AMD Duron vs. Intel Celeron 296
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."
Talk about extending the timetable (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish Intel wouldn't have cut off the Tualatin P3 so quickly, as it would make a decent dual processor system... but now I'll be getting a dual Athlon instead :)
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:3, Interesting)
I was wavering, almost considering breaking my "no Intel CPUs" rule, because the 0.13 micron version of the Pentium III is sweet. But Intel reminded me why I have that rule -- the 0.13 micron Pentium III was deliberately made incompatible with Socket 370 motherboards. I hate it when companies play those sort of stupid games.
When the 0.13 micron chips come out, they will crush the Pentium 4. Right now the best Athlon is neck and neck with the best Pentium 4, and the Pentium 4 has the benefit of a 0.13 micron process (i.e. a much higher clock rate).
steveha
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:1)
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:1)
In early 1997 the Pentium II 233 and 266 came out. The celeron didn't exist yet.
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:1)
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:1)
Personally, I prefer AMD to Intel. Their K2 and Athlons have helped stave off a monopoly and they drive costs low. Works for me.
Re:Talk about extending the timetable (Score:1)
Tualatin "Celery" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tualatin "Celery" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Tualatin "Celery" (Score:2, Informative)
The Celeron reviewed actually uses the Tualatin P3 core, not the older P3 core.
Software Optimization (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this brings up an important issue-- compiler technology, and the run-time libraries (RTL's) they use (in the case of C/C++, the standard libraries, in the case of Pascal/Delphi, the RTL and possibly parts of Borland's VCL/CLX). The problem, it seems to me, is that compiler authors don't seem to take advantage of architecture specific improvements like they used to (and as they should). Sure, some libraries/RTL's take advantage of it (and the compiler may have switches to emit optimized code), but if the standard libraries/RTL's are re-compiled (or even re-written) to take advantage of it, then it's all for nothing.
It seems to me that Intel has the right idea (the FPU is really useless if you know HOW to use SSE and SSE2 properly), and that if anything, it's poor software authors and poor compiler writers that are to blame for the lackluster performance of code on Intel's CPUs. It's saddening to me to see the optimization skills software engineers *used* to have back in the day diminishing year by year as the ability to right crappy code is justified by ever-faster CPU's. (Why spend the weeks or months needed to engineer everything to run properly now, when Intel/AMD will have a 'fix' for our sloppy code out in a few months?)
I wish authors such as Michael Abrash still released optimization guides for assembly language (or even just updated versions for C/C++ and assembler).. his 'Zen of Code Optimization' (ISBN: 1-883577-03-9 *or* FatBrain.com's description (out of print) [fatbrain.com]) was probably the best investment *I* ever made.
Re:Software Optimization (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this one can be blamed on Intel too. If Intel really wanted to sell its processors, they'd invest a little money in helping push compiler improvements to take advantage of their processors--such as contributing to GCC. Instead, they do invest money in compiler technology, but only in their own proprietary compiler, and then try to sell that as competition for the other two mainsteam, more popular compilers that everyone uses (GCC and MS VC++). Then they wonder why software isn't optimized for their processors.
The compiler authors don't have time to make processor-specific optimizations for every single flavor of x86 architecture out there; they already have to deal with P5, MMX, P6, K6, 3D-now, etc. Why is Intel's newest fad so special that they should get extra attention? It's not. Compiler authors are going to write their compilers to perform the best on the majority of processors out there, instead of concentrating too much on one specific technology.
Ummmmmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Software Optimization (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, but I think it is. Any new technology that can give you a 10:1 performance improvement is worth ANY persons time to investigate. That can make the difference between an MPEG2 video stream compiling in 10 hours or 4 hours.
You seem to forget the whole point of optimizing the compiler is to make the compiled code perform faster and better (and possibly with fewer instructions, thus decreasing bloat). Now sure, SSE and SSE2 (and really, even MMX) require more thought from the actual developer as well, but implementing these enhancements in standard libraries and in commonly used functions would surely help people realize some of these benefits up-front with a simple re-compile of their code.
