
1.3GHz Duron Arrives 256
zebadee writes: "Tom's Hardware has the news that AMD have released a 1.3GHz Duron to the "mainstream PC market" that has been optimised for use with WindowsXP. The article also asks 'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips, as it would be assumed the market for these will be consumers who don't generally look at benchmark figures?' More information can be found at the AMD website."
[ot] Can anybody point me to... (Score:1)
Re:[ot] Can anybody point me to... (Score:1)
And a review [anandtech.com]
Re:[ot] Can anybody point me to... (Score:1)
What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What?! (Score:1, Troll)
Re:What?! (Score:2)
Re:What?! (Score:2)
For that matter anything for CD's labeled 'Game' or 'PS2' and the rest.
It's all a scheme. They figure, it does work with these things... we can use that.
Re:What?! (Score:2)
Shouldn't the OS be optimised for the hardware? Not the hardware comprimised for the OS?
Excellent question.
So I'm wondering two things:
Re:What?! (Score:2)
http://www.arm.com/armtech/Jazelle_Tech?OpenDoc
Sun did implement the picoJava core, but the performance was not on par with java on an intel or sparc chip so it was discontinued.
It's part of the PC Design Checklist. (Score:3, Informative)
The PC Design Checklist [microsoft.com] has a set of requirements that your hardware must meet in order to be certified for use with Windows XP. Basically, if you're a system manufacturer and want to pre-install Windows, you must follow these guidelines and use only parts that also meet the guidelines. AMD certified their products with Microsoft so that OEMs would be able to include them in PCs that have Windows pre-installed.
Microsoft and Intel come out with new requirements every year for PCs to get the latest "Designed for..." label and to preinstall Windows. Some of the latest requirements are that PCs are not allowed to have ISA devices and that the PC must be at the desktop/login stage no more than 35 seconds after the power button is pressed. (See the link I posted above for full details.)
It's not a conspiracy by Microsoft and Intel, or anything of that sort. It's the same thing that a lot of manufacturers go through to say that their products are "certified" for such-and-such uses. Note that you, as a PC manufacturer, are free to not certify your computer with Microsoft, but you lose the OEM discounts on Windows preinstalls if you do, and you lose the free advertising provided by Microsoft.
This, overall, is a Good Thing -- otherwise, cheap manufacturers might still be trying to force-feed us ISA devices and no USB ports.
Re:What?! (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean like linux does? Where you can select your processor when compiling the kernel?
Really how hard would it be for Microsoft include a couple of kernels each optimized for the processor its running on(Maybe they do this and I just don't know it? Please reply and let me know
Re:What?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What?! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What?! (Score:2)
What you attribute to the intelligence of the installer is actually an effect of the total and complete brain damage of the OS. What you see is not an effect of the installer optimizing for the processor; it is the effect of the hardware installation wizard being a fucknut.
The more you change your hardware, in any Windows OS that I've used, the slower the system runs. Over time, just swapping PCI cards around can leave your system performance in the realm of "miserable".
It's one of the reasons that almost all of the gamers that I know are so familiar with the words "reformat and reinstall".
Re:What?! [on/off topic] (Score:4, Funny)
It's like;
"my USB cable modem doesn't work under XP. It works under 2000, NT, 98, 95, and ME."
"You should buy another USB port."
"but it's not a hardware problem. It works under every other MS OS."
"You should buy a new USB cable modem."
"But it's not hardware, it's XP. I've established that."
"Try the drivers. Probably never worked under XP."
"But Microsoft Certified them. They've tested the drivers, and the drivers worked, according to them."
"Yeah, probably the drivers."
"But it's not. The fact that the modem works under 2000 proves it. Besides, if it didn't work, and MS certified it, then MS is at fault anyway..."
"You're being blind here. It's the drivers."
"Listen, fucknut, it can't be the drivers. It can't be the hardware. It must be XP. I'm asking for suggestions on how I could get XP to work with my cable modem."
"You're being blind, retard, it's obviously the drivers! Sometimes manufacturers fuck up. Get over it."
"That's it. This conversation is over. I just returned XP and am using 98 again."
Interesting read(and quite humorous), since everybody else came off as calm, but the fact remains, the process of elimination did point to XP, and everybody kept on insisting that he should run out and buy more hardware.
I also understand why he was pissed off though. He went out and paid 200 bucks for XP, and it didn't work as advertised. The fact that people blamed his hardware for some reason only made the situation worse.
