it was not working properly with the mainboards.

Maybe your earlier problem is with the mainboard. But i agree with what you said though. I'll pay a little premium (but not a $100 or more) for a worry/trouble free system.
But will the readers of this thread agree that intel is a worry-free products along its mainboards?

That is if there such a thing.....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 3:49:13 PM

<b>But will the readers of this thread agree that intel is a worry-free products along its mainboards?

That is if there such a thing.....</b>

I don't think anyone can agree with that, regardless of whether they say they do. The recent Intel chipsets are new, too. I am also curious about this. It seems that a very popular Intel chipset board is the Asus CUSL2 (-C). There's a site called <A HREF="http://www.cusl2.com" target="_new">http://www.cusl2.com&lt;/A>. I went over and checked out the forums and there seem to be various problems, just like boards with VIA chipsets. I saw the same thing on another CUSL2 forum.

If you get a ton of people saying that a specific product is bad, then you avoid that product. However, many people seem to have no problems with a certain product, while a significant few do. There are probably multiple reasons for this.

1. PC parts are more popular and cheaper than ever. The more you sell of a particular product, the greater the chance of some of them being bad.

2. It also means there are more inexperienced people building PCs that will make more mistakes...particularly people who just throw stuff together without proper preparation (reading the manuals comes to mind).

3. Parts/components are cheaper and more widely available than ever and I suspect more people are putting in cheaper stuff that *may* not be as stable as more proven items. This could also lead to compatibility issues. How many various kinds of one product can you really test and does everyone stick strictly to "the spec?"

4. My favorite: Regarding motherboards, I wonder how well these things are designed and tested before they are released. Like many computer-related issues, it seems that there may be more of a push to get the product out and "fix it later" than there used to be. Who knows? When I read of what various new BIOS releases fix I sometimes ask myself how the heck "they" could have released a product with that kind of fault.

All the above play a part to a greater or lesser extent, and this is just my opinion. And as others have pointed out, you really only hear about the problems on a forum.

Mike
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 4:07:44 PM

Without causing some kind of flame war, I'd say the PIII (Coppermine) and Athlon (Thunderbird) perform more-or-less the same when clocked at the same speed (MHz). Yes, there are some applications where one beats the other, but all in all they're pretty much the same.

AMD processors are much much cheaper than their Intel counterparts, which is why I always go with the Athlon. The Intel Celeron is seriously bad compared with the AMD Duron - cos the Duron has a 200MHz FSB vs. 66MHz on the Celeron. The performance/price table goes like this:

1. Duron (best)
2. Athlon
3. Celeron
4. PIII (worst)

Also PIIIs are stuck at 1.0GHz but you can now get 1.2GHz Athlons off the shelf. Athlons/Durons are also easier to overclock using an HB pencil to unlock the multiplier - no chance on a PIII. That said, PIIIs have built-in Thermal protection, Athlon/Durons don't, so be careful when fitting that heatsink. Celerons are good for overclocking cos they only have 66MHz FSB - which can be increased to 83MHz or 100MHz.

If you like games, it might be worth spending a little less on megahurtz and a little more on the gfx card. I don't know how much you want to spend, but loads of ppl I know have an overclocked Duron with a GeForce2 GTS or MX, and either 96 or 128MB, which works really well and is great value for money.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 4:39:03 PM

How dare you say that!!! Heh! Just kidding!

I agree. I've got an Athlon and a Pentium and like them both, but the Duron is a *really* good bang for the buck.

Mike
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2000 9:34:53 PM

It was a problem with the Via chipset. Drivers were written for Intle chipsets. It's easy to make one or two devices cooperate under these circumstaces, but the more devices I added, the more conflicts I had, the more patches I needed, etc. And there was a problem alocating resources-some of the IRQ's shared by motherboard resources didn't like being shared with other devices. I actually had to load my system without some of the cards installed, and then install the cards one by one to get the resource alocations right. And then there was software that would cause errors in the Via drivers. AMD makes a great processor, but Via can't be trusted. Micron and nVidia are supposed to start making AMD chipsets soon, so if I were building another new system I would wait to find out how those two products work before going to an AMD.
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 5:09:42 AM

The post you see on CUSL2.com are not indicative of any problem eith the motherboard. Some people ask about certain soundcards not working right-mainly the Vortex2 variants. This is a driver problem that would have been fixed except that Aureal went out of business. It is easy to fix. Other people write in compaints that they can't get their processors to overclock past a certain point. Their problem is usually processor quality or improper voltage settings. Still more people write in to complain about some of their cards not working in Win2k. This is a Win2k issue. I think I have heard of one bad board. I am on that forum every day, and most of the questions concern overclocking and voltages, not the motherboard
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 6:13:29 AM

I surrender!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 4:31:56 PM

If you decide to go AMD, which is a no-brainer, you needn't worry about spending 20 hours a month keeping everything working. AMD systems may be a little more sensitive to heat and power supply issues but software compatability is a non-issue. Those people who say they can't make AMD systems work are either Intel biased or have verry little knowledge of making PC's work. With 50+ Athlon systems working in my business I can say with certainty that Athlon systems are, when setup properly (which takes very little effort), as stable and trouble free as Intel systems.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 5:20:22 PM

I agree. One reason is that practically all new Athlon/Duron systems use the KT133 or the AMD750, so all the 4-in-1 drivers are easy to find. With Intel chips, you've got Intel boards, VIA boards, SIS boards, etc. all with different chipsets. It's nice to have a de facto standard, but what the AMD760 will bring is anyone's guess, esp. considering lots of other companies are gonna start making DDR chipsets as well.
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 5:29:13 PM

Yeh, Mine ran stabley and reliably as long as I didn't try to add any parts to it, such as a scanner, and didn't turn it off very often, and made suer that it never lost power while a program was open, and never tried to write CD's, and...
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 5:32:50 PM

Yeh, Mine ran stabley and reliably as long as I didn't try to add any parts to it, such as a scanner, and didn't turn it off very often, and made suer that it never lost power while a program was open, and din't try to play certain games, and never tried to write CD's, and...
a b à CPUs
January 1, 2001 5:45:46 PM

BTW, I used to be a staunch supporter of AMD, and I still think they make a more powerfull processor. Intel is an evil empire that try's to control the market in a similar manner to Microsoft. And I figured that once AMD got some market share, software makers would start making their software work better with AMD systems. Then one day I realized that VIA was the real problem and that VIA was the one hurting peoples faith in AMD. As long as AMD relies on VIA to make high-performance chipsets, I will not be building another AMD system. Although my ALI chipset motherboard did not have the performance that the VIA did, at least it worked! I would like to build another AMD system, but only when someone comes out with a better solution for the motherboard. Even if VIA's latest chipset is perfect, I will not support them, because they have caused me so much grief in the past. They used the market as "test dummies" for their products for far to long.
January 2, 2001 4:07:29 PM

If your on a budget, go with the Intel 700E, Asus CUSL2, Geforce2 MX, and 256 MB RAM.

Im sure all are in your budget, and can reach 1Ghz speed.
This config will make any gamer happy.
You dont have to settle for a Duron, or worry about incompatabilty.

PC prices are cheap enough already. 700E is good overclocker in $100 price range.
January 2, 2001 4:57:02 PM

Doesn't look like you got much help, but trust me on this one. Just look at the reviews here on THG between Duron/Athlon/P3. Price/Performance, the Duron beat them all, and by a large margin in most of the benchmarks. For your needs, in my opinion, go with a Duron, it gives very good performance and is very inexpensive. With the money you save, you can get a better video card and some more RAM, which should be more than enough for your gaming needs.
!