There's also your issue of considering it a "fad". This technology is here to stay, and Intel has pretty much said that using the FPU is the wrong way to go about things in their newer CPU's. By this very virtue, one could pretty much surmise out of the gate that if a test or benchmark uses *only* the FPU, Intel will likely fail, and fail miserably. Intel has really only introduced three new technologies since the release of the Pentium--
MMX (MultiMedia eXtensions) - SIMD (single instruction multiple data; basically performing the same operation repeatedly on a set of data, by only executing a single instruction) integer routines, useful in certain video functions, and in some string functions. Introduced in some later Pentium processors (not in the Pentium Pro, I believe, not sure though).
SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) - SIMD again, but applied to floating point work. Introduced in the Pentium III.
SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) - More SIMD, again applied to floating point (I believe, I've only begun to read the info on this from Intel's developer website (developer.intel.com has tons of manuals in PDF format you can read on the subject though). Introduced in the Pentium 4.
Only three "fads", as you call them. Other than this, very few instructions have been added that a compiler team need worry about; the only ones I can even think of worth dealing with in a compiler are the CMOVcc instructions (and with these, it depends on the amount of time you save using these instructions; I assume they're an improvement though since it saves you the trouble of branching in your code).
BTW: The compiler issue is really more of a Wintel based problem (afterall, the benchmarks being run are usually on Windows based systems).. take a look at Borland's compilers for example; Borland Delphi offers little optimization configurations. Borland CBuilder offers more options, but as far as I recall, no ability to compile with MMX/SSE enhancements. As someone else pointed out, you can in fact purchase Intel's compiler technology as a plugin for Visual Studio, but Microsoft should *really* be adding these features directly to their compiler.
And the latest optimization issue (which I don't believe can be addressed through compiler changes, but who knows) will likely be when Intel releases SMT-capable processors.. suddenly everyone running Windows XP Professional (or if MS decides to allow dual processors on WXP Home Edition) will be able to run multiple threads at the same time-- the problem is, not a lot of software utilizes multiple threads, even though the technology has been around since Windows '95 (obviously in a single processor environment, you don't get a speed increase, but it does make your app more responsive (the UI doesn't freeze during long operations, for example)). Benchmarking an AMD processor without any form of SMT against an SMT capable Intel processor would be unfair at that point.
Re:Software Optimization (Score:2)
Which is why most likely, and I thought I made this clear in my first post, that Microsoft would need to release a service pack to enable dual processor configs in Windows XP Home (and likely allow quad processor configs in WXP Pro, and move the formula up for their other releases of XP/.NET Server).
I wasn't referring to SMP.. I was referring to multi-threading. Windows '95 was (AFAIK, unless Win32S had this under Windows 3.1) the first MS OS to have a function such as CreateThread (and the other thread-related support routines needed to manage threads). Multi-threading *HAS* been possible, and with the advent of SMT technology multithreaded applications will suddenly perform better without any effort on the part of the developer (as far as the OS is concerned, it's as if you have two CPU's installed).. this was the angle I was trying to present. =)
That's what I was assuming. =) As for the last bit about the message pump-- you mis-state how Windows handles multiple threads, it doesn't use messages to do this. The kernel is responsible for allocating slices of time to each active thread, and thread priorities are taken into account during said allocation (hence the 'idle' thread priority, for things working in the background, and the 'real-time' priority for things that MUST respond immediatly to input, for example).
This is true, but only in complex situations where you need one thread to talk with or cooperate with another thread.. thankfully the Win32 API has this covered through Semaphores and Critical Sections. (Lookup CreateSemaphore or CreateCriticalSection in the Win32 API.) I've never done multi-threaded programming under Linux, so I'm not sure what facilities are available in an SMP/SMT environment, but I'd imagine similar functions are there as well (and if not, if you think about it, critical sections are *really* easy to implement in user-code).