Re:What?! [on/off topic] (Score:2)
I am pissed. I was pissed, on the inside when I started that thread. But since I stated in the opening article that those types of suggestions aren't needed it came out through my keyboard.
Just to mention, I'm not the only one. I also have a USB camera which doesn't work. Before putting XP back on this machine I tested Redhat with that. The USB camera dies just like the Cable Modem. After loading Red Hat, the cam worked fine. Then I took Red Hat off. I can't use Red Hat on this machine due to a riptide sound card.
Not saying anything like 'linux vs windows'. I just wanted to troubleshoot. If you look on this
Thank you, I don't even care that you said I was an asshole. I'm steaming from this shit. Do you know what it's like when you are doing something and the connection dies every 10 mins? Try putting up with that for at least a month... I've thought about suicide and blaming Bill Gates in the note.
Re:What?! [on/off topic] (Score:2)
Thank you, I don't even care that you said I was an asshole. I'm steaming from this shit. Do you know what it's like when you are doing something and the connection dies every 10 mins? Try putting up with that for at least a month... I've thought about suicide and blaming Bill Gates in the note.
First, I didn't call you an asshole, I just said you came off that way.
secondly, I know exactly what that's like, and because of it, I swore I'd never buy a PC Chips motherboard again. the damn modem never worked on it. It'd kick off, and it'd do things even worse sometimes, like just sit there, not sending or recieving. The worst part is that to fix the modem, I needed to get on the internet, but the internet sucked with that modem... All I can say is that I'm glad PC Chips has cleaned up their image. I have their 830LMR board right now, and it runs like a clock, and it's the fastest board on the benchmarks.
Re:What?! [on/off topic] (Score:2)
In your case you knew where the problem was, and there was a fix. Who was responsible for the fix? The person who made the hardware right?
In my case the hardware is fine. It's XP that is broken. Why is only clear to us that THEY need to do something about it, not me?
I mean, buying hardware to replace my 'Certified' hardware is silly.
[i'm sorry about the asshole thing, if you want to you can call me that now. *blushing*]
OMG! (Score:2)
I love you. You show the type of smarts I would want on my team. I just want someone to fix this problem I'm having. Calling MS doesn't help. Toshiba says it's out of their hands... what should I do? The mobo maker and AMD both say they can't do anything because they didn't write the OS. I actually like XP. I use it as well as other products. I was a beta tester for '98. I don't like however, the fact that people like you just want to label me and that's it.
Sure, I am so stupid as to think 'Windows' means Windows 95. I'm only 17. Sure. I'm so dumb to think a problem I have only with XP isn't an XP problem at all. Surely I faked those two other posts by people who have the same problem as me. I didn't recently break a stack of CD-R's because I'm so pissed that I wasted so much money on XP to find out that it has 'crippled' USB on my system.
From Toshiba tech support:
[name cut],
This is very interesting, but is most likely a problem with XP as it is such a new operating system. I will look into this and let you know my findings.
If you have any additional questions, feel free to e-mail or call.
[name cut]
Toshiba America Information Systems
Network Products Division
Direct : [number cut]
Support : [number cut]
Fax : [number cut]
http://www.internet.toshiba.com
Seems kinda mysterious to me. Why can't anyone figure it out. And when I say 'figure it out' I don't mean the problem, I mean that I'm not 'bashing' I'm trying to get a fix.
Sorry I'm verbal about it. I think it will be the only way to get things done.
Buying hardware and ingnoring the problem helps no one but the hardware maker.
Re:OMG! (Score:2)
I was kidding about all that nice stuff.
I don't have anything VIA in my computer. All my hardware is Certified Compatible with XP, I checked the website.
All the drivers are 'signed'.
I'm also not the only who has the problem.
It is clearly an XP problem. I'm not the first to report it.
Why is it obvious to only me that Microsoft needs to fix the problem? How much of a fanboy do you have to be to suggest anyone besides them should fix it?
Why do I have to buy more products to fix something that buying more products ruined in the first place?
Get a grip.
Re:That's BS. (Score:2)
I bought XP, that is why there is no reason to buy hardware to fix this XP problem.
You obviously can't read, and haven't been on the phone with me, M$, Toshiba, RR and the rest of the usual suspects.
I'm not the only one having the problem.
If you're too cheap to get a $20 ethernet card, you have no right to be whining about Windows XP.
