Slashdot Mirror
AMD Duron vs. Intel Celeron
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."
The Celeron is also crippled by the poor FPU that hasn't really changed since the Pentium II came out. The only reason why I would buy a Celeron-based computer is if heat and noise are not tolerated, beyond that, even a slower Athlon or the Duron would be the processor of choice (both for people on a budget or for people who crave speed).
Tom's Hardware did a review on this a couple of weeks ago: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020103/index. html
As you can see, the Celeron is actually at 1300 MHz, not 1200. Funny thing is the Duron still beats it by a good deal.
You're right, the first Celeron with 100 MHz FSB was the Celeron2 800 which was announced January 2001, missing 2000 by a couple days. That was only a year ago so the news probably hasn't trickled down to /. yet.
Unfortunately, AMD apparently isn't ready to move the Duron to a 266MHz bus just yet. That's really a pity, but AMD wants to differentiate between the Athlon and Duron
They're not ready because to put the Duron and Athlon at the same bus speed would make their performance levels nearly equal. With the hardware prefetch and SSE we've already seen the 1 gig duron keeping up with the 200mhz fsb 1 gig Athlons. To put the cheaper Duron at 266 would give little incentive to buy an Athlon of the same grade (save for the cache).
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
I don't know how a Celeron 1.2GHz can be discounted that much, as it is just over 1/2 the street price locally (Austin, TX) while the AMX XP 1.5GHz price you quote is not that much lower than the local street price. The pricing at a local place (www.laboratorycomputers.com) looks like this:
Celeron 1.2GHz $115
AMD XP 1.5GHz $133
For comparison:
Duron 1.2GHz $99
TBird 1.2GHz $112
If Intel is trying to compete with AMD, it sure looks like a no-brainer choice to go with AMD. The only question is which AMD is the best value.
On the other hand:
P3 Tualitan 1.2GHz $273
So if you have to have "Intel Inside" and you want a "1.2GHz computer", then the Celeron looks like a good deal in comparison to the P3.
Intel is not advertising XP comaptibility of their Celeron.
Celerons do work really good with XP from my previous experience but they didn't post it on their compatibility list.
Celeron Compatibility: Fully compatible with an entire library of PC software based on operating systems such as MS-DOS*, Windows* 3.1, Windows for Workgroups* 3.11, Windows 98, Windows 95, OS/2*, UnixWare*, SCO UNIX*, Windows NT, Windows 2000, OPENSTEP*, and Sun Solaris*.
"works with any Socketed Athlon/Duron cpu"
You never tried the Athlon 1.4 Ghz T-Bird with the K7S5a.On a message board with, on average, 44 posts per topic, there were 14,000 posts on the Athlon 1.4 + K7S5a. Someone did solve the problem, that being total system instability, by putting a 200 ohm resistor in parallel with something underneath the chip (soldered onto the motherboard), but I wasn't brave enough for this and settled with upgrading to an Athlon XP which works fine. Strangely enough, this issue really only reared itself en masse with revision 4 of the board, which constituted the most shipped by far. Revisions 1-3 were flakey, and oddly enough revision 0 was rock solid, from what I read (so this is hearsay), and I stopped paying attention by the time revision 5 was out.
i just wonder which one of those performs faster in most tasks. the duron has prefetching, but the tbird has more cache. more on topic though, the duron consumes less power and outputs much less heat than the 1.2GHz thunderbird, lowering the price of heatsink/fan unit and decreasing the need for high wattage power supply and case cooling.
The ECS K75SA motherboard is only $64
:).
I must also chime in as a fan of this board. I run it in my gaming rig with an Athlon XP 1600, and 512 megs of DDR. It whomps ass! Onboard 100baseT and ATA100, 4x AGP, and the SIS 735 chipset requires no fan. I got mine for $57 at newegg.com, whom I highly recommend for parts (this is an unsolicited testimonial for an independent party
Also, if you look at chipset reviews, the SIS735 comes in JUST behind the high-end Via chipsets, at many $$ less.