No, the bottom line is that with properly written applications, an extra processor WOULD help the average Windows XP user by being 1) more responsive and 2) unable to lock the system in the event of an endless loop being entered (or during a long operation involving one thread). (This I've experienced first-hand on my dual processor Pentium III system-- sometimes I've found bugs in shareware/freeware that involves the app entering a seemingly endless loop-- this endless loop consumes all the CPU resources; but only for one of the two processors. =) The other one is still unused and allows me to kill the errant application. In a single processor system, using the whole CPU could lead to the mouse being unresponsive and the keyboard not working as expected (if the errant code were running in the context of a 'real-time' priority thread/application). Specifically however, SMT *WOULD* help the average Windows XP user while being cheaper than buying two processors outright. As far as I understand it, SMT isn't the exact same as having two processors, but it DOES allow two threads (two execution streams) to execute at the same time when certain parts of the CPU are going unused (which, during typical UI refreshing, is probably quite likely). That's my take on it, again this assumes that Microsoft realizes people will be livid that their SMT enabled CPU's aren't being used in WXP Home, and releases a service pack to fix the issue.
Re:Software Optimization (Score:2)
Which is as good a reason as any to design future and current applications as multi-threaded; breaking it up so applications can remain responsive even during blocking-events. (By blocking, one instantly thinks of Winsock API calls, though this could easily apply to anything using Semaphores or Critical Sections.)
I might be wrong, but Windows XP (and 2000/NT) have a pluggable kernel model-- ie: different USER32.DLL's and so forth are loaded depending on if you're running an SMP (and likely SMT) or single processor environment. I assume Microsoft takes care to avoid using bus-locking instructions in the single-processor environment simply due to the lack of any need.
I think the lack of an ability to execute multiple threads is a bottle-neck, yes-- CPU power isn't the issue, for a word processor a 200 MHz processor is really just about all you need (or ideally, to make everything respond quickly, a 450 MHz CPU should suffice). However, the issue I'm discussing (and have been trying to explain) is RESPONSIVENESS-- an SMT enabled processor running at 200 MHz would be more responsive than a 450 MHz processor that didn't have SMT (with properly multi-threaded applications). The end user cares about one thing-- how fast the computer responds to their commands. When the UI doesn't refresh (or worse, is overwritten by other UI elements and doesn't refresh it's own), the user believes (rightly) that the application isn't responding. (Hell, even Task Manager uses this as a method of telling if an app is hung-- when an app isn't responding to messages, it's considered dead to the OS.)
Microsoft Word is multi-threaded, actually. When you print, you can immediatly go back to working on your document, instead of waiting for it to finish the print job (by finish, I mean the act of spooling it into the print queue-- not the entire act of printing through the print driver). In a small 1 or 2 page document, you'll never notice or appreciate this, but when you're printing a 50-100 page document, you will. Word also uses multiple threads to spell-check and grammar check as you go. There are also certain graphics applications (NOT Adobe Photoshop-- Adobe has lackluster support for multiple threads) which take advantage of threading, applying filters to one document while allowing you to continue to work on other open documents. I'm not saying end users need 5 GHz processors, I'm saying they need a cheap way to have dual processor systems (and perhaps as SMT is rolled out, Intel will manage to allow more threads to execute at the same time (think 4, then 8, etc) all on one CPU) to make the system both more responsive and hence, more user friendly. And back to my original point, we need more software writers to realize the advantages of multiple threads and take advantage of it NOW, so when these processors arive we aren't waiting for software to be written to take advantage of them.
Re:Software Optimization (Score:2)
You're telling me things I already know. =)
Which Microsoft has already done, hence the different drivers in Device Manager depending on if you're running a dual CPU system or a single CPU system (or a quad, eight-way and so forth).
You can't think of one because I already GAVE YOU one. WXP (and really, 2000/NT) were released prior to Intel releasing CPU's with SMT capabilities. As SMT CPU's come into the consumer level (likely in the next year or so) people will wonder why their system isn't benefitting from these new features-- Microsoft will likely bump the Home Edition to dual processors, the Pro version to 4 processors and so on and so forth through Server and Advanced Server to Datacenter Server. WXP Home still won't have the ability to connect to an NT domain or Active Directory, which is part of the reason businesses avoid WXP Home Edition.
