Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Duron vs. Intel Celeron

Posted by michael on from the speed-on-a-budget dept.

DeadBugs writes: "With all the hype surrounding the new Athlon XP and P4 2.2 GHz, the more affordable processors have been ignored. Tech-Report has a great article comparing the new AMD Duron and Intel Celeron. Both are now running at 1.2 GHz and have upgraded cache. The new Duron contains XP technology, while the Celeron is a PIII Tulatin with a 100MHz bus and built on the .13 micron process."

3 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Talk about extending the timetable by Wells2k · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    From what I remember of the Intel roadmap around 1998, Intel was supposed to have come out with a 100Mhz Celeron chipset sometime in the year 2000. Obviously this didn't happen on time...

  2. Duron vs Celeron: the utlimate test by Nick+Smith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sure, the Duron may have the edge on the Celeron in the 'Windows XP benchmarking exercise' but in the 'Naked vaseline wrestling exercise' the Celeron bitch-slapped the Duron until it wept like a girl.

    So which has more power? As always, it depends on what you need it for. If it's high-performance 3D graphics you want, go with the Duron. But if you like drinking in rough bars, I'd stick with the Celeron.

  3. Re:Benchmark woes by talonyx · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    This review, however, is more than fair :) Saying it's otherwise would be like saying it's unfair to compair the first- and second-place winners in the Olympic men's triathlon; yes, obviously one is faster than the other. Maybe they've got more endurance(greater memory bandwidth), maybe their muscles are bigger(stronger FP units), but if you're not going to compare those two, what else are you going to compare? The winning triathlon athlete vs. the winning 100m swimmer?


    Thanks. The sports analogy helped me understand this computer-related subject a great deal better.

    not.