Budget CPU Shootout: Clash of the 'rons
by Derek Wilson on December 4, 2003 10:55 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
It is very obvious from these tests which line of budget processors is worth the money. When we can find a 1.6GHz Duron for just over half the price of a 2.6GHz Celeron and get better performance consistently in almost every test we ran, the choice is clear.It's obvious that the long pipeline of the Pentium 4 just can't handle the crippled cache of the Celeron. With more cache misses and pipeline stalls, the processor isn't getting as much useful work done as it is trying constantly to refill the pipeline. We are seeing these results for the same reason we saw the performance gains from the P4 Extreme Edition with its 2MB L3 cache: the pipeline needs to stay full for the P4 to really shine.
The Pentium III based Celerons offered, at one time, acceptable performance. However, it is clear that in the value segment today, Intel has nothing to offer but a high clock speed. AnandTech readers will know to stay away from the Celeron at all costs; however, what is troublesome are the number of retail customers who are faced with the decision between a higher priced 2.6GHz Celeron system and an Athlon XP 2200+. We would highly encourage system vendors like Compaq and eMachines to shift their low-end focus to AMD if their customers are of any importance at all. As we've seen through our extensive benchmarking, the Celeron's performance is truly dismal; so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD.
This review really isn't complete without taking a look at overclocking performance. For enthusiasts who want a lot of performance for a small amount of cash (cache?), pushing a cheap processor beyond its limits is the way to go. Every overclocker remembers the original Celeron processor and its amazing ability to run incredibly fast because of its lack of cache. At this point (however unlikely), such a feature would be the only saving grace of the Celeron line. Of course, even if the Celeron is a good overclocker, it will be very interesting to see how high the Duron can be pushed with its cut cache as well.
The conclusion we can make from all this is that the Duron processor is a solid purchase. If you have the extra 40 to 50 dollars to spend, a Barton processor would be a nice addition to any system for that added dimension of performance to a tightly budgeted system. Hopefully, system builders will take note and start offering better performing systems for an even lower price based on the Duron processor rather than the Celeron. For those who want the cheapest possible system, AMD will give you the best performance every time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
arejerjejjerjre - Sunday, December 7, 2003 - link
Actually Its the P4 EE that wins by a mile :)and for this test seen here results are clearly tampered! Own experience proves it! I just don't know how someone could believe so blindly those test results! :) LOL
If someone would send me some money or duron based computer and a celeron cpu I would perform the tests for you all and you would see that that the results are wrong!
Gage8 - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
grammar correction...(Ed seemed to have harsh words)
Gage8 - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
Ed over at OC didn't seem to have some harsh words over this article. However, I liked the duron/celery comparison. That was quite enlightening.Pumpkinierre - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
Sorry #52 Derek, about that statement- must be the UV mod in my case blurring the eyes. However I have seen other articles where larger caches 'get in the way' with some apps. And I still stand by my base postulate that caches inherently increase system latency particularly for programs requiring fast spontaneous user control ie gaming. Unless the whole of the .exe program and settings can be contained in the cache (which basically voids system memory) then the cache has to be purged and refreshed with the required instructions and data at the whim of the user. The ideal for gaming is CPU and RAM running at the same speed- no cache. Large caches are perfect for predictable usage programs: Office,CAD/2D Graphics,Video encoding/streaming,server etc(hence large cache Xeons and opterons).The internal CPU registers and buffers are 32bit (4bytes)-so not much information is required but it must be the correct information. This is why the P4 L1 cache is only 8K cf. to the earlier P3 which had 16K-quicker to purge if wrong info, and the fact that it is inclusive to the L2 cache which again decreases the latency should the user decide to return to that part of the game in the next instant of play. This (in conjunction with large memory bandwidth) is why P4s feel smoother in play. The other alternative is no L2 cache and a slightly larger L1 cache (128 or 256K split data/commands is enough) explaining the Duron's longevity despite slow CPU speed and hence my ideal K8 CPU(see #51).CPU testing for gaming should be carried out by an operator playing the game. Demo testing involves the required sections of the game program with an input control file- all loaded into cache and all nicely predictable. In an operator driven test, the true measure of the CPU is largest MINIMUM frame rate and the true measure of the whole system is smallest differential bet. maximum and minimum frame rates. If you took these as your tests and measure you'd find your celerons (and Duron) doing well for their price.
JungleMan1 - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
Arejeje whatever your name isDesktop processors: AMD wins by a mile with Athlon FX
Mobile: I might have to give the upper hand to Intel on this one, Pentium M is a nice chip
Low end: HAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Celeron loses flat-out, as you can see in this article! Please, someone ban this tard!
arejerjejjerjre - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
Did I mention that amds heat problems are the last straw the stock cooler is terrible! Only whith water can you cool your Amd cpu enough!!Intel provides a very good heatsink and fan that doesnt need to be replaced only the thermal paste should be removed!
Now I know a way you amd folks could benefit from your machine you could use it to heat the house think about it! Garbage could be but in to use!!!!!!
arejerjejjerjre - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
It seems that you amd folks live in the biggest denial of all time!! LOLdesktop processors amd loses(P4 EE vs crappy name p4 wins)
laptop processors amd loses (1,6ghz Pentium M better than 2400+)
low end duron vs celeron amd loses(intel wins but poorly :(, but thats going to change when the newer celerons come)
I just wonder if amd is going to survive with new factory being built :) Lately they had had so big losses that its just a miracle they have even survived the competition!! Business is business and theres no room for amd there!
Shinei - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
It's not the size of your stick, it's how well you use it that counts. Develop a CPU that only does 1.4GHz but processes 20 instructions per clock and it doesn't MATTER if you have a 3.2GHz chip, it just can't compete in pure computational strength. Megahertz myth hard at work.AnonymouseUser - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
novice said: "Definitely proving once again that clockspeed doesn't really mean much and AMD's "Performance Rating System" is not just a marketing tool."Wow! You are only a NOVICE and figured that out! Many "Pros" still can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Makes me wonder who verified them as "Pros". Then again, maybe they've just become brain-dead from trying to figure out which Intel CPU is the faster version.
CRAMITPAL - Saturday, December 6, 2003 - link
The Intel fanboys just live in DENIAL even when their favorite hardware review sites show them hard data time and time again, that AMD's Duron/Athlon/A64/FX/Opteron are faster than Intel's best and AMD's products cost less, run cooler and are available NOW. Ya gotta wonder how long these folks can survive in DENIAL???