Re:Software Optimization (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, its just a matter of economics. In the beginning of computing, you could get maybe 50 programmers for the price of one computer. So the time of the computer was valued more than the time of the programmers. The programmers had to spend a lot of time optimizing.
Now, the price of computers has fallen, until you get a lot of computing power for the price of one programmer. The time of programmers is valued a *lot* more than the time of computers. So the rational economic choice is to buy more (or more powerful computers) to make life easier for programmers.
When you look at how some of the old time programmers react to this change, I think it is insteresting to look at the medieval guilds. The programmers are angry at the newcomers and try to put them down, and make it as hard as possible for them to advance ("RTFM!"). The guilds on the other hand made it forbidden by law to practice the craft in question outside the guild. Both guilds and programmers occasionally justify their behaviour by the need to preserve the fine traditions of the art, and distrust new techniques and technologies that make things "too easy".
But what it really is, is a fear of competition. Instead of trying to improve themselves and keep up with the times they try to stomp out the competition.
This may cost me some karma...
Re:Software Optimization (Score:3, Informative)
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.
(0, Troll) (Score:2, Informative)
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.
hmm (Score:4, Informative)
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).
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sacrificing my ability to mod on this thread to reply to you, so I hope you're happy. You are doing a great misdeed to discount the importance of cache so greatly.
Duron: L1 Cache: 128kbytes L2 Cache: 64kbytes
Athlon: L1 Cache: 128kbytes L2 Cache: 256kbytes
A difference in cache sizes of this magnitude will ensure (insure?) the Athlon a victory if it is running at a clock speed the same as a Duron. Don't just assume that they're both as fast as one another simply based on bus speed.
Re:just short the L1 bridges for 266mhz bus (Score:1)
http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/AMD/AthlonXPUnlock/ [vr-zone.com]
Re:just short the L1 bridges for 266mhz bus (Score:1)
Blah...
Re:just short the L1 bridges for 266mhz bus (Score:2)
Re:just short the L1 bridges for 266mhz bus (Score:2)
At least the 1 GHz Duron with Morgan core is: I have one and unlocked it this way.
leading zeros (Score:5, Funny)
By the way, that's "0.13 microns."
As my Nobel-Laureate physics lab professor used to say, "ALWAYS use leading zeros with decimal points; that way your readers can tell the difference between a fraction and fly shit."
Go ahead and mod me down, but I'm not a grammar nazi, I'm a math nazi!
Re:leading zeros (Score:4, Funny)
Re:leading zeros (Score:1)
Re:leading zeros (Score:1)
--
Re:leading zeros (Score:2, Informative)
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.)
Re:leading zeros (Score:2)
I'm not a Chemistry whiz, but my old textbook says that the energy of reduction for 2 chlorine ions to form chlorine gas (Cl2) and 2 electrons is -1.36 volts- so I don't see why this reaction would occur spontaneously.
I won't argue with you that HCl vapor is bad for you, but it's certainly nowhere near as deadly as chlorine gas.
So, am I forgetting any of my chemistry?
Re:leading zeros (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but there's no fly shit on it.
Re:leading zeros (Score:2)
Nasty nasty nasty stuff that HF (hydrogen flouride, in case you were wondering).
Hey, learn a little chemistry. (Score:2, Informative)
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).
Re:leading zeros (Score:1, Offtopic)
For all numerical values greater than or equal to zero, and less than or equal to one, the numerical value is used in the singular sense. Thus, "0.13 micron" is the proper English usage.
One could list a few values as: "Zero micron, 0.5 micron, 1 micron, 1.5 microns, 2 microns," etc.
Re:leading zeros (Score:5, Funny)
By the way, that's "0.13 microns."
Go ahead and mod me down, but I'm not a grammar nazi, I'm a math nazi!
No, it's 0.13 micron.
Go ahead and mod me down, but I'm not a grammar nazi or a math nazi, I'm a "that just sounds stupid" nazi!
Go ahead, just *try* saying it out loud: "0.13 microns process". That 's' rolls off the tongue like an anvil.