This is the kind of shit I expect from people. You missed the point that it ISN'T AN OPTION for two reasons. The cable modem uses the ethernet connection for another computer - and - I simply refuse buying hardware to fix this problem.
When do people realize that buying more hardware and software to fix a bug is not the way to fund the computing industry? Why? You get more buggy software.
Let's also remember that my USB camera dies as well.
Once again, for the record, it's not a hardware problem when everything works fine with every other OS.
Re:That's BS. (Score:2)
I would understand if people were trying to help. I really would. But their help comes in the form of 1) Denying the problem 2) Throwing the same generic solutions [drivers, flash the mobo!] 3) Defending XP.
I wasn't trying to set out on knocking XP, or MS. I do that here on slashdot just fine. The problem, or the reason I get so pissed, is because people can't read when the words are on the screen.
In the first post I believe that I stated what wouldn't work. Since that post I lost all my data due to another problem [Partition Magic, power went out, trying to put '98 back on]. If it was a config problem that would have been wiped out as well. Installed with the new drivers from the ground up. Still didn't work
You now have joined the club of people who can't read and that also puts you into the group that should offer any advice because of your limited skills.
Re:That's BS. (Score:2)
Isn't that what the NG is for?
I've contacted plenty of tech support people, but only MS once. Why? Because they didn't even understand my problem.
It's the first time I've had to call tech support in years.
The Con (Score:2)
I dig AMD. But I'm not a fan of their megahertz-doesn't-equal-performance marketing, because it just seems designed to mislead consumers. And we know most consumers are misled in the first place, but this doesn't strike me as an instance of two wrongs making a right.
Re:The Con (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking of marketing ploys, Intel's gaffe with Rambus has pretty much shattered high end consumers' faith in the company... in several benchmarks, much slower P3s were blowing away the P4s... until the benchmarks were "optimized" (I ask you "how much software is actually *optimized* for any specific cpu?").
I'm at the point where I won't believe ANYTHING. Of course you can make the argument at the lower end that the customer base may not be "enlightened" enough to see through marketing on either side of the fence, but AMDs reputation is light years beyond were it was two or three years ago- and that sells more chips then anything else- IMHO.
Re:Two wrongs (Score:2)
On another issue, I believe the reason the Duron is labeled using a model number is that that particular scheme is being reserved for the XP core. My understanding is that Duron is not using that quite yet and so still uses the old labelling pattern.
Re:The Con (Score:2)
(FWIW, AppleWorks ran mostly at a reasonable speed even at 1 MHz. MS Office it most definitely wasn't.)
Has AppleWorks been around longer than MS Office? (Score:2)
AppleWorks would scream at 4 GHz.
I remember using AppleWorks 3.0 on an Apple IIe back in middle school. Now they're up to 6.2 [apple.com], except now it runs not on an Apple II but instead on a Mac. Has AppleWorks been around longer than Microsoft Office?
Re:Has AppleWorks been around longer than MS Offic (Score:2)
AppleWorks has been around since (IIRC) 1985. What Apple is now calling AppleWorks started life as ClarisWorks, but I don't know when ClarisWorks first appeared. The first versions of Word and Excel appeared on the Mac sometime in the mid-80s, but I don't think they were bundled together as Office until later.
Most sources usually credit AppleWorks as being the first integrated-software package. (If you want to get really nitpicky, though, the first would be III EZ Pieces [apple-history.com], a package for the Apple III that mutated into AppleWorks when it became clear that the III was going nowhere in the marketplace.)
Re:The Con (Score:2, Insightful)
Often I think perceptions of speed are very different than the reality of the speed (which is why the oft stated claim that processors are "faster than anyone needs" is false: Use a faster processor for a while and suddenly your P3 1.1Ghz seems "slow"): I think fondly back to my Atari ST running at a blistering 8Mhz (0.86Mhz faster than the Amiga which ran at a lowly 7.14Mhz) and I recall it being easily fast enough, but then I remember running command line utilities to uncompress JPEGs (and you actually sat there watching the progress bar move for a massive 20KB JPEG)...
Re:The Con (Score:2)
Anyway, I think that a lot of that perception may come from those who upgrade frequently, and thus never feel their machines "age". Each time I've upgraded, it was when my old machine felt so painfully slow I could barely stand using it anymore. I'd make a new machine from scratch and -zoom- off I went for another couple years until that one seemed too slow to bear.
Personally I'd never scoff at more processing power.
