• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Should I get Athalon XP 1600 vs. Duron 1.8Ghz

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.


Oct 28, 2002
Ahhh, thats better...
I think they're about hte same price, is this just a matter of the on board cache. Does the fact that the Duron is faster (1.8Ghz) than the XP 1600 (1.4 Ghz) make up for the on board cache, or am I just plain better off with the XP?

this machine will really only be pushed by Gaming.

as far as Word processng etc, I know the Celeron/Duron type CPU is OK, But this machine will be doing some Serious gaming.
While I'm at it.... the fastest Duron is 1.3Ghz, so get the XP for about the same price.
Where the hell did you hear about a Duron 1.8? Maybe you were confused and you actually saw Duron 800 mhz lol.

Obviously, get the 1600+
Oooppss, a look at the CPU database reveals there is a 1.4 morgan! although it does not appear on the AMD site :eh?:
Last edited:
I run a 1600xp (at 160x11.5) and a Duron 1.3. The Duron sucks and there is no 1.8.

(PS, the only 1.8 Duron I have seen is a few web sites out there advertising the Duron using the PR system used on the XP Processors, just a thought)
Jawsome said:
Duron 1.8 is the clear winner here guys, you just cant beat that cache.

Have you read about the Duron? WHat do you mean can't beat that cache.

1600XP Runs at 266(+)FSB, has A total of 384 L1 and L2 CACHE

1.3 Duron Runs at 200(+)FSB, has 128-L1 and 64-L2 (i think it all runs at full speed.

Also where I shop for the OEM's there is only like a fifteen dollar differance, there is only one choice. THe max I could get out of my Duron was about 200Mhz, but it was not that stable.