-
micron? micrometer! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OT: Another kick for the dead horse (Score:2)
I'll have to remember the pain of that webpage the next time I feel like grumbling about stupid compiler errors.
*I took a year of Spanish, but only speak it for vanishingly small values of speak.
-
Re:leading zeros (Score:1)
Marginal on-topicness, but I have this coupon in my pocket for .55c off something. Like you say, is that 55/100 of a Cent or do they mean 55 cents? :)
Just so you know... (Score:5, Interesting)
SIS has restored my faith in AMD. The ECS K75SA motherboard is only $64 after shipping and works with any Socketed Athlon/Duron cpu. It is fast and stable, accepts DDR and SDR, built in networking and sound(ok, AC'97 isn't that great), a real winner. You can build a 1GHz system and only pay $120 for the cpu, heatsink/fan, and mobo.
Re:Just so you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
The test shows why the Celeron is inferior to the Duron: the Duron's vastly superior FPU unit allows it to substantially outrun the Celeron on FPU-intensive tasks. That is the reason why the Duron has become the choice for many do-it-yourself computer builders.
Re:Just so you know... (Score:1, Offtopic)
I just got in an ECS k7SEM with onboard everything, and a duron 950. All the onboard stuff is well supported in Linux. You had better have a recent Xserver to handle the onboard video though, the one that ships with Red Hat 7.2 works well (4.1.0). The sound card gets a little flaky under heavy processor load (sometimes XMMS won't be able to open the sound if it changes tracks while the processor is loaded heavily), but it sounds great.
So I got this setup working well. I ordered 6 more of them to build a MOSIX cluster with.
from www.mwave.com:
6-ECS K7SEM motherboards
6-950 Mhz Durons
1-16 port 10/100 switch
Total w/shipping: about $880
from www.sofistic.com:
6-128 meg Micron DIMMs PC133
6-el cheapo cases with 300 watt powersupplies
Total w/shipping: $337 (watch out they rape you on shipping, but their prices are so low it offsets it)
Anyway, so I am building a 6 node supercomputer for $1200. This is what a low end PC used to cost. Boy we have come a long way.
There will be some other costs, like there will need to be a hard disk somewhere for these things to boot from, but no other major costs.
Re:Just so you know... (Score:1)
Re:Just so you know... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Just so you know... (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re:Just so you know... (Score:2)
Re:Just so you know... (Score:2)
Benchmark woes (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it was a tad unfair to compare a Duron using DDR to a Celeron on PC100/133 (depends on the motherboard and how they set it up). They did acknowledge it directly when discussing the memory bandwidth (which showed the expected numbers, Duron was around 2x Celeron), but I think it shows only part of the picture (especially with DDR prices back up in the stratosphere compared to say, a month or two ago). This is one reason I take benchmarks with a grain of salt...it's very difficult to objectively compare AMD and Intel CPU's now due to the drastically different architectures.
The article also mentioned the Intel headspreaders...these should be reflexive on all processors. I can't count how many "Cracked core" thread's I've read on the [H]ardOCP forums...and a reasonable number of these guys are shall we say slightly above your average user.
My $0.02...
-Colin
Re:Benchmark woes (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary difference is actually the chipset, and not the chip itself (at least in the case of DDR vs. SDR memory). That being said, look back at comparisons between any DDR and SDR system - memory bandwidth is dramatically increased, but real world performance rarely improves more than marginally. What I am trying to say is, it's fair to compare the 2 chips, especailly since they run the same software.
Re:Benchmark woes (Score:2)
When did DDR prices go up? I just looked at the price list of one of the local parts stores (www.laboratorycomputers.com), and a 128M DDR is $38 vs. $31 for a 128M PC133. That is only a $7 difference. The difference is percentage wise the same on 256M modules, which are $69 and $55 respectively. The difference is percentage wise less on 512M modules, which are $138 and $122 respectively for a difference of only $16.
Probably the biggest difference in price if you go with DDR is in motherboards which are about $35 or $40 more for boards with DDR support.
Re:Benchmark woes (Score:2, Informative)
Around Christmas they were $70-75.