This is great! (Score:1)
1.3 GHz . . . Hmm . . . (Score:1, Funny)
~~~
XP ? Who cares - how about Linux performance (Score:1, Troll)
Will it boost my linux?!
Anyone?
AMD's Duron numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you ever stop to think that maybe AMD is honest about their intentions with this numbering system?
Re:AMD's Duron numbers (Score:1)
I think AMD might be honest in its intentions with the system, but I still think it's a mistake.
Re:AMD's Duron numbers (Score:2)
they went with mhz speed, (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother with the Duron? (Score:1)
I just don't see buying a chip these days with old architecture, since the technology moves so fast these days.
Re:Why bother with the Duron? (Score:2, Informative)
Athlon/Duron Problems (Score:3, Informative)
Does anyone have info on this?
Re:Athlon/Duron Problems (Score:2, Informative)
Get back in your hole, you troll!
Re:How the fuck is that a troll? (Score:2)
chip bugs aren't common, but there's barely a chip out there that doesn't have a few. Don't scrap AMD on the basis of just one.
I *like* MHz (Score:2, Insightful)
And as an enthusiast, I like knowing the actual MHz. It's not like the MHz information isn't widespread on the Internet anyway. AMD might as well tell it like it is.
Re:I *like* MHz (Score:1)
(Or, being in the photonics business, THz!)
I like coffee (Score:5, Informative)
Why?
If a 1.6 GHz (AMD) chip is faster than a 2.0 GHz (Intel) chip, then this seems to be a singularly useless number... if only had any meaning when the two companies had more similar architectures where the MHz figures were at least roughly comparable.
Note, incidently that the original speed measure was MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second), but this was not MIPS of the CPU/computer in question, but rather MIPS normalized to a VAX 780 having 1 MIPS.
How on earth we got to the point that people started to measure speed by MHz is beyond me. For the previous generation x86 CPUS it was admittedly semi-reasonable, but across architectures it was always useless.... Have you ever checked the clock speeds of the top SPECINT scores...
Re:I like coffee (Score:2)
But in the last 20 years, the market has competely horizontalized. Intel & AMD make the chips, the software is Microsoft or Linux, and the system is made by Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, or Gateway.
So what sense does it make to supply a benchmark to market a single component in the system? AMD claims that their Athlon 2000+ is equivalent to a 2 GHz Pentium 4. What does this mean? Could I plug that Athlon into a motherboard with PC100 SDRAM, a crappy chipset, and an old compiler, and expect it to perform as well a 2 GHz Pentium 4 with dual-channel RDRAM, an expensive server chipset, and P4-optimized software? Of course not. AMD's processor benchmarks represent one _system_ configuration. They are meaningless (and misleading) across different systems.
Furthermore, how does AMD recalibrate when their 'standard' changes? On some apps, Northwood is more than 50% faster _per_clock_ than Willamette, so does that mean AMD has to change their rating system? They haven't.
Lastly, although it could conceivably be wise for AMD to use a peformance benchmark instead of clock frequency for marketing processors, it is clearly misleading for them to try to match those up to frequencies. If they were really noble, they'd come up with a completely different instead of trying to confuse customers.
AMD has posted a net loss every quarter since the introduction of the performance rating system, and plans to continue losing money for the next several quarters. I don't think that's a coincidence. It seems that consumers aren't willing to support companies who are trying to mislead them.
Re:I *like* MHz (Score:3, Insightful)
As an enthusiast, you should be able to find the MHz rating of your chip. Hrm, lets see
As an enthusiast, you should know how little the MHz rating has to do with the actual performance of the chip with respect to cross-brand comparisons. Joe Consumer still clings to Intel's carrot (Mhz = performance), so AMD is just trying to give everyone a dose of reality. I think it's funny how people feel that they're being mislead, when really, the clock stat is just being moved to 'specs' page of the chip
Re:I *like* MHz (Score:3, Informative)
I've got a Best Buy ad here for three Compaq computers. In the "Processor" line of the table it says: "Intel Celeron 1.3GHz", "Athlon XP 1700+ QuantiSpeed Architecture operates at 1.47GHz", and "Pentium 4 1.8GHz".
It clearly and openly states, in print as big as the Celeron GHz number, the Athlon QuantiSpeed number, and the Pentium 4 GHz, the actual GHz rating of the Athlon chip.
How is that not telling as it is?
Re:I *like* MHz (Score:2)
I've wondered about how the Celeron's fare against the low end Pentium 4 chips.
