JC-News.com heeft een paar benchmarks en een stapel plaatjes kunnen bemachtigen van de AMD Duron 
. De benchmarks laten dezelfde resultaten zien als deze op AMDZone: de duron is net een paar procenten langzamer als de Athlon en de Pentium III (gemiddelde score Duron ten opzichte van Athlon is 98.3625% ):
It turns out that my estimation of Duron performance was a bit of an underestimate. Not counting the Quake score (which seems obviously fill-rate limited) and not counting the disk-specific scores (which are probably more a factor of the motherboard and chipset, not of the cpu), the Duron's average performance is within two percent of the Athlon's. Specifically, the average normalized Duron score is 98.3625%. Essentially, imho, the Duron at 700MHz is probably closer in performance to an Athlon at 700MHz than it is to an Athlon at 650MHz -- in other words, the tested Duron is slower than the tested Athlon, but by a degree less than a speed grade.
If you take into account that this is a prerelease part on a prerelease chipset, it starts to become apparent that a final Duron has a fighting chance (though not a guarantee) to be faster than the Athlon Classic, clock for clock. Two additional performance points:Because the Duron has smaller cache, it is possible that an improvement from 133MHz CAS3 SDRAM to 133MHz CAS2 SDRAM would improve the Duron's performance more than it would the Athlon's performance. (this point was noted initially by idiot, I should mention) The Athlon here is the K7-700, with L2 cache clocked at half the frequency of the CPU. Logically, the Duron can only fare better, clock for clock, against higher frequency Athlons which sported lower cache multipliers
. 
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/2259/icon.jpg?f=community){kind=icon}
/u/1/femme.png?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/484/crop651fd77412597_cropped.jpg?f=community){kind=small}