Today they are $97.19 [crucial.com].
Re:Benchmark woes (Score:2)
Re:Benchmark woes (Score:1)
In order to compare the processors objectively, all you need is to run the processors on testbeds as close to one another as possible, and when you can't have a certain piece of hardware crossover (i.e. motherboard), you insert the best piece of hardware available for that platform.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but running a Celeron on a DDR system doesn't give it any benefit. Wonder why? It's max speed for it's front side bus is 133mhz SDR.
Don't whine about non-objective reviews if they ran each CPU on the best test-bed they could.
Re:Benchmark woes (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if that were the case, then it wouldn't be a review - it would be a comparison of technologies
However, since it *is* a consumer-oriented review, the focus is obviously on performance vs. price and a number of other factors; all easily summed up in the term "value".
Since both the Duron and the Celeron have similar prices and are both targetted at the same market(at least in retail), then it's totally fair to compare them, despite the fact that they have some relatively different technologies.
Now, I would say it's unfair to compare, say, an Athlon XP 2000+ to a 386 used in "embedded" markets. This review, however, is more than fair
Thought so
duh, duron will win hands down! (Score:1, Insightful)
Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:1)
Price.
Yes, you get that 1.2 second advantage in Photoshop if you have a Pentium III 900, but I could care less if I have a Celeron over Pentium III.
It also goes for games too, like I care if Quake III Arena runs 20 frames faster than on a Celeron, all the computer has to do is meet 30 frames per second. The human eye is not fast enough to see 100 frames per second. (Yes I know video cards play a factor, but the processor does do a fair bit of work).
All I care about is if the processor can run applications at a decent speed.
Also, is it just me or does the name "Duron" not sound very catchy? "Pentium," "Celeron," and "Athlon" all have catchy names. Yet for some reason, "Duron" doesn't sound all that great and sounds like a processor from the waste bucket.
I know of a few people who own them and actually don't have anything negative to say about them.
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:2)
PS - Everytime I hear Celeron, I think of celery, when I hear duron, I think of durable.
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:1)
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:5, Funny)
The Duron is actually the middle processor of the "Moron" line of precessors, designed specifically for XP. If you look in the start menu on XP and you're running a Duron you'll see the My Moron icon. The "Freon" is the fasted at 3.2 GHz but requires a gallon of coolant every 100 web pages. The "Peon" is the entry level processor. You can read the whole article here [bbspot.com]
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:2)
I ask this because I once believed as you did and created a simple experiment to prove I was right. I took an old manual camera, removed the lens, set the shutter to 1/60 sec (its flash sync), opened up the back, put my eye up to the shutter curtain, pointed the camera at my wife, asked her to hold up some fingers but not to tell me how many, and snapped the shutter.
To my somewhat surprise, I had no trouble telling how many fingers she was holding up. So I started clicking the shutter up to higher speeds. Only at 1/1000 sec did I start having trouble.
Thus I had proved myself, and conventional wisdom, wrong. If you are getting 100fps, and you monitor is drawing 100ftps, if something important happens even for only a frame or two there is no reason your brain won't register it.
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardon me if I got any of the neuroscience wrong on that description, but I think the general idea is correct.
Cheers
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it. A still image on the TV is actually 30 (29.97 for NTSC, actually) identical images being shown per second. When one says that the human eye can only see 30 FPS, what you're saying is that if the one of the images was different, we'd be able to see that.
Now, if that's the limit, then we can only detect an image if it lasts longer than 1/30 of a second. So if an image lasts for only 1/100000 of a second, we wouldn't be able to see it.
I'm sure this is wrong but would appreciate someone EXPLAINING why.
Re:Celerons are a better choice over PIII (Score:1)
Tell me, can you discern a difference between your display at a refresh rate of 60Hz and a refresh rate of 100Hz? I thought so.
relative cost (Score:4, Interesting)
In the mid 90's sure it was a huge cost difference $100 for that celery 300a@450mhz vs p2-p3 450 at about $500.
As of right now celeron ghz is about $58
( http://www.pricewatch.com )
AMD XP 1500 $107
Thats the battle, now I'll give you 3 guesses which is a better value.