Are not the Celeron's just the old P-III with different cache sizes? And didn't the old P-III at 1 GHz beat out the lower clocked Pentium 4 chips?
So when the Best Buy customer sees 1.3 GHz Duron 1 GHz Celeron and 1.4 GHz Pentium 4, will he choose the highest clocked chip, because I think they can be had pretty cheaply now.
In my town there's a small discount house that builds computer systems and advertises on one of those cheap little billboard signs that you see in front of honky-tonk bars and in seedier parts of town. They used to advertise Duron 800 MHz systems for some low price, but now they marquee the Pentium 4 at 1400 MHz as part of the cheap system.
Has the Duron already lost out to the low end Pentium 4?
I believe... (Score:1)
Im quite pleased with my 1900+ running @ 1.6ghz.
Dual Duron? (Score:2)
So, how well does the Duron fare in a dual configuration? I'm considering an upgrade and I'd be interested to hear your experiences.
Re:Dual Duron? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dual Duron? (Score:2, Informative)
I have a dual Athlon (Tyan's mobo) with two Athlon XP 1600+ CPUs.
They work quite fine: my current uptime is 47 days.
There are two differences between XPs and MPs: the price and the guarantee that MP will do SMP. As far as the latter one goes, I've never heard of an XP that won't run in an SMP configuration
As much as I love AMD (Score:1)
one thing that makes me nervous though, the quote
"optimized for Windows XP Home and Professional OSs".
Could prove ugly in the not too distant future?
Am I the only one who doesn't understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I haven't griped about this in a while, but if AMD switched to its new "MHz doesn't equal performance" naming scheme for its higher end Athlons (where one would assume that the users probably look at benchmarks) why is it sticking with GHz for "mainstream PC" chips (where you would imagine that users are less likely to look at benchmarks)?
Well, the reason they're naming their mainstream processors by clock rate is precisely because the users are less likely to look at benchmarks. The effect the clock rate has on the overall speed of a computer is minimal, but if you ask the everyday person, even your average best buy or gateway store worker, they'll tell you that high clock = fast. So, if you want people who don't know anything about benchmarks to buy your chip, just say it's got a high clock rate, and they'll think it's fast.
Re:Am I the only one who doesn't understand... (Score:2)
I think that the guy who wrote the article is assuming the 1.3Ghz AMD chip is similar to the XP/MP chips, in that it runs about as fast as Intel chips at higher clock frequencies. In other words, the 1.3Ghz AMD runs like a 1.7Ghz Intel, so why didn't they name this chip a Duron 1700?
But in reality, maybe this chip performs just as fast as the Celeron 1.3Ghz, so they didn't bother?
Re:Am I the only one who doesn't understand... (Score:2)
Err, I dont get it.. (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand exactly what the purpose for actually having multiple lines running with completely different yet comparible chips. Isn't it silly, 'spec considering the Durons where touted as being a lower cost alternative, yet shelf price for these buggers is actually *HIGHER* then the still in production 1.3 Athlon chips?
Re:Err, I dont get it.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Err, I dont get it.. (Score:2)
Re:Err, I dont get it.. (Score:2)
cache and FSB (Score:2, Informative)
Re:cache and FSB (Score:2)
Re:Err, I dont get it.. (Score:5, Informative)
The T-Birds are based on an older core that didn't have those enhancements, but did have more L2.
So basically, given an equal clock speed, the rankings of the processors would be:
Old Duron -> Athlon T-Bird -> New Duron (this article) -> Athlon XP
The caveat is that in certain apps where L2 is the deciding factor, the T-Bird might be faster, but as a general rule, the core enhancements of the newer Durons (and XPs) outweigh the larger L2.
Although slashdottage is unlikely... (Score:1)
1.3GHz AMD Duron Arrives
A mere two weeks after releasing the Athlon XP 2000+, AMD today announced the 1.3GHz AMD Duron processor for the "mainstream PC market." AMD says the new Duron processor is optimized for Windows XP Home and Professional OSs and supports DDR memory. It'll be priced at $118 in 1,000-unit quantities. The 1.3GHz Duron has 192KB of total on-chip cache, a 200MHz front-side bus, a superscalar floating point unit with 3DNow! Professional technology, and hardware data pre-fetch. Durons are manufactured on AMD's 0.18 micron process. I know I haven't griped about this in a while, but if AMD switched to its new "MHz doesn't equal performance" naming scheme for its higher end Athlons (where one would assume that the users probably look at benchmarks) why is it sticking with GHz for "mainstream PC" chips (where you would imagine that users are less likely to look at benchmarks)?