Yes, I put an Audigy in and disabled the onboard sound, but the AC97 is very workable if you're running a single pair of speakers or headphones.
Just my $0.02. (Note the leading zero.)
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
The celeron might be slower, but it beats the PII 400 I've used it to replace. I just upgraded to the celeron on my 3.5 year old Dell. $170 buys the chip and slotkit.
Because Intel is still producing inferior chips with slow bus speeds, I can play Black & White. Part of the fun of tech advances, is the way they pull up the rear, while dropping prices.
Cache Rules Everything Around Me
Where are you getting your prices from? Pricewatch shows a different story...
The new Duron is based on the Morgan core (think Athlon XP), while the 1.2 GHz Athlon is a Thunderbird, which came out at the same time as the old Spitfire core for the Duron (about a year and a half ago). I suspect that the T-bird would still beat the new Duron due to a bus speed advantage as well as the extra cache, so your point is still valid.
Around Christmas they were $70-75.
Today they are $97.19.
Ha! I kill me!
The new Celeron 1200mhz eludes me more than any product I've seen Intel release. Just recently I read www.tomshardware.com 's artice on celeron vs duron and although he doesn't touch on this subject at all... I can CLEARLY see in many of the benchmarks (sisoft cpu bench, as well as mp3 encoding speed) that the Celeron 1200 is indeed OUTPERFORMING the pentium 4 1400 and 1500mhz. Now is that silly? yes I think so. Do I find this terribly disturbing? yes. Why? Because enginners at intel seem to think higher MHZ is better than good cpu design. And Intels own marketing strategy is going to bite itself in the ass. Oops too late.
I regularly clean my monitor with a soft lint-free cloth and a 10M solution of HCl.
I believe you can find enlightenment by embracing the tangential.
Chlorine gas (which HCl releases in small amounts) is bad for your eyes. 10M HCl also burns cheap plastics, and isn't especially good at disolving oily residue. If you have metal deposits on your moniter, HCl is the way to go, otherwise, no.
The secret moniter cleaning solution only lab chemists new about (until now)- 50% water, 50% acetonitrile. Unlike cheap malt liquor (which I used to clean my moniter with - seriously) it doesn't leave a stink or a funny residue.
Two things to remember - only use it in a well ventilated area (which you should have for your computer anyway, in case it starts putting off Ozone) and try not to spill it on yourself, it permeabilises your skin (although not as much as DMSO.)
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Actually, it's even worse than that. Here's a quote from the Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual:
So the Pentium 4 is a descendent of the first microprocessor ever created and the core of the x86 instruction set is over 20 years old.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
10 M means 10 molar. It is used to measure the strength of the acid. If I remember right 10 molar means that there are 10 moles or 60.2 x 10^23 (a real big number) of HCl for in every liter. But I could have forgotten something somewhere...
It is also entirely possible to get HCl without taking it from your stomach. I don't remember how you get it though (as in what kind of chemistry to use, you can always buy it).
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
The Intel Compiler isn't competition for MS VC++, it's a plugin. It just replaces the compiler and linker of VC++ with Intel's optimised one. It is well worth your money if you're oging to be doing serious development as it is just all around mroe efficient, even for Athlon chips.
Actually, it is 0.13 m (micrometer). Micron has since long been deprecated in favour of micrometer, part of our beloved SI system of units.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Nice post.
FYI the Pentium Pro was the first 686 core, while the 586 (Pentium) core was the first to include MMX. The Pro lacked MMX.
The Pentium II, in regards to your post, was basically the 686 core with MMX.
The Pentium III was a 686 core with MMX and SSE (also known as KNI, or "Katmai New Instructions" when it was first released).
ANd now supposedly the Pentium 4 is a 786-class core, the first true microarchitecural change to the Intel x86 line since the Pentium Pro.