Re:relative cost (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:relative cost (Score:2)
Price vs Performance, its really hard to beat the Durons. My mom is getting a new box - found a 1G duron from newegg.com for $54USD, and have it tracking here as we chat from a vendor who has been good to me in the past. Looking at an intel solution, it was an extra $20 to get something that performed like a $30 AMD chip. No brainer - though my mom is fine now with my old 486dx2/50.... Still, my cash, a guy has to have standards...
The price jump to the latest greatest is way too steep right now to look at the 1.2 duron, but when the 1.3 comes out this month I suspect this might drop into that great deal catagory too.
Re:relative cost (Score:4, Funny)
Parent Post: AMD XP 1500 $107
Above reply: AMD XP 1.5GHz $133
I'm very glad to see that AMD's marketing strategy is working just as planned.
XP Technology? (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:XP Technology? (Score:1)
Contains XP Technology! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Contains XP Technology! (Score:1)
Celeron (Score:2, Informative)
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*.
Re:Celeron (Score:1, Informative)
Why bother? (Score:4, Troll)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Informative)
Source? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Why get either? (Score:2)
yes... very cheap! (Score:2)
Add $50ish for the suprisingly nice ECS motherboard (for $50, it's a GREAT deal. it's nice on quality and features. i would gladly pay twice that price for the same board) and $10 for a heatsink (amd-approved, of course).
Add another $50 for a Geforce2MX. The MX isn't a horrible card, it is sufficent for running most games...
Add (whatever) for RAM... it's SOOO cheap now. I just dug up 256mb from my closet full-o-parts. You can get that for about $30 from crucial
Add about $30 for an AMD approved psu (i can't stress the approval more. it really makes a diffrence!)
Then i added a keyboard and mouse (i got a refurbished wireless keyboard and mouse for $25. most people can find a cheapo keyboard and mouse that is more than sufficent).
I used a hard drive from an existing pc. It's fine for my purposes.
Volia! For about $250, i have a NICE countertop pc, which is hooked to the hi-fi as a jukebox(hey, that's what it was advertised as when it was purchased... oh 20 years ago
Now, granted, I used some parts i already had, which isn't fair to the price factor. Take those off, and you go up to about $400 (case+ram+hdd). There are many people who can't afford a pc due to the astounding prices. To dell and friends, i say poo!
This says a lot about the beuracocracy behind dell and all the big pc makers. Once must wonder the profit margin dell is enjoying (remember their little deal with intel... surely they are sold chips at dirt cheap prices)?
ECS == PCCHIPS (Score:2, Interesting)
They are a distributor of PCChips, the same people who:
- Fake the speed of their motherboards
- Pirate their BIOSes
- Rewrote bioses to display fake cache amounts and glued black plastic squares to their board with bits of metal sticking out from them and etched SRAM looking part numbers onto em
- Create deceptively similar but not at all related to their brandname counterpart chipsets. VXpro, VX+, BXpro, etc. are all famous PCChips parts.
- Relabel chipsets that look/are too cheap with the above names
- Seem to be gaining a reputation on newsgroups for selling complete garbage motherboards (just look for "PCchips shit/junk/suck" on deja)
- Have an absolutely amazing number of aliases. Eurone, Houston Tech, ECS, Amptron, Protac, Aristo, Minstaple, Matsonic, Fugutech -- the list goes on and on.
- Don't label their boards properly
- Use huge jumper blocks to set memory type (no, not just 5 or 6, but jumper blocks the length of a DIMM slot!)
BTW: As a tech at a computer store I build systems with ECS motherboards (its what we sell -- no I won't say where I work
But AMD approved power supplies are a good idea. I don't know how many times I've seen cheap power supplies with the ratings simply stuck on them with an extra sticker.
I'd really reccomend swapping the board, though. Just a reccomendation. But if it is performing alright for you right now, well, stick with it. Occasionally some are actually built ok!