Duron's go by MHz because... (Score:5, Informative)
Because the Duron competes against the P3-based Celeron, not the P4 that runs far slower clock-to-clock than its predecessor. If Intel hadn't deliberately designed the P4 for clock speed at the expense of performence, AMD would not have needed their True Performence Initiative.
In this case, two wrongs DO make a right. At least AMD's "wrong" is just marketing fluff rather than deliberately misdesigned engineering.
MHz Doesn't Equal Performance (Score:5, Informative)
Athlon's are being marketed against the PIV's however, and the PIV's have changed their architecture significantly. This has the effect of the PIV actually being slower at equivalent clock speeds. A PIII 2GHz would be faster, for most apps, than a PIV 2GHz. To counter this unfair MHz advantage, AMD came up with their PR numbers to show that Athlon XP's perfrom equivently to a higher rated PIV. Of course, once software is programmed to take advantage of the PIV's new architecture (rememebr when Pentium Pro's hit the scene?), I wonder if AMD will push those XP ratings down. =)
Size Doesn't Equal Performance (Score:2, Funny)
~~~
Re:MHz Doesn't Equal Performance (Score:2)
The biggest reason (IMHO) that AMD switched numbering systems once the Athlon XP hit the market is because for the time being, they can't keep up in raw clock speed. We all know that clock speed isn't the only thing in chip architecture (as Hannibal has highlighted so well over at Ars), cache and pipeline depth are also significant - and Athlon more than keeps up with the P4 as a result.
At the low end, clock=clock for more direct comparison, and since the Celery is just a lobotomized P3, the Durons can be marketed against them at their actual clock speeds.
Once AMD is building Athlons on a 0.13 micron process like Intel builds P4 chips, expect the Athlon clock speeds to catch up quickly and the XP "ratings" to conveniently vanish...
Re:MHz Doesn't Equal Performance (Score:2)
I'm sure if Celerons were running at 2Ghz now that AMD would do the same XP nonsense with their Durons.
Neither PR (Score:2)
Re:MHz Doesn't Equal Performance (Score:2)
Officially, AMD's "PR" ratings aren't a direct comparison to the P4's performance/clock speed. Of course, we all know that's EXACTLY why AMD uses the "PR" ratings, but AMD can't officially announce "Look, we have to justify the performance of our processors by comparing them directly with our biggest competitor." The official word (I've seen the document on the AMD website, but a few quick searches didn't bring it back up again just then) is that the ratings are actually supposed to signify the advantage of the AthlonXP over the Thunderbird-cored Athlon - a Thunderbird Athlon would have to be running at 1800MHz to perform at the same level as an AthlonXP 1800+ (which has a clock speed of 1.53GHz).
As it is, the "PR" ratings have a lot of room anyway - an XP 2000+ still performs VERY well compared to a 2GHz P4 - so I don't think AMD will even feel the need to adjust their rating system.
Re:MHz Doesn't Equal Performance (Score:2)
You're assuming that the Duron is matched with a high-end chipset. Didn't Anandtech do a review once that showed that on a cheaper motherboard (the kind found in the "budget" systems which generally contain Celerons and Durons) the Duron and Celeron performed about the same? Ah yes, here it is [anandtech.com] (link to the summary page). Note though that this old review involves the older Celeron and Duron cores, so it may not be 100% applicable to the present. Still, I would guess that most OEM Duron systems do not have kt266a boards in them. They have cheaper chipsets, like the SiS 735, perhaps paired with SDR memory. This is the "real world" for most computer buyers. People who know how to overclock are a special case (note, though, that Tom says that he wasn't able to unlock the 1.3Ghz Duron!)
In Tom's 1.3Ghz Duron review, the Duron generally (not always!) beats the Celeron, but it needs a more expensive motherboard and more expensive (DDR) memory to do it. Who knows what performance a cheaper OEM system would get? Perhaps the Duron would still be faster in this more typical configuration, but perhaps not.
The question answers itself... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, any individual with rudimentary computer knowledge (say, one who watches ads on television, or has taken an 'intro to computing' course at highschool or college level)has been taught about Hz and that it does roughly determine how fast a computer operates, and gives them a basis for comparison (however weak).
