Athlon's and Durons, Slots and Sockets

[Sony]

I'm confused what advantages are there between Slots and sockets and also Athlons and Durons what advantages and disadvantages are there between either. Please tell me I just want to know.

[Liquid_N2]

I believe that there is not that much difference between the slots and socket processors performance wise, i think that sockets are cheaper to produce due to the size difference, and that cooling has advance so much more to cope with the speed that the chips were running at and keep them cool. Where as before the slots processors needed to be that big to cool them down (hence the huge heatsinks!!)

The sockets also save space and I have found them to be more reliable then the slot processor - others may have different opinions.

With regards to Duron V TBird the only main between these two processors is their amount of L2 cache. The Thunderbird has 256K and the Duron has only 64K.

If you want some more information between these two processors you best check out THIS (http://www.athlonmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=44) review on Athlonmb.com (http://www.athlonmb.com)

Hope this helps.

[Dr_Kildare]

AMD went to the socket A b/c it was cheaper & will the advent of on-die L2 cache the Slot PCB type design was no longer need...

Most Slot A CPU's were Athlon "Classics" (512K of L2 off-die cache) with some Slot A T-Bird's avaliable...

Duron's only came in the socket form...