BTW: If you are using the board I am thinking of, its also "made" by amptron in red. Or blue, I forget which colour was for which company sometimes. With their most popular boards, by selecting the manufacturer you can select the colour. F-U-N
When Tom's Hardware Guide gave a solid rating to a PCChips board (I think its the K7S5A) I decided I'd never trust one of his reccomendations again. If you are going to rate boards you should at least do some homework on the company first!
Re:ECS == PCCHIPS (Score:2)
The chipset naming issue (my absolute favorite example has to be the slogan "rember, it's BXtoo!") you bring up, however, isn't PC Chips' fault per se: a lot of these get made by shady Chinese plants and slapped on PCShit mobo's just because they're cheap.
Duron Price (Score:1)
The celeron might be slower... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
After much debate, Apple has released (Score:3, Funny)
After a lukewarm reception, Apple changed the name to the "Celery", and sales went up 1400%.
(If you don't get the above [bad] joke, please "move along, nothing to see here!")
News??? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem (Score:2)
For this fact alone, if I had a choice between building a Duron box or a Celeron box, I'd choose to build an Athlon box instead
Intel has gone totally mad (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Intel has gone totally mad (Score:2)
Re:Intel has gone totally mad (Score:2)
Re:Intel has gone totally mad (Score:4, Interesting)
It used to be when you talked about a PC, you gave the specs of your hard drive, RAM, graphics adapter, whether or not it had a soundcard, and what number came before the 86 in the processor name 2,3, or 4.
Now having over 256 MB of RAM is not unreasonable. Hard drives size is mostly irrelevant, sound cards are standard, and except for the gamers, a graphics card is where you plug your monitor in and it works. So what's left to spec? MHz! It's a number, it sounds technical and the Wintel PC marketing machine has jumped right on it. So much to the point that AMD now puts 4 digit numbers in their processor model name that don't necessary represent the clock speed of the processor, but keep up with Intel's current MHz release.
Speed differences unknown to consumer market (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost hilariously, AMD doesn't have to get their chips running at a 2.2 GHz frequency to get nearly the same performance.
The same speed differences per frequency show up in the lower bus-speed chips (Duron / Celeron).
The average consumer is completely unaware of the closeness between speed of the chips of each company.
AMD chips are much better priced, and carry more value for their money. Stability is excellent, speed is unmatchable in identical frequency ranges. It has been this way for a couple years now.
Aside, AMD has likely changed their naming system to make their chips 'sound' competitive compared to Intel chips? (i.e. Athlon XP 1600+ sure sounds like 1600 MHz doesn't it!).
orgnine
Re:Speed differences unknown to consumer market (Score:2)
As far for the conservative model numbers, AMD wanted to play it safe and avoid heavy criticism by claiming more than they could back up completely. Better to underestimate yourself than overestimate, as reviewers tend to be much more friendly to companies that do this.
This does not, however, apply to the Duron vs. Celeron scenario. The Celeron is based on the PIII core, a core that acheives much more competitive performance per clock, but will not scale to the higher clock. The P4 architecture move intentionally sacrificed performance per clock to allow higher, thus more marketable, clock speeds. That is not to say I would go with Celeron, Durons are typically cheaper, but the XP vs. P4 discrepencies are not the same thing as Duron vs. Celeron.
Re:Speed differences unknown to consumer market (Score:2)
If the tech exists to produce a 2.2GHz chip, then shouldn't AMD be able to produce a chip at that speed?
Voltage != Power! (Score:2)
You would think that someone who wanted to be respected for writing a hardware review would at least try to remember the Voltage, Current, Resistance, and Power relationships that he or she learned in high school.
Your processor may only use a supply voltage of 1-2 V, but if you still need a heatsink and fan it's obviously using tens of watts of power.
Actually, one of the problems with modern processors is that power is going up in processors while supply voltage is going down. That means much more current. Around half of the pins on modern processors are for power and ground. You start to see wierd problems with metal migration on the power supply wires, ground bounce problems from wire inductance, and all sorts of other strange problems.
Celeron, Duron, Moron,,, (Score:2, Funny)
poor English (and marketing) skills going
to come out with a chip called the 'Moron'?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)