A good friend next door came over and asked me about Hz or MHz which they were teaching her about in her intro to computing class. Of course I told her that it's the speed at which the computer operates. She doesn't know anything about computers, so how am I supposed to educate her about all the other factors that affect performance such as bottlenecks, pipelining, cache, bus, etc.
As soon as you get into a discussion such as that the computer jargon goes flying. AMD is left with the exact same problem to contend with. How are they supposed to claim that their computers are magically better than the competition's when the supposed benchmark for computers is their clock? Would the consumer even understand or care? They need a way to comparison shop, that's what consumers do, and MHz (now GHz) has become the basis for that comparison.
Shmuh. (Score:2)
as for the intel is wrong in marketing the p4 vs the AMD is wrong for marketing the Athlon 2000+ people, remember this: It's marketing. There is no good, no evil. Just trying to manipulate the public into buying your product. Such is Marketing.
Duron will eventually use Marketing Ploy (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/20010201.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/20010203.htm
Re:Duron will eventually use Marketing Ploy (Score:3, Insightful)
AMD performance ratings (Score:5, Informative)
The Athlon, of course, is competing with the Pentioum 4 and is able to keep performance pace, but not clock pace. In that market clock speed causes confusion about actual performance, so the performance rating makes sense there.
That's my best guess as to why they don't use the performance rating system on Durons.
It could also be that AMD has no problem saying that the Duron achieves performance and clock parity with the Pentium 4. I haven't seen any benchmark comparisons between the Pentium 4 and the Duron, nor have I looked for them, but I have no problem believing that a 1.3GHz Duron qualifies for a 1300+ rating, or even a 1500+ rating. Giving it that rating, however, would place it in direct competition with hte Athlon. That maybe seems a little underhanded, but ask yourself what's more underhanded: limiting competition between your high- and low-end products through naming convention, or limiting it by intentionally crippling the low-end product?
Re:AMD performance ratings (Score:2)
Using the model number as comparison to older Athlons doesn't make sense, anyway. An AthlonXP 1600+ running at 1.4GHz doesn't perform like a TBird running at 1.6GHz, it performs like a TBird running at 1.4GHz.
If you mean the Athlon Classic, rather than the TBird, there has never been an Athlon Classic that ran at 1.6GHz and it doesn't make sense to compare your product to one that doesn't exist.
Durons make a great budget cpu... (Score:3, Informative)
"Optimized" for WinXP?? (Score:2)
Re:"Optimized" for WinXP?? (Score:4, Interesting)
do you optimize a chip for an operating system, anyway?
You profile it and then make the commonly used code paths go faster.
What probably actually happened is that AMD profiled a bunch of code and used it to optimize their CPU. since XP probably has similar code paths, you just don't mention that it's also optimized for the bulk of x86 code
Re:"Optimized" for WinXP?? (Score:5, Funny)
One day, the makers of a processor for a particular computer system decided to be developers for a day, and do some profiling. They found a particular sequence of several instructions that was being executed quite often, and they figured they could speed up the entire system by adding an instruction to the CPU that carried out that particular operation in fewer clock cycles.
They did their redesign, and tested the new system. There was no speedup.
They had optimized the operating system's idle loop.
Re:"Optimized" for WinXP?? (Score:2)
This was told to me as the adventures of two interns at Microsoft.
the story (Score:4, Informative)
Problem with getting away from MHZ system (Score:3, Insightful)
But does anyone here but me want to question 'Benchmarks' instead of Mhz? I mean the CPU does run at said Mhz, that hasn't changed.
The problem is, when I see a chart comparing two companies chips, I can't believe it. I want to look for the footnote that says their system was tested with 93749234 GB of RAM, while the other companies was only tested with 1 MB of RAM.
That is why they should just give the CPU a name, or number, or whatever and let use read these reviews. Although sometimes reviews can also be biased, I can't trust anything that comes right from the company.
I used to have a chart showing how an AMD chip was like 50% faster than a Pentium of the same clock speed. This bothered me to no end. [it could be the other way around, that isn't important. What is: I didn't trust it.]
It's like a detergent commercial by 'Tide' which shows you two shirts and it cleans the whole stain while 'Era' doesn't. Just seems faked.
No one will ever understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the complex questions us slashdotters face is the result of poor marketing decisions, or decisions that make little sense.
I'm sure AMD has their reasons for not sticking with the 'Performance Rating' crockery they gave birth to last year. I personally don't understand why there was a need to change.. and NOW...
If the average user is too dense-headed to understand that MHz != Performance, then why are they keeping the MHz rating for their LOW end chips? Especially since using the performance rating on the Duron would net more sales. What sounds better? $118 AMD Duron 1.3GHz or $118 AMD Duron 1500+ ?
That brings up another point, maybe AMD is losing money on these lower end chips, and they don't want someone to look at a 'MegaBargain' Duron instead of shelling out a bit more for an Athlon. In the consumer mind, Duron 1.3GHz or Athlon 1500+ isn't a hard question to answer, most people will go with the Athlon 1500 even though they are both probably the same clock speed.
-fc
Toms Hardware has a 1300v1300 comparison (Score:4, Informative)
Doubt... (Score:2)
The cynical answer: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess: Because they don't want to compete with *themselves*.
If a consumer sees a Duron rated to "1.3 GHz" (1300 MHz), and an Athlon XYZ rated to "1600 FooUnits", which will they want?
Right.
The fact that Celeron clock numbers are no better than Duron numbers is icing on the cake.
Gaaaa!! Athlon Overload! (Score:2)
Anybody got a source for such a beast? Or even feel like explaining it here?
DG
Re:Gaaaa!! Athlon Overload! (Score:2)
Athlon XP: Buy one. 20% less power draw clock-to-clock than its predecessor, has Intel SSE support (aka 3DNow! Pro), has better hardware prefetch to take better advantage of DDR SDRAMs bandwidth. Palamino core. AMD sold 4 million of them last quarter. 266MHz FSB.
Duron at 1GHz and higher: Same as Athlon XP but with 128K/64K L1/L2 cache instead of 128K/256K and 200MHz FSB. If you're strapped for cash, buy one.
Athlon: The old one. Thunderbird core. Being phased out. Consider if you're offered a good deal. Some are 266MHz FSB, some are 200MHz FSB.
Duron below 1GHz: Same as above but with 128K/64K L1/L2 cache and 200MHz FSB. Very, very inexpensive.
I have an Athlon XP 1800+ at home, paired with an Epox 8KHA+ KT266A motherboard. Highly, highly recommended.
Re:Gaaaa!! Athlon Overload! (Score:2)
is Slashdot some sort of tomshardware affiliate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Beside tomshardware there are a lot more sites with nice covering of whatever you want (http://xbit-labs.com for example).
Yeah, right, toms is heavy loaded with ads (I think I never saw any site that has more per page ads), so may be slashdot decided to have 10% of revenue from it for just redirecting bunch of "cool folks"
Couple years ago slashdot was much more "ahead of time", I used to find "things" there first, and after couple days notice same references or articles on other sites. Now it is opposite -- you find cool thing, and completely not sure if you will ever see discussion of this on slashdot (slashdot is famous for comments, not for articles).
If 2 years is "lifetime" of modern PC, and you upgrade it, may be it is a time for slashers to upgrade to something cool or at least to be up to date? It is not a MTV, it should get better year to year...
tandr.
Credibility of TPI (Score:2)
War on Ratingism (Score:2, Interesting)
The P42000 and XP2000+ can fight it out for the fat wallets or greedy hackers and the "low spec" machines of everyone else have equal ratings BUT!! I bet AMD will pull the price rug from under Intel.... yuup.... and for once AMD has a good selection of integrated motherboards as well.... yum...
Will Intel sell P4s under the Celeron name??? Yeah... right....
deceptive (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it's deceptive marketing. I'm an AMD user myself (TBird 1.2 GHz), but it really annoys me that they would be willing to mark a processor as something that it is not. Please don't try to tell me that 'performance rating...blah blah...equivalent speed in old architecture.' They are marking the new processors as speeds that they do not run at, period.
Re:deceptive (Score:3, Informative)
That is horse shit. For the Athlon XP 1900+, where do they ever say it runs at 1900Mhz? No where. All they are doing is letting people understand that their architecture allows their XP 1900 to run just as well as the Intel chips running at 1.9Ghz. And if you look at the benchmarks that many sites are coming out with, you'll see the 1900 actually beats the 2+ Ghz chips from Intel.
If you want to talk about 'deceptive' practices, how about Intel designing the P4 so that the clock speeds are MUCH higher than their P3 chips, but the actual performance is not improved by that much?
AMD is just trying to make it easier for shoppers to compare. As long as they don't start naming their products "XP 2500" when they don't compete with the 2.5Ghz Intel chips (for example), then I think their naming system is good.
Reminds me of the PowerPC ratings (Score:2)